PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Accidents and Close Calls (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls-139/)
-   -   Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/617514-cardiff-city-footballer-feared-missing-after-aircraft-disappeared-near-channel-island.html)

PaxBritannica 5th Feb 2019 16:38


Originally Posted by funfly (Post 10381021)
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.

It seems to me that the 'System' makes every effort to protect them. What it can't protect them from is a pilot prepared to break the rules he knows he's supposed to obey, but which he knows can't be easily enforced. Short of matching the pilot's DNA against a database and remotely inhibiting the engine until everything checks out...what can the 'System' do? Ultimately it has to come down to the pilot's personal values system.

Do pilots need to be chipped, like pets?

established28 5th Feb 2019 17:06

Medical
 
DI held an FAA Class 2 medical according to the airmen registry. This medical is normally issued for the holder of an FAA Commercial. There is normally a time period in the FAA airmen database of a month or so to reflect new ratings, and during this time a pilot flies on a temporary airmen certificate until the database is updated and the new licence issued and sent. Not that I am suggesting this is the case, just a slight chance though. If not then it just looks like he was flying on a 61.75 issued FAA PPL, not good.




Originally Posted by Above The Clouds (Post 10381100)
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.


EXDAC 5th Feb 2019 17:20


Originally Posted by Above The Clouds (Post 10381100)
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.

61.75 doesn't actually say " all operating privileges and restrictions associated with the UK PPL must be adhered to whilst operating an FAA 'N' registered aircraft" but that may be the intention and the normal interpretation. What 61.75 says is " (3) Is subject to the limitations and restrictions on the person's U.S. certificate and foreign pilot license when exercising the privileges of that U.S. pilot certificate in an aircraft of U.S. registry operating within or outside the United States; and....."

Does a UK PLL for a pilot with no night rating have the text "Day VFR only" or "Night flying prohibited" or some similar limitation or restriction?

S-Works 5th Feb 2019 17:57

Yes it does. A copy of the restriction on the licence was posted earlier.

goofer3 5th Feb 2019 18:04

From the BBC re recovery;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-47129137

Above The Clouds 5th Feb 2019 18:07


Originally Posted by EXDAC (Post 10381167)

Does a UK PLL for a pilot with no night rating have the text "Day VFR only" or "Night flying prohibited" or some similar limitation or restriction?

Yes it does; an EASA or UK PPL requires an individual rating for each of the following, flying at night, flying in IMC, flying IFR in controlled airspace, therefore if the FAA 61:75 licence is issued on the basis of a basic UK or EASA PPL with no night or instrument qualifications then the FAA licence is also only valid for Day VFR Only. As ratings are added to the UK/EASA PPL then you can apply to the FAA to have the privileges applied the FAA 61:75 licence.

In actual fact the original concept of the FAA 61:75 licence was to allow non US citizens the opportunity to fly 'N' aircraft while visiting the USA on say a holiday were they wanted to do some solo flying and was valid for use only within the 48 states of the US, this I believe can be extended for use outside the USA with a BFR.

Jonzarno 5th Feb 2019 18:50


if the FAA 61:75 licence is issued on the basis of a basic UK or EASA PPL with no night or instrument qualifications then the FAA licence is also only valid for Day VFR Only. As ratings are added to the UK/EASA PPL then you can apply to the FAA to have the privileges applied the FAA 61:75 licence.
To clarify: you can obtain an FAA licence in this way and then add an FAA IR to it by doing the required training and passing the theory and flight tests. If you do that, you can then fly an N Reg in Europe and exercise instrument privileges.

Note: I am not saying that this is what happened in this case as I don’t know either way.

Chronus 5th Feb 2019 19:43


Originally Posted by happybiker (Post 10380985)
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.

It is incumbent on the regulatory authority to monitor and ensure compliance with the regulations with which it is entrusted. This particular incident raises the issue whether the CAA was effective in such measures it had in place to effectively carry out its remit. I believe it is more likely than not, this incident may lead to closer monitoring of private flights in light aircraft operated outside the strictures of AOC by the likes of PPL holders. This will involve seeking to inspect how "actual cost" has been ascertained.
Here is an extract from CAP1590:

5. EASA Ops includes a derogation at Article 6.4(a) that allows a flight that would otherwise be a CAT flight to be flown in accordance with the operating rules for non-commercial flights subject to specific conditions. The conditions are that:  The flight is a cost-shared flight by private individuals;  The actual direct costs of the flight must be shared between all the occupants of the aircraft, including the pilot, up to a maximum of 6 persons; and  Only other-than complex motor-powered aircraft may be used. 6. Article 13 of the ANO also allows cost-sharing for what would other......

Note in particular " only other-than non complex motor-powered aircraft ". Its been some time since I have been around club flying, but if my memory serves me right I would have thought a PA46 would fall under the complex category.

Also it must be noted that the relaxation is by way of derogation, one always needs to be so careful with that sort of permission.

skyrangerpro 5th Feb 2019 20:22

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...lford-15785933

prosecution alleges he was “running an illegal commercial flight”

GotTheTshirt 5th Feb 2019 20:39

A lot of coverage regarding FAA pilot requirements but I wonder how the FAA maintenance requirements were covered for the N-reg pressurised aircraft?

EXDAC 5th Feb 2019 21:50


Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 10381254)


To clarify: you can obtain an FAA licence in this way and then add an FAA IR to it by doing the required training and passing the theory and flight tests. If you do that, you can then fly an N Reg in Europe and exercise instrument privileges.


I don't see anything in 61.75 that would allow an instrument rating to be added unless the applicant had an instrument rating on the foreign licence. What regulation allows that to happen?

If it is allowed then what would be the path to get the UK day only restriction removed, remembering that there is no FAA night rating?




meleagertoo 5th Feb 2019 23:17


Originally Posted by happybiker (Post 10381099)
CAA do take enforcement action when evidence is available of a breach in aviation law.

I can categorically assure you that this is not (always? often? even ever???) the case. I know personally of two occasions when desperately serious cases were reported with full corroborating evidence available and no action was ever taken. Plus several other additional incidents related to one of the aforementioned that I've been told over the passage of many years by utterly credible people were also reported (making a whole stack of decades long accusations against one operator) with no effect whatsoever.

Don't be fooled. The CAA enforcement system is an empty fraud. No more, no less.

runway30 5th Feb 2019 23:54

Transcript of the Maximiliano Duarte interview.‘There is a great truth behind this tragedy and there is a culprit. Because Emiliano never decided to get on this plane. These are obligations that a professional player must accept. The representative ? He is the manager, totally. We forced Emi to take this plane at night. He had sent a very clear audio message on this subject. He wanted to spend the night there, rest quietly and leave the next day after having lunch properly to get in shape when arriving. I do not want to say more for now. We have an agreement between friends, relatives. As soon as everything is a little clearer, we will talk, "he explained.’

MarkerInbound 6th Feb 2019 01:01


Originally Posted by EXDAC (Post 10381400)
I don't see anything in 61.75 that would allow an instrument rating to be added unless the applicant had an instrument rating on the foreign licence. What regulation allows that to happen?

It would be 61.65. It only says you must hold at least a current PVT certificate. It doesn't say it can't be a 61.75 certificate. FSIMS goes a bit deeper into adding additional ratings on a 61.75 cert. You would still have the FOREIGN BASED notation but if you complete the normal training and checking for an additional rating it would be followed by U.S. TEST PASSED.


If it is allowed then what would be the path to get the UK day only restriction removed, remembering that there is no FAA night rating?
There isn't any. Since as you point out there is no FAA night rating there is nothing to add. It's been suggested a foreign pilot could complete the 3 hours and 10 landings required for a PVT cert and then get a 90 day student night solo endorsement.

Blackfriar 6th Feb 2019 06:39

It came to my attention that a helicopter owner was offering sight seeing trips and there was a fare charged. The aircraft was a vintage piston single and flights were operated out of and over an urban area. This was shortly after the Glasgow helicopter crash. I contacted the CAA via their website and received a call a few days later asking for more details. I never heard anything officially, but the flights stopped. So perhaps if we report issues, there will be action. I think in the light of this accident, the CAA should be taking proactive action looking into some of these flights. It wouldn’t be hard to ask some questions of Air Traffic at certain airfields to get an idea of who to look at more closely.

A and C 6th Feb 2019 07:38

Blackfriar
 
The UK CAA do take action to discourage dubious public transport flights but must use their resources carefully, the result of this is that the inspectors turn up at places that are likely to be hot spots for this sort of activity.

I have been ramp checked twice on the Isle of Man during the TT races, these checks clearly looked like them going through the motions while waiting for their real targets to show up.

It is hardly surprising that they can’t show up at Nantes on a January day in the hope of catching one person with the resouces available to them but I suspect that there is more intelligence targeted activity than you might think. It is also likely that a word or to with people who have one foot ether side of the line stops illegal activity without going to court.

The trouble is there are always a few chancers who will step up when there is a few quid to be made and those who will cut corners on equipment and pilot training to increase that Proffit. Unfortunately the well meaning cost sharing legislation has further blurred the lines of these activities making the job of the CAA harder.

John R81 6th Feb 2019 08:02

"This accident, like so many before it, was caused by the pilot’s decision to undertake the flight in which the likelihood of encountering instrument conditions existed, in the mistaken belief that he could cope with en route instrument weather conditions, without having the necessary familiarization with the instruments in the aircraft and without being properly certificated to fly solely by instruments."

Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Report on the "Buddy Holly" accident, released on September 23, 1959.

Useful site: https://lessonslearned.faa.gov/index.cfm

Jonzarno 6th Feb 2019 08:31


I don't see anything in 61.75 that would allow an instrument rating to be added
I don’t know the precise paragraph number in CFR; but suffice it to say that this route is a well-trodden path that lots of people have followed and indeed is how I got my own IR.

2Donkeys 6th Feb 2019 08:43

A licence issued under 61.75 is a perfectly valid licence in its own right. Where a 61.75 licence holder passes a US IR Check Ride and completes the US IR written, the 61.75 will be endorsed with the phrase "INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE U.S. TEST PASSED".

Where the 61.75 licence holder has an ICAO instrument rating on his underlying licence, he can also validate that onto his he US licence by passing a cut-down version of the US IR written aimed at foreign pilots (known as the IFP). Whilst there is a little inconsistency on licence endorsements, the standard licence endorsement goes along the lines INSTRUMENT FOREIGN PILOT TEST PASSED

ChickenHouse 6th Feb 2019 09:04


Originally Posted by 2Donkeys (Post 10381712)
A licence issued under 61.75 is a perfectly valid licence in its own right. Where a 61.75 licence holder passes a US IR Check Ride and completes the US IR written, the 61.75 will be endorsed with the phrase "INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE U.S. TEST PASSED".

Where the 61.75 licence holder has an ICAO instrument rating on his underlying licence, he can also validate that onto his he US licence by passing a cut-down version of the US IR written aimed at foreign pilots (known as the IFP). Whilst there is a little inconsistency on licence endorsements, the standard licence endorsement goes along the lines INSTRUMENT FOREIGN PILOT TEST PASSED

Absolutely correct! An FAA PLL 61.75 is a license on its own and handled as such. Some more:
If you validate an ICAO license to get an FAA 61.75 license, the only thing granted is PPL rights.
You add additional ratings and endorsements on the FAA 61.75 as if it would be a new license.
Experience from you foreign license will be evaluated and you may get easier access or waivers of exams for certain parts, i.e. for an ICAO IR to do a fast track FAA IR test.
Sometimes they grant fast track evaluation on first validation if your ICAO license already has additional ratings, i.e. IR, but this is not for sure.
A FAA 61.75 based on foreign license is not compatible with a 3rd class Medical, as the US easy access medical is non-ICAO standard, the pilot needs a valid ICAO medical on hisherit original license to fly.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:23.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.