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)

Cows getting bigger 1st Mar 2019 12:11

The colourblind isn’t a red herring. One presumes he knew of the limitation and he clearly ignored it. To me that is indicative of someone who chooses not to completely comply with the regulations. One could offer a similar argument about taking a brown-envelop payment - no harm, not the cause etc. Fine, tell that one to the insurance companies.

Luc Lion 1st Mar 2019 12:13

S-Works, I believe you are right.
But it doesn't make a difference if the flight was illegal for one reason or for 2, 3 or 5 reasons.
To me, as the flight was organised in the first place, it should have been manned with a CPL (IR) pilot.

deltafox44 1st Mar 2019 12:32


Originally Posted by ATC Watcher (Post 10403618)
Sala apparently paid for it as the person on the other end of the phone asked Sala if he arranged the price [with Willis Mc Kay] , , and Sala replied : yes , it is good .

"it is good" doesn't mean he had something to pay. Other text messages (with Jack McKay) say that he would have nothing to pay, only help him score a few goals.

FRIDAY JANUARY 18

7:43pm - Jack McKay: "My dad has told me that you are going home tomorrow. He could organise a plane to take you direct to Nantes and to come back on Monday, at a time that suits you, so you can get to training on Tuesday."

7:51pm - Emiliano Sala: "Ah that is great. I was just in the middle of checking if there are some flights to get to Nantes tomorrow."

7:56pm - McKay: "He said he could organise a plane that would go direct to Nantes."

7:56pm - Sala: "How much will it cost?"

7:56pm - McKay: "Nothing. He said if you help me to score goals it's nothing."

7:59pm - Sala: "Hahaha with pleasure."

8:00pm: "We are going to score lots of goals."

8:01pm: "I want to leave tomorrow for Nantes at around 11am and come back on Monday night around 9pm to Cardiff if that is possible."

8:05pm - McKay: "Good. I'll send a message when that's sorted."


Mike Flynn 1st Mar 2019 12:49


Originally Posted by S-Works (Post 10403776)
He was colourblind and had a specific licence restriction to Day Time Flying ONLY. He had NEVER been trained to fly out night due to this restriction. This could not be over ridden on his 61.75 certificate. So regardless of any of the other issues around the flight, the fact that it was flown at night made it illegal.......

I am still amazed you can get an unrestricted night rating with only a few hours training in the local area and then fly over the sea and mountains without having visual reference to the ground.

meleagertoo 1st Mar 2019 14:10


Originally Posted by Mike Flynn (Post 10403813)


I am still amazed you can get an unrestricted night rating with only a few hours training in the local area and then fly over the sea and mountains without having visual reference to the ground.

But withe a night rating you are still required to have visual reference with the ground. If there are no lights (ie over the sea) and no horizon or sky references then you can be definition only be flying by sole reference to instruments which specifically requires an IR or IMC rating. Under those conditions your rating to fly VMC at night is negated by there being no VMC present.

oggers 1st Mar 2019 14:26


Originally Posted by Luc Lion (Post 10403753)
The real issues that have a causal relationship with this accident are:
- was the pilot trained and current for flying in IMC at night ?
- why wasn't a commercial pilot at the controls of that plane, if it is confirmed that the actual conditions of the flight match private carriage operation as defined under FAR 91.501(b)(4).

To me, as the flight was organised in the first place, it should have been manned with a CPL (IR) pilot.

He was NOT rated to fly an N reg either IMC or at night. Check the FAA airman database yourself. He held an FAA private without Instrument Rating. Even if there turned out to be UK IR(r) or IMC/Night Rating that did not allow him to fly at night outside the UK.

Single pistons are NOT permitted to carry out commercial air transport at night anyway. So I do not see the logic that "it should have been manned with a CPL because it was organised in the first place". And "if it is confirmed that the actual conditions of the flight match private carriage operation" (unlikely) an appropriately rated private pilot would be completely legitimate.

Luc Lion 1st Mar 2019 15:04

Oggers,
I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4) where the operating costs are borne by the operator "for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation". That's private carriage operation.

Either the operator flies himself the aircraft, possibly with a PPL, or he hires a commercial pilot for flying his plane.
I understand that FAR 61.113 forbids any other combination when the plane carries the guests of the operator.
Thus, if Mr McKay had rented that plane and, separately, hired a commercial pilot for flying his guest, the flight would have fit FAA Part 91 under FAR 91.501(b)(4).
Of course, the pilot must NOT be the person renting the plane.

Note: about "was the pilot trained and current for flying in IMC at night ?", I was writing about ability, not legality.

deltafox44 1st Mar 2019 16:15


Originally Posted by meleagertoo (Post 10403868)
But withe a night rating you are still required to have visual reference with the ground. If there are no lights (ie over the sea) and no horizon or sky references then you can be definition only be flying by sole reference to instruments which specifically requires an IR or IMC rating. Under those conditions your rating to fly VMC at night is negated by there being no VMC present.

When VFR on top you cannot see the ground either. And VMC only means you will be able to see and avoid other aircraft by their lights, it does not require you see any light of the ground. When flying at night, lights (stars or from the ground) can be a source of spatial disorientation and you should only rely on your instruments. That's why artificial horizon is compulsory for night VFR, isn't it ?

Sir Niall Dementia 1st Mar 2019 16:28


Originally Posted by deltafox44 (Post 10403956)
When VFR on top you cannot see the ground either.

No such thing in EASA land. You may be VMC on top, but, VFR requires sight of the ground, two very different sets of in-flight conditions.

SND



EXDAC 1st Mar 2019 16:37


Originally Posted by oggers (Post 10403876)

He was NOT rated to fly an N reg either IMC or at night. Check the FAA airman database yourself. He held an FAA private without Instrument Rating. Even if there turned out to be UK IR(r) or IMC/Night Rating that did not allow him to fly at night outside the UK.

Please explain in a bit more detail why he could not fly an N reg aircraft at night on his FAA PPL. The argument put forward before was that he could not do so because he had no night rating on his base UK licence. Now you say he couldn't do it even with a UK night rating.

Cows getting bigger 1st Mar 2019 16:38


Originally Posted by Sir Niall Dementia (Post 10403969)
No such thing in EASA land. You may be VMC on top, but, VFR requires sight of the ground, two very different sets of in-flight conditions.

SND


Wrong. Very wrong. The SERA:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....340147172e.png



Luc Lion 1st Mar 2019 17:27

Sir Niall Dementia,
even considering you meant Night VFR, your statement that sight of the ground is mandatory is still wrong.
SERA.5005(c)(3) only mandates sight of the ground when the aircraft is below 3000 ft AMSL or 1000 ft above terrain, whichever is higher.

Originally Posted by SERA.5005
c) When so prescribed by the competent authority, VFR flights at night may be permitted under the following conditions:
...(iii)in airspace classes B, C, D, E, F and G, at and below 900 m (3 000 ft) AMSL or 300 m (1 000 ft) above terrain, whichever is the higher, the pilot shall maintain continuous sight of the surface; and’;


So you can be VMC at night and have to control your airplane by sole reference to the instruments.
A consequence of that is that you must be above 3000 ft AMSL for flying at night in conditions where the sight of the surface is impossible.

Sir Niall Dementia 1st Mar 2019 18:04

Apologies for that, I was thinking of the old rules. BUT re-read the extract above, a1and b rely on flying at speeds allowing avoidance of other traffic or OBSTACLES, OBSTACLES tend to be terrain based, they are rarely hanging around at FL90. The terminology is poor in 5005, but sight of the surface is implicit in the avoidance of obstacle wording. The UK ANO and JAR were clearer on this, SERA 5005 gives intent in it's wording, but needs clarity.

SND


Mach Tuck 1st Mar 2019 18:17


Originally Posted by Luc Lion (Post 10403901)
I am talking about FAR 91.501(b)(4) where the operating costs are borne by the operator "for his personal transportation, or the transportation of his guests when no charge, assessment, or fee is made for the transportation". That's private carriage operation.

A moot point. When in an interview the agent (who isnt the operator) has stated that hed paid for the flight whilst separately in a published text exchange the player intimated hed accepted responsibility for payment, the status of the flight isnt in question.

Luc Lion 1st Mar 2019 18:27

Sir Niall Dementia,
the requirement of flying higher than 1000 ft above terrain (2000 ft in mountainous areas) when not having sight of the surface is also there to ensure that obstacles are not hanging around at altitude.
Grid MORA are there exactly for that purpose.

However, personally, I tend to think that NVFR is there for leisure flights performed in calm clear skies, with the moon providing an eerie lighting.
And for a journey from A to B, at night, the flight should be IFR.
And if an IFR flight can't be made safely under prevailing meteorological conditions, then the flight should be made through an airline.

Luc Lion 1st Mar 2019 18:34

Mach Tuck, you lost me.
Whom was Mr Sala the guest of ?
And who paid the flight ?
I read interviews of the agent where he stated that he bore the whole costs of the flight.
And I understand that whoever hired the aircraft (on a dry lease) became the operator.

oggers 1st Mar 2019 19:55


Originally Posted by EXDAC (Post 10403978)
Please explain in a bit more detail why he could not fly an N reg aircraft at night on his FAA PPL. The argument put forward before was that he could not do so because he had no night rating on his base UK licence. Now you say he couldn't do it even with a UK night rating.

Because, as S Works explained, his EASA medical restricted him to daytime. He had a piggyback FAA private certificate based on his UK licence and all restrictions on the base licence apply.

meleagertoo 1st Mar 2019 22:43

The bottom line of all this is that despite all the denial merchant/naysayers' rather ludicrous and pathetic attempts to excuse this as being about misunderstandings and misapprehensions of the rules it is abundantly clear that here we have an utterly lawless unlicenced PPL prepared to break any and every rule that gets in his way regardless of ratings, certificates or anything else in order to earn a few quid. Plus habitual hirers willing to employ him and his ilk on a regular basis.
Does anyone believe previous arrangenemts with Henderson were significantly different in legality?
Does anyone actually believe Ibbotson wasn't paid to carry out this job? Really?
Does anyone believe this flight even has a hint, the merest smidgeon of 'cost sharing'about it to apply a veneer of legality about it? Or that it would make it acceptable if it did?
Does anyone believe for a second that the agent didn't know full well that this was a totally buckshee arrangement, or that he hadn't knowingly contracted dozens, if not scores of these illegal trips before?
Does anyone seriously believe that this isn't the merest tiny tip of a huge iceberg of parasitic fake commercial operations going on in full public view with no effort whatsoever being made to stop it?
Wake up!
Get real people!
Puhleese!

There's an elephant in our Cessna 150 that is shattering the public's opinion of GA.
We need to do something about this!

positiverate20 1st Mar 2019 23:38


Originally Posted by meleagertoo (Post 10404291)
The bottom line of all this is that despite all the denial merchant/naysayers' rather ludicrous and pathetic attempts to excuse this as being about misunderstandings and misapprehensions of the rules it is abundantly clear that here we have an utterly lawless unlicenced PPL prepared to break any and every rule that gets in his way regardless of ratings, certificates or anything else in order to earn a few quid. Plus habitual hirers willing to employ him and his ilk on a regular basis.
Does anyone believe previous arrangenemts with Henderson were significantly different in legality?
Does anyone actually believe Ibbotson wasn't paid to carry out this job? Really?
Does anyone believe this flight even has a hint, the merest smidgeon of 'cost sharing'about it to apply a veneer of legality about it? Or that it would make it acceptable if it did?
Does anyone believe for a second that the agent didn't know full well that this was a totally buckshee arrangement, or that he hadn't knowingly contracted dozens, if not scores of these illegal trips before?
Does anyone seriously believe that this isn't the merest tiny tip of a huge iceberg of parasitic fake commercial operations going on in full public view with no effort whatsoever being made to stop it?
Wake up!
Get real people!
Puhleese!

There's an elephant in our Cessna 150 that is shattering the public's opinion of GA.
We need to do something about this!

Exactly, maybe now the public will themselves seek out legitimate operators (whom might finally see some fruit for their labours) The strict adherence to the relevant rules and the cost implications thereof has put legitimate operators at a substantial disadvantage to those exploiting the grey area- a grey area that has often been too easily navigated by VFR pilots holding a PPL. I wonder if many realise the sheer amount of documentation (rules, multitude of policies, insurance, worthiness etc.) that genuine operators have to maintain and keep current.

Unfortunately, in this case, the grey area proved to be the undoing of this flight, in more ways than one. Hopefully the conclusions of the investigation into this tragedy will shed some light, provide clarity to all, and prevent all involved in aviation from getting lost in the mist of uncertainty going forward.

EXDAC 2nd Mar 2019 03:33


Originally Posted by oggers (Post 10404150)
Because, as S Works explained, his EASA medical restricted him to daytime. He had a piggyback FAA private certificate based on his UK licence and all restrictions on the base licence apply.

Actually S-Works said "He was colourblind and had a specific licence restriction to Day Time Flying ONLY."

Was the restriction on his UK PPL or on his EASA medical? I believe the distinction is important in terms of limitations/restriction that are rolled over to the FAA PPL.


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:00.


Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.