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)

Good Business Sense 16th Feb 2019 10:18


Originally Posted by EXDAC (Post 10391346)
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?

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.

positiverate20 16th Feb 2019 11:39


Originally Posted by Good Business Sense (Post 10391573)
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).

ATC Watcher 16th Feb 2019 13:05

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 :-)

S-Works 16th Feb 2019 15:50


Originally Posted by ATC Watcher (Post 10391694)
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...... ;)


Good Business Sense 16th Feb 2019 18:47


Originally Posted by positiverate20 (Post 10391639)
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).

nowithstanibg an AOC - exactly positiverate

what next 16th Feb 2019 19:29


Originally Posted by ATC Watcher (Post 10391694)
On the insurance ... liability for 3rd party insurance it is mandatory

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.

excrab 16th Feb 2019 19:57


Originally Posted by positiverate20 (Post 10391639)
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).

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.

Maoraigh1 16th Feb 2019 20:01

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

deltafox44 16th Feb 2019 20:08


Originally Posted by runway30 (Post 10390955)


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 hadn’t 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.

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...

Gwyn_ap_Nudd 16th Feb 2019 20:47


Originally Posted by Maoraigh1 (Post 10392021)
In non-commercial, private, flying, is the passenger a third-party? That seems to be the situation in road vehicle injury.

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.

CBSITCB 17th Feb 2019 09:12


Originally Posted by Gwyn_ap_Nudd (Post 10392058)
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.

Under aircraft insurance regulations ‘third parties’ and ‘passengers’ are separate entities. This remains true even if both are collectively covered under a combined insurance policy.

A passenger is defined as any person onboard who is not part of the flight or cabin crew, or undergoing formal training by a licensed instructor.

Sala was a passenger.

Mike Flynn 17th Feb 2019 12:01

in my opinion no one goes down to Nantes in the middle of winter on a jaunt like this unless they are being paid.

Trying to prove the pilot was paid is a different ball game if you pardon the pun.

I doubt this was the first time Ibbotson did such a flight.

runway30 17th Feb 2019 12:37

As I predicted, the claim that Cardiff City Football Club intends to bring against Nantes Football Club appears to depend on a chain of causation. Dave Ibbotson is hired by the broker Dave Henderson, the McKays gave the job to the broker, Nantes Football Club appointed the McKays as their sales agent.

There are weak links in this chain. If you approach an Air Charter Broker, you should be able to expect the broker to act in a professional way and only use licenced air carriers. However, if this activity had been going on for a long time, it then becomes more difficult for the McKays to claim that they didn’t know that Henderson was hiring private pilots.

I also think there there is a problem in the link between the McKays and Nantes Football Club. The McKays were hired for the specific task of selling Sala, we don’t know that Nantes Football Club also asked them to provide transportation.

runway30 17th Feb 2019 13:10

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Henderson has approached the press watchdog to say that he’s not prepared to give interviews.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/...17-h1bdcq.html

A and C 17th Feb 2019 14:56

Runway 30

is it any suprize no one will talk to the press, after all would you talk to the press if you had been unwise enough to get involved in this dubious enterprise ?

runway30 17th Feb 2019 15:29


Originally Posted by A and C (Post 10392673)
Runway 30

is it any suprize no one will talk to the press, after all would you talk to the press if you had been unwise enough to get involved in this dubious enterprise ?

Apologies, I should have given the earlier reference where it was suggested that Henderson had tried to take out an injunction against the press. Given the cost of taking out an injunction, a complaint to the watchdog would be a cheaper alternative.

Chronus 17th Feb 2019 16:18

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

Chronus 17th Feb 2019 16:34

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. "

runway30 17th Feb 2019 16:55


Originally Posted by Chronus (Post 10392748)
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. "

‘We note that the above guidance for operation of aircraft applies to all “N” registered aircraft no matter in which country the aircraft is being operated. The FAA has specifically stated that while an N-registered aircraft is being operated in a foreign country and must comply with the aviation regulations of that country, it must also comply with the FARs.’

I have copied this one paragraph because anyone who tries to manufacture some way in which this flight was legal is going to be beaten by that test. I am particularly annoyed by the public statements of the Ibbotson family who have raised a large amount of money by suggesting that Ibbotson was doing nothing wrong which is a deception.

OwnNav 17th Feb 2019 20:54

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:24.


Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.