PA46 Malibu N264DB missing in the English Channel

Yes; an SR22 based in the US.

I wondered if this reg has recently been in Europe.

In SD, would the aircraft reg used for FP filing not be configured and stored? The discrepancy suggests any of several things. One of them is that Ibbotson had barely flown the plane before. If you google translate e.g. this you find the possible significance of this point is noticed by other people too.

Rwy20 wrote:

How is this defined in the FAA world? Would this be legal:
a) “Passenger X” owns plane, hires and pays pilot P to fly him A to B in his plane,
b) “Passenger X” rents the plane from party R, pays pilot P to fly him A to B in hired plane,
c) “Pilot P” rents plane, passenger X reimburses pilot P for rental cost plus pays some money to fly him A to B?

I agree with JasonC, A, B, yes, C no, unless you could show the C really was B

From memory from a FAA perpective its also OK for the pilot to have PPL as long the compensation is for some business or employment and the flight is incidental to that business or employment, for example he is genuinely being paid as a football agent or to fix a boiler. But I can’t see any evidence of this applying.

We have no evidence of the commercial arrangement at all.

The reason that I am bristling a bit is:

1. I like flying
2. I am not poor
3. I like flying for a purpose (as opposed to thinking of reasons to fly)
4. I therefore jump at opportunities to fly people, particularly to interesting places
5. I do not generally charge them anything (I do let them pay for hotels and lunch), because I have a budget for a certain amount of flying and (2) and (3) above
6. I also fly someone else’s aircraft, and he is also very pleased to help his friends out, which I generally do for him (so I am not alone in my mindset)
7. A particular Airport Manager, who has a real bee in his bonnet about illegal PT, accuses me of all sorts of nefarious business deals, and accuses me of lying when I say that they don’t exist. I do not take kindly to being called a liar, especially as everyone who knows me knows me to be honest to a fault.

I therefore get upset when people with venal standards accuse others of venality in the absence of evidence.

A_and_C wrote:

The decision to use an unsuitable aircraft

I take exception to that, sorry – there is ZERO evidence the aircraft was not suitable. Even with the elements pointing to potential poor maintenance that were discussed earlier in the thread. We also now know the aircraft recently had an annual/100h.

There must be a question about whether any SEP, however well maintained, was suitable for the task.

Piston engine failure stats don’t really support the idea that SEPs are unsuitable for night flying (over water or over land; not a lot of difference).

A PA46 was definitely perfectly OK for this sort of job: carrying a VIP quickly between airports not served by airlines.

The problem here was with the pilot: insufficient privileges to do the flight with an altitude profile which would deal with the wx.

And there may have been various defective systems. For example I hugely doubt the autopilot was used, which means it was duff, or the pilot didn’t know how to use it (both possibilities are extremely damning, since nobody should fly a plane not knowing the essential systems). The ice protection may have been duff (whether the pilot knew this or not).

Timothy wrote:

There must be a question about whether any SEP, however well maintained, was suitable for the task.

I wouldnt do it in a single either, but the risk of engine failure is tiny (as you know) if that is the aspect you are referring to? At the aircrafts available cruising altitude the risk of being unable to reach land is also very small (and possibly non existent, I havent done the calculations), albeit this was something the aircraft was capable of, but not the pilot. I am interested whether you are saying you wouldnt do the flight in a any SEP period only because it has one engine, or if you have other reasons in mind?

Not related to the discussion on licensing, however to the context of the conditions of the flight is the unfortunate accident that occurred a number of years ago in the sea south of Sweden. A DA40 that was bought by an aero club was being ferried to Sweden after the purchase, however it never reached the destination as it crashed in the dark ocean at night.

The investigation was thorough but did not come to a definitive conclusion, the probable cause was an AP disconnect as they were descending to ESMS, which they diverted to due to the wx, into clouds and then lost control of the aircraft. They began the first part of the flight on-too at 6000ft, the cloud base was 2000ft and tops at 3-4000ft.

The investigation suggested a review internationally if the rules for VFR over great distances over water.

Timothy wrote:

There must be a question about whether any SEP, however well maintained, was suitable for the task.

No, that is not the question. This SEP aircraft was far more than suitable for the trip.
I have done that route in basic SEP and would do it again, but not at that weather.

highflyer wrote:

That is not exactly a standard FP:

It is no news that the pilot used the SD account of someone else and was ‘not very skilled’ in filing, to put it mildly.