@ runway30

There's no way to "ban/regulate" these unfortunate happenings.

Two other things come to mind;
a) About 1200 build and about 250 went down.

b) These long span but short cord wings are very efficient at altitude but not so good for ice.
What was that other aircraft that had the exact same issues with long span and short cord wings constantly icing over? ? The ATR if my mind is not letting me down. Most where finally sold to warmer climates.

If there is something to look into, it is the icing certification.

I may not be up to date with the latest legislation but I thought with cost sharing the pilot had to pay at least 50% and there was a maximum all up weight permitted for such a flight. Perhaps someone will point us to the latest legislation?

Better regulation by the relevant aviation authority but this means more infrastructure and staff = extra money required although I agree it's difficult to police. That said I believe CAA issued a leaflet some years ago about this issue so the passengers were more informed.

Without prejudice to this accident I always say a good yardstick is how you'd feel about next of kin being a passenger on a flight. If my son had called me on the phone and asked for advice about a flight such as this I would strongly warn against and advise him to hotac and go with a well known budget airline to Bristol and get a cab to Cardiff.

Also on this type of flight there is usually the human factor element of the pilot being under pressure to complete the mission. Non aviators often do not understand that flights sometimes have to be cancelled due weather etc. It's best to explain right from the onset that it might not go ahead and ask the passenger(s) what their plan B is. This primes them up if you have to cancel on the day.

Search google for ORS4 No.1274. It won't let me post URLs.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. If you allow part-time pilots to take passengers into unfamiliar territory in unfamiliar conditions in the majority of these older a/c and add the element of time pressure and/or payment, then anyone on this board, PPL or CPL, who flies these genre of aircraft will know exactly what can happen.

If it was a Wingly transaction - quite possible but not confirmed, they have the following on their website:

EU safety regulations only permit cost-shared flights by private individuals, if the direct cost (i.e. cost directly incurred in relation to the flight, e.g. fuel, airfield charges, rental fee for an aircraft) are shared between all parties, including the pilot. Cost-shared flights shall not have an element of profit. If a flight is not a cost-shared flight in accordance with EU safety regulations, the flight will be qualified as a commercial flight and commercial air operation rules will apply.

The cost-shared flight will be conducted under the sole responsibility of the pilot under the applicable regulation for non-commercial flights with light aircraft by private pilots. It is also the pilot’s responsibility to ensure the flight is insured for flights with passengers. See the Insurance page: https://en.wingly.io/index.php?page=...page=insurance

Bad weather conditions are a primary reason for accidents in non-commercial General Aviation flights with light aircraft. Weather conditions can change quickly, as a result the pilot may cancel the flight. Therefore, the day before the actual flight, the pilot should inform the passenger of the weather forecast regarding the feasibility of the flight. The presence of the passenger on the day of the flight and their expectations that it will take place, shall not make the pilot reluctant to cancel a flight.

I try to stick to the facts and can see this with an open mind and ask many questions, but we "forumgang" can not be the pilots Judge.
Facts are pretty well known by now. The front was predicted and actual.
Type of aircraft for this type of flight is problematic too. => See point "b" of previous post.
All the rest is paperweight for the courtroom.

Of course Wingly is based on EU oversight and this was an FAA, US-registered aircraft operating in EU airspace

"Carrying responsibility" ¿ Or not ?
 

Which brings me, at least, back to my previous post re Cork accident.

There was an extremely long drawn out and meticulous investigation there.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has yet borne any legal responsibility whatsoever for a case which involved a regular scheduled flight, flown by an EU carrier (well "sort of") between 2 member states without any of the more obvious elements of danger which have been highlighted here.

Is there any reason, a priori, to think that this case will be different.

Oh my goodness. Was there ever such few words that have run through the minds of a pilot as they wished they were 'down there' rather than 'up here'?

I have a feeling that "cost sharing" on the road in that way might be frowned upon by the authorities.

Spec for aircraft says it had no ADS-B, no suprise for that

The issue of Wingly was covered in an earlier thread under 'Instructors and Examiners'

As Whopity stated:

The following statement is from the CAA's website and authored by Tony Rapson Head of GAD
Quote:
Opportunities for UK private pilots to clock-up more flying time have greatly increased with the emergence over the last few years of online services such as Wingly and Coavmi. For a fee, these companies offer to connect general aviation pilots with passengers who are willing to share the costs of a recreational flight - fuel, landing fees etc. Until recently, pilots could only share those costs with friends or fellow flying club members, who all had to chip in.
I have an email from Dianne Park at the Air Regulation Enforcement Dept in which she states that Wingly is perfectly legal.

Other countries like France have applied a bit more common sense than the UK CAA and specified pilot experience requirements for such flights.

Whopity goes on the state that the contribution from the pilot need only be one pence.

Like Fireflybob, I had originally thought that it was cost sharing equally divided (1/2. 1/3, 1/4) until corrected by Whopity, who seems to be credible source over the years on PPRUNE.

Where did you get the idea that they had no ModeC on this aircraft?

Someone mentioned earlier that he was on an IFR plan.
What height would they allow him down to around there whilst remaining IFR? I was just there yesterday but can't say I looked at that information other than MSA at EGJB was around 1500' in the North and West.
The ILS into EGJB starts at 2000' and he wasn't far from the IAF. Around 15nm or so from EGJB.
Surely he wasn't planning to cross the Channel at MSA?

I think the discussion with ATC about the decent will shed a lot of light on this. The guys are usually really good and would potentially query the choice as it's odd.

If he was VFR.... My law knowledge regarding single engine ops is a bit patchy, but I believe there is no commercial vfr night ops for single engine piston. However, do these rules apply to N registered aircraft?

It's upsetting to think that I was sitting down to enjoy a nice meal, with a brand new light business jet sitting on the apron, while this was all unfolding for him.
A few thousand more £ and he'd be training with his mates in Cardiff right now. Footballers are regular customers of mine.
We were certainly available at the time.

If the agent organised this for him, he needs to be strung up.
​​​​​​

​​​​

And if the Agent does indeed own the aircraft as reported then I suspect that is exactly what happened. A private flight and poor Sala had no idea about the risk he was taking in accepting the "kind" offer from someone he knew.

I should think losing a £15m premiership footballer like this would be concentrating his mind somewhat