The main thing appears to be that the aircraft was too heavy and never got off the back of the curve.
The report contains a long list of factors which perhaps help to explain why things eventually ended up this way for this character with (to quote the report) a “strong personality”.
Clearly, when this guy broke the basic rules of flying he did it properly!
However, the report picks on some issues which show a lack of understanding by the investigators. Perhaps predictably for Europe, it picks on some N-reg related issues e.g.
An interesting thing is that the pilot held a based-on (61.75) PPL which was based on his Belgian PPL which did not allow flying the turboprop P210 without extra papers. I don’t know the latest FAA rulings on this but I know there have been some, and my vague recollection was that this is legal. It is the same situation you have with a PA46 or a PA46T which needs a TR in EASA-land but can be flown on a plain PPL in FAA-land. If I am correct, the Belgian investigators missed the point on this one (page 41), though they do make a valid general comment about required training being probably missing.
Interestingly and with a big departure from UK AAIB reports, this reports talks about the pilot having a certain “personality” which most of us will certainly recognise as being common in aviation!
Interestingly and with a big departure from UK AAIB reports, this reports talks about the pilot having a certain “personality” which most of us will certainly recognise as being common in aviation!
Luckily, the kind of “personality” this man had is not common in aviation. I have known (and know) quite a few pilot who had no problems bending some rules. But what this guy did was pure anarchy. Unfortunately, as so often in cases like his, four innocent people lost their lives for nothing. And it has always been my understanding too (just like the Belgian CAA), that a “piggyback license” (or a foreign endorsement) can not extend the privileges of the license it is based on. And his was a PPL (VFR only!) with an SEP class rating. No IFR and no turboprop.
Here’s what the backside of an FAA piggyback PPL looks like. It’s crystal clear: all restrictions of the original license apply. That also means for example that if you do not have a NVFR rating, you cannot flight NVFR under your FAA piggyback, etc.
The Belgians shouldn’t whine. If they did a minimum of license plausibility checking, they would have caught this guy a long time ago. Every 14 year old flight simmer would have spotted the discrepancies when looking at his documents. Same thing as this Mexican-Iranian gangster with the Learjet from the museum who didn’t even have a PPL but was flying this thing very visibly for months (including single pilot cockpit videos on Youtube even though everybody with a tiny bit of aircraft knowledge knows that a Lear requires a 2 man cockpit).
all restrictions of the original license apply
I recall the reasoning on this was that the need for extra paper (the HPA) for say an EASA-reg PA46 is not a “restriction”. It is an additional requirement.
If the Belgian license stated “this pilot is not allowed to fly at night” that would clearly transfer to the FAA based-on PPL.
If they did a minimum of license plausibility checking, they would have caught this guy a long time ago
I don’t agree. His papers appear to be OK – distasteful as that might be to European regulators.
They could certainly have got him on flying a totally obviously unairworthy aircraft, with 5 minutes’ work. But if any European CAA went all the way down that road, they would ground half the aircraft fleet, and not just light GA, and they know it which is IMHO why they don’t do it. They would end up shutting down much of the maintenance business, which would kill that part of their company licensing income.
Luckily, the kind of “personality” this man had is not common in aviation
It depends on the definition of the term, I suppose. I recognise a lot of people who are of that type but yes I agree very few of them break the rules on quite this scale. For example, lots of people fly over MTOW but very few do so to this massive extent and do it in a low currency condition.
My guess this guy probably did get the plane maintained, more or less, but probably paid for the work in cash, so whoever did it didn’t want to sign it off because it would leave a trace for the tax authorities. If you use a company to do work, and pay them cash, they can hardly claim they did it for nothing.
This is distinct from another report I read recently where the plane had apparently not been maintained for many years.
The Belgians shouldn’t whine. If they did a minimum of license plausibility checking, they would have caught this guy a long time ago.
They did check and they even reported the discrepancies found to the FAA (after all, he was an flying N-reg aeroplane) but the FAA didn’t even bother to answer. In the end, he got was he was asking for, but it is because of persons like him that general aviation and general aviation pilots have such a bad reputation.
I recall the reasoning on this was that the need for extra paper (the HPA) for say an EASA-reg PA46 is not a “restriction”…
The restriction on his license are the three letters “SEP” with “P” standing for “piston”. His license is restricting him to fly piston engine powered aeroplanes. No gliders and no turbine power either.
His papers appear to be OK – distasteful as that might be to European regulators.
I don’t think so. If I was a Belgian ramp checker, I would have asked for his license, he would have handed me the FAA card like in the above picture and it would say “Belgian license xxx, restrictions and limitations apply.”. Then I would ask him for the Belgian license which would be my area of expertise. I would quickly realize that it leaves a lot to be desired. Knowing a bit about airplanes I see this is a pure IFR traveling machine. Then I would call my colleagues at Belgacontrol and ask them to give me a list of movements of this aircraft which would show a lot of IFR flights with him as PIC. And voila, another confirmation he violated the law. Next I would look into the maintenance status of the aircraft.
PS: Hundreds of people have direct access to all flights in the Eurocontrol system with all data including pilot, clearances, flight path, etc. That also includes external companies that are only limited by the terms of the access agreement to not make use of this data.
They could certainly have got him on flying a totally obviously unairworthy aircraft, with 5 minutes’ work. But if any European CAA went all the way down that road, they would ground half the aircraft fleet, and not just light GA, and they know it which is IMHO why they don’t do it. They would end up shutting down much of the maintenance business, which would kill that part of their company licensing income.
I wonder what makes you say that. I am not aware of massively unairworthy aircraft or of maintenance companies committing fraud. I know and have worked with lenient inspectors but not in areas that affect safety. The general fleet appears to be well maintained and there are virtually no maintenance related fatalities.
Unfortunately, regardless of the view on licensing, there is no way to set up a ground policing network which has the required expertise. They more or less have it in the USA but over there they have a much simpler and clearer system, without the politically motivated and revenue-generation based rules we have here which half the people try to get around (correctly IMHO).
Also I don’t see this pilot was “obviously” illegal flying IFR. He had the 61.75 plus an IR. Anything beyond that would involve a long argument about second-order technicalities which even most European CAAs don’t understand.
I can think of some UK pilots who posted pics of themselves inside planes which they weren’t legal to fly, IFR and/or outside the UK. There were some pretty amazing threads about it on some UK chat sites, too – usually deleted sooner rather than later.
there are virtually no maintenance related fatalities
That’s only because a fixed wing plane isn’t going to crash by itself unless a wing, elevator or a rudder actually falls off 
If I was a Belgian ramp checker,…
One problem with these ramp inspections is that they can’t do much about historical violations. If they suspect that he has been flying outside the privileges of his license they can only pass on that information to the CAA which then will have to collect evidence against him and pass that forward to the prosecutor who then may or may not go after the pilot… Flying IFR without an instrument rating is not even a felony, so all they will be able to collect is a fine which will not warrant the necessary effort.
But what the ramp inspectors can do is hold him on the ground until he meets the necessary requirements for his intended flight. Which means that on this day he would not have flown.
Flying IFR without an instrument rating is not even a felony, so all they will be able to collect is a fine
I can’t find the reference (and it appears extremely rare) but recall a UK fine (IFR in Class A without an IR) in the region of 5k, so not insignificant.
However, if they go after you a long time after the event, you can probably nominate somebody else as the PIC. Many VFR pilots have said they flew with an IR in the RHS, in case the wx went bad. That RHS was probably not insured, but that is yet another “second order” thing to get into.
The Belgian pilot who busted the UK airshow (which had a TRA) a few years ago got 5k too, plus (IIRC) another 5k in costs. That (busting airshows) is UK’s most “dangerous” activity, in terms of fine sizes.
