How much time did Ibbotson have in the PA46?
Graham wrote:
My point is that a flight happened (for better or worse) and the immediate cause of the crash was CO poisoning. CO is poisonous to everyone, no matter how well qualified. If the CO hadn’t leaked, they’d have been fine – even without the paperwork.
In my opinion this is too easy as an explanation because it is true in almost any crash: Leaving out one single fault/mistake in the chain of events would have prevented the entire crash. This is the Swiss cheese model.
In my opinion in this case you can not neglect the fact that it has not been an AOC. In addition to the flight not happening, there are many other differences in an AOC that at least potentially could have prevented the crash:
- Maintenance is much more closely monitored. Therefore the defect that led to the CO contamination is less likely in an AOC
- Pilots are better trained and monitored. It is hard to believe that a PA-46 pilot in an AOC did not know about the heating/pressurization system.
- Operations are much more standardized. The Ops manual in a PA-46 AOC would very likely clearly state “never fly unpressurized”.
Btw.: As the trial was not on manslaughter, in my opinion it doesn’t matter at all for this trial why the plane crashed – it doesn’t even matter that it crashed (beyond the fact that officials might not have taken notice if it didn’t crash)
Malibuflyer wrote:
Maintenance is much more closely monitored. Therefore the defect that led to the CO contamination is less likely in an AOC
- Pilots are better trained and monitored. It is hard to believe that a PA-46 pilot in an AOC did not know about the heating/pressurization system.
- Operations are much more standardized. The Ops manual in a PA-46 AOC would very likely clearly state “never fly unpressurized”.
Sorry but I would dispute most of that.
There is, or certainly should be, zero difference in aircraft maintenance levels and standards, AOC or not.
Pilots are not better trained simply because of an AOC. I know a large number of plonkers who would fall into that categorisation.
Whilst SOPS are standardised, crashes occur every day because SOPS are followed, and crashes happen because SOPS are not. Many accidents DO NOT happen because a pilot thinks out of the box.
In reality I think anyone on this forum knows and perhaps understands how the circumstances that led to this accident flight came about. Our little grey areas continue to happen, day in and day out.
arj1 wrote:
Well, another argument is that if he had flown high (in Class A, IFR) with pressurisation ON, it would not have happened.
That’s probably true, but not 100%. In any case, it may not be SOP for most operators but a Malibu should be able to be flown unpressurised without poisoning the occupants!
Malibuflyer wrote:
Maintenance is much more closely monitored. Therefore the defect that led to the CO contamination is less likely in an AOC
I disagree. There may be a on-paper requirement for better maintenance in an AOC environment, but that doesn’t mean anyone actually does the work better or even does it at all. Knowing what I know first-hand about GA maintenance, I don’t believe a piston aircraft in an AOC environment is any less likely to suffer an exhaust leak like this than one maintained privately or even by the owner. An aircraft which has just left maintenance at a professional outfit is the one I am most suspicious of.
I agree with much of what @BeechBaby says. Both G-OMAR and the Shoreham Hunter crash provide good examples of how the paperwork of a professional organisation does not prevent pilots doing silly things.
I agree.
I have seen, very close-up, AOC charter piston twin aircraft which I would not get into even if you paid me. The whole part-145 maintenance (needed for A-B AOC; not actually needed for A-A AOC, IIRC) is a charade. You have 2 motors → you are good. The fuel tanks are operated somewhere between nearly empty and slightly less than nearly empty, in case six fat blokes turn up with golf kits – google G-OMAR for one of the finest examples of the system.
Sadly this accident will bring out the N-reg haters again. Hilariously, I’ve just seen a thread on one of the UK GA chat sites (a near-dead one, but used to be big years ago) from a (possibly former) owner of an N-reg A36 arguing that N-regs should be clamped down on!
It will be interesting to hear the detail of how the CAA got that conviction. It must have been quite a chain, to show that Henderson knew enough to know that the flight will be “dangerous”. Just because Ibbotson got “sent down to gasco” (or whatever he got) twice doesn’t mean much; gosh even I got sent there once (and I don’t even do illegal charter Wingly 
) and half the room was instructors, examiners, and high-hour owner-pilots. I can see the trust company didn’t want him flying it because it gets them bad publicity; it was probably just the tip of the iceberg of what was going on. I am not saying I disagree with the verdict; I just don’t have the details.
It is good we are having this debate here. It has been studiously removed from the UK sites, presumably because people could not resist posting the usual vile (and useless, for the purposes of learning) comments typical of those sites.
BeechBaby wrote:
There is, or certainly should be, zero difference in aircraft maintenance levels and standards, AOC or not
Now that can’t be true, can it be? An aircraft operated commercially in an AOC needs maintenance according to Part-M, where a privately operated Malibu can be maintained according to Part-ML. Some differences have to be involved, I think things like flying over TBO and so on. And of course you can define to some extent the level of maintenance under Part-ML (e.g. minimum maintenance program). So from a legal perspective there are differences in maintenance. However, of course there are private planes which are kept on a near-new standard replacing everything every year and commercially used planes which just have to earn money.
Although I strongly agree that it depends more on the person involved rather than his licence (PPL or CPL, for example), but it is a statement for itself when a PPL rated pilot is knowingly breaking rules by making money with it. The same for the operator doing his business without an AOC. So it may tell some details about the person involved.
UdoR wrote:
Some differences have to be involved,
Why? All aircraft must be, have to be, maintained in accordance with the manufacturers schedule. You bring up TBO. Why? There is absolutely nothing wrong about operating above TBO on condition. All aircraft should be maintained regardless of an EASA classification as per the the manufacturers schedule. Are you telling me you put your aircraft in for an annual. and the maintenance guy states that he did not do the oil change, check the plugs, nor the mags because it is Part ML?
aircraft operated commercially in an AOC needs maintenance according to Part-M, where a privately operated Malibu can be maintained according to Part-ML
The differences make no difference in terms of what statistically brings planes down. For a start, the big majority is straight pilot error…
It tends to be stuff like component life limits, which “everybody knows” are not relevant to safety. One would think they would help perhaps but in reality they don’t because the very act of replacing something introduces additional risks. Examples include the notorious TB20 emergency gear release valve which most shops bugger-up, and if they don’t bugger up the valve itself they bugger-up the pipe fittings which weren’t designed for repeated removal. And the 12 year engine life has been demonstrated to be utterly meaningless, over decades.
Even diffs between Part 91 / Part-ML / whatever it is called, and the full manufacturer’s schedule like Socata’s 100-page listing, are of no consequence. Stuff like autopilot servo clutch torque checked at every Annual… loads of man-hours farting around with that, for nothing because you can and DO check it preflight.
One of many part-145 jokes is that the light bulbs on AOC planes last for ever – because they get changed off the books, because it takes far longer to write up the work pack than to just change it.
Ultimately the reasons why high-end AOC planes (737s etc) are so safe are mostly elsewhere: superb engineering, superb wx capability, cat3c autoland, 2 pilots who are very current and fly the same routes all the time, and some very clever component maintenance scheduling. I hear some close-up stories from that maintenance scene to convince me of this. You don’t get these factors in pistons, AOC or not.
But… the “elephant in the room” here is that this accident happened, the CAA had to act because it is their job and they would look bad if they didn’t “bust somebody”, and they probably had a big dossier on these jolly chaps (grey charters generate a stream of complaints to the CAA, from AOC holders, because everybody sitting at an airport can see exactly who is doing what kind of work – even if France turns a blind eye to foreigners doing it) and this was finally a chance to bust them. This is how “police” work everywhere; Inspector Clouseau was usually right. It is not difficult; if it was difficult, the bank robbers would never get caught
Pretend for a moment an AOC was not required because no real money changed hands (or valuable consideration), or alternatively there was one. Obviously if there was one you couldn’t legally use a pa-46, but that is not hugely different in that we know not all (significant) regulations were followed. e.g. Correctly licensed with wrong plane versus correct plane wrong license.
At about the same time frame a DHC-2 crashed killing all from CO beings used in a correctly licensed AOC operation out of Sydney, so it is not like this stuff doesn’t happen, in commercial ops…
The interesting things here, is that Henderson was considered the “operator” and the jury appears to agree that as the operator he was either aware of things that could be dangerous or did not take sufficient steps to be aware of those things. (Essentially the instructions given to the jury). Perhaps they got the conviction because they viewed Henderson as a commercial “operator”, rather than a purely private operator and he was held to higher standard. Interestingly Henderson’s, initial legal advice was that he was not the “operator”.
I would wager if the jury really considered Henderson a non commercial operator who was truly hands off he would be acquitted.
Peter wrote:
if it was difficult, the bank robbers would never get caught
And in good old UK the other eye, the blind one, is usually turned away. Of course the good old CAA had to bust someone. Irony being debatable it was their jurisdiction.
It was musical chairs and Henderson found himself in the empty space. I agree, christ knows how they actually got this to court. More sauna talk I suspect.
Unfortunate for him because right now they are trying to get the largest book available to throw at him. Makes them sleep easier at night.
And before the howls of ‘I am offended’, I agree it was not right, the ‘paperwork’ was not there, they are bad people, and it is just sad that two people died.
