Seneca V Crash
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Humberside
Age: 58
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who Was Flying
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!!!!!
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!!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Debiassi,
I will answer your post with highlighted remarks
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.
I will answer your post with highlighted remarks
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
123
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
123
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
123
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.
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
123
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
123
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
123
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.