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)

Driver airframe 15th Feb 2019 08:43

I think you will discover there was no legal requirement prior to 2005 to insure an aeroplane .
Providing the patient is informed , a surgeon with no qualifications can legally carry out surgical operations . Unlike Vetinary doctors who need to be qualified to operate on animals .

S-Works 15th Feb 2019 08:57


Originally Posted by Driver airframe (Post 10390633)
I think you will discover there is no legal requirement to insure an aeroplane . A pilot is within the law to fly uninsured . This applies to light aircraft and commercial airliners . It is however an offence to drive a car uninsured .
Providing the patient is informed , a surgeon with no qualifications can legally carry out surgical operations . Unlike Vetinary doctors who need to be qualified to operate on animals .


Incorrect. Insurance is a legal requirement. EU directive.

https://www.caa.co.uk/Aircraft-regis...-for-aircraft/


a surgeon without qualifications is not a surgeon and carrying out a surgical procedure unqualified is assault as demonstrated this week by a tattoo artist who split tongues and cut ears off being done for assault.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...ngham-47198786


what next 15th Feb 2019 10:20


Originally Posted by anchorhold (Post 10390617)
... more to the point he was operating as a commercial pilot...

At this point that's only an assumption. Maybe he was so desperate for flying hours in the Malibu that he agreed to pay for the whole trip himself? Really - we don't know. And those who know are not talking (yet).

runway30 15th Feb 2019 11:01


Originally Posted by what next (Post 10390726)
At this point that's only an assumption. Maybe he was so desperate for flying hours in the Malibu that he agreed to pay for the whole trip himself? Really - we don't know. And those who know are not talking (yet).

So the person who asked him to undertake the flight paid for his fuel, landing fee and hotel and he was then going to pay them back? Then there is the conversation where he says Iím really short of money but Iíll fund transporting the £2m. a year footballer because I really want some hours on the PA46. There are some scenarios that are so ridiculous that they can be eliminated.

There are are some aspects of this that I find bizarre. It may well be that Ibbotson has lost a very expensive asset belonging to Cardiff City Football Club in circumstances that are illegal but the club owner is funding the search for Ibbotsonís body. I donít see a moral trade off where someone doesnít deserve a decent burial because of wrongdoing but it seems to me that a lot of people are contributing to the Ibbotson fund without understanding that the death of one of the men may be completely due to the negligence of the other.

The club owner is prepared to donate £50,000 to the search for Ibbotson but wasnít prepared to fund proper travel arrangements. To those who say that they offered commercial flights but Sala insisted on his own arrangements, I say that the arrangements made were not ones that Sala was happy with and it has become quite clear that a Football Club does have the ability to control what footballers do in their own time.

what next 15th Feb 2019 11:47


Originally Posted by runway30 (Post 10390759)
So the person who asked him to undertake the flight paid for his fuel, landing fee and hotel and he was then going to pay them back?

(I am merely playing the lawyer of the deceased pilots family here!) All we know is that the pilot used another perons's credit card to pay for all those things. Like I do when I use my employer's company credit card. Some of it (like breakfast or room service) I will have to pay back to him later on. And many flying school/club aircraft have fuel cards with which fuel is paid. But that doesn't mean that the club or school will not claim back those expenses later on.


Originally Posted by runway30 (Post 10390759)
Then there is the conversation where he says I’m really short of money ...

If ciminal charges/liabilty claims were brought against me every time I said these words... In court this is meaningless hearsay.


Originally Posted by runway30 (Post 10390759)
... but I’ll fund transporting the £2m. a year footballer because I really want some hours on the PA46.

Maybe he didn't know who he was going to carry and how much money the guy was about to earn? Anyway, irrelevant in court. And my personal experience is that people in general are more greedy the more money they have. And even a guy earning a billion a year might not say no! to being offered a free trip.


Originally Posted by runway30 (Post 10390759)
There are some scenarios that are so ridiculous that they can be eliminated.

Before court only evidence counts. Been there, done it... (flying related and not flying related). I also thought that my opponent's cause was so ridiculous that no judge could take it seriously. I learnt my lesson.

runway30 15th Feb 2019 12:39


Originally Posted by what next (Post 10390785)
(I am merely playing the lawyer of the deceased pilots family here!) All we know is that the pilot used another perons's credit card to pay for all those things. Like I do when I use my employer's company credit card. Some of it (like breakfast or room service) I will have to pay back to him later on. And many flying school/club aircraft have fuel cards with which fuel is paid. But that doesn't mean that the club or school will not claim back those expenses later on.



If ciminal charges/liabilty claims were brought against me every time I said these words... In court this is meaningless hearsay.



Maybe he didn't know who he was going to carry and how much money the guy was about to earn? Anyway, irrelevant in court. And my personal experience is that people in general are more greedy the more money they have. And even a guy earning a billion a year might not say no! to being offered a free trip.



Before court only evidence counts. Been there, done it... (flying related and not flying related). I also thought that my opponent's cause was so ridiculous that no judge could take it seriously. I learnt my lesson.

Ok, letís go back a step to how the flight was procured. We know from public statements that Willie McKay didnít charge Sala for the flight. However there is a hidden charter fee because McKay was receiving an agency fee for the football transfer. He, again we know from public statements, approached David Henderson to book the flight. David Henderson advertises himself as an Air Charter Broker, he canít have it both ways, designate some flights to be flown by licensed air carriers and some by volunteer pilots funded by himself. It doesnít really matter where the money changed hands or whether any of it reached Ibbotson, it becomes illegal public transport and Ibbotson was flying commercially on a private licence.

callum_62 15th Feb 2019 12:40


Originally Posted by runway30 (Post 10390759)


So the person who asked him to undertake the flight paid for his fuel, landing fee and hotel and he was then going to pay them back? Then there is the conversation where he says Iím really short of money but Iíll fund transporting the £2m. a year footballer because I really want some hours on the PA46. There are some scenarios that are so ridiculous that they can be eliminated.

There are are some aspects of this that I find bizarre. It may well be that Ibbotson has lost a very expensive asset belonging to Cardiff City Football Club in circumstances that are illegal but the club owner is funding the search for Ibbotsonís body. I donít see a moral trade off where someone doesnít deserve a decent burial because of wrongdoing but it seems to me that a lot of people are contributing to the Ibbotson fund without understanding that the death of one of the men may be completely due to the negligence of the other.

The club owner is prepared to donate £50,000 to the search for Ibbotson but wasnít prepared to fund proper travel arrangements. To those who say that they offered commercial flights but Sala insisted on his own arrangements, I say that the arrangements made were not ones that Sala was happy with and it has become quite clear that a Football Club does have the ability to control what footballers do in their own time.

Cardiff offered him transport - he said he would make his own arrangements

Good Business Sense 15th Feb 2019 12:54


Originally Posted by what next (Post 10390726)
At this point that's only an assumption. Maybe he was so desperate for flying hours in the Malibu that he agreed to pay for the whole trip himself? Really - we don't know. And those who know are not talking (yet).

I think there is some confusion on this thread - no one builds hours at age 59. Build them for what - to get a CPL ? Once your are 60 you cannot legally fly single crew commercial flights - even with a CPL . Can't think of an airline who would take a low time 60 years old with no commercial experience for two crew ops.

runway30 15th Feb 2019 13:09


Originally Posted by callum_62 (Post 10390835)
Cardiff offered him transport - he said he would make his own arrangements

Yes, but he didnít make the arrangements, someone else made the arrangements and when Sala got on board he didnít like the arrangements very much.

Premier League Football Clubs have rules that govern how footballers behave on and off the field. Why? Because many of them donít have very good decision making of their own and they represent a huge investment. Therefore most Football Clubs would have checked the travel arrangements and vetoed them if unsuitable. Whether this was a failure by the Directors/Manager or the employee who was looking after Sala, I think the Football Club were careless and have paid a price for it.

dsc810 15th Feb 2019 14:46

Do we know whether Sala was officially under contract at Cardiff?
We are told he has signed to Cardiff but was it all cut and dried with signatures on the dotted lined and was he or not on the Cardiff insurance schedule.
It appears he had not started at the club yet with all this shuttling back and fro so maybe not which might explain why Cardiff were sort of offering him a alternative flight arrangement rather than telling him "these are your flights which you will use"


runway30 15th Feb 2019 15:30


Originally Posted by dsc810 (Post 10390923)
Do we know whether Sala was officially under contract at Cardiff?
We are told he has signed to Cardiff but was it all cut and dried with signatures on the dotted lined and was he or not on the Cardiff insurance schedule.
It appears he had not started at the club yet with all this shuttling back and fro so maybe not which might explain why Cardiff were sort of offering him a alternative flight arrangement rather than telling him "these are your flights which you will use"

Sala signed on the Saturday before travelling back to Nantes. The Manager implied that this put him under their control because he stated that he could have insisted that Sala travel with the team to Newcastle rather than fly to Nantes. It is difficult to know the basis of the dispute with Nantes over payment but Cardiff seem to suggest that the registration of the contract with the Premier League hadnít been completed before the accident. Their previous statements also seem to suggest negligence in the booking of the flight by the agent employed by Nantes Football Club.

EXDAC 15th Feb 2019 19:31

No insurance
 

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK (Post 10390602)

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

An aircraft must be insured before it can fly

To the best of my knowledge there is no requirement to have insurance to fly a US registered aircraft using an FAA pilot license while operating in USA. Some organizations or sites may require liability insurance but that only applies to those who wish to use the facilities of those organizations or sites. I know pilots who have chosen to fly with no insurance but it's a risk I don't wish to take.

Chronus 15th Feb 2019 19:43

I hope this particular tragic accident will lead to a very bold line to be drawn between recreational and commercial flying. From whatever perspective this accident is viewed from the inescapable truth is the same. This flight took place for no other reason than to transport a passenger whose sole intention was to get to his destination expeditiously and, safely. That latter requirement would appear to have been compromised by the choice of the manner in which he was transported. The extent of the shortcomings of which were of such severity that when in conspiring to combine in the way that they did, it led to loss of life. It has been proven over and over, it is never a single factor, it is always a combination of a number of factors that when combined lead to tragic loss of life in the air. Human factors play a most significant part in this causal chain of events. These are not necessarily always a factor that arise in the cockpit.

Maoraigh1 15th Feb 2019 19:52

Does the EASA third party insurance requirements apply to all civil aircraft in EASA airspace, or to civil aircraft landing in EASA countries, or only to civil aircraft registered in EASA countries?

EXDAC 15th Feb 2019 19:55


Originally Posted by Good Business Sense (Post 10390846)
I think there is some confusion on this thread - no one builds hours at age 59. Build them for what - to get a CPL ? Once your are 60 you cannot legally fly single crew commercial flights - even with a CPL . Can't think of an airline who would take a low time 60 years old with no commercial experience for two crew ops.

Quite right about confusion. There is no FAA regulation that prohibits me, an FAA CPL well over 60, from flying single crew commercial flights. That could be glider towing, crop spraying, banner towing, parachute operations etc. Commercial operation is far more extensive than part 121 operation.


runway30 15th Feb 2019 21:28


Originally Posted by Maoraigh1 (Post 10391154)
Does the EASA third party insurance requirements apply to all civil aircraft in EASA airspace, or to civil aircraft landing in EASA countries, or only to civil aircraft registered in EASA countries?

When operating under the N reg outside of the US wherever there is a conflict between the FAR and the rules of the foreign country then the more restrictive rule will apply.

Good Business Sense 15th Feb 2019 23:02


Originally Posted by EXDAC (Post 10391157)
Quite right about confusion. There is no FAA regulation that prohibits me, an FAA CPL well over 60, from flying single crew commercial flights. That could be glider towing, crop spraying, banner towing, parachute operations etc. Commercial operation is far more extensive than part 121 operation.

Yeh, confusion indeed - A 59 year old UK resident with a UK PPL and an FAA add on based on his EASA license is what we're talking about - can I suggest that you read up on the EASA regulations which apply in this case - particularly on the examples you gave. Getting back to the point raised i.e. hour building - the pilot in this case had plenty of hours.

EXDAC 16th Feb 2019 01:51


Originally Posted by Good Business Sense (Post 10391286)
Yeh, confusion indeed - A 59 year old UK resident with a UK PPL and an FAA add on based on his EASA license is what we're talking about - can I suggest that you read up on the EASA regulations which apply in this case - particularly on the examples you gave. Getting back to the point raised i.e. hour building - the pilot in this case had plenty of hours.

The post I answered was not specific to the accident pilot. It was a statement with no context and demonstrably untrue in the context for which I responded. If you want to narrow the context to EASA rules perhaps you could provide a reference. The only EASA rules I have have found relating to age 60 single pilot operations apply only to Commercial Air Transport.

FCL.065 Curtailment of privileges of licence holders aged 60 years or more in commercial air transport (a) Age 60-64. Aeroplanes and helicopters. The holder of a pilot licence who has attained the age of 60 years shall not act as a pilot of an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport except as a member of a multi-pilot crew.

"Commercial air transport" means the transport of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire.

How would this regulation apply to, for example, banner towing, crop spraying, or glider towing? Perhaps there is another EASA regulation that does apply?

tescoapp 16th Feb 2019 04:21


How would this regulation apply to, for example, banner towing, crop spraying, or glider towing? Perhaps there is another EASA regulation that does apply?
add in surveying, photography and flight instruction and you have aerial work which doesn't need to be multi crew over the age of 60.

Dr Jekyll 16th Feb 2019 08:15

There is a brief article about the cost sharing/pseudo charter situation in the current Private Eye. Reasonably well informed by the standards of the non specialist press.


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:43.


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