Err are we forgetting the fact that cost sharing flights are OK even if the pilot pays just 1p?

So dodge pilot pays his 1p and rents an aircraft from his company at the wrong price. Or if you really wanted to be Charlie big time you could rent the aircraft owned by an offshore trust with nominee directors. Now how are you left searching for beneficial owners?? But that is to digress

So dodge pilot gets pinged by authority he says actually he was aware he was paying the wrong price for the PA46 but would you believe it the passenger was often happy to share a ride with him (they both share a common love of horse racing/ football/ motor racing/ business and often find themselves at the same place/time) but itbwas the passenger who insisted they fly in this overly expensive machine. Pax is happy to confirm same nonsense because he enjoys the cheap travel..

Or company gets paid the money from pax. Pilot pays in his bunch of 1p. At the time of being pinged you say thanks very much for highlighting the error and we issued a credit note to the pax.

I don't think we are, but you appear to be forgetting that the case we're discussing involves the N register. In which case the requirement is not only for strict equal sahres but no valuable consideration (eg hotel bills etc) and crucially the Common Purpose clause.

So in future maybe the determined will fly G reg? Or just transact via entitles that are offshore and outside of any scrutiny. Never in our lifetimes will you see aviation regulation contain reference to financial regulation because that really would just create more complications that aviation authority will have no experience or expertise and that usually merely opens up loop holes.

Recently we can read about a pilot in Ireland killing himself and photographer. The arrangement a multi year affair. The rules are already in existence we just either havent been looking or have turned a blind eye...

Pittsextra, this whole incident doesn't seem to have changed anything.

"Never in our lifetimes will you see aviation regulations contain reference to financial regulations"

I don`t know what lays ahead for the little left of mine, but looking back to the days when I had to read the holy book on it there were some references to things to do with finance.Here are some of the lessons from the 2016 version of the Gospel.

“direct cost” means the cost (excluding any element of profit) directly incurred in relation to a flight, including— (a) the cost of fuel; (b) any charges payable in respect of the use of any airfield in connection with the flight; or (c) any rental or hire fees for the use of the aircraft;

“annual cost”, in relation to the operation of an aircraft, means the cost (excluding any element of profit) of keeping, maintaining and operating the aircraft over the period of one year;

Unless I am mistaken, direct cost, cost, profit are financial terms. Wallet size comes into it for weight and balance calculation and perhaps after this event it may take on a much more serious meaning and added to the Gospel as another commandment.


Schedule 1
“annual cost”, in relation to the operation of an aircraft, means the cost (excluding any element of profit) of keeping, maintaining and operating the aircraft over the period of one year;

Interesting take - I'll be sure to let the several Captains that I know who fly 747s, widebodies, etc and who also ferry singles worldwide for fun that they have unacceptable and undesirable traits for airline ops.

We all know that flying is inherently risky. The ordinary GA pilot knows it. Pilots at all levels see it as part of their skill and practice to contain, minimise or avoid known risks.

Good Business Sense is being simply mischievous in pretending that the captains he knows (or knows of) have unacceptable and undesirable traits. By definition those airline pilots make a living from avoiding known risks. Who is he to tell them that, in seeking more pilotage risks to manage, they are exhibiting an undesirable trait ? GBS’s airline pilot feels professionally satisfied when, for instance, he believes that ATOPs procedures are well calculated and based on good probabilities. He is another character as a ferry pilot and would be another character if he should strip down and dress up for the Rio Carnival.

Megan wonders why Meleagertoo characterises ferry pilots as risk takers. If MLT invites challenge here, it is in seeing them as a group; judging almost any human activity in group terms is now illegitimate, useful as it often is. In any case I would have thought that ferry pilots are scarcely herdable in the way that cabin crew or allotment gardeners might be. Perhaps it is only PC righteousness that drives GBS.

That said there can be no doubt that risks to a ferry are increased just by the facts that (1) the pilot is likely to be unfamiliar with the aircraft (2) the ATC and Met environments are likely to be either less responsive or simply non-existent en-route than in the UK and (3) the terrain is likely to offer no escape over a large part of many routes in the event of a failure that could be managed in the UK. Each of those “likely” considerations could be (rather sketchily) quantified so that, while an ordinary GA flight might offer say 1-in-10000 mortal risk to GBS’s airline captain, a trans-Atlantic ferry flight might offer him an historic risk of perhaps 1-in-200 – both ratios being shamelessly plucked from the sky. A Cessna 152 engine failure is intrinsically survivable – but not in mid-Atlantic.

Thus ferry pilots are likely to be more accepting of higher risks than most other parts of the piloting community.
QED

Where GBS's good sense runs out is assuming one can transfer this level of risk acceptance to their airline flying which is of course a wild and unsupportable assumption - and not one that I made any allusion to whatsoever.

Hi M, wrong way round - airline flying assists in the decision making on ferry flying - who would do it the other way round and where did I say that? Many of us have been doing this for forty years i.e. airlines and ferry - not sure I follow the logic on previous posts - I have a few colleagues with air to air combat time (old school) and kills and also some who have attacked heavily defended airfields ultra low level at night with cluster bombs - they are also first class airline pilots ! rgds

It is also possible (probable?) that airline, ferry and military pilots having analysed and accepted the higher risk of their 'mission', will use their skills to then reduce those risks as much as possible (not accept them blind 'it'll be alright on the night').

A professional ferry pilot is no more a risk taker than any other professional aviator. In saying that, yes they are exposed to more inherent risk than other areas of aviation, flying a FAR 23 aircraft exposes you to more risk than a FAR 25, because certification standards differ, performance capability in a multi with one engine out for example. A professional crop duster is no more a risk taker than a professional helicopter SAR crew, or what a Concorde crew were. Each of them are aware of the risks inherent in their chosen vocation and willingly accept them with due diligence applied in negating said risk the best way they can. That's what a professional does. An RPT pilot is just as much a risk taker and chancer, if you want to use that derogatory phrase, as any other, two MAX crashes bear that out, along with Concorde.

At one point in my life I spent 2,000 hours flying single engine over water far from land carrying passengers in a commercial operation, so even the regulators are risk takers and chancers by your definition.

For an insight into a professional ferry pilot read "Ocean Flying" by Louise Sacchi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Sacchi

Surely a professional (in the sense of doing the job for a living = paid) ferry pilot should also hold a CPL?

That's a good point, but it may be time to mention now, that holding a CPL (especially from what I've seen of many low hour UK CPL holders) doesn't necessarily prove someones ability to conduct safe, efficient and sensible flying along the lines of single-engine, single crew operations when you have to think for yourself and adapt in an ever changing envoironment. Evidently our hero Mr Ibbotson seems to have struggled on this occasion, but that's not the point I'm making.
When you have the likes of small UK operators not touching people with under 300 hours to fly single crew survey work etc, yet Ryanair will take you with a little over 200hrs, that goes some way to demonstrate how lacking our CPL standards and training really are - for single pilot operation. There are few people I would trust with say flying a family member across the UK in something like a PA28, and would be more inclined to have an experienced PPL whos been at it years take them, than some idiot who trained in Poland/Sweden on the cheap with all the bells and whistles and ticks in boxes who can't fly for toffee. Just my 2p worth as someone who's done a fair bit of single engine flying for private owners, given plenty of instruction, and am now working at a small UK regional.

Not sure of what point you're making, Ibbotson N264DBs pilot on this flight never had a CPL or even an instrument rating. He meets your family member chauffeur 'safer' criteria of being a several thousand hour PPL though. So from your posting above a PPL pilot who flies under conditions they're not trained or qualified for, is safer to fly your family than a low time CPL holder trained from early hours to adhere to SOP's, weather, ATC airspace requirements etc etc.
We see relatively few accidents where the main causal factors are professional commercially qualified low hours aircrew making poor choices. However when you look at 'high' houred PPL accidents where poor decision making has been a significant factor in the event, theres more than enough examples, the one involving N264DB comes to mind.

That's quite an assumption. We should not dismiss other possibilities that are open to conjecture until facts are known.
In this grubby business nothing would surprise me.
Why has Henderson disappeared from view? It seem it's more than he's just choosing not to say owt, rather he's gone to ground. Why?