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)

RomeoTangoFoxtrotMike 12th Feb 2019 19:02


Originally Posted by runway30 (Post 10387273)


I have all along maintained that the Ibbotson family should be treated with respect and given our condolences for their loss. I also respect their wish to defend Dave Ibbotson, I hope all our families would do the same for us. However, I think this media appearance was very ill advised.

Indeed so. However, I imagine that right now, they need the money...

OwnNav 12th Feb 2019 22:08

An echo of the fatal Buddy Holly flight
 

JFW 13th Feb 2019 11:11




I would guess the police will need to await the Coroners verdict before they may consider investigations for any criminal acts which may have led to the deaths of the occupants. The coroner in adjourning the hearing may well have decided to wait for the AAIB report.

I think it is more likely that the Coroner will wait for the police report, to have all available evidence before him. The purpose of the inquest is not to apportion blame, indeed the rules specifically state that no civil or criminal liability can be specified against any named individual.

DaveReidUK 13th Feb 2019 11:16


Originally Posted by JFW (Post 10388653)
I think it is more likely that the Coroner will wait for the police report, to have all available evidence before him. The purpose of the inquest is not to apportion blame, indeed the rules specifically state that no civil or criminal liability can be specified against any named individual.

Indeed so.

From a previous post:


Senior acting coroner Brendan Allen said that investigations were being carried out by the police, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) and the Civil Aviation Authority.




skyrangerpro 13th Feb 2019 22:31


Originally Posted by JFW (Post 10388653)





I think it is more likely that the Coroner will wait for the police report, to have all available evidence before him. The purpose of the inquest is not to apportion blame, indeed the rules specifically state that no civil or criminal liability can be specified against any named individual.



Right. He will seek to ascertain

1. Who
2. When
3. Where
4. How

but not why. He has very wide ranging powers too.


Cambridge172 14th Feb 2019 15:55

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b124188433.png
Surely this function on a well known private 'flight sharing' website is fundamentally illegal and should be removed?

what next 14th Feb 2019 16:10


Originally Posted by Cambridge172 (Post 10390060)
Surely this function on a well known private 'flight sharing' website is fundamentally illegal and should be removed?

Although I am not the biggest fan of flight sharing sites (and would never have allowed my son to use such a service while I still had the power to forbid anything to him) this is not illegal in Europe as long as European registered aircraft are used. And as long as the cost is shared between all occupants, including the pilot, and the latter does not receive any kind of remuneration. And some more conditions are met most of which have been listed on this thread several times already.

(See for example page 4 of this document from EASA: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...AIR_OPS_EN.pdf)

Good Business Sense 14th Feb 2019 17:23


Originally Posted by what next (Post 10390076)
Although I am not the biggest fan of flight sharing sites (and would never have allowed my son to use such a service while I still had the power to forbid anything to him) this is not illegal in Europe as long as European registered aircraft are used. And as long as the cost is shared between all occupants, including the pilot, and the latter does not receive any kind of remuneration. And some more conditions are met most of which have been listed on this thread several times already.

(See for example page 4 of this document from EASA: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/def...AIR_OPS_EN.pdf)

I think you'll find that most insurers don't agree - they consider it commercial (from a discussion with an underwriter this week). I think almost all PPL owners/renters who ask the question of their insurers will be shocked. Of course, very few ask as they don't want to hear the answer. The courts will decide in the end.

what next 14th Feb 2019 18:15


Originally Posted by Good Business Sense (Post 10390133)
I think you'll find that most insurers don't agree .

No, no, no! Regulations and laws are made by states, not by insureres. We are talking about legality here. Cost sharing flights (observing the relevant rules) are legal in EASA member countries. How much an insurer has to pay in case of an accident has nothing to do with that.

positiverate20 14th Feb 2019 19:52


Originally Posted by what next (Post 10390177)
No, no, no! Regulations and laws are made by states, not by insureres. We are talking about legality here. Cost sharing flights (observing the relevant rules) are legal in EASA member countries. How much an insurer has to pay in case of an accident has nothing to do with that.

If flying outside of the parameters of what's insured then that is a legal issue. Technically you'd be flying without insurance.

Arkroyal 14th Feb 2019 21:16


Originally Posted by what next (Post 10390177)
No, no, no! Regulations and laws are made by states, not by insureres. We are talking about legality here. Cost sharing flights (observing the relevant rules) are legal in EASA member countries. How much an insurer has to pay in case of an accident has nothing to do with that.

Its perfectly legal for me to take my car on a track day. But my insurance will be invalid.

DaveReidUK 14th Feb 2019 21:28


Originally Posted by Arkroyal (Post 10390335)
Its perfectly legal for me to take my car on a track day. But my insurance will be invalid.

And you'll be a danger to nobody but yourself. Spot the difference.


Jonzarno 14th Feb 2019 21:30

If your insurance policy doesn’t specifically exclude legal cost sharing flights, I can’t see on what basis an insurer could refuse to pay. You are flying within the scope of your licence and not in breach of a specific exclusion.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY 14th Feb 2019 23:21


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 10390345)
And you'll be a danger to nobody but yourself. Spot the difference.

But what if you have a passenger on that track day jaunt?

positiverate20 15th Feb 2019 00:10


Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY (Post 10390415)
But what if you have a passenger on that track day jaunt?

think the point that was being made is that it'd be no danger to the public- a track is private property. A 10 year old could drive a car on a private track- not illegal. Be a different story in a public space

Good Business Sense 15th Feb 2019 00:50


Originally Posted by what next (Post 10390177)
No, no, no! Regulations and laws are made by states, not by insureres. We are talking about legality here. Cost sharing flights (observing the relevant rules) are legal in EASA member countries. How much an insurer has to pay in case of an accident has nothing to do with that.

In the event of a claim, if an insurer judges a flight to be commercial when the insured is only insured for private flights, they could challenge the "cost sharing" law (yes the law !!!) and how it is being applied - it will then be judged in court under "case law" / "common law".

Just because a state writes a law doesn't mean to say that it can't be challenged or proved to be improperly constructed - see here for EU/EASA CASE LAW / COMMON LAW application and challanges - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/collection...-case-law.html

For example, in my view, Wingly employes pilots - if pilots don't fly for them wingly doesn't make a profit or have business. For example, Wingly sells gift certificates to people who then give them on to a third party who, in turn, contact Private Pilots who offer to fly them anywhere they want to go at the time they wish to depart - one way, return, IFR/VFR, overnight, international ..... and that's not commercial ??

skyrangerpro 15th Feb 2019 07:06


Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 10390345)
And you'll be a danger to nobody but yourself. Spot the difference.

well thatís not right. You could injure another participant or bystander or any number of scenarios. Specific track day insurance is offered by a number of insurers. Either call your existing insurers in advance of the day or go to a specialist who will insure you on a case by case basis.

DaveReidUK 15th Feb 2019 08:07


Originally Posted by skyrangerpro (Post 10390562)
well thatís not right. You could injure another participant or bystander or any number of scenarios. Specific track day insurance is offered by a number of insurers. Either call your existing insurers in advance of the day or go to a specialist who will insure you on a case by case basis.

My point was that it's not compulsory to have one's own insurance in order to take part in a track day (I certainly didn't).

But it's illegal to fly an aircraft without insurance.

An aircraft must be insured before it can fly

GotTheTshirt 15th Feb 2019 08:11

Regarding insurance is there a legal requirement to have valid insurance on a "private " aircraft as there is on a motor vehicle?

anchorhold 15th Feb 2019 08:19

Recently Ibbotson's wife Nora and daughter Dannielle were interviewed on television. Nora stated that Ibbotson had a Private Pilots Licence and was qualified to carry passengers. It was stated that he flew purely as a hobby. When pressed about if he received payment Nora, she chose not to answer the question.

What we also know about Ibbotson is that he was a Gas Safe (Corgi) engineer, and under law entitled to service boilers, issue gas certificates and install and sign out new gas supplies. I think we all agree with with the law in the UK on gas fitting. Those violating gas regulations are rightly dealt severely by the courts in the UK.

Now then, what if a ATPL or CPL holder in the Scunthorpe before this accident decided as a hobby on his daysoff to do gas fitting for 'expenses', surely Ibbotson and local gas fitters would report him or her, likewise the local authority and Gas Safe would be pressing for a prosecution.

Whether Ibbotson was operating for hire and reward is not perhaps the issue, more to the point he was operating as a commercial pilot, yet not qualified to do so. In the same way I am not qualified to carry out surgery or act as a pro bono solicitor, solicitor being a protected title in law.

The crowdfunding page is worth visiting, for the comments. Many of Ibbotson's supporters seem critical that the football industry are not fully funding the search for Ibbotson, David Beckham has been identified as someone who should throw in some money towards the search, I ask why? Likewise they are very critical of the UK AAIB, which is highly respected worldwide, they do not understand the remit of the AAIB, in so much they are not an agency for the recovery of bodies. In the case of Lockerbie, my understanding was that not all the bodies were recovered. Of course there might had been further searches by the AAIB for the body, if they suspected that the pilot was incapacitated, but the was little indication of this.
The AAIB will know more than us, but the evidence suggest that the pilot was not qualifed to fly in IMC, or at night, icing was likely and the post mortem evidence from Sala suggests a high speed impact, so a controlled forced landing can be ruled out.


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:04.


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