No context ? The subject matter of this thread is more than obvious and the conversation above, over the last few weeks, clearly indicates what we are talking about.

If people would rather take the view that a 59 year old pilot is building hours, spending perhaps a year or so passing exams, and spending tens of thousands of pounds on a CPL so that he can tow banners etc at, if he's lucky, £30 per hour that's absolutely fine and there lies my response.

Now, if you wish to discuss FARs disregarding the thread topic and conversation then fill your boots.

So in any case- even if Henderson had have flown using his CPL, it would have been illegal as he's over 60. The only way to make it legal would be by having a 2nd pilot (multi-pilot crew). So... that brings us nicely back to the reported additional identification shown at Nantes? However, Ibbotson still only had a PPL so couldn't really have been part of a multi-pilot crew on a commercial flight (in order to legitimize Henderson being over 60).

On the insurance , if is interesting to see there seem to be a lot of lawyers, insurance experts here , but the reality is a bit different .

I just looked in my insurance certificate on my aircraft (registered in Germany) and it is all there . .
The insurance part has nothing to do with EASA( or FAA) in fact , it is up to each State in which you want to operate.into.,and it is the European Parliament that did set the rules in 2004 , ( Regulation EC no 785/2004 ) so , yes, in the EU , liability for 3rd party insurance it is mandatory and the minimum is set per weight (MTOW) . For my aircraft it is 1,5 Million SDR ( a SDR is a little bit more than 1 euro )
But individual states can ask for a higher amount , for instance in Austria it is 3 million. ( the highest in Europe) so if I want to fly only in my country and it only applies the legal minimum ( like in Germany) I can have an insurance of 1.5 Milion , but if I want to fly in the whole of Europe I must increase my insurance to cover 3 million, .
It does not matter where the aircraft is registered , it is operating in the country that counts , because each country can set its own values, even inside the EU / EASA land..
Don't worry I leaned also something today :-)

I already linked all this information several posts back without being a lawyer or an insurance agent...... ;)

And what does your insurance say about passengers? In this case, no third party was harmed, but instead a very "precious" (in terms of money) passenger. On commercial air transport there is a minimum (ridiculously low!) sum for which every passenger is insured, with private flights there is usually none at all. So all claims will be go directly to the pilot in command (or his estate) or to whoever is deemed responsible by the lawyers working on the case.

I hold an FAA ATP, and my understanding has always been that if the owner of an FAA registered aircraft for which I have a current class or type rating came to me and said " I would like you to fly my aircraft and a passenger who is not paying for the flight from A to B (or N to C)" then this would be legal if I am over or under 60, as it is not an act of public air transport as the passenger is not paying for the flight. As the Malibu is a single crew aircraft then this would be legal if flown by an FAA CPL holder with a current IR, class rating, differences rating etc.
So the flight would have been legal if Henderson flew it, assuming he holds an FAA CPL and not an EASA one. It became illegal when a pilot without a commercial licence was somehow subcontracted to fly it.

In non-commercial, private, flying, is the passenger a third-party? That seems to be the situation in road vehicle injury.

The transfer was registered at the FIFA. The agent booking the flight (Willie McKay or son) was not employed by Nantes FC but only had been commissioned to sell their player. 2 others of his sons are players at Cardiff City and from the SMS the flight's counterpart was to help them scoring goals.
The Cardiff City insurance - if any - should cover the financial loss (transfer plus prejudice). Cardiff City has promised they would pay "what is due" once everything about the flight is clear. It seems they are just trying to gain time...

I would suggest that in this case, since the passenger was not paying for the flight he was very much a third party as he was not a party to whatever contract existed between the provider and customer, whoever they may turn out to have been.

Here is the story of another accident on a similar theme.

PILOT TO BLAME: Not qualified in crash plane, nervous when flying in clouds, 129 illegal flights in 11 weeks | The Tribune

Here is another link relevant to discussion on this topic.

https://www.avweb.com/news/features/...-228750-1.html

Here is an extract from it:

"Moreover, such cost sharing applies only when the pilot and passenger share a common purpose for a flight. "

Further to Chronus's post
 

We acknowledge that the risk of the FAA seeking out and filing violation actions against VPOs and VPs is low. However, should there be any sort of incident or accident that triggers FAA involvement, we believe it is likely that the FAA will immediately recognize the fact that the flight was being conducted in violation of the requirements of Part 91 and was actually “for hire” and should have been operating under the stricter rules of Part 135. That finding could expose the VP to a certificate action and the VPO to significant fines under the civil penalty procedures of the FARs. In addition there is also, in our opinion after consulting with attorneys and insurance professionals, a significant risk that the insurers for the VPO and VP would refuse to pay any claims because the flight met the FAA’s definition of “for hire” rather than being conducted under Part 91. It would be a terrible situation if a passenger on a flight were hurt in an accident and it turned out no insurance was available to pay for her or his medical costs or other claims. Finally, we believe that directors and officers of those VPOs could find themselves facing legal action regarding their fiduciary responsibility.