Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

PA46 Malibu N264DB missing in the English Channel

This is a hypothetical discussion. A PA46 Piston cannot be operated on an AOC for IFR flights.

As mentioned before, additionally to the admin overhead/crew training/safety&quality management/OPS limits/NAA audits etc… all aircraft operating commercially (incl. AOC) are

  • subject to Part-M
  • in a controlled maintenance environment through a CAMO/CAO
  • and DAH ICAs are mandatory.

I’d say there’s quite a relevant difference between NCO/Part 91 and the above.

Last Edited by Snoopy at 29 Oct 14:38
always learning
LO__, Austria

BeechBaby wrote:

Why? All aircraft must be, have to be, maintained in accordance with the manufacturers schedule.

No, they certainly do not! An aircraft which is maintained according to part-ML can be maintained in accordance with the Minimum Inspection Programme, which does not have to follow the manufacturers schedule.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

“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.”

I suspect it’s been removed from many sites as the defense attorney is sending messages with legal threats out against people who say things he doesn’t like, as well as to the relevant site(s).

Last Edited by Katamarino at 29 Oct 15:32
Kent, UK

Airborne_Again wrote:

Minimum Inspection Programme, which does not have to follow the manufacturers schedule.

And that makes you feel nice and safe does it? Sorry, I feel you may have totally missed the point of the discussion

Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

I suspect it’s been removed from many sites as the defense attorney is sending messages with legal threats out against people who say things he doesn’t like, as well as to the relevant site(s).

Maybe, but nothing received here, and if there is I will post it

I’d say there’s quite a relevant difference between NCO/Part 91 and the above.

Not much when one looks at why planes actually crash.

And the piston charter business drove maint standards to rock bottom, before finally collapsing many years ago.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Not much when one looks at why planes actually crash. And the piston charter business drove maint standards to rock bottom, before finally collapsing many years ago.

What piston charters might have done maintenance wise decades ago is one thing. That PA46 flight, compared to the regulations that existed, is another. Sadly, through its tabloid aspect, it provides for quite the negative example and thus reinforcing the more stringent regulations and standards for commercial ops.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Katamarino wrote:

It is good we are having this debate here. It has been studiously removed from the UK sites,

Absolutely. The open discussion is very necessary because anyone of us could, and I reiterate could, end up in a situation that we never thought we could get into. When this accident first happened it saddened me. When the usual rag tags started up that again saddened me. The vast majority sit back and watch whilst we all know what goes on. Only after the event armchair forumites spout all the nice righteous stuff. Makes them all very super important….not.

When you open up to the authorities, guess what. You are the problem.

I would be willing to bet that almost every pilot during training, during flight hours, during ‘’can you give me a lift’’ moments does not sit back and go, would this be legal?

I took time in a friends plane. He had lost his ATPL job. Money was tight. He had a type that I wanted to get more experience in. His girfriend ’’owned’’ the plane, he flew it, he maintained it, he charged me 125.00 an hour fuel fee, no invoice. I was being ’’instructed’’. Did I stop for a second to think, what would happen if we crash. No, of course not. But look what can happen when the proverbial hits the fan.

Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

I don’t tend to worry too much about what the CAA might think.

My thought-experiment test is “how would the AAIB report read if we crashed”. If I’m not satisfied with my answer to that then I don’t go, and I’ve made that decision a couple of times.

BeechBaby wrote:

When you open up to the authorities, guess what. You are the problem.

I agree with this. Years ago on a club fly-out (when I had maybe 100 hours) I was asked to fly right-hand seat on a particular leg with another low-time PPL simply because I had an IMCr. They wanted to ensure there was an instrument qualification in each aeroplane. But I wasn’t PIC and I wasn’t paying – I was there to “take over if we had to go IMC” – despite nil experience flying from the right seat and no artificial horizon on the right side of the panel. After the event I realised what a poor show this was and raised the matter with the CFI, whereupon I was branded a troublemaker and the whole thing was thrown back on me.

EGLM & EGTN

What piston charters might have done maintenance wise decades ago is one thing. That PA46 flight, compared to the regulations that existed, is another. Sadly, through its tabloid aspect, it provides for quite the negative example and thus reinforcing the more stringent regulations and standards for commercial ops.

I agree that it has not done GA any favours. Especially the (totally irrelevant) N-reg aspect.

Especially as most “grey charters” are done in turboprops and bizjets. Most people, especially those with any money, won’t get into a piston plane even for free And again I find it hard to see why such valuable “cargo” was being transported in this “cheap” way. There must be more to the background to this whole thing.

However, the way these things play out in terms of the post-crash process tends to depend on how much the licensing authority is implicated. They won’t prosecute if it shows their incompetence. So if e.g. the plane was on an AOC, part 145 company maintained, the pilot’s papers were all in order, etc, and the cause of the crash was negligent maintenance (by a CAA licensed company), the CAA probably won’t be prosecuting anybody, because they would end up firing some of their employees (inspectors). The individual who did the bad work will get off because under the “organisational approval” system there are no individual mistakes; only organisational/system failures. Those who doubt this ought to dig out some well publicised helicopter related stuff from years ago.

After the event I realised what a poor show this was and raised the matter with the CFI, whereupon I was branded a troublemaker and the whole thing was thrown back on me.

That “RHS filler with an IR” practice is common in GA and usually illegal because the RHS occupant is not insured to be PIC. Even in a rental scenario, his name may not be on the record as an approved pilot for that flight.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

UdoR wrote:

Now that can’t be true, can it be?

No, it isn’t true. This was an N-reg so to do A > B charter work it would have had to be operated under Part 135 with all the various concomitant implications. The most obvious one being the 100 hour inspection as opposed to annual. There are others.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top