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)

runway30 17th Feb 2019 21:21


Originally Posted by OwnNav (Post 10392941)
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.

I’m not sure where this is going? I don’t think there is any suggestion of a Volunteer Pilot Organization flying around footballers.

OwnNav 17th Feb 2019 21:34

Fair point Runway30
 
But I'm sure the Feds will think thus: 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

runway30 18th Feb 2019 00:55

Now that the Sala funeral is over, it seems that Cardiff City’s complaints are going to get louder. This has come from the Sun so comes with an automatic reality check but is supposedly a list of questions that have been sent in reply to the claim from Nantes Football Club.

1. Was Sala a Nantes player when he stepped on to the fatal flight?

2. Who arranged the flight and why did that person put him on a single-engine plane at night in difficult conditions, without adequate emergency apparatus?

3. Who took the decision to put Sala on the plane?

4. Why won’t the owner of the aircraft come forward?

5. Was the plane licenced to take commercial passengers?

6. Was pilot David Ibbotson in possession of a licence to carry passengers?

7. Was Sala third-party owned?

8. Are Sala’s previous club Bordeaux due 50 per cent of the transfer fee as part of a sell-on clause negotiated when he moved to Nantes in 2015?

9. What was transfer broker Willie McKay’s cut?

10. Was McKay’s commission, or part of the transfer fee, due to be split between other parties involved in the deal and, if so, to who?


ATC Watcher 18th Feb 2019 08:13

This tread is going into an area which has not much to do with what it was supposed to be, . All these Sun questions are just looking for blame and pointing fingers, even starting unhealthy rumors (e.g. nr 10 ) is exactly what we hate in incident investigations . Apportion blame and responsibilities is for the police, they are trained for this , not for Aviation professionals . .

ChickenHouse 18th Feb 2019 08:19


Originally Posted by OwnNav (Post 10392977)
But I'm sure the Feds will think thus: 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

Would the FAA start investigations, if one would file, against sites like Wingly?
Does the FAA work proactively to prevent accidents, or only retrospective?
Interesting question. Would they pull the licenses of those flying N-reg such?

2Donkeys 18th Feb 2019 08:39


Originally Posted by ChickenHouse (Post 10393288)
Would the FAA start investigations, if one would file, against sites like Wingly?
Interesting question. Would they pull the licenses of those flying N-reg such?

If specific complaint were made, with evidence, to the FAA that a pilot had flown in violation of Federal Regulation, then there is little doubt that FAA would investigate. The FAA has the power to suspend or in extremis, to revoke a licence.

As for a complaint against Wingly, I imagine that the FAA would have less than zero interest. Why? Because under part 91

91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
The pilot, not Wingly, is responsible for determining whether a flight may be lawfully conducted. "The evil website made me perform a dodgy charter" is not a line of defence worth considering even for a moment.

runway30 18th Feb 2019 18:41

Excerpts from an interview McKay has had with the Daily Telegraph.

‘McKay confirmed, too, that he had spoken to the Air Accidents Investigations Branch about Sala’s fatal journey on Jan 21 and had produced a timeline of all previous private-jet trips arranged as part of the transfer.

This timeline, which he shared with Telegraph Sport, shows his son had organised and paid for two earlier flights to Nantes for Cardiff manager Neil Warnock to watch the striker and two between the cities for the player himself, the first for contract talks and the second for his medical.

McKay said: “The only flight everybody is talking about is the one that crashed, right? Cardiff knew everything [about every flight]. When are they going to come out and tell the truth?”

McKay confirmed none of the four previous journeys used the same Piper Malibu plane or pilot, who was drafted in to take Sala back to Nantes to say his farewells before returning him to the Welsh capital.


The Scot has repeatedly stressed he neither owns the doomed plane nor had any input into the selection of it or the pilot, Dave Ibbotson. Instead, he says, he simply asked one of his regular pilots, Dave Henderson, to make all the necessary arrangements.

He claimed on Monday he still not to know who owned the plane or whether Ibbotson – who had £23,400 in County Court Judgments against him – was licensed to make a commercial flight or had been paid anything more than expenses.

McKay said he routinely funded the flights and hotels of players he was contracted to sell – and even managers he was trying to sell them to – listing the practice among “gambles” he took in the hope of securing a lucrative payday.’

‘Meanwhile, the AAIB confirmed on Monday its interim report into Sala’s plane crash would not be ready this week but that a publication date could be confirmed by Friday.’

Cows getting bigger 19th Feb 2019 10:31

..... and so it continues.

https://news.sky.com/story/emiliano-...-deal-11638527

runway30 19th Feb 2019 11:00

Every time McKay speaks I just have more questions than answers. All the previous flights presumably were in the Eclipse. McKay is quite certain that he organised and paid for them. When it comes to the PA46, he asked Dave Henderson to ‘make all the necessary arrangements’. What does that mean? McKay says that he didn’t chose plane and pilot. In my experience, clients who regularly use air charter know the basics, prop or jet, one or two engines, one or two pilots. At some point somebody made a decision to use the PA46 after using the Eclipse for the previous flights. Wouldn’t McKay be annoyed by that? Wouldn’t the person who booked it know it wasn’t what he normally used? Suddenly McKay, although he didn’t chose the pilot, has become an expert on Dave Ibbotson’s qualifications. He uses the same form of words as the Ibbotson family, ‘he was licenced to carry passengers’. Well, yes he was in some other circumstances but not in this set of circumstances. Once again there is a cynical PR campaign going on.

vanHorck 19th Feb 2019 11:10


Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger (Post 10394481)


So a multitude of flights are "arranged". It can't be too difficult to find out what was the reward, who paid and who received, in which planes owned by whom etc. The big question is who will really delve into this. Apart from the high value of the passenger, authorities may consider this to be a normal "Accident". The "common purpose" required under FAA rules seems the crucial point, but will the FAA bother to investigate? Either way it would be excellent if EASA and CAA introduced the same "common purpose" rule, it would be a clear solution to a grey area.

runway30 19th Feb 2019 11:49

McKay told Sala that Cardiff were paying for the flights, now he says that his son paid for the flights. To investigate this will be like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Except for the PA46 which was ‘arranged’.

Mike Flynn 19th Feb 2019 12:02



Looking at the wider picture surely it is time for the FAA and CAA to legislate and abolish the abuse of this N flag of convenience.

Clearly the reason many UK based light aircraft operate on the FAA register is to exploit the fact that it is cheaper and less regulated. Here is Asia there is a rule whereby foreign registered aircraft can only stay in the country for a limited period.

Regarding agent’s part in the tragedy he clearly has passed the buck.


The Scot has repeatedly stressed he neither owns the doomed plane nor had any input into the selection of it or the pilot, Dave Ibbotson. Instead, he says, he simply asked one of his regular pilots, Dave Henderson, to make all the necessary arrangements.
I am not a legal expert but I imagine one of ‘ his regular pilots ‘ has played a significant part in all this.

Eutychus 19th Feb 2019 12:23


Originally Posted by runway30 (Post 10394503)
At some point somebody made a decision to use the PA46 after using the Eclipse for the previous flights. Wouldn’t McKay be annoyed by that? Wouldn’t the person who booked it know it wasn’t what he normally used?

4.23pm - McKay: [in response to a voicemail from Sala, contents unknown] " He said that it is the same company."


runway30 19th Feb 2019 12:27

One thing that was puzzling me was where Sala’s personal agent went because he didn’t leave on the PA46 to Nantes on the Saturday. It has been revealed today that he left on the Friday afternoon on yet another PA46, N14EF.

Altaclara Aviation Ltd.

Nature of business (SIC)

  • 77351 - Renting and leasing of air passenger transport equipment
What a surprise! Yet another company that rents out an aircraft!

Jonzarno 19th Feb 2019 13:35


The "common purpose" required under FAA rules seems the crucial point
Only if this was claimed to be a cost sharing flight, which I don’t think it was.

it may well be an illegal charter, but the “common purpose” provision has nothing to do with that.

ChickenHouse 19th Feb 2019 14:05

I got the impression that "common purpose" is a stupid blunt sword.
It only means the pilot has to have a reason at a A to B flight to be at B.
You can always construct such, no way to really enforce that.

vanHorck 19th Feb 2019 14:05


Originally Posted by Jonzarno (Post 10394662)


Only if this was claimed to be a cost sharing flight, which I don’t think it was.

it may well be an illegal charter, but the “common purpose” provision has nothing to do with that.


If it was a straightforward commercial flight the illegality is obvious, but I would suspect a cost sharing scheme will be claimed, making the flight "legal"

runway30 19th Feb 2019 14:23


Originally Posted by vanHorck (Post 10394697)
If it was a straightforward commercial flight the illegality is obvious, but I would suspect a cost sharing scheme will be claimed, making the flight "legal"

I did wonder if it was done by way of lease transferring operational control to McKay’s company for the duration of the flight and he then hired his own flight crew. However, he denied that with the first words out of his mouth when he said that he had no control over either aircraft or pilot. It may have come as a huge surprise to David Henderson when he discovered that he had been sacrificed.

ShropshirePilot 19th Feb 2019 15:22


Originally Posted by Mike Flynn (Post 10394567)


Looking at the wider picture surely it is time for the FAA and CAA to legislate and abolish the abuse of this N flag of convenience.

Clearly the reason many UK based light aircraft operate on the FAA register is to exploit the fact that it is cheaper and less regulated. Here is Asia there is a rule whereby foreign registered aircraft can only stay in the country for a limited period.

Regarding agent’s part in the tragedy he clearly has passed the buck.



I am not a legal expert but I imagine one of ‘ his regular pilots ‘ has played a significant part in all this.

With respect to @Mike Flynn, there are many perfectly legitimate reasons to have an N reg within the UK on a long term basis. The FAA allow certain modifications that the CAA don't (don't ask me which - the engineer was very passionate about why the mod concerned was so excellent and couldn't fathom the CAA stance on it). I recently flew in an N Reg Comanche that was kept N reg for sentimental reasons (it was keeping it's original registration) and had the aformentioned modification or even several of them. It was the most immaculate machine I've ever seen and certainly well maintained. The FAA have different rules but I am not sure that N reg aircraft fall out of European skies any more frequently than G reg or IoM or CI registered aircraft. Let's try to have a reasoned debate not a knee jerk "something must be done" type responses?

If there are costs to be saved by being on the N reg (whether for the aircraft or the pilot) then presumably that frees up cash to allow more time perfecting the skills flying the machinery. More hours flying tends, for me, to mean better skills and safer operations.

Personally I prefer the discussion about causes, or possible causes of issues within aviation rather than legal conjecture on all sorts of things reported in the Sun newspaper!

2Donkeys 19th Feb 2019 15:40


Originally Posted by Mike Flynn (Post 10394567)


Looking at the wider picture surely it is time for the FAA and CAA to legislate and abolish the abuse of this N flag of convenience.

Clearly the reason many UK based light aircraft operate on the FAA register is to exploit the fact that it is cheaper and less regulated. Here is Asia there is a rule whereby foreign registered aircraft can only stay in the country for a limited period.

Regarding agent’s part in the tragedy he clearly has passed the buck.

Mike. I struggle to understand which aspect of this unfortunate affair has anything to do with the letter painted on the side of the aircraft. Perhaps you could clarify.

The CAA is required to have oversight of all flying occurring in the UK FIR regardless of the registry of the aircraft concerned. If there is an issue with questionable charters, the issue is a lack of oversight in general, unless you are suggesting that the CAA somehow watches G reg ops like a hawk and ignores the N reg ops.

There are, in my view, two reasons why there is a proliferation of N reg in Europe, neither (directly) associated with cost.

1. The FAA flight crew licensing regime has been rock steady whilst we in the Uk have watched a dogs dinner unfold as we’ve moved from CAA to JAA to EASA to whatever next.

2. The FAA has historically been far faster to approve new technologies, making the register far more attractive to those operating more advanced aircraft.

The accident rate on the N reg fleet globally is far better than the G reg fleet (so far as these things can be compared) and the FAA has not been slow to act when circumstances require.

In situations like this, it is easy to point at the registry and claim that it has something to do with the events concerned. Right now, I see no link. Tell me why I am wrong.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:45.


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