Seneca V Crash
 

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

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

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

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?

Seneca v Crash
 

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:yuk:

Seneca v Crash
 

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

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

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

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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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: 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.
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?

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.

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.

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:D

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

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

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

Good Point
 

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

hear,hear,

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

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!!!!!

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.

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

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

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

Truth Prevails.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

.

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

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