...and presumably the Eclipse flight was flown entirely gratis, out the kindness of the heart, seeing as being a privately 'N' registered jet, not on an AOC, there was no legal mechanism for the hire of the aircraft?

Aeris Aviation don't have an AOC, it's an aircraft sales company. Now they could have lent/leased the aircraft to Channel Jets who do have a Guernsey AOC and operate Eclipses, but to the best of my knowledge you can't substitute a 2-REG aircraft with any old privately owned and operated N-registered aircraft and charter that when it suits you.

From AIN dated 10 Jan 19:

Granted that this is only an interim report - but it must surely be unsatisfactory that the details of Mr Ibbotson's FAA PPL and EASA PPL are still unclear and not on record somewhere. The AAIB report says they appear to have been in the aircraft and consequently lost.
The report makes also it clear that Mr Ibbotson SHOULD have been paying for half the cost of the flight AND that he was required to have "common purpose" to fly to Cardiff that night.

As anticipated, the report clarifies that this WAS an illegal flight. At the very least it was an illegal private flight by Ibbotson. It is also clear that the flight cannot have been operated legally as a charter, even though we shall have to wait to see if - as seems likely - and to what extent this was an illegal charter by an uncertified operator using a private pilot.

I'm not sure there will be a definitive cause established for the accident itself. But if by lifting the lid on this sordid arrangement the cowboy operators get their wings clipped, that will be a significant contribution to flight safety.

Exactly, the fact that the interim report focuses attention to the illegality of the flight is reassuring. I feared that the AAIB might 'cop-out' and merely investigate the mechanics of the crash. They have provided substantial insight into the direction of their investigation. In light of the fact that the pilot is still missing and his family still grieving, they've made a very a strong statement.

The legality of the flight is a very important aspect- if you fly illegally or in a "grey area" you will be brought to book. The fact that this operation was carried out 'under pressure', as part of a substantial 'commercial contract', at night, by a PIC with only a PPL without night or instrument certification during VMC, in an N registered plane without an AOC, without 'common purpose' while the pilot was 'all expenses paid' plus presumable remuneration. If any one of those factors were different then this may not have happened. If the pilot wasn't under that pressure his decision making might/should have been substantially different. The radar track in itself is likely to provide the technical explanation for the crash. Pilot was out of his depth.

What's the difference between this and an unlicensed car driver high on drugs driving into roadworks- the technical cause of death may be improper airbag function etc etc. The root cause was that the driver was not qualified to undertake that journey. He didn't see the signs, or take the necessary avoiding action, that if he were properly qualified (and without additional stress) would have been expected to have taken.

If you don't think legality is an issue, then why should anyone bother paying for flight lessons to begin with, paying insurance, adhering to regulations, paying for Certification as an Air Operator? Are they simply just 'costs' for the sake of it? Or do they ensure that those certified have an adequate level of training, adequate adherence to relevant regulations and an assurance to operate only with safety (and the safety of any passengers) as a priority?

Wow, that pilot had approximately 3,700 hours, so he definitely did know what he was doing. Nobody could ignore all things told over so many hours.

And why the F<self-censored> did he descent instead of going through the rain or turn back to Guernsey?
Yes, it would be nasty and one would have to apologize later, but he was low enough to be clear of icing and had a capable aircraft.
This flight path ... failure of the autopilot followed by spatial disorientation of the untrained pilot?
Where was the autopilot mounted in the aircraft, any chance in this mess to determine the final setting?

Mike Flynn are you sure that's correct, I understood the UK night rating on a PPL to be UK FIR only, same as the IMC

Hi Positiverate20

Where did all that come from? The AAIB report said nothing about “The fact that this operation was carried out 'under pressure', as part of a substantial 'commercial contract', “ unless I missed something. The AAIB report confirms that the pilot held an FAA licence, so flight in an N registered aircraft across an international border was Ok, and the FAA doesn’t prohibit cost sharing flights. The only questions are whether the pilot’s licence and ratings were valid and how much of the cost was he planning to pay? If at least half then it’s within the FAA regulations.

As for pilots taking passengers flying, if examiners think that a GST candidate isn’t fit to take non-pilots flying then they shouldn’t give a pass on the GST.

What would you do, make PPL solo flying only? They don’t do that with cars, so why aircraft?

The last 30 seconds show a tight 180° turn to the right and a 2500' descent. This is neither a turn to land nor an engine failure, it can only be a disorientation, a pilot attack, or a stall/spin due to icing.

Some detective work will find out the pilot's recent flying hours in the absence of his log book.. The airfields he flew from and to will have a record in ATC of the actual departure and arrival times of his aircraft. Maintaining night recency for instance can be done by simply doing three night takeoffs and landings in quick succession at one airfield.

That points to one thing I find surprising. The electronic FAA IACRA system is a rather strict system to keep records of issuance, initial activation and all check rides for licenses. I wonder why they did not put the investigation results on the US history in the report, as they must have the data by now. We know from the database a FAA piggyback 61.75 license was issued, but when was it first activated by an initial flight review - mandatory to render the license valid, and what comments show the records of subsequent BFR check rides - mandatory to keep the license valid? If there would be surprisingly no entries in the database, the 61.75 would have never been enabled for flying.