Exactly and just like taxation if you look at things intelligently you can’t pick and choose which rules apply. So if someone wants to actually read what has been written and work to that it isn’t illegal. Perhaps outside of the spirit but not illegal.

Its not a defence of it - merely stating the facts of how things surely work and if the majority don’t like it then just change the rules, it isn’t hard.

If a hedge fund manager paying himself £1m a year pays minimal tax sure it jars but if not illegal he simply faces some boos but not criminal consequence.

If CPLs etc are struggling commercially that is surely for them to make the case and if the regulator isn’t listening then again it’s a reflection on them not someone who takes a mate of a mate to a horse race.

The AAIB is a branch of the Department of Transport and report directly to him and he will read every report, as they are written under his jurisdiction. As to whether its up to him to press for prosecution - I doubt it as the AAIB's remit of impartiality will be jeopardised. The AAIB point this out with the following statement which appears in every report:

I'm sure the CAA will be taking great interest - it is directly addressed to them. The last paragraph of the accident report states:

However, it's up to the relevant regulatory authorities to conduct their own investigation in the aspects which violated regulations. The report itself should not/must not be used for prosecution. If it is, future investigations may be ineefective with key witnesses being unwilling to give evidence in an investigation in case it is used against them in a prosecution.

...... mainly in clearing their 6 o'clock given that it is their own support for "cost-sharing" by anyone (not just the family or friends of the PPL) and their support of the Winglies/Coavmies of this world that has actually helped generate the "Wild West" of the "Grey Charter" market - or at least made it a whole lot easier/more socially acceptable/abusable! You now have on-line booking engines for it!!!! :ok: And the SoS? Wasn't he a strong advocate of the "cost sharing" push outlined above? :ugh:

I can see some activity from the CAA on the Sala case as they have got a fairly flagrant breach of regs + unavoidable publicity which rather pins them down in a corner to do at least "something", tho, as some have said, will there be sufficient evidence for a prosecution or will it be all too expensive/difficult? As for seeing a sea-change in the area of policing "grey charters", not a hope if you ask me given the CAA made it easier for people to operate that way! I could go on about the way Winglies/Coavmies can easily be used to morph from what the original spirit was for "cost sharing" through all the shades of grey charter such as "benefit in kind" ... but we all know how that can be done so, good reader, I'll bore you not!!!!

Ah well - we will see! :hmm:

H 'n' H

So we may all just as well not bother with a commercial licence, Class 1 medicals or valid insurance and just get on with the more serious business of earning a living flying passengers wherever they wish to go.

Sadly, Shy, that seems the "buried suggestion" from the CAA from where I sit, especially when you factor in a bit of "creative costing" to generate the resultant benefit in kind from Wingly-type flights (and Wingly et al are only doing what they are allowed to do so absolutely no dig at them or other such platforms) thereby releasing funds in the bank account from the "day job" to be spent on other things rather than flying - while still flying. Bit like getting a pay rise really! :ok:

And it's not that much of a leap for people to start to "chuck something in for the pilot" as they wanted to stay overnight, etc, etc.... As the Sala AAIB report states "As a PPL holder, the pilot was not permitted to be remunerated for the flight, yet there was significant evidence to show that he was expecting to be paid." (AAIB report, Page 66). Bet there was no PAYE Pay Slip expected along with any such payment! :eek:

But all that discussion has been done to death here on PPRuNe with no real response from the CAA apart from additional so-called "passenger education"! I wonder how many of those pax would even bother glancing at such advice - after all, how much "small print" do most of us actually read, let alone actually understand if we do bother to read it?

I'm sadly out of all that now but I've met a few real nice people in the Charter world over the years and talk about fighting a battle with your arms tied behind your backs! :ugh:

Sorry for the doom and gloom but I do despair at times! Just call me "Victor" if you want - many have noticed the similarity!!! H 'n' H

Well now you are getting to the nub of the situation and not all necessarily linked.

Firstly the reason you have something called a commercial licence a class 1 medical and some relevant insurance is because it satisfies the relevant rules. You don’t have to satisfy the spirit of those rules but the actual rules. If one draws a conclusion that you can operate as you seek to operate without then naturally you don’t make things harder for yourself.

I don’t see many guys aspiring to fly a sub-70kg flexwing taking class 1 medicals and an ATPL with IR...

So now you have to get to the heart of why the rules around private cost sharing were relaxed and what (if any) resource was committed to policing and enforcing. It perhaps seems none if indeed it even figured in the thinking.

It certainly seems that if it did then the thinking was that any prosecution possibility would rest with the marketing of such flights. Which ignores all those private relationships - which this and many people complain about fall into.

Which brings us to the final complaint- that of money. I don’t think these flights necessarily take business away from commercial operators because the flight hasn’t been generated in a way that they would even be visible. This isn’t some company secretary booking flights for business owners. This is private individuals offering the opportunity to friends based upon individual relationships. Mis-guided or not that is how it is and because of that the cash flows become impossible to trace to a flight.

Pittsextra,

I don't understand what point you are trying to make with regard to this thread.

Are you really saying you would agree with a sub-70kg flexwing pilot (or any other) earning a living by flying in a way that he wasn't legally allowed to do and was unqualified and not experienced enough to undertake?

It's already been established that the pilot involved in this accident was by no means qualified to undertake the flight in the first place, let alone fly for financial gain. One can only wonder if this was the only instance where he had been in this situation.

Shy in the race to condemn people miss the wider point.

The outrage and anger isn’t about his individual ability or aircraft type it’s all about the economics and a feeling that this is (and has been) extensive.

Im not sure it is and I’m not sure flights such as these are cutting the throats commercially of legacy operations because they aren’t procured in the same way. If they were then surely you’d see prosecutions and if not before this event then surely afterwards.

my point re: <70kg Pilot is he doesn’t get an ATPL with IR to fly his <70kg aircraft. The pilot of this aircraft was clearly of a mindset that felt he was if not doing the right thing his many 1000s of hours gave him comfort he was going to get away with it.

thats not a defence but I think it’s pretty obvious. We have a regulator and we have some pretty clear regulations and especially so in regard to the established transgressions. Go figure why this happens. I suspect that same body isn’t easy to criticise without identifying yourself and in the process blowing yourself up.

Hi Pitts. I think you are sort of right there but this is my take on it so interested in your views - and anyone else as well Shy.

a) "This isn’t some company secretary booking flights for business owners." Yes, I agree so someone who regularly uses Charters for work and has been for some time would go to the likes of Netjets or one of the many other smaller but well established operators as they have always done. No problem there.

b) "private individuals offering the opportunity to friends based upon individual relationships." This is how Club-type arrangements operated whereby Club members shared flying (say 2 PPLs who can now afford a landaway as the trip cost is shared or even a PPL would maybe bring a couple of mates from home along (individual pre-existing relationships)) and they'd go flying with the mates chucking in money towards the cost. The descriptor "pre-existing" is key here IMHO. It's existing friends of the pilot who decide to have a jolly and thereby permit the PPL to spread their wings a bit more so to speak and the PPL perhaps to show them why they have been so "boring" all these months while doing their PPL. ;)

c) Wingly/Coavmi actually don't do this. What they do is have "private individuals offering the opportunity to people previously unknown to them and put in touch by Wingly/Coavmi to go flying" and with whom there is a one-off relationship set up (ie for that flight). One could say some may stay in touch but the original "transaction" was actually between strangers who may not even have met until they all pitch up at the airfield on the allotted day and may never see each other again.

This is where it all starts to unravel if you ask me as "taking strangers for flights" is akin Charter work (yes, regular customers become known to Pilots but, essentially, there is no "personal relationship" pre-existing). In addition, the PPL can "offer" prospective passengers destinations or activities which the passengers "book" on a front end which looks quite like an airline booking engine and traditional been the preserve of Charter companies offering "sightseeing tours" etc. As I said before, it's quite easy to "fudge" the costs to make it look like everyone pays as, well, what's the likelyhood of the CAA checking? Since it so easy, such "offers" can appear as a regular offer. Many of the pilots on the sites say "I can do a trip to X and back any Saturday or Sunday for the next Y months". They even advertise "sightseeing flights"! Again, that looks like a "schedule" or a "charter" now. I've already dealt in a previous post with "benefit in kind" as the actual payment mechanism.

The only advantage is that it gives people who have never flown before a chance to go flying at a reduced cost "to promote aviation to the general public". Many Charter companies offered such people the chance but, of course, now they can do it cheaper but, tbh, this is a very minor benefit to the general public who have less protection than they would should the fly with a Charter company.

Finally, the case in point here (the Sala flight) could be generated when one of the people who takes a Wingly flight then passes it on to a friend of theirs. "Had this great trip with this Pilot, why don't you give him a go?" or even say "Look, that was a great day out. I'm off to the "name your event" next month, you wouldn't be free on that day to fly me and some friends there? Just set it up on Wingly and we'll get that sorted!". After all, we know how personal recommendations lead to loads of things happening in aviation (many of my students came to me that way when I was instructing!). Before long, your PPL is "well known" and poor Emiliano climbs aboard completely unaware of what is going on.

Like Shy, I was a bit confused by the earlier part of your Post but the above is my take (probably expressed poorly!) on your last para. There was always a bit of scope for "grey charters" but the Wingly/Coavmi setups make it so much easier. And while PPLs may start off in the spirit intended, well, one thing leads to another and hey, "grey charters"! Cynical? Maybe - but I've seen too much of human nature - sadly. "Del-boy" is always out there! Anyway, just my view - happy to discuss!

Cheers, H 'n' H

Until the regulator takes a serious interest and actually catches a few people this sort of thing will continue

it's bad for individuals, bad for genuine companies and (when they crash ) bad for the whole industry

HnH Hi that wasn’t exactly my thinking but those elements cover at least part of it and I would agree.

In truth of all of the elements that go to making up the end result here the financial part seems to me to come down the list.

Commercial pressure is the cry but then in very recent memory the UK has lost fully serviceable 109 and a 139 aircraft with trained, respected commercial crew - the 139 two pilots on board and the CVR highlights that they were fully aware of the risks and dangers of their situation.

Still the AAIB are very confident in their report that significant evidence existed that the pilot was being renumerated and the CAA give a view that:-

CAA inspectors regularly visit airfields as well as public events where aviation operations involving aircraft or helicopters take place. During such visits or inspections, the CAA monitors for any possible illegal activity. The CAA also carries out regular spot checks of flight plans. Reports from the public, especially from those within the legitimate aviation community can also provide useful intelligence to the investigators.

Given all the checks and the significant evidence of payment it can’t have been going on all that long otherwise he’d have been caught beforehand?

Hiya Pitts, yes, sadly, even commercial crews get it wrong - we have probably all had those "oh sh1t!" moments at some time or other - or maybe just me??!!!! :E

Re the oversight of the CAA and them capturing the problem children so to speak, that assumes the CAA are doing their job in respect of policing this lot. Those more experienced in the area of Ops suggest not and my own dealings with such Governmental organisations over 40 years suggests that what someone says they do and what someone actually does are quite often two totally different things. Lets face it, the CAA got told off for not even maintaining a FCL database correctly!

So we either have poor oversight with missed problems or good oversight and no problems. Depends where you put your money and, whatever it is, it's difficult to work out where we are along the line between the two extremes. The bit that rings alarm bells for me is that that the CAA themselves promoted "flight sharing" as described by me a couple of Posts above along with it's "quasi-airline" ability to "book flights".

Anyway, see what Shy (and others?) say. Good we are debating it even if the answer is probably almost impossible to identify so your views are most useful!

Cheers, H 'n' H

Richard Stephenson, director at the Civilian Aviation Authority, said: "The UK Civil Aviation Authority has commenced a prosecution of David Henderson for offences associated with the fatal light aircraft accident over the English Channel in January 2019.

"The charges are: On the 18th and 19th of January 2019, acted in a reckless/negligent manner likely to endanger N264DB (Articles 240, 256 and Part 4 of Schedule 13 of the Air Navigation Order 2016).

"On the 21st of January 2019, attempted to cause N264DB to discharge a passenger in the UK (Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, Articles 250, 256 and Part 3 of Schedule 13 of the Air Navigation Order 2016).

"It will be inappropriate for the CAA to say anything further until the case is concluded."

The CAA are charging David Henderson on two counts

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ne-crash-death

"On the 18th and 19th of January 2019, acted in a reckless/negligent manner likely to endanger N264DB (Articles 240, 256 and Part 4 of Schedule 13 of the Air Navigation Order 2016);

On the 21st of January 2019, attempted to cause N264DB to discharge a passenger in the UK (Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, Articles 250, 256 and Part 3 of Schedule 13 of the Air Navigation Order 2016)"

According to Daily Fail today the investigation established that Sala had "High enough levels of Carbon Monoxide in his blood to kill him.

Before I ask, (OK, I am asking) is that true and if so what effect does that have on opinion about the cause of the crash, which up to now from what I have seen was largely blamed on pilot lack of training and incompetence.

Chris, easy enough to go and read the report

“Causal factors
1. The pilot lost control of the aircraft during a manually-flown turn, which was probably initiated to remain in or regain VMC.
2. The aircraft subsequently suffered an in-flight break-up while manoeuvring at an airspeed significantly in excess of its design manoeuvring speed.
3. The pilot was probably affected by CO poisoning.”

Well, I suspect the effect it has on those who blamed the pilot is a heady mix of disappointment and fury...

I doubt it: the accident report lists a number of failings on the part of the pilot, notwithstanding the difficulties with the aircraft. Whilst he's sadly unable to mount a personal defence of his part in the process, the evidence is still there. A horrible tragic mess all round.

Seems a few here have lost the point somewhere.

Whatever happened in the air, the main errors, misjudgements, appalling airmanship and blind disregard for basic flight safety happened before the aircraft left the ground. The pilot(may he RIP) carries the can for much of that, as all pilots always will. In the eyes of the professional flying community on here, the people who facilitated the flight, and the current glaringly poor regulations, played a major role in this utterly avoidable accident. Now we (the aforementioned professional aviation community - or at least most of us) hope the ensuing legal action will at the very least provide impetus to a long overdue change to the ambigious regulations and dangers to the unknowing public that flow from them.

Absolutely Richard Dangle! This particular flight should never have happened. That said, the rather chilling thought is that it sounds, given the CO element, it may well have caused an accident/incident to someone at some other time unless the leak was picked up and sorted.

However, as well as CO appearing to be, possibly, the last link in the chain leading to this particular accident and the sad deaths of two people, what it ironically also revealed as a by-product, was a completely different can of worms involving one of them (as well as some people on the ground), namely, the legal basis for the flight itself and, quite probably, a host of other similar flights before it over the years.

No-one gloats over the death of people whatever the cause, particularly those of us who have lost several friends/workmates to flying accidents over the years. A majority of the discussion centres on why the flight took place at all. No-one knows exactly how/why the last few minutes played out as they did - some assessment has taken place based on ATC comms and Radar plots etc. To an extent, that is academic. However, much more of the focus of this thread has been on the "cottage industry" of such flights. You can read my views in earlier posts.

alphaman sums it up well - "A horrible tragic mess all round."

I do feel the (unprovable) carbon monoxide issue is being seized on by those, from the organiser to the regulator, to cover their own issues. Quite apart from everything else already described, it's more than a coincidence that, in the whole round trip, it chanced to incapacitate the pilot just at the one point in the flight when they encountered adverse meteorological conditions and got away from the VFR he was licensed for.

From the AAIB report:
"Post-mortem tests on the passenger showed a blood carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb) level of 58%, and the pathologist considered that he would almost certainly have been ‘deeply unconscious’ at impact."

Do you really think it possible for the passenger to be so badly affected and the pilot not? See page 48k - that's the page in the PDF.

Footnote 35 on that page says "The pathologist confirmed that the COHb level could be relied upon despite the length of time the body had been under water."



https://assets.publishing.service.go...4DB_Lo_res.pdf

WHBM, you will have seen my position from my previous posts but, yes, I can see that happening:-

Emiliano:- Dave, I'm feeling a bit cold, (as they approach the front or whatever - the freezing level was 3 - 4k) can we have some heating on if possible?

Dave:- Yeh, sure! No problems! {Cabin heating to "On"}.

Sadly, I think this is "Swiss Cheese" at it's best (or worst) in action. Just maybe Dave was in the position where, not only were the flight conditions getting on top of him, but the final straw was the cabin heating going on and CO taking over. Recovery of the plane (and I've seen nothing to say it has so please correct me if wrong on that) would prove the physical state of the heating controls.

But we have to go back to the main argument here; what were they even doing in the air at all that evening? As you say WHBM, some people are using it as the only "cause" when, in fact, neither of them should have been up there that evening. What a shame someone had not flown it earlier and reported it after feeling "unwell". And, thank goodness they were not 6 up over a built up area if it was CO. But, ultimately, what a shame Dave convinced himself that "It's fine, I can do this!" to himself!

Of course, the legal beagles will just be seeing who they can sue for max $$$'s which will ensure common sense gets thrown out the window..... That, dear reader, is another story......

Not an expert but I understand CO is likely to have effects long before it leads to unconsciousness. And even with enough to eventually kill, you may be still active for some time.
At what point might the pilot not be acting in his normal way? I don't think that can be ascertained.

Just thinking that the 'always' search for anything administrative, paperwork, license, etc is important but not looking for the cause of an accident.

The cause here, from the report, would appear to be CO poisoning and/or loss of control and /or pilot inexperience and/or weather..

I always feel that the actual lack of a certificate is not a cause. A pilot may have experience but no certificate or he may have a certificate gained only three or four hours flight time before. It is the lack of experience rather than the paperwork, surely, that is the hole in the cheese.

A couple of times I have been to airshows where pilots boasting that they got their PPL a couple of months before have been giving charity rides to people, even kids. My personal thought is "Are you stark raving mad?" Yes, technically the certificate says you can fly passengers (Non paying) around but other peoples' kids?

Sorry, thread drift for hobby horse.

ChrisVJ,

But a very relevant hobbyhorse

As you say Maoraigh1, who knows. In this case it seems there was some quite logical RT going on till almost the end. However, were the effects of CO creeping in before that and was David (Ibbotson) starting to feel the effects which caused him to seek continued VFR rather than IFR? Or was that a lack of experience as discussed by Chris VJ? When did CO start entering the cabin? We'll never know exactly but CO would now appear to be a factor in it all.

Agreed to a point ChrisVJ, at the end of the day its the pilot in that aircraft at that time and their ability to deal with what happens that will determine the outcome irrelevant to the bits of paper. However, the "Swiss Cheese" anology is a whole series of holes in a series of layers of protection (cheese) opening up which, eventually, as the last hole lines up, finally opens the path to disaster. Had there been no CO, the flight may have been fine. Had the flight left on time, it may have been fine. Had someone not asked for/put the cabin heating to "On" (if that was the fact) it might have been fine! Had he decided it was all getting out of hand and diverted to Guernsey, it might have been fine. You can play this game ad infinitum!

What the "paperwork" does do is try and put in checks and balances (additional layers of cheese) such as currency/recency requirements to ensure all ticket holders of whatever licence it is meet, as a minimum, certain standards/currency levels in attempt to to set a safety baseline and that baseline differs from a "private" operation compared to "commercial" operation to further reduce the risks for operations in the commercial world. So, if through ignoring the licences, this resulted in a pilot getting out of their depth, yes, it was an "airmanship" contribution to the accident for Emiliano as that particular hole was allowed to line up along with all the rest of the holes (late departure, poor weather, CO, etc, etc, etc). B&W limits, even just "paperwork", were ignored! Indeed, if the "paperwork" had not been ignored (and assuming the pilot had oodles of IFR/Night/Type experience), the irony is that this flight would not have departed just on the strength the "paperwork" was incorrect so this accident would not have happened. Purely by chance it would have been blocked by simple "paperwork admin". But, as I said previously, another accident may have happend at some other time to some other people - who knows!!! It is an absolute mess!!!!

I think many who have contributed to this thread have agreed we'll never know exactly why this accident happened, but that there were lots of things wrong with this flight and all we can do is learn as much from it as we each can. What many are saying is that, what this tragic event also flagged up by chance was the issue of "grey charters", graphically exposing another significant issue which, again, no-one knows quite how big an Industry problem it is (ie in the law being broken/insurance being invalidated etc, etc). We have argued this as well in previous posts so I don't want to re-run that hare again here! So, we have two distinct lines to this thread running in parallel which, actually, seem to affect each other - a bit like cross-coupling between two wires; no direct connection but "mutual EMC interference".

If the flight had been a simple PPL and his friend Emiliano heading back from a couple of days in France, this thread would have been a few sad pages long tops - even allowing for the football aspect. If it had been a commercial accident, again, a few (more?) sad pages long tops. The fact it was seemingly an illegal flight is why so much interest has been generated here. And, as Richard Dangle said, "....... Now we (the aforementioned professional aviation community - or at least most of us) hope the ensuing legal action will at the very least provide impetus to a long overdue change to the ambiguous regulations and dangers to the unknowing public that flow from them." is what this is all about now on that score. As for the rest of the sorry tale, just make the most of the real/possible learning points. Best that can be done - which won't suit the legal beagles one bit - but will provide them with endless fees as, unlike here on PPRuNe, they get paid to argue - we do it for free!!!! :ok:

I totally disagree: the "paperwork" as you describe it, is at the heart of this accident - it is there for a reason, to protect the pilot & anyone in or around the aircraft, from suffering the consequences of any mechanical failure or poor weather; it is not ancillary or immaterial, it's fundamental to why the aircraft crashed - it should never have been doing what it was doing, or flown in the manner in which it was flown, in the first place. The lack of a suitable qualification begs the question as to why - was the pilot not able to attain the necessary qualifications? In which case, why not? There seems to be evidence the pilot was considerably experienced in some aspects of flying; perhaps that experience lulled him into a false sense of security, & a feeling that this experience superseded his lack of qualifications to operate the flight. If that's the case, we're not dealing with someone who could reasonably claim ignorance of the rules or their meaning.

The UK advice for PPL holders offering charity flights is here: https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviati...arity-flights/ - I expect that similar advice is offered elsewhere, in which case, pilots who adhere to it are presumed to be mature enough to understand the implications & act accordingly. If you feel that's not happening, perhaps make representations to the appropriate authorities to find out why?

Flying has always been an activity that requires a very clear understanding of the rules: ignorance is no excuse, & if people choose to ignore them, then I'm afraid then they're accountable for the consequences of their actions. In this case, the buck stops with the pilot, & the people who allowed him into the cockpit, & the paper trail will determine who that is.

^^ this exactly, so no need to for me to repeat it.

But I will fall back on the p-word again. You can be a professional (as in a noun) in an occupation because you are paid for doing it. Of you can be professional (as in an adjective) in the manner in which you conduct yourself within an occupation, whether you are paid or not. Anybody involved in aviation (in any of its forms) who operates with a disregard to regulations, compliance and such things as licencing are unprofessional.

Period.

"Paperwork" implies such things are mere bureaucracy, which they most certainly are not.

Apologies for labouring the point, but I don't think the waters are remotely muddy here so personally I'd rather the key issues are kept clear of any form of obscuration, however well-intentioned.

Alfaman,

With respect, your direction to the directions for UK charity flights is almost exactly what I am talking about.

In principle, the gaining of a PPL license, or here a PPL, a Recreational Permit or, for instance, an Ultralight license in the USA, grants the owner the right to carry some/a passenger. I am sure most of us know pilots who are steady and reliable hands when they get their license but I'm sure some of us know pilot's who have plenty of hours we wouldn't trust with our lives. The directions lay out the paperwork (and I do not denigrate paperwork,) required and suggested. It does not even suggest that waivers be in writing.

A while ago I was invited to an event where flights were being offered to kids belonging to an organisation that fostered youth interest in aviation. Being a low time mature pilot I declined. Later I read that they had given a record number of flights that day. One of the pilots was quoted as saying that he was happy he got his license three months previously as he had always wanted to give flights at one of those events. This not in a Colt or C150 but in something a good deal more demanding.

I have no idea whether the parents who signed the waiver allowing the kids to fly that day were advised that their kid might be flying with a pilot who had 60 hours total. We have signed waivers for our kids to go on camps and in hindsight we knew very little of the activities and supervision so I won't blast the parents. Life and growing up are not risk free anyway, but I would not want to be the organiser who had to say, "Well, he was qualified . . . ."

Our kids all got 30 min Flight School flights when they were 13 or 14. When we took the two eldest boys they did not both go up at the same time. (Could not do that to MrsVJ) They are both helicopter pilots now! RCAF put them in the same squadron and they even flew together. (I did not think they'd do that.) Now one of them is civilian I worry a little less..

Chris VJ - you're talking about something different to this accident, & to a certain extent, it's a red herring. The pilot in this aircraft is reported as having approximately 3500 hours total time, approximately 30 hours on type. He wasn't inexperienced at flying; he was also reasonably experienced on this aircraft. The issue stems from his lack of qualification to conduct the flight in the conditions he flew under. Had he complied with his licence, the aircraft would not have been where it was, therefore it would not have crashed. The aircraft was not certified or maintained in accordance with the requirements to conduct that flight either, therefore the opportunities to address the mechanical defects with it weren't available. The whole point of having a more robust licencing system, & more aggressive maintenance regime for aircraft carrying paying passengers, is to make sure such issues are caught & addressed before a passenger ever steps foot inside the aircraft. By ignoring them all, every single chance of keeping this aircraft safe was missed. No system can ever protect against wilful disregard of the rules & regulations by those who know them but chose to ignore them.

The issue of low hours pilots conducting charity flights does indeed have risks attached to it, the legislation & guidance is clear on that. It is still the licence holders responsibility to understand the requirements of the flight they are conducting, & to do so appropriately. Whether there is more risk attached than if the pilot was flying a friend or family member - I'm not sure why there would be - if they're conducting the flight correctly, why would their relationship with the other passengers make any difference? Surely someone offering assistance to a charitable event is already demonstrating a social conscience - they're donating their time for a good cause, after all. That doesn't strike me as the behaviour of someone who's likely to fly recklessly. You say you'd be uncomfortable to fly under such circumstances - that's fine, the guidance makes clear provision for that by placing an obligation on the pilot & the organiser to make sure you're aware of the circumstances - if you're unhappy, then you don't take part. Unfortunately, in this accident the poor passenger was denied that option & denied the protections of the system he had every right to believe he would be protected by - not because the aircraft wasn't fit to be flown, but because it should never have been airborne in the first place.

As an aside, I (pre pandemic) take part in charity driving events: these involve passenger rides around one of our race tracks - coned as a road circuit, so not at race speeds, but with the opportunity of stretching the car & showing some of it's capabilities, traffic permitting. The insurance, risk assessment, & briefings, both written & verbal, are very thorough. The rules are very clear & punishment for transgressing them is swift & final with no right of appeal. I've also run the events occasionally & have exercised the option to remove drivers for misbehaving: it's very well policed, very well marshalled, after all, there's no room for error when you're dealing with safety. I've no reason to believe flying events wouldn't be operated to the same criteria, I'd be horrified if they weren't.

Mr Henderson appeared in court today. He was granted bail and will go on trial in October 2021.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....67b320670b.jpg

Why is it so long to wait for justice? It will be nearly 3 years since the crash before the trial starts.

Between 2010 and 2019 295 courts have been closed - and this is pre covid restrictions on the number of cases to be heard in a day.

I guess the only amendment to your observation above is the use of the word "relevant" as a prefix to the word "experience". This not only influences the physical activity of flying in the conditions encountered, but also the overall attitude to the "management" of this flight as it progressed.

"Bad attitudes" are just as dangerous (or maybe more so???) as "bad flying skills"! Back in my time as an Instructor I have banned fully qualified and experienced (on paper) people undergoing an initial Club Check Flight from flying Club aircraft just based on their attitude - I just showed them the door (and rang ahead to the other Clubs on the field to warn them of what I had done!). The fact their flying was sometimes relatively poor was very much a secondary reason. You can train out poor flying skills with a bit of coaching - a poor attitude is far more difficult to correct!

It also looks very much like "experience" bred "complacency" here, something that commercial operations work hard to prevent, hence why regular check flights etc are so important. As you said further on in your post,

Thank you, yes I agree with all you've added.

Ddraig Goch because there is a huge backlog in the courts with simple cases waiting up to 2 years for something simple and the whole system threatening to collapse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54737289

RTE news : Trial of man who organised flight in Sala fatal crash

http://www.rte.ie/news/2021/1018/125...h-court-trial/

He's pleaded guilty...another trial and inquest to come.

Due process will - one hopes - take care of the legal specifics on the flight. The bigger question (for me) is will commercial aviation learn the lessons of inadequate regulation and clamp down for good on the loopholes between commercial operation and leisure flying? One can only hope.

RIP and thoughts still with all the families involved.