Seneca V Crash

[ferrycleanup]

Hi, Does anyone have any additional information regarding this aircraft that ran out of fuel on a ferry flight in 2008. Please feel free to post but if you wish to add names, please email me the details. I am trying to contact the owner. I have had a very bad experience at the hands of a well known ferry company and I am attempting to put together a case for the relevant authorities. If you actually read the narrative, the level of incompetence shown is frightening. Also this crash was not reported to the FAA as one of the crew said as no-one was injured it didnt require that a report be submitted to the FAA. My understanding is this is an accident and as such there is a legal requirement to report this immediately because property was damaged.

Danish to English translation
AIB Information 10 / 2008
Published October 2008
16
EXPLANATION
HCLJ510-000501 Accident
Aircraft: Piper PA-34-220T Registration: N344SE
Engine: Continental TSIO-360-RB Flying: Other professions IFR
Crew: 2 - no casualties Passengers: None
Location: At Narsaq Heliport,
Greenland
Date and time: 14.04.2008 at. 1610 UTC
All times in this report are UTC.
Accident Commission of Civil Aviation and Rail (AIB) received report on the accident from Narsaq
Heliport, 14 April 2008 at. The 1640th
Flight history
Flight during which the accident occurred, was a ferry flight from Goose Bay Airport (CYYR)
Canada scheduled destination Narsarsuaq Airport (BGBW) Greenland.
Commander had planned to start from CYYR pm. 1045 and expected to land in BGBW pm. 1455,
which had an estimated flight time of 4:10 hours.
The commander reported that he had received CYYR forecast for the route from Air Nav Canada via
Woodward Aviation Services CYYR.
Aircraft fuel tanks were full at the start of CYYR, which corresponded to a workable
portfolio of 122 U.S. gallons.
AIB has meted great circle route distance of 673.8 nm. Aircraft range including 45 min
fuel reserve was specified by the manufacturer to between 812 nm and 828 nm depending on altitude.
Cl. 1105 Began commander from CYYR headed for BGGW.
Cl. 1431 Signaling commander to Gander ATC on minimum fuel and requested
priority arrival to BGBW. At this time was the aircraft itself out over
Davis Strait between Canada and the southern part of Greenland.
Cl. 1453 Signaling commander to NIL Flight Information Centre (FIC) that he had
fuel to the 1:21 hour flight and expected to reach BGBW about 1:15 hours.
Since the aircraft was not equipped with radio compass (ADF), which was required by
transit flight through NIL FIR, it was not possible for the FIC to provide
commander a radarvektor directly to BGBW.
Cl. 1506 Reported commander that he had 29 gallons of fuel remaining.
Cl. 1511 The aircraft position 59 51.73 N 048 39.91 W - 122.6 nm to BGBW.
Cl. 1515 Was the rescue helicopter prepared for departure from Qaqortoq (BGJH).
Cl. 1520 Got commander land in sight. The aircraft was in a flight altitude of 4,600 ft and
moved toward land with a speed over the ocean at 82 kt.
Cl. 1534 relieved the helicopter OY-HIA from BGJH.
Cl. 1535 Requested Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) commander to activate the emergency radio transmitter
(ELT) in the aircraft.
AIB Information 10 / 2008
17
Published October 2008
Cl. 1546 Reported commander that he had two fjords in sight, and sought guidance on what
fjord he should choose. ???Crew of OY-HIA recommended BreiSafjorS due
wind conditions.
Cl. 1553 was N344SE at position 60 40.44 N 046 49.49 W and the crew of OY-HIA
had visual contact with the aircraft.
Cl. 1554 Reported commander that "emergency fuel lights' shone, which was indicative of low
residual fuel.
Cl. 1600 commander of N344SE announced that he was forced to land in the terrain.
Cl. 1603 motor in N344SE stopped because of fuel shortages, so the commander called
MAYDAY.
Cl. 1610 N344SE landed on the ground.
Cl. 1613 Narsaq Heliport (BGNS) reported that N344SE had crash-landed on the plain around. 500 m
heliport, located at position 60 55.00 N 046 03,31 W.
Cl. 1615 OY-HIA had N344SE in sight.
Cl. 1617 Landed a Sikorsky S61N helicopter rescue at accident site reported that the two
crew was not injured.
Accident occurred during landing in the terrain around. 20 nm west of the planned destination BGBW.
Accident occurred during daylight in visual meteorological meteorological conditions (VMC)
Damage to aircraft
Immediately before the aircraft was stopped in the nose undercarriage sank into the soft surface
and collapsed, with damage to the muzzle and the propeller blades to follow.

Weather and wind conditions
Commander has indicated that the headwinds of the Davis Strait was stronger than he had
expected.
The following weather forecasts were issued by the meteorological office in Kangarlussuaq (BGSF) Greenland the
14. April 2008 were available to the commander:
Cl. 0300 TAF 140300Z 140312 08022KT BGBW 9999 BKN100 TEMPO 0309 08030G40KT
BECMG 0911 08030G40KT TEMPO 1112 08040G50KT.
Cl. 0700 TAF 140700Z 140716 08025KT BGBW 9999 SCT100 BKN150 TEMPO 0716
08030G40KT.
Cl. 1000 TAF BGBW141000Z 141019 08030KT 9999 SCT040 BKN100 TEMPO 1019
08042G55KT BKN040.
Cl. 1300 TAF 141300Z 141319 08030KT BGBW 9999 SCT040 BKN100 TEMPO 1319
08042G55KT BKN040.
Cl. 1300 AMD TAF AMD 141600Z 141619 08045G58KT 9999 BKN120.
METAR Weather Observations were made at intervals of one hour broadcast from BGBW.
METAR, released from BGBW, 14 April 2008, contained the following wind information:
Cl. 0750 08029KT.
Cl. 0850 08026KT.
Cl. 07039G49KT 0950.
Cl. 08029G42KT 1050.
Cl. 08041G54KT 1350.
AIB Information 10 / 2008
19
Published October 2008
Cl. 07042G54KT 1450.
Cl. 07045G57KT 1550.
Cl. 1650 07046KT.
Accident Commission's assessments
Weather Forecast, released at. 1000 was the latest available to the commander before the start of
Goose Bay in Canada. It contained a statement that heavy fire could occur in
period 1000 to 1900. Also revealed today's weather forecasts and weather reports, current South
Greenland up to the commander at start time. 1105, that the headwinds had an increasing trend in
day.
AIB believes that in flight planning were not sufficiently
account the headwind information that was available.
http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq347/debiassi/N344SE2.jpg

[sovereign680]

The answer to your question if the pilot in command was required to report this accident to the NTSB or FAA you may find in FAR 91.3(b) and (c) The question is (since he was not talking to FAA ATC) did they require a report? Further guidance you will find in NTSB 49CFR Part 830 Subpart B.
My best guess is the pilot was probably right that no report to the FAA or NTSB was required, if not requested by the NTSB or FAA.
Anyhow since that accident was investigated by Danish AIB they are required to report it to the FAA/ NTSB anyhow since the aircraft was US registered.
In my personal opinion (and I have flown CYYR to BGBW a couple of times in Senecas) he did not check the winds aloft. The other question regarding the pilots pre flight preparation is, what was his legal alternate airport?

[debiassi]

I actually know one of the crew members but I dont know 100% for sure if he was flying or not. He claims to have done over 60 crossings in the last 5 years but looking at the lack of knowledge shown 2 years ago, I would seriously question that figure. I know he has done some crossings as I have personally bumped into him in the past and know others who have crossed his path and even others who have flown with him. One was a 10000hr Learjet pilot who was taken in buy this guy and has his own story to tell. I find it hard to comprehend how someone could display such a frightening lack of knowledge for basic flight planning and even if they were negligent before they departed, a modern seneca with a Avidyne glass cockpit suite wich gives endurance along with all the whistles and bells, That would have told them well in advance that they wouldnt make the destination. Obviously they didnt calculate a point of no return or give any consideration to an alternate. I mean look at it logically, they had about 150nm in reserve with zero wind and they had calculated 4 plus 15 so with the wind displayed at departure time, they were always going to lose more on the trip than they had in reserve so the trip was doomed but all of the tell tale signs were either missed, ignored or even worse, misunderstood. Its defiantely more good luck then skill that these two are still alive to tell the tale.
I hope you learned your lesson Mr Weaver.

[hgfcpilot]

Firstly David, your comments are cheap and out of line, between you and Arben I have plenty to hand to show the court of your slander and blackmail.

Firstly the Seneca V is a single crew aircraft, its MTOW is under 12,500LBS.

As a FAA CFI let me "teach you a little about the FAR AIM" :

Although the terms “accident” and “incident” have commonly understood meanings, for purposes of this rule you must understand the meanings defined in Part 830.2 in order to determine whether you are dealing with an accident, a reportable incident, or neither. Under the Rule, an “Accident” is “an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.” Although “death” is easily understood, the rule provides specific definitions for the terms “serious injury” and “substantial damage”. A “serious injury” is defined as “any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.”

"Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component." Substantial damage does not include:engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged , bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips./1/

An “incident” is defined as “an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations.” You do not need to report an incident involving a small aircraft except when it involves: 1) Flight control system malfunction or failure; (2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness; (3) Failure of structural components of a turbine engine excluding compressor and turbine blades and vanes; (4) In-flight fire; or (5) Aircraft collide in flight; (6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less./2/

Incidents involving large, multiengine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight) must be reported if they involve: (1) In-flight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air-driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments; (2) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces; (3) Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and (4) An evacuation of an aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.

---------------------------------------------------------

So on the basis above, No FAA OR NTSB contact requesting a report, no injury to those on the aircraft or damage to other persons or property on the ground over $25,000. (this "excludes" the aircraft")

Reason for landing might have something to do with a thrown cylinder and stronger then enroute forecast winds.

I would finally like to add that a number of ferry pilots over the last few years have passed away, what sick person would want to post such a article about a person where they could of been dead.

So does that mean people like Dustin Rabe (RIP) , Jim Beaton and others like Fritz Schoder (a hell of a ferry pilot, RIP my good buddy) should be spoken of for there last flights, some of which some people say that weather and lack of time on aircraft had something to do with those accidents. The answer is NO, we dont bad mouth the dead, so why are you making such commnets, you really are very sick.

I would finally like to add that I was not a crew member or PIC on that Seneca V, and any one who states otherwise risks a court hearing.

I am not hear to make postings on Forums, I have other things that I need to do like get on with life and continue to run my firm.

:yuk:

[debiassi]

I would respond by pointing people to the post named "A Ferry Bad Experience" This gives a more in depth insight into your antics. The manifest for this trashed aircraft showed 2 crew members and 0 passengers. Now you dont dispute being on the aircraft so are you saying you lied on the manifest to customs and that in actual fact you were a passenger. I dont think you could have legally been PIC as you dont have a Multi IR do you?
I wouldnt dream of even entering the other debate you point towards, I HAVE FAR MORE RESPECT

[Booglebox]

At first this was amusing... but now it's just worrying.

[mutt]

So many unanswered questions..........


Why didnt the AIB find evidence of a blown cylinder?
Why didnt a light weight Seneca manage to maintain level flight on one engine?
Did the ferry permit allow the carriage of passengers?
Did the insurance require two crew?
Did the insurance permit the carriage of passengers?
What was the planned alternate?
FAR 91.703 What action was taken to ensure compliance with the local regulations pertaining to the reporting of accidents/incidents?
What sort of pilot allows himself to sit in the right seat of an aircraft and doesn't calculate fuel requirement to destination?


Anyone care to answer?

Mutt

[SNS3Guppy]

Firstly David, your comments are cheap and out of line, between you and Arben I have plenty to hand to show the court of your slander and blackmail.

Libel or slander? Do you understand the difference? Who is blackmailing you by posting on a public web board? You throw out these bald accusations, without any semblance of hair to cover them. Where is your evidence?

Firstly the Seneca V is a single crew aircraft, its MTOW is under 12,500LBS.

You're about to beat your chest and tell us that you're a flight instructor (only rated for single engine airplanes, mind you), but your statement here is nonsensical. What does being under 12,500 lbs. have to do with the number of crewmembers required, or used? (hint: it has nothing to do with the number of crewmembers used, or required).

Your comments remind me of an individual I met several years ago who crashed an airplane while applying for a job. He later told me that the crash didn't count, because he hadn't been hired yet. In this case, you're asserting that you weren't the pilot in command, but you're quick to tell us about your flight instructing credentials (though you're unqualified to instruct in the aircraft in question).

As you insist it's a single pilot airplane, and as you're clearly unqualified to instruct, and as you're insistent that you were never a part of the crew, just what were you doing there that required you to be rescued after your crash?

As a FAA CFI let me "teach you a little about the FAR AIM" :

Well, Mr. Single-Engine-CFI, perhaps someone needs to teach you about accidents and incidents.

First of all, the regulation to which you refer is not the "FAR AIM," which is a commercial reprint of certain portions of the Aeronautical Information Manual and certain of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulation to which you point, which clearly isn't something with which you're familiar, is Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 830. You appear to be attempting to use the definitions found in 49 CFR 830.2 to say you weren't involved in an aircraft accident, which is not the case.

49 CFR 830.2 defines "aircraft accident" as: "Aircraft accident" means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of "aircraft accident" includes "unmanned aircraft accident," as defined herein.

49 CFR 830.2 defines substantial damage as: "Substantial damage" means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered "substantial damage" for the purpose of this part.

Whereas the aircraft in question received substantial damage to engines, propellers, and landing gear at a minimum, the definition of substantial damage is met. Damage affecting the structural strength and flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which does indeed require major repair or replacement of the affected components, occurred. Whether an engine failure, to which you allude, occurred or not is irrelevant, as damage upon "landing" was substantial, and has met the definition.

Skate as you will out of it, you were involved in an aircraft accident. Did no one explain how this works to you when you obtained your flight instructor certificate?

49 CFR 830.2 defines "incident" as "Incident" means an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations. What you experienced doesn't qualify. You were involved in an aircraft accident. You understand this, correct?

So on the basis above, No FAA OR NTSB contact requesting a report, no injury to those on the aircraft or damage to other persons or property on the ground over $25,000. (this "excludes" the aircraft")

You're asserting that you weren't required to make NTSB notification, based on your poor understanding of the regulation, then? Let's look at the regulation (you can find it in your "FAR AIM"):

49 CFR 830.5(a):
§ 830.5 Immediate notification.

The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) office1 when:

(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:

You were involved in an accident, as we've shown, and this requires immediate notification of the NTSB. You don't need to look at the list of serious incidents, though you attempted to excuse yourself or your flight, by doing so. Your event was not an incident, but an accident, as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations. Does your "FAR AIM" not tell you this? Are you not a Flight Instructor?

Reason for landing might have something to do with a thrown cylinder and stronger then enroute forecast winds.

It *might* have something to do with a "thrown cylinder?" It wasn't simply piss poor planning and simple fuel exhaustion? Say it together, class: you ran out of gas.

Are you an A&P mechanic? Did you open the cowlings and investigate the alleged "thrown cylinder?" Did anyone? Have you any basis, other than your insinuation here, for this claim? It *might* have had something to do with flying saucers beaming out your remaining fuel, too, or perhaps you were simply shot down? No, what it *might* have had to do with is irrelevant, isn't it? You ran out of fuel. A "professional" ferry pilot that runs out of fuel? Curious, isn't it?

I would finally like to add that I was not a crew member or PIC on that Seneca V, and any one who states otherwise risks a court hearing.

What were you doing on board, then? Is that question too risky for you?

Certainly you couldn't have been the pilot in command, especially if the flight was operated under IFR, because despite your prior claims elsewhere to have taken your multi-engine instrument checkride with the FAA at Daytona Beach, your current FAA records indicate that you are a VFR-only multi engine pilot. You lack the instructor qualifications to teach in the airplane.

You're quick to beat your chest as an instructor, so tell me Mr. Instructor, what on earth put you in that airplane in the first place, and why did you let someone run out of fuel?

From the report translation previously posted herein: Cl. 1603 motor in N344SE stopped because of fuel shortages, so the commander called
MAYDAY.

Where's the "thrown cylinder" in there, again?

Stop making excuses, and come clean. Catharsis is good for your soul.

It should be really good in court, too.

Anyone care to answer?

Mutt

Mutt, you trouble-maker. Stop asking questions that require intelligence and common sense to answer. However, why not tackle them, one at a time?

* Why didnt the AIB find evidence of a blown cylinder?
Perhaps because there wasn't any to find, the issue wasn't raised, and it's a *might* suggestion by hgfcpilot, rather than a rational explanation of something that really occurred. After all, it was reported by the PIC as fuel exhaustion, not a mechanical failure.

* Why didnt a light weight Seneca manage to maintain level flight on one engine?
Very curious, indeed, as the Seneca is one of the best performing light piston twins on one engine, on the market. It has one of the best single engine service ceilings, too. Of course, when it's out of fuel, that doesn't matter much.

* Did the ferry permit allow the carriage of passengers?
Perhaps hgcf pilot (the guy with the CFI) can answer that, as the "passenger" who was aboard to train some else to ferry airplanes.

* Did the insurance require two crew?
From a regulatory point of view, an insurance requirement doesn't make it a two-crew aircraft, but it does raise the interesting question, once again, of what hgfcpilot was doing there.

* Did the insurance permit the carriage of passengers?
Same question, again. Seems to come up a lot, doesn't it?

* What was the planned alternate?
Whatever it was, the piss-poor fuel planning doesn't really seemed to have accounted for that eventuality, let alone the possibility of multiple approaches being necessary. Not too surprising for a VFR pilot, but very unwise over the North Atlantic.

* FAR 91.703 What action was taken to ensure compliance with the local regulations pertaining to the reporting of accidents/incidents?
Good question. Perhaps the non-PIC Flight Instructor unqualified passenger hgfcpilot can answer that question.

* What sort of pilot allows himself to sit in the right seat of an aircraft and doesn't calculate fuel requirement to destination?
Doesn't seem very bright, does it?

[Kazakhstan]

Robert Weaver,

Your empty threats of legal action shows you for the pathetic, ignorant, clueless, immature and amateur that you so blatantly are.

You don't seem to have a clue how small the aviation industry is and you already have a bad reputation and I am sure it will soon get worse.

By the way what are your company details, or are you operating illegally?

I can't find a SkyFerry Ltd or a Sky Ferry Aircraft Delivery LLC registered for you?

What was the year of incorporation?

What is your company number as filed with companies house, or have you never bothered?

Maybe you should come clean to your parents before someone publishes your dangerous antics in flight International? If they back it up with proof and it has been given the green light by a real solicitor not a make believe one, you will have no where to hide.


Do everyone a favour and stick to FSX in your bedroom.

[stuckgear]

hgfcpilot (http://www.pprune.org/members/117463-hgfcpilot)

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: U.K (Soon to be U.S.A)
Posts: 9


Firstly David, your comments are cheap and out of line, between you and Arben I have plenty to hand to show the court of your slander and blackmail.

Firstly the Seneca V is a single crew aircraft, its MTOW is under 12,500LBS.

As a FAA CFI let me "teach you a little about the FAR AIM" :

Although the terms “accident” and “incident” have commonly understood meanings, for purposes of this rule you must understand the meanings defined in Part 830.2 in order to determine whether you are dealing with an accident, a reportable incident, or neither. Under the Rule, an “Accident” is “an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.” Although “death” is easily understood, the rule provides specific definitions for the terms “serious injury” and “substantial damage”. A “serious injury” is defined as “any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.”

"Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component." Substantial damage does not include:engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged , bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips./1/

An “incident” is defined as “an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations.” You do not need to report an incident involving a small aircraft except when it involves: 1) Flight control system malfunction or failure; (2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness; (3) Failure of structural components of a turbine engine excluding compressor and turbine blades and vanes; (4) In-flight fire; or (5) Aircraft collide in flight; (6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less./2/

Incidents involving large, multiengine aircraft (more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight) must be reported if they involve: (1) In-flight failure of electrical systems which requires the sustained use of an emergency bus powered by a back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary power unit, or air-driven generator to retain flight control or essential instruments; (2) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems that results in sustained reliance on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical system for movement of flight control surfaces; (3) Sustained loss of the power or thrust produced by two or more engines; and (4) An evacuation of an aircraft in which an emergency egress system is utilized.

---------------------------------------------------------

So on the basis above, No FAA OR NTSB contact requesting a report, no injury to those on the aircraft or damage to other persons or property on the ground over $25,000. (this "excludes" the aircraft")

Reason for landing might have something to do with a thrown cylinder and stronger then enroute forecast winds.

I would finally like to add that a number of ferry pilots over the last few years have passed away, what sick person would want to post such a article about a person where they could of been dead.

So does that mean people like Dustin Rabe (RIP) , Jim Beaton and others like Fritz Schoder (a hell of a ferry pilot, RIP my good buddy) should be spoken of for there last flights, some of which some people say that weather and lack of time on aircraft had something to do with those accidents. The answer is NO, we dont bad mouth the dead, so why are you making such commnets, you really are very sick.

I would finally like to add that I was not a crew member or PIC on that Seneca V, and any one who states otherwise risks a court hearing.

I am not hear to make postings on Forums, I have other things that I need to do like get on with life and continue to run my firm.



Astounding.

Runs out of fuel, blames it on a non-existent thrown [sic] cylinder.

Multi VFR rated on a route like that.

A CFI that cant monitor fuel burn or use winds aloft for flight planning.

A ferry flight with passengers on board ?

Part of the crew when it suits, but when it goes Tango Uniform, he's only a passenger.


Its not incompetence, it's way past that. he's a fatal accident looking for somewhere to happen.

[debiassi]

And what really makes it sickening is he tries to use well respected ferry pilots that are sadly no longer with us in a sick attempt to allow him the same element of respect that one would apportion to these pilots.
Its made worse for me as he knows Dustin was a close friend of mine and actually solely responsible for getting me into ferrying. That for my money told me all I needed to know about Weaver.
I am so glad that the net is closing in on him and he will hopefully get no more than he deserves:D

[MartinCh]

http://www.aroundtheygo.com/img/trip/cyyr_bgbw/Narsasuaq-070_large.jpg

The thread 'nextdoor' got this one. I like heli ops pics. Since it's the topic..

[goldeneaglepilot]

Can anyone throw any light on why in the picture early on in the thread (with the A/C on the snow) the propellors do not look like they are feathered, the pilot claimed an engine had failed in the accident report. Did he not only mess up his planning but also his engine faliure drill. I cant be sure but it looks to me in the photo as all propellor blades have signs of damage, as if the engine was turning when it hit the snow

[debiassi]

GoldenEaglePilot, you make a good point. The blades are unfeathered and definately show signs of damage.??

[NutLoose]

They were either windmilling or at idle, if they were producing any negligible thrust the blades would have bent Fwd

[Jetblu]

I hope that I can be of assistance to members who are reading this thread

If you wish to get a quick wind check of the Pilot and Company involved of this trashed Piper Seneca N344SE, please refer to thread :-

"A Ferry bad experiance"

Prologue for quick reference #537 #549 & #553

[goldeneaglepilot]

Just been having a look on the internet, its incredible what you find. It would seem that perhaps other people who are business associates of Weavers have the same traits as him. I'm told that they subcontracted the job to Weaver.

This is from another website "selling" the services of their company:

We often ask our customers what they think of our services so that we can ensure they are the best they can be. Here are what some of them have to say. Steve Cook - F****** pilot P**** K***** is just the man to safely fly her back home for you - he did an excellent job for me and you can always talk a price with him as he liked the aircraft and the hospitality this end! You can talk to him about ferrying her back (he knows the way and if one of you went with him you would learn a lot)

Digging a little deeper raises a question: How can P**** K***** fly a commercial ferry flight on a PPL? Is it worth an email to the CAA enforcement office to ask them to look? His licence details are on the FAA Database, NO ME, IR or cpl/atpl, just a JAA licence PP/3******G/A.

Now it might be that the FAA database takes YEARS to update....

Does anyone know who the Insurers were of the Seneca, we might all be doing ourselves a favour by drawing their attention to the suspicions - who knows in the long term it might even save us all some money on our premiums

[S-Works]

Digging a little deeper raises a question: How can P**** K***** fly a commercial ferry flight on a PPL? Is it worth an email to the CAA enforcement office to ask them to look? His licence details are on the FAA Database, NO ME, IR or cpl/atpl, just a JAA licence PP/3******G/A.

Whilst not defending this particular case. It is possible that a JAA CPL was done after the 61.75 was issued and the 61.75 was never changed. It is also possible to have a UK CAA PPL on which a 61.75 was issued and a JAA CPL issued in another member state.

Clearly if the circumstances have changed then the 61.76 is invalid.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

I've got two ATP's and my FAA PPL is still based on a license Ive not had for 10+ years

[TRUTH PREVAILS]

The Ferry Flight of N344SE was given to Skyferry in a time when Rob Weaver was struggling for business, sadly his track record wasn't known to us at that time or hadn't evolved to the levels it has hit now. We were given what seemed to be a valid set of qualifications in the resume we saw.

Now whilst we concede to having been caught out by Rob Weaver and that is something that we are not proud of, it was also a very expensive catching out for us.

Our reluctance to partake openly in the threads is purely down to having tried to put the Seneca saga behind us and not wanting to reopen old wounds.

As a Company we were very supportive of Rob Weaver after the accident and were pleased that both himself and his passenger were unscathed, again had we known what was going to transpire from the accident it would have been a different ballgame, Rob was employed as the Ferry Pilot and he took along a retired Airline captain to savour the experience, the retired airline captain wasn't in any way employed by us to fly N344SE but we are mighty glad he was there to try to save the Seneca from being a total write off.

As a Company we have always used Commercial Pilots for all our General Aviation ferry flights and we must admit our screening process has been vastly improved since the Seneca accident, Rob Weaver has only ever completed one ferry flight for our company and as we all know that wasn't completed to satisfaction ( far from it )


Truth Prevails.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Hi, Truth Prevails, It seems from your statement that you were also conned by Weaver, what I cant get my head round though is your speaking for (or are) the ferry company contracted to have moved the Seneca. By virtue of the fact that you are a ferry company, who claim to have experience, would be familiar with the licence requirements for such a job.

As a company you must have been aware of the need for a ME/IR for the route taken, yet claim that you sub contracted the Job to Weaver - a simple check on the FAA Airman's database would have shown you that Weaver only held a single/IR. Did Weaver show you an FAA Licence with ME/IR in it? As a company did you apply due diligence and check it against the Airmans Database? With the anominaly did you check with the FAA?

Sadly the second pilot (who just happened to have filled in the paperwork as P1) was needed to make the flight legal. I have read elsewhere that the insurance company knew of the two pilots. Your posts strongly suggest that this was no surprise to your company.

I am sorry to say, but sitting on the fence it would seem that your ferry company are at best guilty of not having done due diligence and at worst are implicated by your own actions of conspiracy with Weaver. You have put up a strong fight to distance yourself from all of this (and by doing so have made it worse for yourself). However, it has happened and in my book the best way to avoid anyone having thoughts of possible conspiracy with Weaver is to be open and honest, tell people what has happened truthfully and openly, if necessary make public your proof of defence in your own actions (a copy of the Licence produced to get the flight underwritten by the insurers would help stop any doubt).

Your statement frankly, has made things worse for your company, The old saying, when in a hole, stop digging comes to mind.

[cldrvr]

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

An "experienced" ferry company should know better then to subcontract to another "ferrycompany" only because they were half price, couple that with RW's decision to bring along a 13,000 hour "friend" should have raised more red flags then the Kremlin has on May day.

This either shows that the ferry business is extremely cut throat or has no due dilligence in place, a faxed copy of RW's FAA license would have quickly shown that he does not hold Multi Engine Instrument privileges.

I do wonder if the insurance company ever paid out on this one, if so maybe they should be directed towards RW.

[TRUTH PREVAILS]

Hi Goldeneaglepilot, You are indeed correct in the fact that we were indeed conned by Rob Weaver, now to clear up the part that you cannot get your head around : As a Ferry company we were given the contract to ferry the Seneca within a set timescale, this timescale didn't fit in with the availability of our usual pilots as we had just 2 weeks to start/finish the ferrying of the Seneca.
Enter Mr Rob Weaver...... Rob Weaver was known to us by him having professed to having so much work in previous months that he offered us subcontracted work ( strangely none ever materialised, which seems to be a story that others have also had from good old RW ) With an understanding that we would trade off work during each others lean periods we offered Rob Weaver the Seneca ferry flight as it would get the job completed and our company would have satisfied a contract and Rob Weaver would get a payday and a customer would get their Seneca delivered. The requirements for Rob Weaver to do the ferrying looked to all be in order so he was offered the job, now in hindsight it is obvious that his qualifications/experience were fictional.

Whilst we believed RW to have the qualifications and a cursory look on the FAA Database was made, it would seem that yes there was a misinterpreted view on his qualifications ( misinterpreted by the insurers and by ourselves ) RW has also completed IR training for Twin Rated pilots who have been caught by the same erroneous documents that we were shown. Had a very detailed correlation of his documentation against the FAA Database been made it would have shown the discrepancy ( by that we mean a physical phone call to the FAA Airman dept )

A few days before RW departed to collect the Seneca we were asked if we minded if he took a 'friend' along for the experience, we made it 100% clear that the clients insurance was for Rob Weaver to be P1 at all times and that we were not financing the expenses of the 'friend'. RW accepted that we as a company were not responsible for his 'friends' expenses and that he would be solely there to learn the ropes. As far as we know the client's insurance didn't cover both pilots, only RW. We were in the aftermath glad that the 'friend' was there to reduce the chances of a total write off and save 2 lives in the process. I strongly believe the 'friend' was as deceived as we were in as much as he didn't realise he was P1 until the doo doo hit the fan.

As you are sitting on the fence on certain aspects I would tend to agree that we were guilty of not having used due diligence ( or at the very least being too trusting of RW ) At no time would we conspire with Rob Weaver and that is something that we would defend to the end, we would and will still remain outside of thethread loop with regards to the Seneca accident, the whole accident saga was allegedly dealt with by Rob Weaver and we were left with having to sort out the legal side of it all ( a very expensive matter ).
As you say the accident has happened and at the time we were pleased to know that there wasn't any fatalities and our primary objective was to repatriate RW to the UK,we would hope that our honesty and integrity is not in question in this matter, as whilst we tried to say little as we didn't want to be drawn into a public forum on a subject that in our opinion could only damage our company more than it already has. We have taken time to discuss this accident with the likes of Debiassi & Jetblu as they seemed to be the prime movers in the majority of the thread content on Mr Rob Weaver. We should make it very clear that RW had concluded any chance he would have had of getting any more ferrying out of our company by the irregularities that came out of the Seneca accident, these irregularities didn't highlight RW's lack of qualifications at the time... what it did highlight was that he wasn't P1 at the time of the accident and that was where our company had to focus on and deal with that point.

We think our Statement and indeed this response should be looked upon as us being open & honest in what went on in terms of how we as a company believed the ferry flight was being performed on our behalf.
Forums are bulletin boards and not the ideal way to compose responses which is why we have spoken with Debiassi & Jetblu by telephone to have a more concise and personal approach to the details.

Truth Prevails.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Dear Truth Prevails, I feel very sorry for yourselves, you seem to be yet another of the people that Weaver has mislead. I appreciate that the legals were expensive and as such its a hard lesson to learn, both in terms of financial impact and perceived customer image. Your response was honest and frank. I guess in future both you and your insurers will apply better due diligence.

I doubt you would ever make the same mistake again. I guess the clue was the last line on page 1 of the public details availible on the FAA Airmans database for Weaver. Hopefully printing it here will help others avoid the same mistake

Certificate:COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE


Limits

ENGLISH PROFICIENT.
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE VFR ONLY.

Hopefully your Insurance Company did payout for the damage to the Aircraft ( in view of the discrepancies in Weavers Licence and claimed ratings) and the reputation of all the innocent parties involved has not been damaged beyond repair.

[TRUTH PREVAILS]

cldrvr,

We certainly didn't Pay peanuts, but we did get monkeys.

We were unaware of the "friend" being a 13000hr retired Airline captain at the time that that we were asked if we objected to the " friend" going along for the experience ( had it of been disclosed that he was a 13000hr pilot you are damn sure the question " Why does a more experienced pilot want to be your passenger " would have been asked ) I wonder what would have happened if we had said " No you can't take anyone along "
I can tell you the answer: RW would have still took the 13000hr pilot along regardless.
The request from RW was " I have a pilot friend who would like to make the trip with me, any objections ? " Our response was " No that is fine by us, but he mustn't fly the plane as P1 or be our financial responsibility"

The ferrying industry is very cut throat and we believe RW got a fair slice of the market because he was known to be undercutting other peoples quotes, now we will confirm that we gave RW £6000.00 of our company funds to ferry the Seneca on a job that was to earn us £7839.50
Needless to say with the ferry flight not being completed, our payment was not in full from the client.
As Rob required £6000 to complete the job it looked like our company might make £1839.50 ( though we always expect that extras could be billed afterwards, so our profit could have been less ) Believe me the money outlay of this ferry flight ran into many thousands of pounds

The insurance did finally pay out after much wrangling,this is still ongoing and there are still discusions on this subject and the insurers are a German aviation insurance company, they accepted RW on the same documentation as we had.

Truth Prevails.

[TRUTH PREVAILS]

GoldenEaglePilot,
As the print out shows the wording : 'Instrument Airplane' follows under Multiengine Land and was very wrongly taken to mean that it was validated for SE & Multi..... the section under Limits was also very wrongly overlooked by ourselves and indeed the insurers.


Certificate:COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE


Limits

ENGLISH PROFICIENT.
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE VFR ONLY.

For sure our company will not ever fall foul of these discrepancies again, it has actually had quite a detrimental effect on Company policy and whereas we would in previous times have employed lower experience pilots to help them onto the first step of the aviation ladder we can no longer give opportunities to such pilots. Rob Weaver seems to have caused unrepairable damage to the ferrying industry and whilst it has directly affected us it has also affected other ferrying companies in the process, this in line with the personal IR training he has illegally performed (which includes having tested pilots for issuance of FAA IR's ) we have heard that the FAA have taken in some instances the pragmatic view that those who in good faith acquired their IR with Rob Weaver will not be stripped of the rating. I am not sure how he managed to get these issuances past the FAA in much the same way as I don't know how he has managed to pull the wool over so many otherwise astute peoples eyes with his aviation antics.

Yes we had a very bad experience with dealing (once) with Rob Weaver and the expense was painful, the only saving grace was he didn't kill himself or anyone else. We don't have that to suffer with the pains of having been so benevolent to him in giving him the work in the first place.

Truth Prevails.

[cldrvr]

TP, I must commend you on your honesty and openness here. Most in your situation would have resorted to posting excuses in an attempt to wrangle themselves out of a bad situation only to make it worse.

[Radar]

hear,hear,

Having read TP's last post, I think we have an insight into how RW has gotten away with this for as long as he has.

[debiassi]

So to go over what has been written, is one to assume
that RW was actually P1 and the more experienced pilot
only took over in an attempt to save the occupants lives
and secondly limit the damage to the aircraft?
If this is the case then what about all RW's earlier rantings
of I was only along for the ride, this wasnt one of our ferries
and anyone who says it was will be up in court. Which part
of I wasnt flying dont you understand dear boy etc etc??
Did he really make this crossing without the relevant qualifications
and trash a very expensive piece of kit to boot not to mention
risking peoples lives???
He must have known that he would invalidate the insurance!!!
I actually read where Weaver told his employer that
he had put the aircraft down on an ice pack (LIES)
and that the aircraft wasnt damaged apart from the nosewheel (LIES)

Also!!! As part of the nature of a 13000hr pilot. Are you really going to sit back and allow some wet behind the ears
numbnuts run you out of fuel over the north atlantic and not do
your own calculations???
All sounds very strange to me.
and he hoped it wouldnt affect their working business relationship WTF!!!!!

[cldrvr]

Debiassi, reading the posts from TP, it does seem that RW claimed both to the subcontracting company and the insurance company that he would be P1. He may be a Walter Mitty, he probably deep down knows that he couldn't handle the task and found himself a "passenger" on each and every trip that he could use in case an IFR plan was required. It would not surprise me if the flightplan filed on this particular trip, if indeed IFR, was in the name of the "passenger".

He did the same on the last trip covered in the other thread, finding an unsuspecting pilot to accompany him, in that case a newly qualified Italian girl.

TP, as you stated that the insurance company has settled, maybe nudging them towards RW for recovery of their losses due to fraud/misrepresentation could be something you may want to ponder.

[TRUTH PREVAILS]

Debiassi,
I will answer your post with highlighted remarks :confused:

So to go over what has been written, is one to assume
that RW was actually P1 RW was employed by ourselves on a subcontracted basis to fly the Seneca as P1 and the more experienced pilot only took over in an attempt to save the occupants lives
and secondly limit the damage to the aircraft? As discussed with you the more experienced pilot was along on the trip as a 'friend' of RW and wasn't employed by us as a crewmember, luckily or (unluckily ) he was onboard and assumed ( or was already ) P1 role for the ditching on the ice banks, I still wonder why a 13000hr Commercial pilot didn't feather the dead engine ( if it was actually dead ) No engine internal damage was found !!! ( Sound familiar ? )
If this is the case then what about all RW's earlier rantings
of I was only along for the ride, this wasnt one of our ferries
and anyone who says it was will be up in court.RW was contracted to fly the Seneca from A to B and there was never a question that he wasn't responsible for the aircraft at all times, he was there as PIC as far as we were concerned and were only made aware of the change of P1 when we received the accident report about a week after the accident ! Which part of I wasnt flying dont you understand dear boy etc etc?? We assume you are asking RW this question ?
Did he really make this crossing without the relevant qualifications
and trash a very expensive piece of kit to boot not to mention
risking peoples lives??? Yes he did make the crossing without the relevant qualifications (unbeknown at the time to us, as we took it as he was Multi IR qualified ) Yes he trashed a pristine Seneca V and effectively gave a NDH Twin a very chequered history, he is daft enough to have risked his life and that of his 'friend' and at the time our biggest relief was that they got down on terra firma, now we are not looking it the same way.
He must have known that he would invalidate the insurance!!! We are not entirely sure that RW would have realised that, he seems to have a strange outlook on life and wouldn't have the savvy to realise that he was playing Russian Roulette with $700,000 of someone elses asset. I guess it is lucky that it was covered by the insurance having been accepted by the insurers on the documentation that severely fooled us as well.
I actually read where Weaver told his employer that he had put the aircraft down on an ice pack (LIES) We were told by RW that he was shepherded into the SAR Helipad by the SAR Chopper, the 13000hr was listed on the accident report as the handling pilot (P1) Which came to light a week later, this is where all the problems for us started.
and that the aircraft wasnt damaged apart from the nosewheel (LIES) Categorically we were told that it was noseleg damage and superficial nosecone damage, the props were not mentioned until the report and photos were closely scrutinised.

Also!!! As part of the nature of a 13000hr pilot. Are you really going to sit back and allow some wet behind the ears numbnuts run you out of fuel over the north atlantic and not do your own calculations??? It would seem that the 13000hr pilot had put his trust in RW and was (as has happened to many in this matter ) foolhardy to have done so, RW can be very convincing in his spiel and still remains to try to be convincing to anyone who will listen ( RW rang us a few nights back allegedly from Greece and spouted off a lot of BS and tried to justify himself in all of this, he assured us that this thread would be shut down legally as will all other threads in 48hrs... well having seen the threads still very much running we can only conclude that whenever his lips move BS comes out. He claims that he is being 'witch hunted' because he is the busiest ferrying company out there and he needs to be removed so others can survive ( we all know that we all think we run the most successful ferrying company out there ) So we would take it that the 13000hr Pilot who has : 500hrs + on type would know the fuel flows and feathering procedures of a PA34 !!!
All sounds very strange to me. Sounds strange to you ?, imagine how strange it all sounds to me, RW sadly is just too convincing and it has caught quite a few out.
and he hoped it wouldnt affect their working business relationship WTF!!!!! That was asked by RW and at the time we would have put the accident down to freak conditions and possibly given him more work (highly unlikely, but he might have got inland or short hop ferries ) I think it is plain to all that we wouldn't be handing him or his pilots any work after the Seneca case unfolded.

Truth Prevails.

[TRUTH PREVAILS]

Pilots Report
Claims Number: ____________________________
1) Pilot in command (or any other person responsible for the aircraft at the moment of the accident)
First- and Surname: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Address:xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Type of pilot certificate: FAA ATP
Issued by: FAA
Date of birth: 29/04/48
Occupation: Pilot
Valid from until 25/05/06 - 30/05/08
No.: xxxxxxxxxxx
Additional ratings: FAA CFI/CFII/MEI, Hawker type rating
(Type Ratings, Instrument Rating, Aerobatic Flights, Aerotow, Flight Instructor certificate, others)
Valid from until Issued by: FAA
Flight hours total: 13,000+
Flight hours on type: 500+
2) Second Pilot (or other aircrew, e.g. flight student, trainee pilot)
First and Surname: Robert Charles Weaver
Address: The School House, 38 Brockhurst Lane, Monks Kirby, Rugby, Warcks, Cv230ra
Activity on board: SIC/Head of Operations
Type of pilot certificate: FAA CPL/IR/MEP/CFI
Issued by: FAA
Date of birth: 18/09/87
Occupation: Pilot
Valid from until 07/06/06- 31/06/08
No.: 3116296
Additional ratings: CFI/CAP Aerotow
(Type Ratings, Instrument Rating, Aerobatic Flights, Aerotow, Flight Instructor certificate, others)
Valid from until Issued by: FAA
Flight hours total: 1,000+
Flight hours on type: 34
3) Details of the flight:
Type and registration of the aircraft: Piper PA 34-220 T Seneca V / N344SE
Flightplan: CYYR- BGBW (IFR)
Date of the accident: 14.04.2008
Departure airport: Departure time: CYYR
Scene of the accident: APROX 20NM off BGBW (Greenland coast line) Time of the accident: Aprox 2pm local
Weather info obtained: No Yes , If yes, where: YES, CYYR, Air Nav Canada
Weather forecast for the planned flight: LIFR departure, 2,000overcast, tops 8,000ft, VFR/CAVOK at BGBW
Actual weather enroute: 2,000overcast, tops 10,000, vis +10, winds varible yet normally down the runway at about 20knots
Payload: Under Maximum. (Baggage aprox 100lbs)
Amount of fuel at take off: FULL TANKS
Number of persons on board: 2
Luggage ect. in kg: (100lbs/50KG APROX)
Detailed description of the circumstances and cause of the accident (enclose sketch if possible):

Limited power on Left Engine, unforecast headwinds whilst en-route, weather conditions worse than forecast. Fuel in tanks at time of landing, Emergancy/safe landing carried
out near BGBW. No damage to the public or crew. PIC as shown in report carried out landoing whilst SIC used checklist to securre aircraft, declare a MAYDAY, search for suitable landing spot, report lat and long position, secure the aircraft for a off airport landing etc. Danish Coast Guard informed prior to landing, Danish coast guard also reports that the event was dealt with by the crew in a safe and calm manner with good ADM skills.

4) Damage to the aircraft: Gear & Props & Nose cone.
5) Accident report to the related authority: YES
If yes, please enclose copy.
Pending copy report On behalf/permission of M.G due to his home location in the USA , R.C.Weaver (SIC/Head of Ops)
____________________________ , _________20_______ _______________________________________
(Place and date) (Signature of the pilot in command)

[TRUTH PREVAILS]

cldrvr,
Opening the insurance again would action them having to pursue us (AGAIN) and then in turn we would have to pursue RW, now on the basis that RW doesn't have a receptical to urinate into it would more than likely become an expense again for us and a free lunch for RW.

If anyone has cast iron evidence of assets held in RW's name we would then consider what action we would be prepared to go to. The DA42 & Columbia 350 are not tangible assets and I doubt very much if the fuel in the tanks even belongs to RW.

Truth Prevails.

[goldeneaglepilot]

TP, was the "Pilots Report" a form for use by your own company (maybe from Skyferry - if it was, why not scan it and post a copy - or the form sent from the insurance company to you? -You openly admit that you subcontracted out the flight, yet the "Pilot's report" list Weaver as "Head of Operations" it was clearly Weavers mistakes which led to the aircraft being damaged, however, as the company who contracted to do the flight, you have to take full responsibility for any problems. Any errors are your legal responsibility to sort out.

You have previously said that the insurance company paid out, If they have then I presume they are sueing your company for their losses due to the discrepancies with regards the pilots. You say that the incident has cost your company $500k. At least you can write that off against profits, however I suspect that is an awful lot of profit for a ferry company.

I did notice that your company has a few issues with Companies house and late returns (that information is public domain information). With all this going on it has to be worth sorting that out as well. Sadly I dont think that this matter has ended for you, and suspect that good legal advice is needed as a matter of urgency. I am sorry, its sad to see anyone with trouble, especially if its not directly of their own making.

[TRUTH PREVAILS]

GoldenEaglePilot,

You seem more set on trying to pick holes in our company than you do in the subject person, We can assure you that all of our company matters are 100% legal and any outstanding matters are in hand.

The accident report was filled out by Rob Weaver and as you rightly noticed it says " Head of Operations" Surely that tells you whose documentation was used ?

Would you not think there could be reasons to all your questions about company information and whilst we are being open & honest we are not the subject that is getting attacked and don't feel that we should disclose private company matters on a public website until such times as we are the subject being cited in a legal case.

We were advised to be factual in our posts and to that end we have been more than open and honest in our posts, regrettably with your inept mud slinging tactics it would now put us into a closing of our desire of being so open in the hope of giving an insight into Skyferry & Rob Weaver.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Truth Prevails,

Sorry, I did not intend to touch a nerve. It's refreshing to see your honesty in your postings. As I said before, its plain to see that Weaver conned you and you say you are having to pay the price. However your postings have in places contradicted themselves, others will have seen this as well as me, which does raise questions when someone such as yourself is first asking that the thread is stopped and you dont want to get involved as it may damage your company. You are also aware that Weaver has previously claimed that your two companies were associated. I did say in a previous post about when in a hole, stop digging, I thought that you might have read that and applied caution to your subsequent posts.

I appreciate that you want to clear your name, I appreciate that you want to limit any more damage caused by Weaver to your company. I dont want to mud sling at you as you suggest. If you re-read my posts they were designed to help you rather than attack....

Read carefully what I have said, If I needed to clear my companies name about something like this then I would be doing my upmost, but not in the way that you have tried.. WHY keep the P1's name secret, he did a great job and its no shame to him. Even if you still felt that you wanted to protect him (after all you say he was not working for you or a friend of yours) then scan the documents, show Weavers signature, block the P1's name out, if you felt you needed to - it would add a lot of credibility to your attempts to show yourselves as an innocent party and move forward, doing so in public is a great way of promoting your company and innocence.

You presumably cut and pasted the "pilots report" into your posting, surely it would have added more credibilty to have printed it out, scanned it and the posted it on the thread, the way you have posted it leads itself to all kinds of questions, including the degree of editing (which may be none) or the authenticity of the said document.

Your right, you dont have to prove yourself here, you choose to come on and post in the first instance and its led from there.

At the end of the day, who the company is, remains an open secret and whilst many people reading this know that, it still has not been made public.

I suspect that your legal team have been unaware of your attempts to clear your name / distance yourself from Weaver on this forum. You have talked of this costing yourselves $500k, WHY tell us that, in fact why tell us anything. I am sure if your legal team had known of your intention to post then they would have advised you strongly to shut up and pass no comment.

By going public you help others shut down Weaver, if you help get a conviction against him for what he has done to your company then you completly clear yourselves. Why not ask Jetblu for some contacts and let the authorities investigate the whole affair and clear your companies reputation in the best way possible, as well as making sure that weaver gets all he deserves.

[TRUTH PREVAILS]

As has been stressed in so many of our responses our company sub contracted / employed Rob Weaver to ferry the Seneca and Rob Weaver was the only one who was authorised to be flying the aircraft, the fact that a 13000hr Commercial Pilot was listed on the Accident Report was at the time a total shock to us. All the relevant paperwork on this accident was completed by Rob Weaver and accepted as such by the insurers, as it would seem we are now deemed to be withholding the Pilot's identity I have been given full permission to disclose this information and his details will be on the footer of this post. The facts remain that he wasn't employed by us and that we haven't until now divulged his details because we thought those who needed to know already did (i.e. The Police etc )

Details of the P1 listed on Accident Report.


MARK LEROY GUSTAVSON

Address
Street 7960 SOQUEL DR STE B109City APTOS State CACounty SANTA CRUZZip Code 95003-3999Country USA

Medical
Medical Class: FirstMedical Date: 12/2010
MUST WEAR CORRECTIVE LENSES.


Certificates
1 of 3
12 (https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/Detail.aspx?uniqid=A0742123&ood=2&certNum=2)3 (https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/Detail.aspx?uniqid=A0742123&ood=3&certNum=3)
DOI:9/14/2010 Certificate:AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
Rating(s):
AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LANDCOMMERCIAL PRIVILEGES
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND

Type Ratings
A/BAE-125 A/CE-500 A/HS-125

Limits
English Proficient.

Certificates
2 of 3
1 (https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/Detail.aspx?uniqid=A0742123&ood=1&certNum=1)23 (https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/Detail.aspx?uniqid=A0742123&ood=3&certNum=3)
DOI:9/14/2010 Certificate:FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
Rating(s):
FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
AIRPLANE SINGLE AND MULTIENGINE INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE


Limits
VALID ONLY WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY PILOT CERTIFICATE NO. . EXPIRES: 31 MAY 2012.

Certificates
3 of 3
1 (https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/Detail.aspx?uniqid=A0742123&ood=1&certNum=1)2 (https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/Detail.aspx?uniqid=A0742123&ood=2&certNum=2)3
DOI:9/14/2010 Certificate:GROUND INSTRUCTOR
Rating(s):
GROUND INSTRUCTOR
ADVANCED INSTRUMENT


Hopefully this will end all opinions that we are hiding his identity from those who we didn't really feel needed to have this info.

[ksjc]

Is it necessary to now drag this guys name through the mud? Perhaps he fell for RW's B/S too?

Of course I don't know what kind of "arrangement" the two of them made but it seems a bit nasty to post the dude's personal details...just saying.

[S-Works]

it seems a bit nasty to post the dude's personal details...just saying.

Which bit of this did you miss.....


I have been given full permission to disclose this information and his details will be on the footer of this post.

[ksjc]

Yes, I see that. All legit, as you point out. Just wondered why post the guy's credentials? What's the point of this?

[Dawdler]

Because some people seem to think (whether they are involved or not) they have a right to know everything and throw accusations of secrecy and chicanery if they are deprived of that luxury.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Dawdler, I think you miss the point, Truth Prevails is trying to get his (companies) side of the story across, its obvious that his company is yet another one of Weavers victims. By publishing the pilots details he has shown transparency and is trying hard to show they are not hiding things to protect Weaver.

Had Truth Prevails not made his earlier posts then people would not have raised the questions which have been asked.

Now if it turned up that the named pilot knew nothing of all of this - or Weaver, then that would paint things in a very different light.

[FloridaFerryPilot]

I don't understand the mystery of what the company is if it is not Sky Ferry. It may add to the intrigue here, but really seems also to be muddying the water.

No one likes to admit they got cheated, but at this point, I would be skeptical of any company that could be out of the UK that might be SkyFerry in disguise. I am probably just being dense and missing something in the thread that would clear all this up. Please help me along here... and not out of the thread, its just too juicy.

Just my 50 cents worth...

[stuckgear]

Which airport ?

and the reason for being topic of conversation ?

[goldeneaglepilot]

To: d******@*********.co.uk (d******@*********.co.uk)
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:19:05 +0000

David:
Please see my web page at: www.mlgventures.com (http://www.mlgventures.com/)
I never heard of Rob Weaver, and have been flying Hawkers and Citations since 1990 after I left EAL. My only phone is my cell @ 8312124639.
BTW, where are you located?
Mark Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

The post claiming that Mark (by Truth Prevails) was the pilot, was dated 7th April 19.25 - after Mark had said HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF ROB WEAVER

If there are any curious parties (for example Law enforcement agancies) who want to track the origins of Marks message, I have copied the header information below:

I have excluded my own email details so as not to possibly help Weaver.

X-Message-Delivery: Vj0xLjE7dXM9MDtsPTE7YT0xO0Q9MDtTQ0w9MA==
X-Message-Status: n
X-SID-PRA: [email protected]
X-SID-Result: Pass
X-AUTH-Result: PASS
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jFnomcRAmA4k4GbTU67i75q327mcSw0fhDkAkgjHJuq+WmXwrQo w57bY+TioL45XAZ2ec7iKDNLMWFnMF1K4sUy743fOmc14qYWaiWVG+fq4Q==
Received: from mail-iw0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180]) by bay0-mc3-f35.Bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:19:12 -0700
Received: by iwn6 with SMTP id 6so4544226iwn.11
for <************* ([email protected])>; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:x-rim-org-msg-ref-id:message-id:reply-to
:x-priority:references:in-reply-to:sensitivity:importance:subject:to
:from:date:content-type:mime-version;
bh=QjsfKPiTcwR/B/d3gpuWM3Zjbdftr5cFPeCql1P5jT0=;
b=Sr6xrR3c5tkPOHpbftCu8fYfk9x1LJh5nz76mXuoXboI572PAA1KOSSR1O uB7rNu/y
u5A6xEEz6el8y91w3jundAgfsOhqUsoI0CIRBrpHTjc5IIblOIJWPTC7x/W0xaXDDj/V
aeLZ08svfhXkETrl3Aefbq7njRGpQs8De0L/o=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=x-rim-org-msg-ref-id:message-id:reply-to:x-priority:references
:in-reply-to:sensitivity:importance:subject:to:from:date
:content-type:mime-version;
b=I8BKsrhbFh5nVZExy1OtSF1zSV6PIeNr0qyiyYZPIdmInbXFXDdmBxgzy3 9z+wY3vM
xbIXa7CGD/3IY5RIo8/YLIFvXCXdkxlihbv23KzpBMxHSrT1pXYCP6HiZDHXBOc6hoyH
yi1oRopIP9LXNLE4dWrBrXEw7z/lXeeOe9Uz4=
Received: by 10.231.65.209 with SMTP id k17mr1239759ibi.127.1302203952021;
Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from bda347.bisx.prod.on.blackberry (bda-67-223-68-120.bise.na.blackberry.com [67.223.68.120])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e9sm1321881ibb.32.2011.04.07.12.19.10
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-rim-org-msg-ref-id:2083868199
Message-ID:<2083868199-1302203948-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-321297370-@bda817.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Reply-To: [email protected]
X-Priority: Normal
References: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Sensitivity: Normal
Importance: Normal
Subject: Citation type
To: ****************
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:19:05 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part28033-boundary-665008445-554542527"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2011 19:19:12.0768 (UTC) FILETIME=[AD8AE800:01CBF558]

[Jetblu]

Q. Is he now caught ? A. All depending how you look at it.
At the moment, he is still at large while developments continue.

In actual fact, it is thought that he is departing Birmingham Airport tomorrow scheduled to a European destination for a few days, so, caught no, marked, yes.

And he loves a bounty ;)

[maxphlyer]

Sounds like a scene of the old classic movie "Airplane".

Leslie Nielsen: "I just came in to say: Good luck, we are all counting on you!"

:ok:

[cldrvr]

Refresh my memory, didn't the originator of the Ferry and the Insurance company come on this or the other thread thread and confirm that this Mark character was the PIC on the ill fated ferry flight?

[goldeneaglepilot]

I'm sure Weavers parents are really glad of modern autopilots, they are so good that not only have they helped Weaver stay alive for so long but they are now so simple that they would even allow a proverbial one eyed, spotty ginger fat geek to do a difficult flight.

One day they will advance to the point that they can do fuel and endurance calculations without the need for a qualified pilot (for the journey) to cross check them.

Maybe this was the real crew on the Seneca V flight - I guess we will all never know

AIRPLANE! - YouTube

[goldeneaglepilot]

Cldrv - no. WEAVER claimed that he was, Why would Mark clearly state he never knew weaver.............

[cldrvr]

According to the excerpt from the originator:

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/445619-seneca-v-crash-2.html#post6356717

Mark Gustavson was the PIC, not Weaver, as supposedly taken from the accident report:

MARK LEROY GUSTAVSON

Address
Street 7960 SOQUEL DR STE B109City APTOS State CACounty SANTA CRUZZip Code 95003-3999Country USA

All the relevant paperwork on this accident was completed by Rob Weaver and accepted as such by the insurers, as it would seem we are now deemed to be withholding the Pilot's identity I have been given full permission to disclose this information and his details will be on the footer of this post. The facts remain that he wasn't employed by us and that we haven't until now divulged his details because we thought those who needed to know already did (i.e. The Police etc )

So either Mark is now retracting his earlier admission of being PIC on the accident report and being the PIC when the aircraft ran out of fuel, therefore being the ultimate person responsible for causing the crash or the originator and insurance company were furnished with a false statement by someone.

As Mr. Gustavson is on the accident report he is either worried about now having an accident on his record or he has other ulterior motives for now denying his involvement.

Either way, it all smells a little fishy and I for one would not trust Mr. Gustavson with my airplane if I was ever looking for a ferry pilot, or for that matter a freelance pilot on one of the other aircraft he is supposedly rated on.

[Jetblu]

My guess is that Mark Gustavson is as genuine as his CV states.

It is understood that Mark does not know a Robert Weaver.
It is further understood that Mark has not even set eyes on N344SE.

Whilst I accept that Weavers account of events does have a Cod stench to it, doesn't virtually all his dealings have the same traits.

I guess we now have victims who do not even know that they are victims.

[cldrvr]

Mark now has an accident on his record, that may well make him expensive to insure and fairly unemployable as a freelancer or ferry pilot. IF he was not the PIC, he'd better take steps to clear his name. IF he was the PIC he may well use the Weaver saga as an excuse for his record.

I still think there is something fishy here. The accident happened quite a while ago, why hasn't Mark taken steps to rectify this?

[stuckgear]

Repost from here: http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/445665-ferry-bad-experience-66.html#post6644107


As for trashing a Seneca, far from it, I have never been PIC in a aircraft that has been damaged or been involved in a incident.



So, what you are saying weaver, is that the pilot that you brought along for the 'experiance' was ?

Yet:


The Ferry Flight of N344SE was given to Skyferry in a time when Rob Weaver was struggling for business, sadly his track record wasn't known to us at that time or hadn't evolved to the levels it has hit now. We were given what seemed to be a valid set of qualifications in the resume we saw.

Now whilst we concede to having been caught out by Rob Weaver and that is something that we are not proud of, it was also a very expensive catching out for us.

As a Company we were very supportive of Rob Weaver after the accident and were pleased that both himself and his passenger were unscathed, again had we known what was going to transpire from the accident it would have been a different ballgame, Rob was employed as the Ferry Pilot and he took along a retired Airline captain to savour the experience, the retired airline captain wasn't in any way employed by us to fly N344SE but we are mighty glad he was there to try to save the Seneca from being a total write off.

[...]

we made it 100% clear that the clients insurance was for Rob Weaver to be P1 at all times



So in short weaver what you are publicly stating iss that when you are contracted to ferry an aircraft and you are the insured to do so, your are in fact not and leave the owner facing an uninsured risk loss on his aircraft.



NB. MG doesnt appear to be a retired airline pilot. Weaver's stories just don't add up, just like his 'experiance'.

[Dawdler]

How I wonder was Mr Weaver employed to ferry the aircraft on a trans-Atlantic journey, when he didn't appear to have IR for twin engine aircraft? So is this his first deception with regard to this job?

Given that he was in fact handed the job and named as P1 by the company employing him, but took along a more experienced colleague to actually carry out the flight, would the insurance still be vaild? Could this be his second deception with regard to this job?

The person named by Mr Weaver as the "passenger along for the ride" denies being aboard the aircraft and also denies knowing Mr Weaver. Could this be his third deception with regard to this job?

If I remember correctly, even Mr Weaver at one point denied being aboard the aircraft and threatened legal action against anyone who might suggest that he was. So this would appear to be a fourth deception with regard to this job.

So the above begs the following questions (at least):

a) Who was aboard the aircraft when it crashed (sorry "landed") off-piste.
b) Who was PIC?
c) Who took remedial action to mitigate the effects of the situation in which they found themselves?
d) Who did the fuel calculations?
e) Who was responsible for the "incident" bearing in mind that there has been no subsequent report of a "blown cylinder" or any other significant engine problem.
f) Why could not a twin engine aeroplane maintain a straight and level flight on one engine, should the other have failed.

I am sorry if these questions appear simple and the answers obvious and my assumptions above completely wrong, but there does seem to be some conflicting information given on this thread. Or have I got several ferries mixed up here?

One more question, in the event of a aircraft being disabled in the fashion described, who stands the loss? The owner? The commissioning company? The pilot? Further, has the claim been settled?

[stuckgear]

dawdler, i would hazard a guess that the claim has been settled, which is why no one really wants to reopen this can of worms.


he didn't appear to have IR for twin engine aircraft? So is this his first deception with regard to this job?



indeed and it has been noted that certain parties (themselves self admittedly) were a tad lax with the DD.


Given that he was in fact handed the job and named as P1 by the company employing him, but took along a more experienced colleague to actually carry out the flight, would the insurance still be vaild? Could this be his second deception with regard to this job?



In this event, Weaver was named as the insured. In such an event, it would void the insurance policy in place and leave the owner with an uninsured loss even and a likely recovery bill for the aircraft (recovery isn't done by charity).

a) Who was aboard the aircraft when it crashed (sorry "landed") off-piste.

only weaver and the other pilot can answer that. Weaver claims no knowledge, despite being the insured on the aircraft ferry.


b) Who was PIC?

Weaver was insured to be, but did not hold the appropriate ratings. Who's hands were on the control column? It would seem would be the other pilot; don't forget that despite being the insured to fly the aircraft, weaver claims he wasn't there.


c) Who took remedial action to mitigate the effects of the situation in which they found themselves?

Well, we don't need Einstein and team of NASA engineers to figure that one out. Weaver's abilities would not seem consistent with such an act of abilitiy. NB. It has has already been posted that the 'other' pilot who took control from Weaver, put the plane down with skill and minimal damage.

d) Who did the fuel calculations?


Weaver. On MS flight Sim... it's been posted (the print off from MS flight sim).

e) Who was responsible for the "incident" bearing in mind that there has been no subsequent report of a "blown cylinder" or any other significant engine problem.

Well, legal responsibility lies with the PIC, for which Weaver was the insured to be, but he claims he wasn't there, but then again, he was, as he claimed it was a 'blown cyl.'. We can determine that either Weaver has broken the space/time continuum and can time travel or is a f:mad:king liar.


f) Why could not a twin engine aeroplane maintain a straight and level flight on one engine, should the other have failed.



because it ran out of fuel !

[newfieboy]

I normally reside on the Rotorhead or Mil boards, but due to a couple down days due fog, got reading this thread to pass the time. Oh my goodness, what a character this chap seems to be :eek: and quite the soap opera. I hope you guys/gals who lost money or time with this Walt get back what is owed.
It aso worries me that this pillock is in our airspace occasionally, thank goodness most of my days are low level ops.....The flight plan for the Greenland prang done on Flight sim really caught my attention, because I'm pretty certain this individual was passing through Quebec not so long ago and I met him. He was in for fuel and being an Expat Brit, noticed the accent, so went over for a chat. It dawned on me through conversation that this guy had absolutely no clue, and the flight planning was none existant. Us guys here in Canuckland take flight planning very seriously due to the vastness, wilderness, weather etc. I was very concerned and mentioned it to ATC when I took off.The a/c was still there when I got back from a 3 hour flight, but no sign of crew and ATC were closed for day. Pretty sure it was this guy Weaver, he was en route St Johns, that I remember as I live there, then onwards to Greenland. Young, ginger and apparently no interest in taking advice from a 12000hr rotary guy,with local and Greenland knowledge. :ugh::eek: One final thing, being Expat, it makes me very ashamed that there is a guy from the Midlands claiming to be a professional pilot and getting away with it apparently. Calling yourself "Catain Weaver'' yeah right, with your ratings mate, I find that an insult....:= Tosser.......

[Squat switch]

Seems to me the relatively simple way to find out who was on board is to contact either the immigration authorities at point of departure/arrival
or the rescue service that collected the crew/pax from the incident scene.
Someone will have the names and be able to prove who is telling the truth.

[chubbychopper]

Bumped into a crew this morning from US and the Weaver thread came up in conversation. If these guys are to be believed, poor old plank has a load more sh1t on his plate. I would not want to spread any unsubstantiated gossip on a rumour site, but the wait will test my patience to the limit.

[Dawdler]

I am missing the significance of the date given in the previous post.

14.00hrs 3rd November 2011

[debiassi]

Not 100% sure either although I get the feeling that
all will be made very clear, very soon???
:O:ok:

[debiassi]

I actually have it on good authority that Truth Prevails
was in fact a genuine victim in this saga. He is not able
to say either way whether in fact MG was or was not
on board the aircraft. The only two people who really know
that for sure is RW and whoever the mystery relevant other was?
RW did state that it was MG on board but how much anyone
would read into that is another question.

[Jetblu]

The plank told me verbally, and in writing that he had 60+ Atlantic crossings, so my guess is that what he has to say about Mr Gustavson must be true :yuk:

[Nigd3]

Debiassi

I think you will find it is potentially 3 people who definately know whether MG was on board that aircraft or not :)

[mad_jock]

I can't quite see how you can crash a plane and then not have your details recorded somewhere.

If you are entering and leaving on a gendec there will be a record of that.

If you had any hospital treatment that will have had a record.

Most countries the local police will get your details.

To get out of country you would have to fly out on a commercial carrier.

It should be reasonably easy to prove who was on the aircraft or for that matter who wasn't

[truthinbeer]

I have been a lurker, but now I am left waiting for the next installment. Can someone provide the interlude, I don't know if I can wait until 3 November......14:00 hrs. Maybe that is when Cessnafly signs a book concession with Robert Ludlum.:)

[MrKeetz]

Tick..... Tick..... :E

[newfieboy]

Can't wait for the next Weaver show installment. 3rd Nov eh, bloody hell, back on tour remote Canada.........better than Corro, can't get a look in edgeways at that great Blighty institution on the camp tv, always bloody hockey :yuk:. :{. Least I can read the Weaver saga in peace.........bring it on....:D

[SFCC]

I'm bored. What has this little feckwitt done now?

[Nigd3]

Logged on to see if anyone had spilled the beans before the doomsday event........and nothing

Not sure I can hold out for another 30+ hours.

I wonder if Cessnafly is having a good laugh imagining everyone hanging on the end of his line?

[hval]

Well?

Have been sitting here since 14:00hrs, awaiting elucidation, illumination, clarification.

Ice in Coca Cola has melted now, popcorn has been eaten.

[treadigraph]

I've got me legs crossed... :\

[Newforest2]

3rd November ends somewhere after Hawaii?

[hval]

@Newforest2,

3rd November ends somewhere after Hawaii?

Is Hawaii the day after Thursday?

[wsmempson]

Someone tell me....what has happened????:}

[ZeeDoktor]

Yeah man, seriously, what happened on the 3rd? Still waiting...

Doc

[goldeneaglepilot]

I heard on the grapevine that certain parties received papers on 3rd November informing them that the insurance company have furthered its investigation into this matter.

I hope for the people involved that they have everything fully documented and are able to prove that all of their actions were above board and in order. I would place money on the fact that if it's not, then the people involved are in for a very rough ride - and thats not just a rough ride with the civil system but potentially a rough ride and investigation through the Criminal Justice system. It will be interesting to see what country takes the lead role?

I'm told that time share apartments in Libya are very cheap at the moment and they don't have (yet) an extradition agreement in place with the UK, Germany or Denmark. If I was sitting in certain shoes then I might be tempted

[stuckgear]

oh dear.

:hmm:

[havick]

I'm gobsmacked having just read this thread.

Did this accident happen before, during or after 'A ferry bad experience' thread was going on?

[MrKeetz]

As far as I know it was before.

[Newforest2]

An easy answer to find, 14/4/08, 16.10 UTC. ;)

[Duxford_Eagles]

Any updates on Justice vs Weavil?

[goldeneaglepilot]

There is some news - The Insurance company / loss adjustors have not let this matter die, as Mr Weaver and (Im told) his associate PK, seemed to hope. They are working hard with the authorities to establish the truth and the latest is that an eye witness has confirmed that the pilot was named "Mark" but from photographs of the person Weaver named as the pilot could not positively identify the photographs as the same "Mark" as Weaver claimed was in the aircraft. Which seems to tie up with the person (who Weaver claimed was the pilot) saying he did not know Weaver.

All I know for certain is that Weaver should have been flying the aircraft to satisfy the insurance, he has admitted being in the aircraft, he has also admitted that he knew he was not qualified for the flight.

Even I doubt that Robert is silly enough to consider identity theft.

Oh dear, its looking more iffy by the day. I do wonder if this one is going to need a Judge and Jury to sort out?

[stuckgear]

1. Insurance companies don't like paying out.
2. insurance companies will find any reason they can not to pay out.
3. if they do and they even get a sniff of being defrauded, they will act.

there's a saying that springs to mind.. something about chickens and roosting

[Dan Dare]

Danish accident report (http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/hcl/dokumenter/Redegorelser/2008/510-000501.pdf) concludes that The Board is of the opinion that in the flight plan was not taken sufficient account of the headwind information that was available.

It says that the planned flight was to have been 4:10, yet they were reporting fuel shortage after only 3 hours and engine stopped after less than 4 hours. Now, I can understand why the wind slowed them, but why did it take away from their endurance? Answers on a postcard?

quote courtesy of google translation

[Pace]

Dan dare

With over 2500 hrs on Seneca Fives alone I can say there is no excuse to run out of fuel on that aircraft other than grosse miscalculation of winds.

The DDMP is so accurate it will tell you literally to the minute when both engines will stop.

What will reduce that time? Incorrect leaning but even incorrect leaning will still give them a reduced time to dry tanks.

Conclusion bad piloting as simple as that.

Do you have a copy in English?

Pace

[Tinstaafl]

Copy the URL for the pdf into Google Translate. It does a pretty good job of translating. Make sure you select Danish though. Google identified it as Swedish, which wasn't anywhere near as successful a translation.

[Pace]

1105 to 1603 is 5 hrs minus 2 minutes which indicates correct to dry tanks.
4 hrs is the maximum safe flight time at 70% pwr with reserves from memory 29 inch man 2400 rpm!
His estimated flight time was 4 hrs 10 mins on the limit with reserves

Looks like they took the still air time for the route and totally ignored any headwind component or long range cruise setting.

Thanks for transilation assistance

Pace

[Tinstaafl]

It looks to me that even if they had set a LRC power setting it was still iffy given the winds at departure time. Even worse if the forecast *increasing* winds were taken into account.

[Dawdler]

Copy the URL for the pdf into Google Translate. It does a pretty good job of translating. Make sure you select Danish though. Google identified it as Swedish, which wasn't anywhere near as successful a translation.The Swedish dialect spoken in southern Sweden is very similar to Danish. - Indeed that part of Sweden was once part of Denmark.

[ABX]

The Swedish dialect spoken in southern Sweden is very similar to Danish. - Indeed that part of Sweden was once part of Denmark.
True that. Very highly contested dirt.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Was this the pilot also on the seneca with weaver?

The Enemy Within - YouTube

[ksjc]

Wasn't the Seneca pilot a T. Gustafson from Aptos, CA?

[goldeneaglepilot]

Mark denied any knowledge of Weaver or being on the flight. Its sad for Rob that he stopped at hotel North the night before the flight, with the "passenger" who was described as a loud brash american.

From the feedback coming in from two eye witnesses to Weavers "passenger" on the flight its very probable that Robert Firth was indeed the man with Weaver in the Seneca when it crashed.

Well done Rob - your web site is a great source of information - keep up the good work. I guess you thought the Seneca issues had died a death. Like all of your issues they are still very active.

At least its a name the authorities can now try to eliminate from their enquiries.

[hval]

I expected at least a tin foil hat and an American flag

[goldeneaglepilot]

Sorry Hval - Weaver has been educating him, no tin foil hat. Its now a tin foil posing pouch!!! Protect the brains.... It's not clear in the video as the stockings, pouch and high heels are all obscured along with the .45 Magnum.

I did find a short video clip of some of young Roberts other members of staff in what I thought was a company promo video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FZMKPURQVs&feature=related

[goldeneaglepilot]

You may remember Weavers words (hgfcpilot) in post 4 on this thread:

I would finally like to add that I was not a crew member or PIC on that Seneca V, and anyone who states otherwise risks a court hearing.


Well young Robert Weaver did his best to hide the truth about this accident. The truth is now out. When the flight plan was filed it clearly listed Weaver as the Captain. Now we all know that Weaver could not legally be the captain on that flight, the route required an instrument rating applicable to the aircraft type. Weaver (at that time) only held a single engine instrument rating.

Weaver also claimed he had 60 crossings experience at that time. Now the insurers based the premium and the cover on his claims to be the pilot and his claimed experience. Legally he could not have been in command for ANY of the claimed crossings if they were in a multiengine aircraft. Perhaps his claim for the number of crossings includes the number of times he has flown the route as a passenger in a commercial airliner?

I copy below the part of the message that was transmitted to the search and rescue crews while on route to offer Weaver assistance – it was sent from Gander to the Greenland authorities and the information was from the flight plan filed by Weaver:

SPL RECEIVED FROM CZQXZQZX: SPL-N344SE-CYYR-BGBW-E/0530 P/002 R/E S/PM J/LV D/01 006 C/YELLOW A/WHITE BLUE C/WEAVER OPR/SKY FERRY


Now that clearly lists the captain as Weaver and the operator as Skyferry.

Weaver put forward strong arguments that the incident was not reportable to the FAA and NTSB, others on here argued that was the not the case. Having spoken to the FAA
They are of the view that it WAS reportable.

Of course Weaver did not want that as it would make it difficult to get reasonably priced insurance for similar flights in the future.

The accident was due to dry tanks, Weaver forgot the winds and ignored the forecast. He simply ran out of fuel due to very poor planning. The flight could not be done by him legally yet he filed as the captain.

The aircraft cost $150000 for the damage to be repaired and the owner was without his aircraft for nearly a year.

The FAA and NTSB have now got a copy of the documentation with respect to this flight. They are investigating and all I will say is the person that I spoke to last night was not impressed with Weaver... He mentioned various offences that he thought may come into this.

I also mentioned to them about an N-Reg Twin Otter that Weaver flew in the UK and how he told the story of ending up with ice in IFR conditions and frightened himself. When he later flew the aircraft with a very experienced pilot he received a serious dressing down when he had no checklist for the aircraft and told the experienced pilot things that clearly demonstrated that he had no idea of how the deice systems worked.

Weaver may claim to have an accident free history, but that is not the case.

[fernytickles]

It is extraordinary that he has survived this long with such a bizarre attitude towards basic common sense safety.

[Duxford_Eagles]

Has there been any progress towards holding Robert Weaver of Sky Ferry accountable for this failed aircraft delivery?

[Pace]

As there would have been quite a hefty insurance claim on this avoidable accident I am sure the Insurance company have thoroughly looked into who was flying, their licences, medicals etc.

I have over 2500 hrs on Seneca Vs and hence feel qualified to comment.
The aircraft is fitted with a very accurate DDMP which monitors many things including fuel to dry tanks.

The Unit is very accurate and will literally tell you to the minute when you are going to run dry.

If the Aircraft was NOT tanked then the only reason to run out of fuel is bad planning, especially regarding winds and flying without correct reserves.

Ie an incompetent pilot without any doubt who was flying on wishful thinking!
If I had been the owner of that beautiful aircraft I would be livid.

I am sure the insurance will have found out any discrepancies on claimed qualifications and currency and reality. They usually do especially with a lot of money at stake!

Pace

[goldeneaglepilot]

If I had been the owner of that beautiful aircraft I would be livid.



He is!! And understandably so. The cost to the insurers was $150k and the owner lost his aeroplane for twelve months, so taking that in accout, the devaluation of the aircraft when it is sold due to history in the log books of a crash and increased insurance premiums the owner estimates that this accident has cost him a further $50k in consequential losses.

The SAR teams did not ask for passports or examine licences for proof of identity - all they were interested in was that there were no casulties.

Weaver later provided details of the pilot in his report.

Its worth noting that this has not been finished and the reason for this post and the thread is to help warn others until the matter is concluded.

[Pace]

GEP

I added a bit to my post between your posting?
Surely the SAR people would have known who they rescued and who was on the aircraft?
The insurance would have discovered that! I am not aware whether there was one pilot or two?
If one then there is no dispute who was in command and fairly straightforward to check their licences, medicals claimed hours etc over what was supplied for the Ferry quote.
Do SAR make an insurance claim for such an event for their costs? In which case the figure would be much higher.
I am sure Ws younger brother is posting in another thread ;) but this was total idiot flying.
Yes an accident damage history will have a severe impact on value even if the repair is well done.

Pace

[goldeneaglepilot]

Surely the SAR people would have known who they rescued and who was on the aircraft?
The insurance would have discovered that! I am not aware whether there was one pilot or two?
If one then there is no dispute who was in command and fairly straightforward to check their licences, medicals claimed hours etc over what was supplied for the Ferry quote.


There were two pilots aboard. Weaver gave the name but identities were not confirmed by documentary proof by SAR.

Weaver filled in the flight plan claiming he was the captain. After the crash he claimed the other pilot was.

Weaver only held a single IR at the date of the crash. The route demanded a multi IR to be legal.

The insurers stipulated that Weaver was the pilot insured for the journey, prior to the crash they and the company who employed Weaver had missed that his IR was for single engine aircraft only.

This was in no way the owners fault, he had contracted another ferry company to do the ferry flight. They had sub contracted the job to Weaver.

I have no doubt that the insurers will seek recompense for Weavers actions. At the very best it was (on his part) stupidity, at worst intentional fraud. A criminal trial will be needed to let a Judge and Jury decide.

Weaver diid not report the crash.

[Pace]

GEP

That is an amazing account on a number of points. Firstly on the limited jet ferries I have been involved with copies of all licences medicals etc were checked first for approval.
Second that there was a crash and two people were rescued but no one knows who they rescued?
Thirdly that an insurance company would pay out on a pilot who was not licensed or qualified to fly the aircraft.
Fourth that having paid out and discovered this chain of errors that the insurance company are not suing someone for the return of the money they have paid probably a source where there is money to get back.
Fifth that the authorities have not become involved ie the FAA?
Tempo volo as the saying goes.

Something does not add up?

[cldrvr]

The insurance company is most likely not going to bother, the claim has been settled with the owner. For them to pursue any claim against Weaver would mean quite a few people having to admit their own shortcomings and lack of due dilligence in allowing Weaver to get away with it in the first place.

The insurance company must be fully aware that holding Weaver to account is not going to get them anywhere and just cost them money that they have no hope in ever recovering.

[cldrvr]

Pace, simple.

Weaver was not the PIC when it came to the insurance company, the owner or the ferry company, he had nominated another individual who met all the requirements.

As the other person was the PIC, he had no duty to notify the FAA, the only tenuous link there is, is Weaver's name on the flightplan, all the other paperwork had the other individual on it so as far as the owner, FAA and insurance company was concerned all was legal.

All Weaver has to say to any involved here was that "his office" made a minor mistake on filing the flightplan.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Perhaps if we go back to the start of the thread - Truth Prevails is the ferry company the subcontract it to Weaver. They talk of how much it cost them to sort out.

Weaver IS NOT off the hook on this one (yet)


cldrvr,

We certainly didn't Pay peanuts, but we did get monkeys.

We were unaware of the "friend" being a 13000hr retired Airline captain at the time that that we were asked if we objected to the " friend" going along for the experience ( had it of been disclosed that he was a 13000hr pilot you are damn sure the question " Why does a more experienced pilot want to be your passenger " would have been asked ) I wonder what would have happened if we had said " No you can't take anyone along "
I can tell you the answer: RW would have still took the 13000hr pilot along regardless.
The request from RW was " I have a pilot friend who would like to make the trip with me, any objections ? " Our response was " No that is fine by us, but he mustn't fly the plane as P1 or be our financial responsibility"

The ferrying industry is very cut throat and we believe RW got a fair slice of the market because he was known to be undercutting other peoples quotes, now we will confirm that we gave RW £6000.00 of our company funds to ferry the Seneca on a job that was to earn us £7839.50
Needless to say with the ferry flight not being completed, our payment was not in full from the client.
As Rob required £6000 to complete the job it looked like our company might make £1839.50 ( though we always expect that extras could be billed afterwards, so our profit could have been less ) Believe me the money outlay of this ferry flight ran into many thousands of pounds

The insurance did finally pay out after much wrangling,this is still ongoing and there are still discusions on this subject and the insurers are a German aviation insurance company, they accepted RW on the same documentation as we had.

Truth Prevails.

[Pace]

Cldrvr

In that case that one is probably dead in the water.
I could imagine that W would do flights pretending to be the commander while infact using someone more experienced to hold his hand.
I still find it hard to know what went through their minds having an aircraft which when you lean back gives you an increasing time to dry tanks.
An economy cruise setting would give them a TAS and time to dry tanks and the forecast winds a pretty good idea of a groundspeed as well as an accurate ground speed en route from the nav fitted.
It is not rocket science to take a worst scenario and make sure your well covered on fuel.
Sounds like both where a couple of plonkers as for a 13000 hr pilot allowing himself to be lured into a Russian Roulette flight what went through his mind?
Who actually made the descisions enroute. W or Mr 13000? CrazyGEP

As I was accused of knowing W or being somehow connected or associated with him and having my hands soiled as it was put in the other thread!!!
As a Seneca Five expert with over 2500 hrs on the aircraft who was also a demonstrator for Anglo American the main Piper Agents that used to be!!! I am surprised if that connection with Weaver was ever true which it was not that I was not the number 1 choice to have done that ferry with him.

The Seneca five crash was inexcusable for any half reasonable pilot!!!
What a load of rubbish the other Weaver thread SOMETIMES kicks out!


Pace

[goldeneaglepilot]

Pace,

I appreciate your experience with the Seneca, may I ask you to do the calculations for the journey and publish your findings here - we all know that the flight failed, but it would be good to see the calculations done by a pilot such as you with as much experience on type.

The route filed by Weaver was CYYR-LOACH-59N50W-DIRECT (BGBW)

The Weather was forcast as: (quoted from official accident report)

The following weather forecasts were issued by the meteorological office in Kangarlussuaq (BGSF) Greenland the
14. April 2008 were available to the commander:
Cl. 0300 TAF 140300Z 140312 08022KT BGBW 9999 BKN100 TEMPO 0309 08030G40KT
BECMG 0911 08030G40KT TEMPO 1112 08040G50KT.
Cl. 0700 TAF 140700Z 140716 08025KT BGBW 9999 SCT100 BKN150 TEMPO 0716 08030G40KT.
Cl. 1000 TAF BGBW141000Z 141019 08030KT 9999 SCT040 BKN100 TEMPO 1019 08042G55KT BKN040.
Cl. 1300 TAF 141300Z 141319 08030KT BGBW 9999 SCT040 BKN100 TEMPO 1319 08042G55KT BKN040.
Cl. 1300 AMD TAF AMD 141600Z 141619 08045G58KT 9999 BKN120.

METAR Weather Observations were made at intervals of one hour broadcast from BGBW.

METAR, released from BGBW, 14 April 2008, contained the following wind information:
Cl. 0750 08029KT.
Cl. 0850 08026KT.
Cl. 0950 07039G49KT .
Cl. 1050 08029G42KT .
Cl. 1350 08041G54KT .


Weaver had sent an email to the owner of the ferry company that he had contracted to do the work for before the accident:

From: rob weaver <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Subject: CYYR direct BGGH
To: [email protected]


Peter,

The Seneca is burning about 20US gallons per hour at 13,000ft with the engines leaned, it takes about 20gallons to get upto 13,000ft from engine start, taxi and climb.

I was hoping to be in Iceland later today, please see the below weather report and the winds, this was unexpected to be as bad as this, and sadly as you know its not cheap being grounded in Goose, I hope to be airborne again tomorrow. (Note Greenland is closed Sunday so I want to get to Iceland tommorow to avoid further costs to you/your client)

Routing will now be CYYR Direct BGGH to save time and money for both of us. (700nm in distance)

I have net access at the overpriced hotel so please feel free to drop me a e-mail back, note that I have no cell phone signal.

The trip up yesterday was more or less IFR all the way shortly after leaving KLEW with the ceilings at 14,000ft down to about 5,000ft with moderate icing and turbulence, but nothing of a problem.

Hope to hear from you later,

Rob

Weavers flight plan was filed to BGBW NOT BGGH before the crash.

To help I also quote below a little from the official transcript of the communications as the Search and Rescue operation happened:

1431 N344SE declaring miminum fuel to CYQX – Requesting priority approach to BGBW.

1440 (RQS-N344SE-CYYR-BGBW) - Data not available.


1443 (POS-N344SE-59N050W/1426 DES F070 BGBW/1605-
RLA VIA BAW217)


1448 (POS-BAW217-ADZ THAT N344SE HAS BGBW WX INFO AND BGSF FREQ 121.3)


1451 SPL RECEIVED FROM CZQXZQZX:
(SPL-N344SE-CYYR-BGBW
-E/0530 P/002 R/E S/PM J/LV
D/01 006 C/YELLOW
A/WHITE BLUE
C/WEAVER OPR/SKY FERRY)


1453 N344SE on BGGL frequency 121.300 MHz. Advices fuel remaining 1:21 hours, estimates BGBW in 1:15 hours.


1457 N344SE request QNH in in.hg. Delivered A29.56.


1506 N344SE: 29 gallons of fuel left.


1511 N344SE: Position 59 51,73N 048 39,91W – 122.6 NM from BGBW.


1515 N344SE: Request rescue helo. RCC advices that rescue helicopter is preparing for departure.


1518 N344SE: Groundspeed down to 82 kts, descending to 3.000 ft.


1520 N344SE: Have land in sight, groundspeed 76 kts, maintaining 4.600 ft for now.


1523 N344SE at position 60 03,11N 048 12,39W.


1530 N344SE at position 60 09,70N 047 56,63W.


1534 Rescue Helicopter GRL5200 (OYHIA) with doctor onboard airborne from BGJH.


1535 RCC request N344SE to activate ELT if possible. ELT is manually activated by pilot.


1536 N344SE at position 60 17,05N 047 39,10W.


1537 RCC relay position at time 1536 to rescue helicopter OYHIA.


1539 RCC advices N344SE of the departure and routing of OYHIA.


SAR Case Name/No: N344SE


Type: PA34 Callsign: N344SE Reg: N344SE Pob: 2


Dato: 14 APR 08 Emergency Phase: ALERFa/DETRESFA Nature of Distress: Fuel starvation


TID ( UTC) ACTION:


1541 RCC relayed details on N344SE to OYHIA.


1546 N344SE two fiords in sight. Pilot requests advice on which fiord to choose. OYHIA advices that Bredefjord will be the best routing in the prevailing wind conditions.


1547 N344SE is 62 NM almost due west of BGBW. OYHIA is 45 NM from BGBW.


1548 N344SE: We might be able to make it to BGBW.


1551 N344SE: Groundspeed increased to 135 kts, just about to enter the fiord. OYHIA is circling overhead Simiutaq at 1.000 ft.


1552 N344SE 52,9 NM from BGBW at 4.600 ft.


1553 N344SE at position 60 40,44N 046 49,49W.


1553 Visual contact between N344SE and OYHIA.


1554 N344SE advices that fuel emergency light is now illuminated.


1555 FIC delivers BGBW altimeter setting 29.50 to N344SE and QNH 999 HPa to OYHIA.


1556 N344SE: It is going to be really close!


1600 N344SE: We have to land in terrain. Position 60 53,24N 046 24,60W.


1603 N344SE declaring MAYDAY – fuel exhausted.


1610 GRL5201: 6 NM and 2 min from LKP.


1611 FIC delivers details on aircraft N344SE to GRL5201.


1612 GRL5201 at position 60 55N 046 12W.


1613 BGNS HIS advices that the aircraft has performed a forced landing on a field 500 metres from BGNS heliport.


1613 Information from BGNS relayed to GRL5201 and OYHIA.


1615 OYHIA has the aircraft in sight.


1617 GRL5201 arriving at site. Advices that crew from N344SE are okay.


1620 EKCH SUPV advised.

[aerobat77]

interesting thread !

beyond fulltime on a cheyenne III since 4 years i freelance on a seneca for a small german company and from the informations givene here something is odd.

first- our flightplanner gives for CYYR-BGBW a distance of 785NM .

the longest flight i ever managed nonstop with the seneca was about 650 NM and 4:30hours to land with not more than 45min fuel on board. 785NM with headwinds has to go wrong even with correct leaning- the result is no suprize .

the seneca burns ~20gal per engine/h in climb and you can squeeze her down to about 10-11 gallons/engine in cruise leaned. ( turbocharged continental TSIO360 ) trying to lean further gives no result since the manifold pressure will start to fall and so also the speed- so you will not get out more range out of her doing this . the TAS with 10-11 gal/eng will be in FL100-110 about 160kt TAS .

roberts email about cruise fuel flow is roughly realistic,but to get to 13000feet she will burn a little more than he claims. and the distance is simply to far for a seneca - since she will do not make more than 160 knots true when leaned down to 10gal/eng.

the next thing is : at 1506 he reports 29gal on board ( being in cruise) and at 1603 the engines stop. so in an hour he burned 14.5gal/engine which is not even leaned to the limit.

and he seemed to start a shallow descend and finally had to level off at low altitudes with miles still to go.

the TSIO continentals have an altitude compensating fuel injection system which increases fuel flow with lower altitude by itself without you touching the condition lever. simultany the seneca has a significant tendency to drop in TAS at low altitudes- so he should stay high as long as possible .

the last thing : making 160 TAS results in nearly 5 hours with no wind , so at altitude he did not even had a hard headwind.

it seems that nobody had experience on a seneca and they simply made a mistake what you can expect from this plane and what not.

best regards !

[stuckgear]

it's worth bearing in mind that in terms of 'insurance fraud' defined as a false representation made in order to obtain benefit or gain, weaver made false representation for benefit/gain for this piece of business, he was also the named insured pilot in command, yet has publicly denied being PIC of the aircraft.

he also claimed a thrown cylinder as the cause, despite no post incident damage being found.

[Pace]

GEP

The Seneca Five is a very different animal to its earlier brothers. The Engines are turbocharged, intercooled and wastegated.
The main differences are the engines can fly max continuous rather than limited.
Climb rate can be 1500 fpm initially but even at 18K 800-900 fpm is common!
We did a test at Anglo American for a customer who was unsure whether to go for a pressurised Piper Mirage or the Seneca Five and in the climbing stakes the five beat the Mirage up to 20K.
I ended up being his pilot on a brand new Seneca five for 5 years which included 50 trips in one year to west Ireland single pilot in summer and winter and at night hence his choice of the twin.

TAS at 20K is in excess of 200 kts while down at 10K around the 170 Kt mark.
But obviously at those heights your looking at using the plumbed in oxygen.
29 ins man and 2400rpm equated to 75% to 80% pwr and 26 USG per hour with around 170 KTS TAS.
The tanks hold 123 USG so at those settings your good for around 650 NM with climb considered and an hour reserve.
Power back and you can look at 20 to 22 USG and 150 kts TAS so with climb increasing range to around 720 nm.
Add in a headwind and its not rocket science.
Add in shoddy leaning?
For me its a fly for 4 hrs and land aeroplane

A wing and a prayer?

I feel sorry for the owner as even with a good repair its still an aircraft with an accident History.
With so many on the market who will buy one with an accident history unless you give it away?

Pace

[cldrvr]

Looks like the flight was doomed from the start, why the heck did this reputable, experienced ferry company that subcontracted to Weaver not pick up any of the red flags here???

13,0000 hour guy as pax.
No way that 750nM was possible
Different guy on insurance papers after the crash.


I go back to my original post from way back here in the thread, the ferry company that did the subcontracting were either dumber then a box of rocks, complacent or worse.


This could have so easily been avoided had the orignial ferry company done 1 minute worth of work instead of getting excited over making a cut without lifting a finger.

[goldeneaglepilot]

reputable, experienced ferry company that subcontracted to Weaver not pick up any of the red flags here

By his own admission, not so experienced - Weaver fooled them.

I do agree, it would appear that Weaver did do the flight fraudulantly - he lied to obtain the business, due to his lies it cost both the insurers, the company that sub contracted the work to him and the owner a lot of money.

[Dan Dare]

why the heck did this reputable, experienced ferry company that subcontracted to Weaver not pick up any of the red flags here???

Maybe not such an experienced, reputable ferry company himself. His website also makes claims that reality can not back up

WE FERRY & DELIVER AIRCRAFT WORLDWIDE and all of our ferry pilots have a minimum of 1000 hours cross country Ferry / Delivery experience. NO TIME BUILDERS ! All of our pilots have a 100% accident & damage free history

One can only assume that this industry is full of such Weaver-alikes.

[Tinstaafl]

From earlier posts, even the insurance company missed something. FAA instrument ratings don't - on the face of it - state multi or single. It just says 'Instrument rating'. **Elsewhere** on the licence is where the limitations are specified. A quick glance can have you thinking that the pilot isn't limited to SE only.

[Pace]

Dan Dare

I do not think that the Ferry industry is unique in making over bloated claims and not broadcasting their disasters.
I am surprised that having given the work to a third party that they did not ask for and see copies of licences, medicals proof of hours etc and to have got approval from the insurance company for specific pilot/s.
They both look like amateur cowboy outfits.
The few ferries I have been involved in have been in expensive machinery and I have had to supply proof of all my licences and hours.
Those were then kept on record.

Pace

[stuckgear]

Pace,

it kind of comes across that you are apportioning the responsibility of the Seneca V fuel exhaustion not to Weaver, but to the ferry company that assigned the work to weaver.

they have already put their hands up and admitted that they dropped the ball and took weaver's representations at 'face value'.

fair enough, they admitted they were not as stringent as they could have been and have since adjusted their internal processes.

notwithstanding, that does not exempt weaver, he willingly and knowingly presented that he had the qualifications to undertake the work with the complicit knowledge that he was not capable of doing so.

further, as the named insured PIC he was responsible for fuel planning.

by his complicit actions to gain work that he knew he was not in the position to undertake, he, by presentation of his 'credentials' and acceptance of the work sought personal gain by misrepresenting his capabilities.

further, as PIC he was responsible for the fuel management, which he mis-managed and left someone's aircraft with a big bill and a damage history affecting its asset value.

weaver publicly denied he was PIC on the aircraft, despite being the only named insured PIC, so there alone he put the aircraft into a situation outside of the insurance policy, he also publicly claimed that the cause of the incident was due to a thrown cylinder [sic].

please don't try to paint weaver as an innocent party, he is a liar and fraud and is nothing more than an accident looking for somewhere to happen who frankly doesn't care who may kill, the damage he causes, who pays for it, nor does he care for the regulations that govern aircraft operations and the privileges of a license.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

It's 6 and two threes.

The elephant in the room is the damning email from weaver trying to mitigate any, further costs to the contracting ferry company to gain favour and probably more work.

To save time and money for both of us..

This is a classic case of pressonitus, in this case trying to impress

You have an inexperienced CPL doing an Atlantic crossing, he shouldn't have been put there and he shouldn't have allowed himself to be there.

And don't be suggesting Pace is sticking up for Weaver, you'll be getting GEP all hot under the collar and that's not how I read it.

Errors of judgment in all cases, if the aircraft had belonged to the contracting company I'm guessing they would have looked at him a little more closely....

[Pace]

Stuck gear
How on earth can you by any shape of imagination read my posts as supportive to Weaver ?
This was total incompetence flown by a fool !

Pace

[stuckgear]

indeed pace, and i wasn't having a dig at you. as i said, 'it kind of comes across'. i was making no judgement as loyalties, just commenting on perceptions.

i have to agree with you on the total incompetence by a dangerous, arrogant fool.

[Pace]

Stuck Gear

The only point I did make was that the work was subcontracted out to a third party ie Weaver.
It would be normal having subcontracted out for that initial ferry company to request and hold details and proof of the pilot qualifications and currency as well as suitability to do the ferry.
Not just for the insurance but as duty of care to their client.
I feel sorry for the owner of that lovely aircraft

Pace

[stuckgear]

indeed pace, and i was making the point that the company that contracted the work to weaver puttheir hands up and admitted they took weaver at his word and as such dropped the ball and have since updated their internal processes.

likewise weaver also has duty of care to the aircraft owner, the company that contracted the work to him compliance with the regulatory body and the company that placed him as the named insured, which he was fully aware that he was qualified to be.

even so, it was weavers actions that turned the aircraft into a glider.

[Pace]

StuckGear

I would also like to know what a supposed 13000 hr pilots place was in the whole scheme of things?
He may not have been officially the Captain or P1 or whatever but it was still his life at risk and the guy had a full set of controls in front of him?
Before you jump at saying I am excusing Weavers actions I am not! I see Weaver as a good talker with very poor piloting skills who more than likely would ask a more experienced pilot along to make decisions while he sat there recording the hours and taking the glory if it had gone fine.
I personally will never mess with fuel as cutting it fine is putting yourself in the lap of the gods but it is still a relevant question regarding the experienced high hours pilot on board.
As stated the person I feel sorry for is the owner of a Brand new Seneca Five
Who entrusted his pride and joy to people he thought were professionals.
Now even with a good repair he has an aircraft which will always carry an accident record and will never achieve a resale value anything like the value it should do.

Pace

[stuckgear]

i have to agree with you pace.

just as an aside, i'm not jumping at anything, i'm just giving an opinion on perceptions, nor looking at getting into a d1ck waving contest.

though as conjecture as to the very pertinent points you raise:


I would also like to know what a supposed 13000 hr pilots place was in the whole scheme of things?


weaver knew he didnt have the capacity or ability to do what he put himself into and probably talked this guy into 'mentoring' him or by being a party that actually did meet the legal requirements.

He may not have been officially the Captain or P1 or whatever but it was still his life at risk and the guy had a full set of controls in front of him?


for what we understand, 13khr guy saved the aircraft from total loss and weaver from gaining the title of 'the deceased'.

I see Weaver as a good talker with very poor piloting skills who more than likely would ask a more experienced pilot along to make decisions while he sat there recording the hours and taking the glory if it had gone fine.


yep, i think you are on the money, along with weaver denying and responsibility if it went tango uniform, which it did and he did.

I personally will never mess with fuel as cutting it fine is putting yourself in the lap of the gods

it's beyond inexperience, it is in fact dangerously negligent and incompetent. cutting it fine is playing fast and loose with your life, other people's lives and property.

As stated the person I feel sorry for is the owner of a Brand new Seneca Five

me too.

Now even with a good repair he has an aircraft which will always carry an accident record and will never achieve a resale value anything like the value it should do.

personally i would be spitting blood !

[mad_jock]

Yes but I am a lowley 6k Captain and I would never sit my arse in an aircraft specially for that sort of trip that I don't have a clue about either the performance or the fuel planning of.

It just wouldn't happen. And some ginger dick head telling me "it will be oK" will not change that fact.

[PT6A]

I agree mad..... The hairs would of been standing on the back of my neck... the lack of proper planning must of shown...

Alarm bells should of gone off with that Microsoft flight simulator flight plan!

[SteveR]

I'm sorry, three in one posting is just too many to allow to pass.

...would HAVE been standing...
...planning must HAVE shown...
...bells should HAVE gone off...

[500 above]

Low cost ferry pilot « Contract pilot tales (http://contractpilot.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/low-cost-ferry-pilot-2/)

Interesting....

[ksjc]

Seriously? ...and I was enjoying PPRUNE again. Will check back again in January to see if this ridiculous Weaver biz has finshed.

[goldeneaglepilot]

I must admit it's frustrating to see that the whole business has taken so long for the authorities to investigate and action. Sadly it would appear that RW continues in his activities, seemingly in another country (as his base) to try to avoid the actions of the investigating authorities.

I doubt that any of the RW information would have raised it's head again had RW been placed on bail conditions or remanded pending trial to stop further activities by him which have resulted in more people losing money.

I have no doubt that RW must be feeling the financial "pinch" as his activities have been exposed, in turn he has become more devious, this is evidenced by his latest activities and peoples loss, details of which can not be disclosed upon here (yet).

There is still a considerable amount of money that is owed to various people by RW in admitted debts. It would seem he has now set up bank accounts outside the UK to avoid repayment of these people. If anyone reading this has done business with Weaver and has made a payment into a non UK bank account for services offered by him then please PM me and I will pass the information on. This will of course be done in confidence.

[sooty3694]

If anyone IS reading it here, the chances are that they would NOT have done any business with him in the first place, so your plea seems like a long shot to me.

If Weaver is now established elsewhere and free to operate, obviously not much action was taken, if any, by the "various authorities" that you were liaising with.

Since the Weaver thread was locked, has he actually been arrested? I guess not.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Sooty,

You make many assumptions. Whilst the authorities actions have been VERY slow (due to the complexity of their investigations and international nature of the complaints), those actions have been happening.

RW has made numerous written claims that the information on PPrune has affected his business. By that statement alone it can be concluded that Pprune has had a positive effect in making some people aware of the problems many have faced.

Perhaps it might be worth remembering that, following Weaver's written apology on the forum he had said that he was going to sort himself out. Unfortunatly he went back to his old ways in a matter of weeks following that apology and then took many thousands in advance fees for services he did not deliver.

http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/493973-fresh-start-open-apology.html#post7381061

Part of Weaver's public apology:

One of the options I considered was going bankrupt or entering into an IVA to facilitate sorting out what I owe to various people. I do not feel that is an honourable option, it leaves people out of pocket, and that is not what I have ever wanted. With that in mind I have been working around the list of people I owe money to and have been sorting out repayment plans that I can afford. It will take me time to sort this out and get people refunded, I ask that people do allow me the chance to resolve this without compounding the amounts that I owe by further Court or Enforcement action. To those I owe money to, if I have not yet contacted you to sort this out then I shall be contacting you shortly.

That can’t turn back time, but I do hope that people acknowledge the fact that I now offer a whole hearted apology without reservation or condition and I am trying my best to sort the historical issues out and take steps to gain the commercial knowledge and infrastructure within my business to stop the mistakes ever happening again.

In future my business activities will operate with total transparency from the onset of any dealings, clients will be given a revised contract that will explain very clearly what they will get from me, what is quoted into the price and what is not and how contingencies or eventualities will be dealt with. Hopefully it will help avoid the past confusion to some of my clients. My new contract will shortly be available for inspection by anyone on my website. There will also be clear terms of reference for dealing with any consequential, unplanned costs enroute.

Again I offer my sincere apologies for everything that has happened. I an my firm look forward to building a better future for all involved.

[sooty3694]

Sooty,

You make many assumptions. Whilst the authorities actions have been VERY slow (due to the complexity of their investigations and international nature of the complaints), those actions have been happening.

RW has made numerous written claims that the information on PPRuNe has affected his business. By that statement alone it can be concluded that PPRuNe has had a positive effect in making some people aware of the problems many have faced.

Perhaps it might be worth remembering that, following Weaver's written apology on the forum he had said that he was going to sort himself out. Unfortunatly he went back to his old ways in a matter of weeks following that apology and then took many thousands in advance fees for services he did not deliver.


I made one assumption (that anyone reading this thread would probably not do business with Weaver anyway), asked one question (which you did not answer), and made one guess (that he hasn't yet been arrested).

In the absence of any information to the contrary I'll guess again. My first guess was correct.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Sorry Sooty, at this stage I am not prepared to answer the question directly, it will be answered with the fullness of time, as has been said previously the affairs of Weaver are of an international nature, if you asked had he been arrested in France, then No is the answer (not yet). Has he been arrested elsewhere? then thats a different answer.

Sorry if thats not helpful to you - I don't want to help Weaver in any way shape or form, however if you have lost money at his hand then you could follow the advice of Pprune Towers in his sticky post...

[sooty3694]

Confirming or otherwise whether he has been arrested is NOT going to prejudice any (possible?) forthcoming action, so why the secrecy?

Let me put it another way; do you actually KNOW what is happening? Are "various agencies" actually keeping you in the loop, or are you just hoping that it is about time that his (alleged) nefarious behavior is being dealt with by an agency with the ability to track and bring to justice someone who has (again, allegedly) committed crimes in a variety of international jurisdictions?

My best guess (and call it an assumption if you prefer) is that you haven't got a clue what is happening right at this time, but rather you are hoping that any scraps of information that you might provide to "various agencies" might help further the cause.


I applaud the cause, but don't much care for subterfuge when it comes to passing on up to date information. There was a time when it was newsworthy and interesting to read.

Might I suggest that you report nothing when you have nothing, and refrain from the " I just heard something, but sorry I am not able to tell you," tease.

[DX Wombat]

do you actually KNOW what is happening? Sooty, did it ever occur to you that maybe GEP is not permitted to provide answers? Maybe he is required by a Court of Law to refrain from such activities, as further discussion on specific points may prejudice the outcome of any legal action undertaken now or in the future. I have no idea if this is the case but it is a possibility. I find your demands for answers highly suggestive of aggressive journalism and therefore very worrying.

[Duckeggblue]

If GEP is not permitted to provide answerspersonally -as opposed to in the context of general rumour or opinion - then I am sure that he would say so.
Is arrest not a matter of public record rather than a one of secrecy? A genuine question - not getting at anyone :)

[mutt]

Then why is GEP still posting ?

Mutt

[sooty3694]

Mutt;

Precisely my point! If GEP has nothing he can add to the record, why post? Anything else is merely a tease in my opinion. A case of "I know something, but sorry I can't say more."

DX Wombat wrote;

Sooty, did it ever occur to you that maybe GEP is not permitted to provide answers? Maybe he is required by a Court of Law to refrain from such activities, as further discussion on specific points may prejudice the outcome of any legal action undertaken now or in the future.

I assume you are referring to sub judice. Confirming or otherwise that an individual has been arrested will not prejudice any proceedings - the fact, or otherwise, is a matter of record.


I find your demands for answers highly suggestive of aggressive journalism and therefore very worrying.


Well I'm sorry you feel that way Wombat. I am not a journalist, and for the record I applaud the general principle behind GEP's work; it's just the way he is now reporting his progress that I don't much care for.

[Pace]

There is a very big difference between being arrested which does not mean a thing and as a result of that arrest being CHARGED!

All talk here is about an arrest somewhere in the world unknown? or out of the world Mars?will do :ugh::(

Can someone please confirm that W has been charged (somewhere in the world unknown or known or out of it if they have courts on Mars) and is due to face a court of law to answer those CHARGES?? As this is all becoming one BIG smokescreen.

That simple question is not subjudice neither can that carry anything negative towards a successful outcome that is all bunkum.

The Seneca thread and that incident which was unbelievable incompetence! of all Ws misdemeanors should have had an outcome if not in criminal courts through the aviation authorities but frankly I doubt anything will happen or could happen given the length of time that has past.

Pace

[Jonzarno]

Whilst I appreciate the enormous efforts made by GEP and others to get the authorities to take this case seriously, I have to say I am coming down more and more on the side of Pace and Sooty on this.

Let us examine what we have had:

· A series of related allegations against Robert Weaver going back over a number of years, some of them apparently well documented and submitted to the authorities

· An admission, on this forum, by Robert Weaver of at least some of his misdeeds and an apparently unfulfilled promise to set them right

· Repeated assertions that the matter is being dealt with seriously by the authorities and assurances that, when it all crystallises, the original Robert Weaver thread would be removed so that justice could take its course (quite why that has to be the case I am not sure: I do not recall the press ceasing to publish stories about far more serious criminal cases and trials than this will ever be)

· The removal of that thread some weeks ago, followed by the posting of a sticky by Pprune Towers inviting anyone with claims against Weaver to contact him for details of the authorities dealing with the case implying that the authorities have now begun to take action

So far so good: for many people, myself included, this was just an illustration that the authorities take an incredibly long time to do anything but that, as frequently anticipated by GEP, they were finally getting their act together and that things were at last moving. That said, there has still been no news whatever of anything happening.

We now have the re-emergence of the Weaver theme in this related thread, which I suppose will be closed down any time soon, not giving details of anything specific but a whole bunch of what sounds very like innuendo or "I know something you don’t know and I’m not going to tell youwhat it is".

The police have very clear guidelines as to what they can and can not release to any member of the public, including complainants. By definition, anything that they have released is in the public domain and can be divulged freely to others. The police do not divulge such information"in confidence". I know this to be true because I myself was the victim/ complainant in a major fraud enquiry and that is how the process was explained to me by the investigating officer at the time.

The idea that such information, which has been released to a member of the public, could be helpful to Robert Weaver, or any other alleged offender, is simply laughable because, before the case gets anywhere near a court, all of the evidence relating to the case has by law to be disclosed to the defendant who will be given plenty of time to prepare a defence.

With the greatest of respect to GEP, whose efforts I continue to admire, I have to say that, in the interests of existing and, especially potential victims who don’t have the information you say you have, and may not have read the original thread before it was pulled, I really think that you should publish, here or elsewhere, any concrete facts that you know.

[Duckeggblue]

Could it be that posting "something" regardless of whether informative or new, is done with the intention of bumping the thread up to the top again?
Where (if there is anybody left reading who hasn't heard of Weaver ;)) it serves to warn or perhaps encourage others to come forward with previously untold Weavergate activities which may assist in his demise.

[Dawdler]

In defence of GEP, the re-activation of this thread was made by another party to which GEP responded. His reluctance to divulge information has on many occasions been explained as not wishing to aid RW in any way by giving him advance warning of the way things were going. I do not believe that GEP has ever used the term sub judice in the matter of this case.

If RW is ever brought to book regarding the events described here it will be in no small measure due to the efforts of GEP co-ordinating those who claim to have suffered at the hands of a (now) well known Halfpenny Green Pilot.

That some are still apparently suffering from the alleged deceptions surrounding ferrying and training is evidence that not all have heard the story so far.

[Jonzarno]

Dawdler

I agree entirely with your appreciation of what GEP has done to date and what he continues to do.

I do think that things have moved on a bit and that this may well be the time to bring the facts out into the open for the reasons given in my earlier post.

I stress, I'm not having a go at GEP. Just the opposite. But I do think he will get better results, especially in preventing others who have not read the earlier thread from getting hurt.

[aerobat77]

the most majority sits the whole day infront a computer and seeks for internet excitement and affairs. thats all.

[etrang]

Weaver's recent appology looks very much like his earlier appology from 1 or 2 years back. Well, talk is cheap. I fully expect him to go back to his bad old ways and i also expect the authorities to continue to do nothing.

It is also quite likely that we will get more "I know something, but I can't tell." and "There are things happening but they are secret." type comments.

Robert, your new web site looks much better, but your written English is still horrible, and painful to read.

[Jonzarno]

Since my posts yesterday, I have heard directly from GEP and, based on what he has shown me, I can see that progress really is being made and agree that details of that progress should not be published where Weaver can see it.

This is different from my continuing belief that information on what Weaver has done or tried to do should be published as a warning to potential victims.

GEP: continued power to your elbow.:ok:

[DX Wombat]

Weaver's recent apology looks very much like his earlier apologythat's because it is the same one - look at the date of posting. ;)

[Nigd3]

I think Jonzarno is RW armed with a Cambridge based proof reader, who has now fulfilled his desire to gain details of any prosecution that may be coming his way.

I also think the moon landings were filmed in a hangar in Area 51 and the US Government were behind 911.

I'm also very bored at the moment.........

[goldeneaglepilot]

No, Jonzarno is a decent person with honest and just principles.

RW could not spell that. let alone understand the concept. RW is a bit like a vampire with a flood light, looking for the on button!!

But I do agree. RW would love a crystal ball and the ability to know what is going on

[Booglebox]

Nigd3, notwithstanding the fact that Jon Zarno is a real person who I dealt with at a company I used to work for, I think you are somewhat overestimating Weaver....

[Jonzarno]

Curses! Unmasked!

Actually Ruprecht and I are really twins.

Separated at birth, we shared the family fortune: he got the business brain and I got the English O level.

:p

[Jonzarno]

the most majority sits the whole day infront a computer and seeks for internet excitement and affairs. thats all.


"Internet excitement"? I'm not so sure. "Affairs"? Hmm! That's a whole different question!

Note to Aerobat: In Englisch, "Affair" lässt sich auch als "Seitensprung" verstehen :O

[rennaps]

I do so miss the weaver thread :(

[Lumps]

So do I. So do I. Like a great TV series pulled after one season. What happened next, did justice prevail?

[Brian Abraham]

Seems he's still on the loose, and perhaps ingratiating himself. Think he would be working pro bono?

Rob Weaver, SkyFerry - National Solicitors (http://www.nationalsolicitors.com/marketing/rob-weaver-sky-ferry/)

[Jonzarno]

Rather than going off on another generalised GSG hunt which will probably end up with the thread locked, I'd be interested to know whether the insurers concerned in the specific case that is the subject of this thread actually paid out or if some other action has been taken.

[F4TCT]

Seems hes into choppers now too... or so his facebook thing says.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sky-Ferry-Aircraft-Delivery-LLC/150037135053821?id=150037135053821&sk=photos_stream

[Newforest2]

I see Sky Ferry are taking legal action this Forum! :uhoh:

[Piltdown Man]

This guy remains a priceless source of entertainment. I think the best bit is the moniker "Captain", something that is only used by.... Unless of course, this guy has some heavy jet time...

May the thread continue...

PM

[drag king]

I think the best bit is the moniker "Captain", something that is only used by.... Unless of course, this guy has some heavy jet time...

So without being sympathetic to the specific guy tell me, what tonnage divides men from everybody else, merely in-command of an aircraft?

Just curious...

DK ;)

[jmmoric]

I remember this one very well.

Radarvectors couldn't be given, there's no radar, ADB-B is being implemented by Gander at the moment, available in the southern part of Greenland, and the aircraft was routing straight towards BGBW anyway.

A couple of days later we had a similar "situation", unaccounted for headwind, this time with an aircraft with pontons. Were able to get him into Grønnedal and land on the fiord safely, refuel at Grønnedal and continue onward.

Greenland is not a place where you want to go, without doing your flightplanning properly. You should see the number of pins on the chart RCC used to have.

[debiassi]

Well he still appears to be getting the business despite his presence and reputation.
This guy appears to have done some movements for him in recent times albeit smaller aircraft.
Search Adventures (http://www.findmespot.com/spotadventures/index.php/search?profileid=48067)

There may be some truth to the French guy stating Quimper LFRQ is his home base.
I am aware of an aircraft that was recently abandoned there and funds not being returned.

[cessnapete]

I stayed overnight with our friend earlier this year, in connection with another failed Ferry. He put us up in his caravan on a site near Quimper.

[debiassi]

Ha-Ha, just received two legal threats from Weaver in quick succession.
Made me laugh.
I have now blocked his email address. :)

[Jetblu]

Haha. Nothing like some nostalgia and reminiscent of past times mate. :)

........not from Weavers of Warwickshire I hope. :oh:

[Journey Man]

I wonder who the ferry pilot of this Meridian was (http://contract pilot.WordPress.com/2014/09/08/fuel)? Seems like lessons aren't being learnt.

[Piltdown Man]

Drag King - it's not the tonnage, it's the requirement for multi crew. Whilst the pilot of a single pilot aircraft is certainly the commander it is pretentious to call yourself "Captain". You are only in charge of yourself. It also implies a broader experience level and even then, you are only a captain whilst working. Lastly, whenever an individual uses the title "Captain" I get an uneasy feeling about that person's competence. To date, my gut instincts have not been let me down.

Me? I'm just a pilot.

PM

To be fair to this guy he should advertise that despite several near misses, a few crashes, regularly flying on fumes, using MS flight simulator for flight planning! upsetting many people, etc. he's still alive - and that is an amazing achievement.

[megan]

Journey Man, unable to get your link to work, but came up with this one.

Contract pilot tales | Contract pilot tales (http://contractpilot.wordpress.com/)

Thought it worthwhile to copy the content to here. Just to give Weaver some free advertising you understand. One of the comments on the page points out that with the fuel used and fuel remaining figures in the photo he had not even departed with full fuel (120 USG). The missing 17 gallons may have been more than he could afford.

A young man approached me at an airport in England recently, we talked a bit while we were kicking the tires – tyres as they say in England – of the airplane I was picking up. He said he’d hate to see the old airplane leave but he understood, the market in Europe prefers newer single-engine airplanes over piston twins, plastic fuselages over welded steel tubes. We talked about the planned ferry flight that would take the 50-year old Piper Aztec “home” to the US and the young man pulled up a picture on his phone, saying since I knew a bit about Atlantic ferry flights that he wanted my opinion.

The man is a pilot and mechanic, in truth he didn’t need my opinion, he knew very well. The picture he showed me was this. He said he’d personally taken the picture in the cockpit of a Piper Matrix that had just landed from an Atlantic ferry flight, not something he had obtained secondhand. The Piper Matrix had departed from Canada and crossed the Atlantic directly, without ferry tanking or HF radio. When the airplane landed, the fuel gauges looked like this:

http://contractpilot.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/photo.jpg?w=600&h=450
Fuel display of a Piper Matrix that very nearly became another fuel exhaustion ferry flight accident

I looked up the flight path and the aircraft’s registration online a few days later. The aircraft registration shows up in the “testimonials” section on the website of a well known con artist / wannabe ferry pilot, a pilot who has previously crashed an aircraft in Greenland due to fuel starvation.

Most pilots who fly long-range flights have run into situations where they landed with less fuel than they were happy with. Weather, diversions, ATC delays, mechanical issues, or other situations beyond your control are the reason you carry plenty of fuel reserve. Sadly, good pilots have lost their lives due to exceedingly adverse and unexpected conditions. That was not the case for this Piper Matrix, the pilot knowingly or ignorantly planned a flight well beyond the safe range of the airplane just to save a few bucks. Had he run into any issues at all, he would have become another fuel exhaustion ferry flight accident. Had he been ramp checked, there would have been violations and fines. Had there been an accident the insurance company would have put up a fight not to pay out.

When you hire a ferry pilot, check their references. Don’t rely on “testimonials” on some website, ask previous customers and people who are familiar with ferry flying. I will be happy to provide references from previous customers and other pilots. If you don’t hire me, please hire another reputable ferry pilot.

[B767Longhaul]

He's also absconded with the funds intended to pay
the ferry crew of that 747. :mad: