Except for launch and recovery of the ROV the ship will be to all intents and purposes directly over the wreck. If they are looking for odd pieces of wreckage they will perform a grid survey and in that situation they will wander away from the main wreckage.

on French radio this morning the former head of the BEA confirmed that for investigation purposes they would not need to be retrieving the aircraft. Inspecting visually the cockpit (e.g. if anti- icing was on a, which air source was selected, state of the propeller, etc.). , using an ROV would be enough.
He also said that normally a GA SEP on a VFR flight plan lost at sea would not cause a major investigation and definitively not retrieving the aircraft from the sea bed.

I would have thought a recovery would be necessary to assess the state of the engine at the time of the ditching. Irrespective of all the other speculation, if the fan quit prior to the descent, I would imagine the maintenance organisation would find themselves in the legal cross hairs. Regardless of the rest of the legal conjecture etc etc, the accident will have happened because of one or more of three factors: 1) Icing 2) Pilot malfunction of some sort or 3) Engine out. The last being pretty significant.
I cannot imagine why they weren't carrying an ELT in the aircraft ready to activate in situations where it all goes wrong...

I would 100% agree with you in that case- "just ask" is basically an open invitation to potential customers. What is the point in paying all the additional insurance and regulation fees associated with Certification if they can just 'wing (ly) it'. Also, in the event of an accident, there'd be no formal structure to investigate- no directors going to prison for corporate manslaughter. The only paper trail would be £20 notes. Maybe this investigation will trigger a clamp down on cowboys flying commercially under the guise of GA.

At least we can rely on the AAIB to apply a bit more logic than that!

2 s

Cost sharing for PPL holders is permitted by the Regulations of EASA and the CAA who have published a guidance document CAP 1590 and, as discussed previously in this thread, it only applies to the direct operating costs of a flight. The pilot is required to make a contribution to the direct costs. As a result of this accident you imply that the CAA has in someway failed to effectively monitor activities within such operations. Considering that this flight was carried out by a USA registered aircraft from an airport in France I struggle to see how you could reach this conclusion. Regulators, including CAA, do not have unlimited resources and would not routinely monitor GA activities outside of their own State.

Where people are prepared to operate illegal flights that should be carried under an AOC the Regulators are somewhat at a disadvantage because of the need to gather objective evidence that will stand scrutiny in a Court or at an appeal hearing. In such cases the pilot and passengers are highly unlikely to act as witnesses and I would not think that passenger tickets are issued! Post # 842 articulates some of the issues.

The plane was UK based as was the pilot and the person who is alleged to have been organising these flights. They seem to have been taking place for a while. The flight appears to have been part of a roundtrip. How is the CAA not (at least partly) responsible for enforcement?

Does anyone know approx how many total hours the pilot had? If he had a valid FAA medical his total hours should be on his last medical application. It would be interesting to know his recent hours too and if he had done his 3 take off and landings in the last 90 days.

Isn't the main problem here that people who take flights in conditions such as this are totally unaware that they are at risk. All they know is that this is a cheaper/more convenient way of getting from A to B and they trust the System to protect them.

If they recover the GPS it should answer a bunch of questions as it will have been recording position (every second, or even more?) until being submerged.

And the odds are that the data is okay.

An FAA medical is not required to exercise the privileges of an FAA issued PPL. "Basic Med" is an allowed alternative.

An application for an FAA medical allows entry of flight time but there is no requirement to enter any flight time.

In summary - there is no reason to assume total hours will be available on the last medical application.

Also, 3 takeoffs and landings does not necessarily meet currency requirements for carrying passengers at night while exercising the privileges of an FAA issued PPL. The requirement is 3 night takeoffs and 3 night landings to a full stop. Lots of people who are current to carry passengers in the day are not current to carry passengers at night. Even those who think they are current because they have logged 3 night full stop landings may not be current since 3 night takeoffs are also required.

Yes. It is absolutely shocking that this sort of thing is allowed in Europe. This is unwitting passengers thinking they are paying for a private, professional charter, and instead getting an HVAC guy with a private pilot's license. It's absolutely astounding to me that this is allowed. It will eventually be stopped once there are enough dead bodies. Mark my words. The FAA is spot-on about this nonsense.

This is not allowed in Europe as has been written on every 5th post in this thread.

Well it seems everyone knows about it, but the CAA have looked the other way. probably too tedious to chase up. I hope the AAIB really stick it to the CAA in the report, and that the civil servants don't square it up among themselves to sweep it under the carpet.

And that was enough to rip the tail off ? (Do we know about the wings still being attached yet ?

The CAA oversight of foreign aircraft is carried out on behalf of the Dept for Transport through the Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA), normally Ramp inspections. This is mostly aimed at those operations that present the highest risk to the travelling public, that is large commercial transport operators into the UK. The proportion of GA aircraft subject to SAFA inspections will be small in comparison. As I said, the operator and passengers of an illegal commercial flight are unlikely to admit that it is such a flight making enforcement a challenge. CAA do take enforcement action when evidence is available of a breach in aviation law. From their website:

Unsafe flying

• We can investigate incidents of unsafe flying. You need to provide evidence of the incident and to enable us to track the aircraft concerned you would ideally have its registration. For UK aircraft this is normally G- followed by four letters and is on the side and wing of the aircraft. Examples include unapproved and dangerous low aerobatics or a helicopter landing in a place that puts people or property in danger (helicopters are allowed to land away from airfields providing they can do so safely and they have the landowners’ permission).

Other examples we can investigate include aircraft flying without the correct approvals, companies or individuals charging for flights without the correct certificates, pilots flying without the correct licences and engineers undertaking unapproved work

He doesn't have a stand alone issued FAA PPL, he has an FAA PPL 61:75 issued on the strength/basis of his UK PPL, therefore all operating privileges and restrictions associated with the UK PPL must be adhered to whilst operating an FAA 'N' registered aircraft.

No FAA medical is required for this type of 61:75 FAA licence, he must keep his UK medical current and adhere to any restrictions on his UK PPL medical to be able to use the privilege of the FAA 61:75 certificate.

Therefore having no instrument rating or night qualifications for his UK PPL means he cannot operate an 'N' reg aircraft in IMC or night conditions with the FAA PPL.