dejwu wrote:
I have done that route in basic SEP and would do it again, but not at that weather.
I am not sure the weather is relevant. Based on the reports and the AAIB I doubt the weather would have been a factor for that particular SEP. I think if the boots were working (and I am not suggesting they were not) they should have been more than able to cope. I doubt there would have been very much convective activity either. Of course weather radar woould have been nice at night. I do think that there has been some under estimation of how effective boots are. I am not suggesting they will cope with anything, but I would be very surprised if they couldnt cope in these circumstances, after all the aircraft is certified for flight in known icing. Not that it is relevant to this accident given the licence restrictions, I would aslo be surprised if the tops at this time of year were not well below the certified ceiling. All in all I doubt the aircraft wasnt up to the mission, subject to Timothy’s comments.
highflyer wrote:
That is not exactly a standard FP:
Interestingly, the departure time on this FP is 0900.
My comments are simply that we are comparing an apparently rogue operation with AOC standards. It could have been done on an AOC with an MEP, SET, MET or a jet, single or two crew, VFR or IFR.
The class missing? The SEP.
It would be really boring to spend the next 20 pages doing the SEP at night over water bit, but it is quite salient that it is the one class that could not be certified to do it.
Rwy20 wrote:
c) “Pilot P” rents plane, passenger X reimburses pilot P for rental cost plus pays some money to fly him A to B?
Cobalt wrote:
But both rules do not allow the pilot to be paid more than cost.
So what about this scenario:
d) Passenger X knows pilot P (no advertising or “holding out”?). Pilot P rents plane, passenger X reimburses P for cost of rental minus 1 €/£/$, and P flies X from A to B?
Rwy20 wrote:
So what about this scenario:
d) Passenger X knows pilot P (no advertising or “holding out”?). Pilot P rents plane, passenger X reimburses P for cost of rental minus 1 €/£/$, and P flies X from A to B?
Under FAA regs illegal unless pilot P holds a CPL. Legal if both equally share the cost and have a common purpose (e.g. attending a trade fair).
172driver wrote:
So what about this scenario:
d) Passenger X knows pilot P (no advertising or “holding out”?). Pilot P rents plane, passenger X reimburses P for cost of rental minus 1 €/£/$, and P flies X from A to B?
Legal if both equally share the cost and have a common purpose (e.g. attending a trade fair).
Which given the scenario listed means it would be illegal.
Peter wrote:
I wondered if this reg has recently been in Europe.
N246DB has not been in Europe in the last 365 days (according to FR24).
Denopa
The aircraft was unsuitable for the following reasons.
The sea crossing was of such distance that an engine failure would only end in a ditching. ( with at this time of year almost always will end badly)
The aircraft was flying at low level into a cold front and icing conditions that would be challenging to the de-ice system.
Had the aircraft been flown on a much higher profile to avoid the icing conditions and a more easterly track to assure it could glide to clear of the sea then an argument could be made that it was a sutable aircraft but there are reasons the pilot could not fly the safe flight profile.
172driver wrote:
Interestingly, the departure time on this FP is 0900.
Yes and at 113kts? That flight should also not take a PA46 2h31…
What has anything pf that to do with an VFR pilot losing control when entering/avoiding IMC?
The outcome of this flight has nothing to do with the number of engines, the aircraft equipment, and if it had crashed on land instead of the sea they would all be just as dead.
We all know that VFR flight is not suitable if you absolutely have to get to your destination unless the weather is really good. Those who do not follow this rule either divert, or come to grief, as in this case.
