"Top Pilot is accused of £500k cocaine drug smuggling"
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One rarely finds out the insurance angles on a crash. Lots of rumours go around but nothing is written openly.
I know from speaking to insurers that they will pay out on just about any case of pilot negligence, and suprisingly that includes taking off overweight (a pilot error). But they won't pay out if the aircraft or crew are illegal to start with, and applicable ADs which have not been done on the last Annual would be a good enough reason IF they find out.
Saying that AD noncompliance was not a factor is reasonable. 99% of aircraft maintenance requirements can be skipped, for years. If you start with a new plane and change the oil and clean the plugs, you should not find issues for perhaps 10 years. Maybe not on a Diamond though...
A friend ran a Renault for more than 15 years without any servicing; just topping off the oil. A plane is no different. A squirt of WD40 will keep it going for ages. The chickens will come home to roost in a big way, but only later....
Many lifed items don't need doing at all, and the same (or much bigger) fleet operated in the USA without lifed items shows there is no safety improvement whatsoever over EASA's lifed item requirements.
I know from speaking to insurers that they will pay out on just about any case of pilot negligence, and suprisingly that includes taking off overweight (a pilot error). But they won't pay out if the aircraft or crew are illegal to start with, and applicable ADs which have not been done on the last Annual would be a good enough reason IF they find out.
Saying that AD noncompliance was not a factor is reasonable. 99% of aircraft maintenance requirements can be skipped, for years. If you start with a new plane and change the oil and clean the plugs, you should not find issues for perhaps 10 years. Maybe not on a Diamond though...
A friend ran a Renault for more than 15 years without any servicing; just topping off the oil. A plane is no different. A squirt of WD40 will keep it going for ages. The chickens will come home to roost in a big way, but only later....Many lifed items don't need doing at all, and the same (or much bigger) fleet operated in the USA without lifed items shows there is no safety improvement whatsoever over EASA's lifed item requirements.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notices to Mariners
New obstructions in shallow water can be marked by dropping a warning buoy or buoys.
Will this plane get recovered?
Edit - they probably still do get the job. Even though there is all sorts of digital GPS stuff for navigating ships these days, I believe they still carry all the stuff to do it the old-fashioned way - charts, chronometer, sextant, compass, tide tables and the rest.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I don't doubt that is what you've been told but I know, from my experience as an aviation lawyer, it is not correct.
The decision to pay or deny liability depends upon several factors. They include the size of the claim and whether the insurer can argue that the negligence was negligent endangering.
Even if you were correct, it would still be an unsatisfactory state of affairs IMHO. ie There's a big difference between knowing you are covered even if negligent (eg motor insurance) and hoping you are covered if negligent (aviation insurance).
The size of the claim is a factor but, broadly, that is correct. Even where the illegality was a minor technicality which had no relevance whatsoever to the cause of the accident, there is a high risk that insurers will refuse to pay.
Why the difference in approach?
Because it is easier for insurers to deny liability under the policy where the illegality cannot be disputed. Negligence is a matter of opinion whereas licensing/documentation illegality is usually a matter of fact/record.
.
I know from speaking to insurers that they will pay out on just about any case of pilot negligence
The decision to pay or deny liability depends upon several factors. They include the size of the claim and whether the insurer can argue that the negligence was negligent endangering.
Even if you were correct, it would still be an unsatisfactory state of affairs IMHO. ie There's a big difference between knowing you are covered even if negligent (eg motor insurance) and hoping you are covered if negligent (aviation insurance).
But they won't pay out if the aircraft or crew are illegal to start with
Why the difference in approach?
Because it is easier for insurers to deny liability under the policy where the illegality cannot be disputed. Negligence is a matter of opinion whereas licensing/documentation illegality is usually a matter of fact/record.
.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 10th Sep 2010 at 18:10.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to our 'top pilot', I understand from the club newsletter that that the CAA suspended David Lloyd in July 2009. Is there any news on the court case, this seems to have dragged on for a long time.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There might be some pilots who make themselves unpopular and who do stupid things. Whatever you may think of them personally, it is unfortunate that anyone whose livelihood has been jeopardised and who lives with the suspicion of a serious crime has to wait for so long to get matters clarified.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: on the ground
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trial starts
Trial of "top pilot" David Lloyd, cfi at Mona Flying Club, and four others -
Paul Roche, David Watson, Richard McArthur and Mathew Lockwood - was on the list for Court 54 at QEII Law Courts, Derby Square, Liverpool today. Anybody heard anything?
Paul Roche, David Watson, Richard McArthur and Mathew Lockwood - was on the list for Court 54 at QEII Law Courts, Derby Square, Liverpool today. Anybody heard anything?
Last edited by Daffydil; 17th Feb 2011 at 16:51.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: on the ground
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opening statements
from WalesOnline
Ex-servicemen smuggled £3.5m of cocaine into Anglesey airfield - Wales News - News - WalesOnline
the trial appears to be underway
A former RAF pilot and an ex-British soldier were part of a “team” which smuggled cocaine worth £3.5 million into the UK in a light aircraft, a court heard today.
The 14kg of drugs, which had a wholesale value of around £630,000, were smuggled into Mona airfield in Anglesey from Le Touquet, France, in July 2009 in a private plane owned by David Watson, 54, from Prestwich, Manchester.
Liverpool Crown Court heard he was part of a group of men who conspired to smuggle the class A drugs into the country by using his single engine four-seater plane.
Michael Taylor, opening the case for the prosecution, said the plane was piloted by David Lloyd, 65, from Anglesey – a former RAF pilot and flying instructor.
The drugs were picked up in France by former soldier Mathew Lockwood, 29, from Prestwich.
Also involved in the plot were Richard McArthur, 45, from Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland, and Paul Roche, 55, from Prestwich.
Mr Taylor told the jury of eight men and four women that when the smuggling took place Watson was in the USA but that he “was in control of the operation”.
“Mona is near to where Lloyd lives and David Watson’s private plane was kept in a hangar there.
“There was a flying club there. Lloyd was a very experienced pilot. He was formerly a pilot with the RAF and was a trainer at the flying club,” said Mr Taylor.
Roche and Lockwood were also on the flight.
When it touched down in France, Lockwood went to pick up the drugs from McArthur.
However, the court heard that it is McArthur’s case that he did not know the package contained cocaine. He claims he was told it was cannabis and was acting as a courier.
The same three men then flew back to Mona airfield where the plane was searched by police and the cocaine was found.
Mr Taylor said blocks of cocaine were found neatly packed in the base of a pilot’s bag, which Lockwood was using.
Other blocks of cocaine were found stashed in a pillow case and one was found lying lose in the plane, the court heard.
Mr Taylor said: “The focus of the trial is likely to be whether the four defendants on trial were members of a cocaine smuggling team. The fact that it was a team effort is unlikely to be disputed. It’s obvious it was.
“The drugs were in France and handed over by McArthur to Lockwood.”
Michael Taylor, opening the case for the prosecution, said the plane was piloted by David Lloyd, 65, from Anglesey – a former RAF pilot and flying instructor.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Wales
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crazy Monkey said:
"Just found out he is on bale with a tag and has been charged by the police. Apparently he was under surveilance for 8 months beforehand. If he's innocent, I hope he clears his name...but now looking like a strong case As RAF Mona is a military airfield, I wonder what supervsion there was of his activities?"
That is quite an incriminating claim about surveilance that you have made there, can you back it up? I suspect not as I know it to be untrue. And, exactly what supervision do you think flying instructor and examiner be placed under ?
BEagle,
Don't worry, Mr. Lloyd has made no claim to have been a RAF pilot. That misunderstanding is merely a result of HMRC's thorough investigations. In fact, it was at Mr. Lloyd's request that the prosecution barrister corrected himself in court.
For those who seem to be mildly entertained by this situation just bear in mind that the case finally reached court on the 15th Feb 2010, almost 19 months after the original arrest. Since then Mr. Lloyd has had his bank accounts frozen and his license suspended. He has therefore had no access to funds or any way of continuing in employment, unlike the other defendants who could and can continue to work.
"Just found out he is on bale with a tag and has been charged by the police. Apparently he was under surveilance for 8 months beforehand. If he's innocent, I hope he clears his name...but now looking like a strong case As RAF Mona is a military airfield, I wonder what supervsion there was of his activities?"
That is quite an incriminating claim about surveilance that you have made there, can you back it up? I suspect not as I know it to be untrue. And, exactly what supervision do you think flying instructor and examiner be placed under ?
BEagle,
Don't worry, Mr. Lloyd has made no claim to have been a RAF pilot. That misunderstanding is merely a result of HMRC's thorough investigations. In fact, it was at Mr. Lloyd's request that the prosecution barrister corrected himself in court.
For those who seem to be mildly entertained by this situation just bear in mind that the case finally reached court on the 15th Feb 2010, almost 19 months after the original arrest. Since then Mr. Lloyd has had his bank accounts frozen and his license suspended. He has therefore had no access to funds or any way of continuing in employment, unlike the other defendants who could and can continue to work.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: on the ground
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that D J Lloyd was not an RAF pilot but obviously Mr Michael Taylor does not, As a barrister he tells the jury what he has been told by the investigating officers so he has been misinformed by someone.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: North Wales / Ontario
Age: 84
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC reporting Dave Lloyd found not guilty at Liverpool crown court this afternoon. Jury still considering verdicts on others involved.
Time to spare? Go by air.
Hen Ddraig
Time to spare? Go by air.
Hen Ddraig
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: very west
Age: 65
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Lloyd not guilty
Link to the beeb news here.
BBC News - Former RAF pilot David Lloyd cleared of drugs smuggling
camlobe
BBC News - Former RAF pilot David Lloyd cleared of drugs smuggling
camlobe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe him; I'm sure I wouldn't notice 14kg of cocaine being loaded into my aircraft either!
Lucky for him he was tried by his peers who remained open minded to all of the evidence.......