….interesting how? This exactly demonstrates why this mess (and you are quite right it is a mess) will merely reflect inwardly at Gatwick. First of all CAA enforcements are going to do what exactly? stick pins in a straw effigy? We probably all agree the situation that relates to this flight, we will probably read about it a year later from the Branch and in the meantime the pilot will clearly be the scapegoat by anyone investigating, which would need to be the police because unless they have some other interest in aviation the CAA are going to enforce what exactly? A football club, football agent are affected how? They probably wouldn't even respond to the voicemail.

Yet I suspect anyone else not involved in this accident might simply quote the CAA's own guidance in defence of similar actions. You can read them in CAP1590 and this summary here:-
https://www.caa.co.uk/General-aviati...aring-flights/

I'm not sure who is sat around the table when these things get written but they are not the sharpest. Just see if you can spot the utter muddle in this and do you think that brighter minds might somehow manage to create a structure that sees the items included in Annual costs get rolled into the rental fee that suddenly become Direct costs.. or indeed if you rent an aircraft from a flying club their rental fee includes elements of annual costs? What happens if the flying club aircraft is owned by the pilot? and so on... You hit the nail on the head it is a mess and an entirely predictable one. That is causes a huge number of accidents I don't think it does but having had a high profile accident the nonsense of the situation is now of focus.

Do you mean increased regulation or increased enforcement of existing regulation? The latter costs money which someone--- taxpayer or the regulated--- will have to pay. Conversations within Government are likely. There may be Parliamentary interest.

The big change will be when someone realises that they are going to lose £15M.

It will be the big organisations that will stop their footballers and jockeys flying in anything that isn't part of an AOC operation and probably with two pilots in a perf A aircraft.

In the end it is the insurance companies that will make the rules and make people stick to them.

That is a funny one and one that has been raised before.

Case 1 - I rent an aircraft from a club or owner and my 'cost share' can be calculated on that cost which does include the full hourly cost of the direct and indirect costs
Case 2. - I use my own aircraft so suddenly the hourly rate reduces from £200 to around £80-100 or so.

Of course, what I could do is to buy an aircraft, set up a company to operate it and rent it back to me at the higher rate. Does it matter if the hourly rate my own company charges me includes admin fees and other indirect costs that puts a £172 to £400 per hour, if the market will bear it?

""Of course, what I could do is to buy an aircraft, set up a company to operate it and rent it back to me at the higher rate. Does it matter if the hourly rate my own company charges me includes admin fees and other indirect costs that puts a £172 to £400 per hour, if the market will bear it?""

Without prejudice on my behalf and in no way accusing anyone, how else could it work in the Jockey, Grey charter world?

Technology is a great enabler, including the amazing ability to record moving images and some how make them available to others around the world.


2018 seemed a world away and here some salesman called Grant Shapps (50ish mins in) who is from the UK talks about the advantages of deregulation and the headline for the issues are labelled as "challenges to adoption".

You can hear 30mins of Q&A it doesn't seem the great and the good are that oblivious. No.1 question (1hr 10m ish) is about the passenger..."How do passengers with no experience about aviation know what is safe or not...." Oh the irony..

Technology a great enabler and

"How do passengers with no experience about aviation know what is safe or not...." Oh the irony..[/QUOTE]

Well, once upon a time, in days of old there once was a telly series " Rogue Traders ". Let`s get Matt Allwright to impersonate a football player, he is too tall to pass off as a jockey, and take to the skies in a light plane with one of his traders from his hall of fame. That might do the trick.

Forget his politics he sounds like a cheap salesman in that video and his view on medicals was borderline idiotic because by extrapolation of his view nobody needs either medical, licence or any other checks or balance.

Chronos hits the nail on the head - just how difficult would it be to mystery shop those providing cost sharing flights?? Those whose remit it is are maxed out and someone needs to call time.

I can't see much to criticise in that clip of Grant Shapps, to be honest - I'll re-listen but didn't hear any dismissal of medicals. Not sure I can face listening to the whole 1hr 40 mins of it. I'm not terribly sure that this aspect of the discussion is relevant to the thread. Maybe time to start a new one devoted to Wingly Vs AOC? I've no idea about Mr Shapps or his track record but I do know that he's the best advocate GA has in government and for that reason, in general, I would listen to his views favourably. Anyway, let's find another thread for this aspect of GA and standing on this particular soapbox?

Its not a soap box its incredulity. Remember this film is from November 2018 and not only is it incredible that it is the regulator that is the host but that having taken the various sales pitches the Q&A has no guidance, clarity, engagement from those who are going to provide oversight. There is nothing. Q&A from 1m10 is about the risk to the passenger, and what he may or may not know. The answer given is dominated by the cost sharing platform representatives and nothing from regulators. The platforms will try and explain and highlight a variety of points to the passengers but they accept that things are not very adequate in that regard, yet it seems that despite the acceptance of risk and the ability for those not acting in the spirit of cost sharing, the road ahead is we will carry on regardless and I heard nothing from the regulator(s). i.e. might have been a good idea for EASA to say "we are going to do random mystery shopping to ensure things are as they should be..." For example.

There is a complete muddle about fixed/variable costs - why? and yet the pilot can pay 0.000001% of the flight etc. Its just so random. Which brings us to 1m 20min in and Shapps talking of data and medicals. The logic is just flawed where the view articulated is that lets look at the data, yet were it isn't available then first de-regulate then after deregulation prove a safety case for future regulation. So in some ways with this accident they have what they wanted but I'm not entirely sure it looks very intelligent nor what the public, who in this case is a victim, expected.

I respect your view but am going to consider this for another thread. I think we all agree that extra hours generally makes for better skills and better skills lead to safer operation in GA/ PPL flying. I am also unconvinced that because I am over 50 (just!) that I need an AME to look at me annually to tell me I'm not going to die of heart failure at the controls. It's an interesting debate but unrelated, really, to the subject of this thread IMHO. I shall await the AAIB conclusions on the DI/ Sala flight and until they are published, this thread is getting a bit random.

ShropshirePilot, I disagree that more hours always = better skills. In theory yes. Not always in practice. I know 200-300hr ppl's who I feel safer with in the air than 5k+hr CPL's. I might fly 5x less than a similarly employed pilot, yet do more instrument flying and more take-offs and approaches, purely due to the nature of the job. Some pilots claim 10k hrs but they spend 5-8hrs in the cruise each flight just monitoring, which clocks up lots of hours but limited actually handling experience. In 5 hours I can carry out numerous joins to up to 10+ ILS and 10 Radar approaches. These can be totally IMC and down to minima. Risk is increased with a lack of experience, yes, but don't get hung up about hours being the be all and end all. The pilot of the accident aircraft had a fair few hours, unfortunately just not of the type of hours required for the flight he elected to take that night.

It's a fair point and well made, but I did say "I think we all agree that extra hours generally makes for better skills".

DI clearly lacked the requisite skills for his final mission.... despite hours at the controls

If you were to read post no 1689, you may perhaps be persuaded to change your mind.
Here is an extract from the link in that post.
"I recognise the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. It may well be necessary to ensure that people are properly covered when they go flying. An element of caveat emptor is involved. Someone who is not a pilot and goes private flying should first check whether the pilot is insured and that they are not invalidating their own insurance cover. If a company hires an aeroplane to someone, it has a responsibility to ensure that that person is competent and has the necessary insurance cover. I should like to see common sense applied to those matters rather than further regulation.

All of us who are engaged in aviation in Britain know that the number one priority is safety, the number two priority is safety and the number three priority is safety. The Royal Air Force trained me, and I can assure my hon. Friend that safety is the number one interest of all of us engaged in aviation, because our lives are at risk."
The above are the words of Gerald Howarth.

Not really: that's dated 8th May 2001 - it's a fine piece of parliamentary debate, & sound words by Mr Howarth, but Shapps wasn't a member of parliament until May 2005, so what has it to do with him?

He may have had hours but he was totally unqualified and unlicensed to carry out that flight. If you go back a couple of pages and look at the picture of his licence he was a PPL limited to day only flight.

He knowingly broke the rules and was responsible for not only his own death but that of an otherwise innocent passenger who had been ignorant of detailed arrangements. No amount of 'nod and a wink- it goes on all the time' will change those facts - unpalatable though they may be.

Ibbotson should never have 'elected' to take that flight.

Yes of course, who could reasonably argue with that.

The question that really matters is, why did he.

If that is in response to:

"The question that really matters is, why did he. "

It would suggest money motive. But others have suggested his financial plight might have been brought about by his bug for flying.
Could the answer not be, the opportunity to fly was simply irresistible. That which is so common to many affected by the bug, he just jumped to grab any opportunity to fly. And that affliction is sadly, the ailment that divides, those who do it to earn a living and those who do it for personal reasons. It is such a shame that he failed to cross that divide. He would then have had the opportunity to discover what the job really entailed.