Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

PA46 Malibu N264DB missing in the English Channel

There are perhaps five other current pilots in the US with a non-zero amount of time in my type, so the relevant part of the policy looks like this…

Incidentally I just called the insurance broker and asked about Basic Med and they said that it meets the above stated requirement for pilots under 70, over that age “maybe” and “depends”.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 29 Oct 19:08

I did manage to get my CFI as a named pilot

CFI as named pilot that means him flying it solo? I had the impression CFI is always insured for dual flights with named pilots?

Last Edited by Ibra at 29 Oct 19:05
Paris/Essex, United Kingdom

“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 girlffriend ’’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.”

There is a huge difference between pilot-to-pilot deals and those involving “innocent” people like Sala, who cannot make an informed decision.

EGPE, United Kingdom

An FAA CFI is the equivalent of a Euro FI except that a CFI has all the training privileges all the way to CPL and probably ATP.

Most of “our” policies include continuation training automatically, with no need to name the instructor.

But your instructor can’t fly the plane solo unless he’s a named insured, or you have a suitable “everyone” policy like I mentioned above.

This is now a total tangent.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Snoopy wrote:

This is a hypothetical discussion.

Of course it is, even the prosecution said “is not about why N264DB crashed on the return flight or seeking to blame or give reasons for it.”

Assuming we are talking about the court case as opposed to the accident…

Following are the jury instructions which is perhaps relevant.

Mr Justice Foxton reads out from a document provided to the jury called the route to verdict.

1. Are you sure the flights did not have the required authorisation or permission
Are you sure the pilot David Ibbotson did not have a commercial pilots licence
Are you sure David Ibbotson’s rating to fly N264DB expired in November 2018
Are you sure bad weather was forecast and David Ibbotson was not confident to fly in such weather

If you are sure of any of these matters, proceed to question two.

2. Are you sure that the relevant matters individually or in combination gave rise to a real risk to N264DB which could not be safely ignored.
If you are not sure of these matters you should find the defendant not guilty.

If you are sure, proceed to question three

3. Are you sure that in organising the flights in circumstances which there was a real risk to the safety of N264DB which could not be safely ignored, firstly that the defendant was aware of that risk. If sure, you should find the defendant guilty. If you are not sure, you should move to part two. If you are sure he failed to show such care or skill that a person in that situation should exercise, you should find the defendant guilty.

If you are not sure, find the defendant not guilty.

It is an insight into how these things are decided…

Last Edited by Ted at 29 Oct 20:13
United Kingdom

BeechBaby wrote:

Where do you think LAMP, PartM, Part ML, pilot prepared schedules etc etc come from, ie have their core, their baseline?

I know that the MIP does not have any manufacturer’s schedule as its baseline as it is independent of any manufacturer.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Henderson got 18 months jail

That’s impressive, especially for somebody who wasn’t even near the plane. The details will be interesting.

He will probably serve 6 months, but this must be a record for illegal charter in “wreckage”, given that legal charter in “wreckage”, and indeed legal scheduled services in “wreckage” have been commonplace for decades, and that the “wreckage” was never retrieved. The charge wasn’t actually for “wreckage” but that impression must have been well formed in the eyes of the jury.

This came up under “Threads possibly related to this one” below, which so often make interesting reading too

Posts crossed

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

especially for somebody who wasn’t even near the plane. The details will be interesting.

United Kingdom

Interesting – thanks.

2 years jail for illegal charter.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top