And the tail appears to be nearly torn off...... Your point?

The door could have been opened intentionally by a survivor?

The same forces involved in nearly ripping off the tail could have more than easily opened the door. It's irrelevant.

How likely is that the AAIB chartered vessel will attempt a recovery? How feasible is it? And why do it? Recovery only sensible if it helps explain what happened - and it is highly unlikely to provide any additional information about the causes of this accident, which sadly seem depressingly obvious - again.

If the families want the bodies recovered, is that not their prerogative, and up to them to organise? What are the normal rules for this, at sea? It is very sad, but encouraging continued 'hope' is bad for all concerned, in the long run.

( A strange exercise this - an American registered aircraft, on a flight from France with a British pilot who held both an EASA and an American private licence. If it crashed in international waters, presumably the main reason that the CAA/AAIB is involved is that the exercise originated from the UK and it had, sadly, one UK citizen plus one recently arrived new UK to-be-resident aboard.)

According to my chart of the area, the depth is circa 60 metres at low tide so it wouldn't be necessary to use flotation bags. Geo Ocean 3 has a deck winch and a frame winch, both of which would hardly notice a 1 tonne('ish) load at that depth so I am pretty sure the AAIB will make a decision to lift unless the families say otherwise. If they were mine and I knew the lift was relatively straightforward, I think I'd want them back.

The aircraft is also not in 'international waters' in the strictest sense. On a navigation chart, the water in that part of the channel is considered to be UK - albeit pretty much right on the border between the two countries.

I would have thought that notwithstanding the legalities or otherwise of the flight, it would be significant if the wreckage showed, for example, an engine failure? Hence a very worthwhile investigation. It is of course also possible they may find that the pilot suffered an incapacitation at the controls. I think given the prominence of this case, the emergence of facts would be helpful to quell some of the more absurd hypotheses.
So long as the correct approach is taken to cross water flights in SEP aircraft, the safety record remains very safe indeed and it's vital that we learn causes of any accident. It's pretty clear that the biggest single factor in crashes whether in cars or aircraft remains pilot error, but engine failures at night over water are unlikely to end well where they were at that time.... so if the engine is in tact.... the attribution would lie elsewhere.

Just read the printing on the photograph ... it says 67 meters deep ;-). They will only recover the body/bodies if the family agrees. They will only salvage the wreck if they believe to gather information otherwise not available. I doubt they'll do it, but who knows?

From an article in Ouest France;

https://www.ouest-france.fr/sport/fo...aissit-6191285

Does anybody know if there is any truth in this? Has Mr Henderson made any statement about his alleged involvement in the flight?

The article also alleges that three people arrived on the Piper, Dave Henderson and David Ibbotson and and unknown person. Who was that?

At that time yesterday, the tide was 6m higher than low tide. ;-)

Yes it is known and was reported in the news before. A friend who brought him to the plane.

Who can tell the truth?
As noted much earlier in this thread, DH said he had not been in Nantes for a year:-
Mr Henderson, 60, from York, told MailOnline he had not been in France, adding: 'I have not been to Nantes for one year.'

As 'ballsy' goes, if Henderson's 'not been in Nantes for a year' claim is untrue, that's got to be off the scale!

Fairly safe to assume that he's not been in Nantes for a year I would suggest - for the moment, at least. Perhaps explaining where he WAS rather than wasn't would put that particularly rumour to rest permanently.

Who came up with the strange idea of 'finding the flight recorder of the flight'? Just saw that mentioned on TV. Never heard of a Malibu carrying a FDR.

Obviously no official FDR but the AAIB have on occassion recovered information on the track of an aircraft prior to incident from onboard GPS equipment, both inbuilt avionics and the likes of Sky Demon running on an iPad. This work is often quite involved in the case of water damage when flash memory chips are carefully transplanted from the water damaged equipment to a working version. However it can be done.

Also at risk of stating obvious, instruments e.g. ASI, VSI may also fail in a way that indicates airspeed, vert. speed at time of impact.

Chaps at AAIB are highly skilled and very thorough. Whether or not they have the resources to justify such an investigation into an SEP with 2 POB crashing into the sea in IMC is anyone's guess.

Is there not a legal requirement for an inquest in these circumstances? If so, presumably the Coroner would determine whether the bodies are required for a PM.

I do hope the same amount of (publicly funded) effort goes into finding and recovering the next SEP that goes down in the channel.

^^

I am 100% confident that the official response to this loss would have entirely consistent with any previous "lost at sea" incident, given similar circumstances. Obviously search assets diminish as budgets diminish - indeed the Mighty Hunter that I spent many an hour searching for all manor of objects (including aircraft various) is of course no more, otherwise I have no doubt it would have been called on. Whether the P8 will be utilised for SAR I don't know...there are going to be far fewer of them.

Anyway, clearly the glare of publicity and the privately funded efforts have been far greater - understandably so...but I don't for one second think that the nations/governments assets have been used in any manner differently than they would have irrespective of who was on board.

According to the evening news AAIB will by tomorrow make a decision on recovery of wreckage. I would guess there may be parties who would wish its recovery and others who would not. AAIB`s interest lies solely in safety aspects to prevent re-occurrance. Other parties such as insurers of hull and persons on board may have direct financial interests in the cause(s) of the accident. Those involved in the procurement chain and process may have concerns for any contribution for liability . The families of the victims , besides the tragic loss of their loved ones, may have suffered serious financial loss. Their interest in the cause(s) of this accident is substantial. The CAA would be greatly concerned in their role as a supervisory authority. Particularly given the fact that they may come under the light of public scrutiny and critisizim for permitting so called cost-sharing by PPL holders outside AOC operations and failing to effectively monitor activities within such operations. There is very little doubt that this accident, now featuring the headlines, since the event has attracted public attention. It will not be too long before the Secretary of State for Transport picks up his phone and invites the head of the CAA for a brief chat.
My guess therefore is that it will be a long night for The Chief Inspector at AAIB tonight. What sort of a hole will a recovery op make in his budget and will somebody help to reduce its size.