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)

HolyMoley 27th Feb 2019 22:23


Originally Posted by oggers (Post 10402310)
Not in this case. No safety pilot, no legal. You cannot practice an ILS under VFR without a safety pilot.

I find SERA a bit tricky to find my way around. Can you provide a reference?

positiverate20 27th Feb 2019 23:58


Originally Posted by Luc Lion (Post 10402275)
The arrival to Nantes had been in VMC under a VFR flight plan

Ignoring the legal aspects...

If under VFR in VMC... why do an ILS in the first place?!

If it's not what you're confident and comfortable with then why choose this approach for a bit of practice, especially when carrying a high value VIP asset (AAIB suggests he travelled to Nantes with Sala, so Sala would have been the passenger on that approach). Why stretch yourself in those circumstances?

deltafox44 28th Feb 2019 00:02

Nantes complain to Fifa that Cardiff have not paid Emiliano Sala fee (The Guardian) :

Nantes have complained to Fifa that Cardiff have not paid the first instalment of the £15m transfer fee for Emiliano Sala.

Nantes have demanded payment as agreed in the contract, whereas Cardiff have said they want to wait for the investigation into the crash to be completed.

Nantes’ lawyers wrote to Cardiff on 5 February asking for the first of three annual payments within 10 working days, a deadline extended last week until 26 February.

Having received no payment, Nantes carried out their threat to take the matter to Fifa’s dispute resolution chamber.

rog747 28th Feb 2019 08:30

The Pilot's family's private funded search this week has so far not found him - The weather window is closing again - high winds today near Portland so guess CI is also the same.

patowalker 28th Feb 2019 11:11


Originally Posted by S-Works (Post 10402341)
tha was expired and being colour blind no night Rating so a bit of a moot point......

He had a Second Class medical with the only restriction being 'Must have available glasses for near vision.'

S-Works 28th Feb 2019 11:57


Originally Posted by patowalker (Post 10402796)
He had a Second Class medical with the only restriction being 'Must have available glasses for near vision.'

and he had a U.K. licence Class 2 medical with a restriction on specifically preventing flight at nigh. A 61.75 based on his U.K. PPL. A second class FAA medical would not override that restriction. He was illegal to fly at night.

patowalker 28th Feb 2019 12:12

Yes, we know that, but did he?

Mike Flynn 28th Feb 2019 13:11


Originally Posted by S-Works (Post 10402834)


and he had a U.K. licence Class 2 medical with a restriction on specifically preventing flight at nigh. A 61.75 based on his U.K. PPL. A second class FAA medical would not override that restriction. He was illegal to fly at night.

Which of course means despite all his VFR time his solo night flying experience would have been minimal.

If the pilot who passed him the job was aware of Dibbo’s limitations then surely he must shoulder some legal responsibility?

VerdunLuck 28th Feb 2019 13:48


Originally Posted by meleagertoo (Post 10402901)
Our Mr Ibbotson is beginning to look like a complete cowboy with no scruples and not a shred of interest in complying with any law or regulation that he finds inconvenient.

To be fair (ish), I can see how he got himself into this. He probably agreed to do the flight expecting it to be a nice little daylight flight there and back. The sun was probably shining when he was asked and it all sounded fine. From then on it probably went downhill in stages until it was completely beyond his ability or experience. His fault lay in not realising when it was beyond him and/or not saying NO. A pressurising factor could well be that (and I am assuming that he was paying part of the cost) he might end up paying a lot his money for his decision.

A further point that I cannot quite get my head around is the idea that he got a PPL in 2014 (I have been told) and somehow accumulated 3700 hours dropping parachutists. That is over 900 hours a year; hard work in any environment and surely impossible parra dropping (and when did he do his pipe fitting job?). It took me 14 years to get to that number of hours which including at least 6 years in full time flying jobs. Perhaps a zero got added at some point?

A and C 28th Feb 2019 14:01

The safety pilot issue is not well understood as people don’t understand that you can be complying with IFR but be VMC, so you can fly an ILS in visual conditions while complying with IFR and under radar control and not need a safety pilot.

If you are flying VFR under VMC to practice an ILS then you are respondable for your own separation from another aircraft so you need a competent observer ( NOTE NOT a pilot ) to ensure you can maintain seperation from other aircraft.

Ther key to understanding this is knowing the difference between RULES and CONDITIONS.

oggers 28th Feb 2019 14:03


By implication, then, as I see it there is nothing to stop anyone, with ATC permission, flying an ILS in VMC without a safety pilot as long as they can maintain a lookout and take avoiding action if necessary.
Yes agreed.

HolyMoley 28th Feb 2019 14:10

By ‘moot’ I mean ‘a matter for discussion or debate’. I did not say ‘questionable’ as that would imply an opinion I do not necessarily hold.
(I spotted the difference. If you went into LUX (class D) on an IFR clearance you would be guaranteed separation from other IFR traffic, whereas on a VFR clearance you would not, so the amount of ‘see and avoid’ needed is a function of the ratio of VFR to IFR in the zone).

2Donkeys 28th Feb 2019 14:10


Originally Posted by Mike Flynn (Post 10402895)


Which of course means despite all his VFR time his solo night flying experience would have been minimal.

If the pilot who passed him the job was aware of Dibbo’s limitations then surely he must shoulder some legal responsibility?

Not really. We've all had one principle beaten into us since the earliest days of air law. The FAA version of that principle is:

]§ 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

oggers 28th Feb 2019 14:31


Originally Posted by HolyMoley (Post 10402941)
(I spotted the difference. If you went into LUX (class D) on an IFR clearance you would be guaranteed separation from other IFR traffic, whereas on a VFR clearance you would not, so the amount of ‘see and avoid’ needed is a function of the ratio of VFR to IFR in the zone).

Precisely that. No small difference.

Luc Lion 28th Feb 2019 14:38

A & C, theoretically you are right ; separation responsibilities will be different depending on whether you fly the ILS under VFR or IFR rules.
Practically, there is no difference once you are established on the ILS.

Both Nantes and Luxembourg are class D airspaces.
Being VFR or IFR on the ILS, you are responsible of your separation from other VFR traffics and you will receive traffic information from the controller.
Being IFR, the controller will ensure separation from other IFR traffics.
Being VFR, you need to care for separation from preceding IFR traffic on the glide and you have priority over subsequent traffic that you cannot see in your back.
Practically, the controller will treat you as IFR and ensure separation with subsequent IFR traffic to avoid unnecessary missed approaches.

Just for the anecdote, I remember having to deviate significantly from assigned altitude in a class D holding because of an NVFR traffic. It was coming from my left but I have only 1 life. IFR pilots still need to look outside, even in a controlled airspace at night.

S-Works 28th Feb 2019 14:40


Originally Posted by VerdunLuck (Post 10402921)
To be fair (ish), I can see how he got himself into this. He probably agreed to do the flight expecting it to be a nice little daylight flight there and back. The sun was probably shining when he was asked and it all sounded fine. From then on it probably went downhill in stages until it was completely beyond his ability or experience. His fault lay in not realising when it was beyond him and/or not saying NO. A pressurising factor could well be that (and I am assuming that he was paying part of the cost) he might end up paying a lot his money for his decision.

A further point that I cannot quite get my head around is the idea that he got a PPL in 2014 (I have been told) and somehow accumulated 3700 hours dropping parachutists. That is over 900 hours a year; hard work in any environment and surely impossible parra dropping (and when did he do his pipe fitting job?). It took me 14 years to get to that number of hours which including at least 6 years in full time flying jobs. Perhaps a zero got added at some point?

He held a PPL for many years. 2014 was when his JAR licence expired and he converted to an EASA one. It was also around that time that he got a 61.75 based on his UK PPL.

ATC Watcher 28th Feb 2019 15:30


Originally Posted by VerdunLuck (Post 10402921)
.

A further point that I cannot quite get my head around is the idea that he got a PPL in 2014 (I have been told) and somehow accumulated 3700 hours dropping parachutists. That is over 900 hours a year; hard work in any environment and surely impossible parra dropping (and when did he do his pipe fitting job?). ..... Perhaps a zero got added at some point?

I cannot imagine someone giving the keys of a Malibu to a 59 years old having made his PPL 5 years ago with only 370 hours to make an international flight across the channel.. I think if there is a typo somewhere is on the PPL date ..

and as to the discussion on his Night qualification ,something I do not get, on a PPL that qualification is written ( printed) on the EASA licence , so the CAA must have the entry on their data base. If as suggested here he did not have it, then his flight was from the start operated unlawfully and most probably the insurance will not cover the aircraft as well.

PastTense 28th Feb 2019 15:33


Originally Posted by Mike Flynn (Post 10402065)
I have read newspaper reports that suggest the agent contacted David Henderson but can you prove he in turn assigned David Ibbotson?

Remember:

McKay, who helped broker Sala’s £15 million transfer to Cardiff City from Nantes, confirmed last month he organised the flight in question and that his usual pilot, Dave Henderson, had paid the landing fees and fuel.
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/sport/prem...ala/ar-BBU7AMf

How do you explain that other than McKay contracted the job to Henderson, and Henderson sub-contracted the flying to Ibbotson?

Mike Flynn 28th Feb 2019 16:27

The definition of corporate manslaughter is quite clear.


Following R v. Prentice, a breach of duty amounts to 'gross negligence' when there is indifference to an obvious risk of injury to health; actual foresight of the risk coupled with the determination nevertheless to run it; appreciation of the risk coupled with an intention to avoid it but also coupled with such a high degree of negligence in the attempted avoidance as the jury consider justifies conviction, and inattention or failure to advert to a serious risk which goes "beyond inadvertence" in respect of an obvious and important matter which the defendant's duty demanded he should address.


jumpseater 28th Feb 2019 17:36

The BBC news has just been running an interview with Mckay Senior re the organisation of the flight. Doesn’t appear to be online yet to link to.

Watching it I get the impression the ‘legal’ heat is turned up to eleven.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:31.


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