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.

[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.

[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]

Empty threats

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

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]

Nauseating

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

[MartinCh]

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]

Good Point

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]

Robert Weaver - SKYFERRY

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]

Statement

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.