PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Accidents and Close Calls (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls-139/)
-   -   Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/617514-cardiff-city-footballer-feared-missing-after-aircraft-disappeared-near-channel-island.html)

Albatros123 23rd Jun 2019 12:43

Like many people, I have been following this with mixed opinions.

From the pilot’s perspective the pressure on Ibbotson whether self-induced or external to do this flight must have been immense. Most of us have experienced this uncertainty to fly or not fly. And I feel some empathy for him in this respect. Balanced against this is that he must have known he was going to find this flight very uncomfortable, outside of his licence privileges and probably outside of his flight experience? Anyone suitably qualified who flies the pressurised P46 aircraft would never ever have flown this trip as low as he did. It would have been a simple climb to altitude under an IFR clearance and similarly an IFR recovery at Cardiff. Hence my assessment that pressure to do this flight must have been substantial as he must have known it was going to be one of those flights that would cause, at best, significant pilot anxiety.

Moving to the organisers, the recent arrest of an alleged organiser for “Manslaughter by an Unlawful Act” was one that seems to have generated some scepticism about the CPS likelihood of a successful conviction? I didn’t know what Manslaughter by an Unlawful act meant. So I looked on the CPS web site. It seems to come down to relatively few and simple tests

What has to be proved to show this; I quote from CPS web site
“The offence is made out if it is proved that the accused intentionally did an unlawful and dangerous act from which death inadvertently resulted”

So was the act of the organiser(s) both criminal and dangerous? Criminal possibly if the organiser(s) accepted any form of fee and knew about Ibbotson’s lack of CPL, IR, night rating, lack of valid currency etc etc. And surely any charter organiser would know these details for any pilot he chose to fulfil a trip? If he didn’t that too would present an organiser in a very bad legal light.

Then was it dangerous? And “danger” has just to be the opinion of a “sober and reasonable bystander” not what the opinion of the accused was. This looks like it would a much easier test to demonstrate. Who on this forum would stand up and say this flight was safe even without the benefit of hindsight?

I think the chances of a successful prosecution outcome may be higher than others have said......


Dr Jekyll 23rd Jun 2019 19:45

The interesting thing is that the factors that made it illegal (apparently flying for pay without a CPL) and the factors that appear to have led to the crash (pilot lacking both relevant experience and instrument qualification) aren't quite the same.

Mike Flynn 23rd Jun 2019 21:18

In simplistic terms the reason this accident happened was the reluctance of the pilot to turn back and wait for the weather to improve.

Given his lack of night flying ability he should never have taken off.

They could have night stopped in Guernsey or Jersey and and arrived in Cardiff the next day.

The same applies to this accident .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46820519

Gethomeitis.

No Monday job is worth dying for on a Sunday afternoon.(Or in this case a Thursday morning)

Running out of fuel, taking short cuts across high terrain, getting caught in severe turbulence,or just entering cloud without qualifications or experience are all simple reasons why we consistently see intelligent people killing themselves.

It is all down to planning and pilot skills.






Albatros123 23rd Jun 2019 23:17


Originally Posted by Dr Jekyll (Post 10501337)
The interesting thing is that the factors that made it illegal (apparently flying for pay without a CPL) and the factors that appear to have led to the crash (pilot lacking both relevant experience and instrument qualification) aren't quite the same.

I completely agree. The lack of appropriate qualifications would have made it an illegal flight and the lack of experience an unsafe and so a dangerous flight. I think most people have reached a similar conclusion?

Question is now, what level of awareness or involvement did the organiser(s) have in both of these factors?

Hot 'n' High 24th Jun 2019 13:00


Originally Posted by Mike Flynn (Post 10501391)
.....
The same applies to this accident .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46820519

Gethomeitis.

........


While it seems that the end result is the same, I believe the background circumstances leading to these two sad events were very, very different.

All this thread points to the Sala flight breaking all sorts of rules as well as common sense from the outset and, as Albatros123 points out, most people question a range of aspects linked to the flight even before departing on the fateful Cardiff trip. Most would agree that the flight, as planned and based on crew quals/experience, quite apart from seeming to be illegal, was an accident primed to happen or, certainly, to be of “high risk”.

Having known Dave Hocking in the past, and who was so sadly involved in the Spanish accident, I’d suggest he and Simon may well have been genuinely caught out by something. I hope we can see an accident report as it will at least be some good to come out of their sad loss. Was it even something as simple as VFR converted to IFR with a mis-set altimeter leading to CFIT? Was the suspected Alternator issue a factor, particularly as Dave ran an Engineering business? Or did that lead to complacency? As a glider pilot as well, Dave would have been well aware of the risks of ridges, especially at low level. Or did that lead to complacency? Arguably, there are probably far more useful lessons to come out of Spain to prevent a repeat.

Yes, the end result is two pilots (and their pax) found themselves flying into the ground (either CFIT or uncontrolled) but it’s how they ended up there which is, I suggest, where the difference is significant. Gethomeitis? Certainly a huge factor in the Sala crash, possibly in the Spanish crash. I hope we see a Report for the latter.

But, whatever the cause, may all 4 Rest in Peace. H ‘n’ H

runway30 24th Jun 2019 18:47

I think there was another factor at play here which was fear of being found out. It is purely supposition but I think they were flying on autopilot up until the moment that ATC asks them for notification if unable to remain clear of cloud. I think at that point the autopilot is switched off to manoeuvre around cloud and the loss off control occurs. If they had disregarded ATC and continued on autopilot, assuming that Ibbotson had enough knowledge to use the boots and anti ice, they may well have survived.

I said this at the beginning, anyone involved in the procurement of Ibbotson for this flight, knowing that it would depart after dark was acting in a way that is so reckless that they must surely face a charge of manslaughter. There was much debate in the beginning as to whether Ibbotson knew that he was expected to fly the return in the dark or only found out on the day. There was clearly communication between the parties occurring on the day, it will be interesting when we discover if the forces of law and order have any records.

parkfell 25th Jun 2019 07:16

As Henderson was an experienced pilot, he would know (although unlikely to admit willingly) that an AOC operator was the only lawful way to fly Sala to & from France.
The TIMES had reported ( alleged ) that Henderson had done a number of flights for Cardiff football club. Their regular pilot? That also raises some interesting questions as to these arrangements. Did Cardiff have their own aircraft and Henderson was the company pilot? Was he qualified even for that?
No doubt when the Inquest is held all will be revealed, unless of course the CPS decide to charge anyone in which case the Inquest will be delayed until the criminal process is completed.
Off topic: the law changed following Lord Lucan 'disappearance' in 1974 when the Inquest for the nanny announced his guilt without a criminal trial first.

Pittsextra 25th Jun 2019 07:27

Whats going to more interesting is how this case might be prosecuted in that will they look at the pilot qualification to conduct his private flight (in which case what duty of care does any 3rd party have to check such qualification?) Or will there also be a focus upon cost sharing and how any reasonable defence that it may have made that element legal.

After all aside from financial transactions providing a trail - which ultimately i suspect will be key. But absent of which you suggest to a potential pax that he might give Bloggs a call to make a trip and it goes wrong essentially because he flew at night and into IMC has little to do with paying 1% or 50% or his legality to fly an N registered aircraft. It might have been reasonable for the 3rd party agent to expect the pilot not to fly in IMC or Night given his ability to survive 2000+hours before....

parkfell 25th Jun 2019 08:23

All of which will cause a feeding frenzy for M'learned friends.

Dan Winterland 25th Jun 2019 11:44

It's clear that regulations were broken. But to prove beyond reasonable doubt that breaching these was the cause of the deaths is going to be very hard. Not sure the CPS has the right charge here. I think the defendant may get away with it, but later face prosecution from the CAA.

Pittsextra 25th Jun 2019 13:14

I guess a key point in what checks and balances should be made will be reflecting upon what checks and balances authority sees fit to perform.

runway30 25th Jun 2019 20:15


Originally Posted by Dan Winterland (Post 10502485)
It's clear that regulations were broken. But to prove beyond reasonable doubt that breaching these was the cause of the deaths is going to be very hard. Not sure the CPS has the right charge here. I think the defendant may get away with it, but later face prosecution from the CAA.

I don’t think there is much of a financial trail to follow here as the money was intended to be paid after the event. You will have a statement from Willie McKay that he asked for the flight to be arranged and intended to pay for it. You will probably have records from previous flights where money has changed hands. You will have the records of Ibbotson’s spending using Henderson’s credit card.

I am presuming that Henderson had been given the job of managing the aircraft by the aircraft’s owner, he advertised himself as an aircraft manager. He would not have been doing his job if he released the aircraft without checking the qualifications of the pilot, if he was then involved in a conversation with the pilot to instruct him to conduct a flight outside of his qualifications then it makes it an easier case to prove. Henderson also advertised himself as an Air Charter Broker which makes it more difficult to put as his defence that he just put someone in contact with a friend. Anyone approaching him for a charter has a reasonable expectation that they will be put in a licenced aircraft with a qualified pilot.

it was at the point that Willie Mackay made his public announcement that he approached Henderson to arrange a charter that I decided that a manslaughter charge would have a good chance of success.

Unfortunate for the prosecution if they are depending on Willie McKay as a witness. He has already got off very leniently for harassment of Cardiff City employees, now he has been charged with two counts of fraudulent transfer of property.

WHBM 26th Jun 2019 08:06


Originally Posted by runway30 (Post 10502835)
Unfortunate for the prosecution if they are depending on Willie McKay as a witness. He has already got off very leniently for harassment of Cardiff City employees, now he has been charged with two counts of fraudulent transfer of property.

What a litany of transgressions. Even when attending the man's funeral.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-burn-cardiff/


Forfoxake 26th Jun 2019 11:03

From the BBC website today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48764955

parkfell 28th Jun 2019 22:11


Originally Posted by Dan Winterland (Post 10502485)
It's clear that regulations were broken. But to prove beyond reasonable doubt that breaching these was the cause of the deaths is going to be very hard. Not sure the CPS has the right charge here. I think the defendant may get away with it, but later face prosecution from the CAA.

Causation?

TheFiddler 1st Aug 2019 12:15

I can't post links due to my number of posts, but according to the BBC today he has failed to turn up at court.

airsound 1st Aug 2019 12:24

This one? (Actually yesterday)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49177021


airsound

The AvgasDinosaur 9th Aug 2019 11:34


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-48929607
A couple have appeared in court for posting pictures of his post mortem examination.
How sick are those two b*stards??
Be lucky
David

Jonzarno 9th Aug 2019 13:00

Utterly sickening. I’m glad the Judge has indicated that they face prison. I hope it’s a long stretch!

ShyTorque 9th Aug 2019 17:07

What were those two twisted individuals thinking? I'm sure that money came into it somewhere.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58.


Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.