BBC reporting that David Ibbotson studied for a CPL at Cranfield but never completed the course.

AOPA have issued a statement highlighting the dangers of using ‘grey charters’ clearly pointing to the role David Henderson played in organising the flight.



https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-47417434

So why did David Henderson pass him the job to fly Sala home at night?

Luc Lion

How are you going to establish the number of hours of illegal flying because nobody is going to admit to it? I’m sure we can recall accidents that many on here think were illegal but were never labelled as such.

I doubt there was any “malicious intent” on the part of any of those who played a part in this tragedy.

To answer your question it is relatively easy to reconstruct the days and weeks leading up to this accident.. So far no one else has come forward on this thread to admitting to having flown N264DB so perhaps it is safe to surmise the aircraft was rented from the owners on a dry lease by one person.

The only pilot linked to that aircraft is David Henderson who refuses to talk and has made efforts to silence press reports to no avail.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a438a9e17.jpeg


Given the agents admission that he was their regular pilot it is safe to assume that his log books and those of the aircraft will be scrutinised by the CAA. I imagine they will also want to look at bank transfers between the parties involved. The pilots family will also be questioned on how when and where he flew that aircraft as will ground staff at Gamston.

The movements of the N264DB leading up to the accident will also be cross referenced to those who paid for the flights etc.

In short it is easy to build a picture of how and when and for who the aircraft was flown for.

The AAIB had an opportunity to recover the aircraft but declined so we can assume they know enough to surmise it was not a mechanical fault that caused the accident.

It is worth mentioning that this ‘grey area’ of flying extends to the movement of jockeys around racecourses in the UK.

There was a recent accident at Haydock Park that just luck on the day prevented fatalities.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/video/horse...he-racecourse/
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9c5198021.jpeg

A definition of gross negligence manslaughter

The test to be applied to determine whether a person has committed gross negligence manslaughter was articulated by Lord Woolf LCJ in R v Adomako [1994] UKHL 6, who set out the five elements required:

1. a duty of care owed by the defendant to the victim
2. a breach of that duty
3. a risk that the defendant’s conduct could cause death
4. evidence that the breach of duty caused the victim’s death
5. the defendant’s conduct fell so far below the standards of a reasonable person in that situation that they should be labelled grossly negligent and deserving of criminal punishment.

I would be looking at three,four and five on that list.

Sadly we no longer have Flying Lawyer on here to offer an opinion since he was elevated to the judiciary a couple of years ago.

US piggyback licences are issued on the back of UK licences and their restrictions.

In the case of this pilot his eyesight prevented him obtaining a UK night rating because he was colour blind.

So he could not fly at night end of story.

Other countries such as Australia do not allow their residents fly a home based N reg without changing it to a VH and complying with local licensing requirements.(As I know from importing a PA32 to Perth)

The use of N reg aircraft in the UK has mushroomed in recent years because it is a cheaper less regulated and less scrutinised method of flying.

Sorry Oggers ; my mistake.

I was looking for the regulation that construes FAR 91 flights organised and paid for by the operator and flown by a hired commercial pilot for the purpose of transporting the operator or his guests free of charge.
Actually, FAR 91.501(b)(4) describes that for large aeroplanes while there is no equivalent for small aeroplanes and no need for this equivalent because it is authorised by the constitutional principle "what isn't explicitly forbidden is permissible".

FAR 91.501(b)(4) is needed (beyond the constitutional principle) for authorising these operations on large aeroplanes because FAR 125.1 (Certification and Operations of "large" aeroplanes, Applicability) is stated in such a way that it applies by default when no other regulation supersedes it.

On a very wet day and a wet strip in weather that was not exactly VFR!

Does this look wet to you?


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5c1bae133.jpeg