This one I imagine:

Airman Query - Aviation Database - AviationDB

In the event of a successful ditching how long would a PA-46 Malibu remain afloat?

Um, so, should I have been avoiding the Aurigny Trislanders? (I always found it rather touching that the reverse of the safety sheet bore a diagram of the aircraft controls, as though one was supposed to clamber over the seats and take over in the event of pilot incapacitation...)

That's not what I said. I said it was my admittedly SLF perception as regards the safety of passengers.The reason being that as pax we were issued safety harnesses, the pilot made sure we had properly attached them and understood their use, gently insisted their spouse wore one too despite protestations, and generally seemed to be paying due care and attention. The G-reg pilot legged it to the plane amid oncoming fog and (again to my untrained eye) took off in a tearing hurry, no flotation device or explanation of any kind.

The regulatory side of things is what I'm trying to get my head around.

Excuse my ignorance again. Both the N-reg in the accident and the N-reg I flew in over the presumed accident site came from French airspace and were flying in CI airspace. Is this unusual? Would it be typical for non-US based pilots to have the appropriate FAA privileges in this part of the world, or does nobody look at the paperwork too closely (again, it seems to me there are people flying around the CI like this all the time).

[sorry, cross-post with @Edward Teach ]

If, by some miracle you did manage to carry out a text-book ditching at night into a relatively calm winter sea, my guess is 10-15 minutes. My other guess is that this was not a text-book ditching.

That is up to you. He asks advice... I never fly on the single engine, single pilot helicopters from Nice to Monaco for that reason. Even though Jean Pierre might be a 60 or so ex Military hot shot.. ;)

That one is the worst reference and a long time outdated copy, even pulled before data protection rules closed access to personal data, of the FAA database: https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/.

Sorry for my ignorance, did not look it up - is CI airspace UK airspace? The answer to @Eutychus may be easy, many FAA 61.75 holder are not aware of EASA not being the country of issuance of their original license ;-).

Indeed, so far there doesn't appear to be anything at all text-book about this incident.

We are back in the familiar territory of an aircraft evaporating without trace.

This time, the area is in the middle of Europe. Tomnod is dead and the RAF have Reapers in Lincolnshire which are still in Lincolnshire (or maybe the Middle East, of course). This is an organisational mess. This should not be happening.

Ugh, you wouldn't get me into a helicopter unless there was a really good reason. Not enough redundancy.

I appreciate this is a judgement call. From my personal humble SLF perspective hopping between France and the Channel Islands on SE planes in daytime in mild, calm weather during which some land is always in sight appears acceptably safe - not least because the practice is widespread.

What this discussion is teaching me is that beneath this simple perception lies a veritable thicket for us SLF of poorly perceived relative risks, poorly understood qualifications/licences/certifications/insurance cover, and very unclear arrangements regarding paying passengers depending on whether charter is spelled with a small c or a big C. All of which, apart from loss of life, has the potential to go pear-shaped very quickly if a passenger is valuable in some way in addition to their intrinsic value as a human being, as is the case in this incident.

+ ISLE OF MAN

You don't necessarily need two pilots. A decent airplane, a qualified/rated/experienced pilot and proper procedures in place. Lets not go down the route that single pilot ops are inherently dangerous.

Multi engine for the correct conditions?. Two crew for the correct conditions?. I know many pilots who fly single pilot regularly all over the place quite safely. Some of them have even flown in and out of the Channel Islands on charters. Hard to believe, I know, but it's true. Non of them crashed either.

Nothing wrong with helicopters. Safe when maintained correctly and flown within the correct flight envelope. At least that's what I tell myself every time I go to work.

I'm fairly sure VSKP was maintained correctly and being flown within the correct flight envelope! As was LN-OJF, G-REDL and G-TIGK.

Search called off at 15:15 z

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46992612



Twitter feed from Guernsey Police:

Spot on. Ultimate responsibility is with the PIC and operator. He may have delegated the admin but he still had 100% of the responsibility to check it was in order.

So in due course we will know if there was anything illegal about this flight, but I doubt we'll ever know what was the sequence of events prior or after the flight into icing conditions I wonder how hard and expensive it would be to have flight data recorders installed in single engine GA planes, when they are fitted out with (part) electronic cockpits, possibly with a locating beacon. We would get so many more valuable lessons. The current FDRs are probably too expensive, but it may become cheaper with the current technology?

Whilst I would be inclined to agree with McRae having a scant regard to the aviation regulations I am not sure the same can be said about Graham Hill.

Graham Hill was a High Risk character but I think he was quite cautious in his flying, after his accident there were a lot of well known names who were shocked that he died in a plane crash because he was such a careful pilot.

From different stories on different shades of the accident reaching me from different sources, I actually fear we may end up not pleasantly surprised by the pieces.

I equipped my aircraft with an automatic digital CVR when I renewed the audio panel and it was a £20 investment. The crucial point for FDR is not the recording, that could be done by the same £20 device. The point will be getting the sensors into the aircraft. Given the EAA initiatives in the US, I believe they could do it fast. Given our National Aviation Agencies and their political shark basin together with EASA, it may take us 10 years.

So reading the CI SAR report there, its fairly obvious i would say that the plane probably ditched and has sunk and is now sitting at the bottom of the channel somewhere, depth ranges around there from 10 metres to 48 metres deep

Try 100 meters just north of Alderney.

i-Boating : Free Marine Navigation Charts & Fishing Maps

I would love to agree with you but I'm afraid, you are completely wrong. This was lesson 1:01 on the tragic effects of get-home-itis.

Excellent post.

Very comprehensive.

It's not about what went wrong...most of the pilots here can guess that. The question is, why was he commanding this flight in the first place?

Anyone posting a name might want to make sure they have a good lawyer first.

Hardly. I was plugged in on Luton Radar that evening when the phone line from Heathrow rang to ask if I was working N6645Y, it had disappeared off radar. We had been in the clear but later went out in fog. The last visibility Hill was given for Elstree was 800m with no instrument let down #gethomeitis. There were three fatal accidents that night.

Hill’s FAA IR had lapsed, so had his UK IMC rating; his UK PPL was still valid. The aeroplane’s US registration had been cancelled three years previously; it was unregistered and stateless.

Needless loss of life as will be this case.

Will anything come of the results of the investigation?
 

I ask this in view of my interest in the Cork Airport Accident, much closer to 8 years ago than the 5 which I suggested in a previous post.

I quote from the central part of the press release issued by the Irish Board after that accident:

The Investigation identified the following factors as being significant:


The approach was continued in conditions of poor visibility below those required.
The descent was continued below the Decision Height without adequate visual reference being acquired.
Uncoordinated operation of the flight and engine controls when go-around was attempted.
The engine power-levers were retarded below the normal in-flight operational range, an action prohibited in flight.
A power difference between the engines became significant when the engine power levers were retarded below the normal in-flight range.
Tiredness and fatigue on the part of the Flight Crew members.
Inadequate command training and checking.
Inappropriate pairing of Flight Crew members, and Inadequate oversight of the remote Operation by the Operator and the State of the Operator.
Systemic deficiencies at the operational, organisational and regulatory levels were also identified by the Investigation. Such deficiencies included pilot training, scheduling of flight crews, maintenance and inadequate oversight of the operation by the Operator and the State of Registration.

In accordance with the Investigation’s objective of preventing future accidents and incidents, a total of 11 Safety Recommendations have been made to various entities as follows:
• Four are made to the European Commission Directorate responsible for Commercial Air Transport regarding Flight Time Limitations, the role of the ticket seller, the improvement of safety oversight and the oversight of Operating Licences.
• Three are made to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regarding the number of successive instrument approaches that can be conducted to an aerodrome in certain meteorological conditions, the syllabus for appointment to Commander and the process by which Air Operator Certificate (AOC) variations are granted.
• Two are made to the Operator, Flightline S.L., regarding its operational policy and training.
• One is made to Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Aérea (AESA), the Spanish Civil Aviation Regulatory Authority, regarding oversight of air carriers.
• One is made to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), regarding the inclusion of the approach capability of aircraft/flight crew on flight plans.

I have highlighted those aspects above which most interest7worry me though they may not be the most salient.

¿ Can anyone assure me that these recommendations have been taken seriously by the bodies mentioned ?

I recall clearly that when the report was published it seemed apparent that the Spanish authorities were more than a little lenient on the multiplicity of Spanish-based companies involved at Cork

So what are the requirements?
 

If I suspect what is happening, exactly? All the flights I've been on like this were arranged by my client and I've never seen any of the relevant paperwork. I have a good relationship with the client and I would like to make sure, discreetly, that they are doing things by the book, for their sakes as well as mine.

My concerns differ for my various flights, too. On one, the concern was safety-related: as I said the takeoff amid incoming fog was over-hurried to my mind but I am not in the pilot's seat and not well-placed to provide anything other than an impression. On the other, the concern is regulatory. From what I'm reading here, I'm far from convinced the pilot of the N-registered aircraft had the appropriate certification for the flight, even though their passanger safety procedures appeared good.

I really can't tell whether either operation was 100% legal, but I don't have any compelling evidence and deem the type of arrangement I was invited to use was not by any means unusual in that part of the world. I had never given its legality a second thought before this event and this discussion and I suspect there are many others like me out there.

I also appreciate there may be some resentment on the part of full-time professionals about the "uberisation" of non-commercial flying. I suffer from this in my own way in my own line of business but would like to think I can distiguish criticism of unfair but not illegal competition from actual rule-breaking that would merit a call to the authorities.

So now my questions are:

- assuming I have assessed the technical risks of boarding a single-engine piston aircraft to hop to a Channel Island on business on a nice day and deemed them acceptable...
-> what are the minimum regulatory requirements a) for the pilot to make such a flight b) for them to legitimately take on board a paying passenger such that in the event of an incident, it could reasonably be argued that such a flight was legal?

For many jobs there is a minimum amount of paperwork or certification to be supplied (or at least declared) to the client. What does this list consist of here? What should SLF be asking for as a minimum?

I totally agree with you “Viking” that "they are either legal Charters run by companies with a valid Air Operating Certificate or illegal Charters". I think the point of phrase "grey" is that, while totally illegal, you average SLF (esp the well heeled type) has not the foggiest idea about the legal position of any flight and has no idea whether an operation is legal or illegal and such ops can easily be made to seem legit. I know there have been many cases in the past where the CAA have prosecuted pilots for illegally operating public transport flights – I’m sure to the recipients of those flights it may well have seemed “above board” and maybe even “a really good deal” - hence my comment about “If it seems too good to be true...”.

I’m really cautious with the tar brush tho as I have come across some truly dedicated Charter pilots and their Charter operators and they work really hard to make it work brilliantly in a really tough business environment. But criminals (which is what we are referring to when using the term “grey”- and I am in no way suggesting that this really sad event was such a situation – it may be a far more sad but totally innocent scenario) have a real skill in seeming legit. After all, that’s precisely how any pro criminal makes their money! Hope that helps “Viking” – with a monkier like that – hate to upset you too much! :\ Oh, and H 'n' H is ususally broke - so can't make money "legit" and seems the "black market" for biros lifted from my employer is really flat right now. I've had both of biros in my pocket for months - but no-one down my local is interested in taking them off my hands! :(

"Eutychus", really pleased to see that you are asking such pertinant questions to protect yourself! I'll defer to others better in the know to answer your question above re "evidence" as I'm a bit out of date now. If more people asked for such information, dubious operators would be put out of business. Sadly, such operators will bank on you being a very, very, very small minority - but for you own safety, "Good on yer!".

Responsibilities
 

O
 

Thank you for calling out that key point. I'd just used the title text from the AAIB report. On checking I see the registration has since been reallocated. Goes to show that as mentioned in many posts above - if the aircraft looks the part, and the pilot talks the talk, why would the average person see anything as being 'risky' and start asking pointed questions?

obviously not the correct place to start a discussion on helicopter accidents but you've stated 4 there. Yes there are more, mechanical failures account for so many. Pilot error a few. but put in context with the amount of helicopter flights taking place around the globe on a daily basis. Anyway, we digress. We can save this for another thread in Rotorheads I'm sure. As a full time helicopter pilot I have to trust it won't happen to me if I do all I possibly can to mitigate the risks. ie esp when spending hours searching the English Channel for downed fixed wing aircraft.