Graham wrote:
You would hope, hope, that a pilot descending because his aircraft couldn’t maintain altitude would say a little more to ATC than just ‘request descent’ in the way one might for tactical weather avoidance.
You would, but if the pilot is knowingly violating regulations, they may not say any more so they don’t incriminate themselves. The most egregious case of this is probably the infamous Pinnacle crash, where the crew didn’t admit to ATC they had a double engine flameout until they had already effectively condemned themselves to death.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0701.pdf
Antonio wrote:
This flight should have been flown above FL100
He didn’t have an IR, so he couldn’t legitimately have done that because the route at FL100 involves Class A airspace.
Graham wrote:
He didn’t have an IR, so he couldn’t legitimately have done that because the route at FL100 involves Class A airspace.
How do you possibly know for sure? Are you a close relative?
I don’t think anyone knows FOR SURE, but the only person matching the pilot’s name in the FAA database has a licence dependent on a U.K. licence, no instrument rating, and it doesn’t appear he was that current (or st least, he says he wasn’t that proficient himself).
He definitely had to have a valid US licence to fly that aircraft outside of the UK. What’s on his EASA licence is irrelevant (apart from it must be valid to piggy back on the UK one)
dejwu wrote:
How do you possibly know for sure? Are you a close relative?
It is pretty obvious as a Malibu simply is not made for flying at 5000 ft, certainly not in these conditions. Flying VFR at night over the channel at this position in an airplane which is designed to fly 4 times that high is simply an operation which nobody can explain unless there was no possibility to fly IFR. In any case, the relevant license (FAA) apparently does not have an IR registered in the FAA database. So he had no legal possibility to fly IFR, even if he did have an IR of sorts on his European license, which most reports say he did not.
Actually, flying a Malibu without IR simply makes no sense whatsoever in normal operation, so I wonder why anyone would want to do that. Almost nowhere in Europe can you operate VFR in the altitudes where a Malibu should be flying.
Apart from that, the whole operation looks to me as very badly conceived. Flying a VIP in a SEP with a marginally qualified pilot low level over the channel simply has so many red flags going up, it is not worth really trying to figure out which one killed them. Every single one of them was capable of doing so.
And I have to admit that a certain amount of anger is also coming up as high profile accidents like this put a very bad light towards all those pilots and operators who exercise a safe and cautious operation of their SEPs all over the world but particularly in regulation hungry Europe. And I am almost sure that there will be a call for new regs due to this, even though existing regs should be more than enough to prevent such insane behaviour. But one bit which might hit home may well be the reaction of insurers, who will think about what to put in their small print next.
At this stage, the main lesson which needs to be put up on the billbord for PPLs to see is to be very careful whom they carry and under what conditions. The pressure on this operation must have been considerable and certainly has not helped the decision making here.
Graham wrote:
He didn’t have an IR, so he couldn’t legitimately have done that because the route at FL100 involves Class A airspace.
I am not sure that is so. I havent looked at the French segement, but my guess is getting high there would be possible, albeit there might be a potential question regarding NVFR rather than IFR, most of the UK airspace is probably fine, as from memory the only airway directly in the way is to the East of Exeter (is it FL65) and the airway to the CIs, but you can route either side of the CIs airway. There is a question mark in my mind over the CICZ relying on an EASA rating in an N reg. but that may be ok, all assuming an IRR was current. FL100 may be optomistic as you rightly say, but every possibility of getting a lot higher. I havent looked to see where the cold front was, but even at this time of year the tops may have been pretty high, and I am guessing it would have been necessary to cross the front somewhere along the route.
With the benefit of hindsight routing further to the East initially and then along the south coast of the UK (if weater possible) with a number of en route diversion possibilites might have been tactically a better option, without actually adding significantly to the journey time, but that is in hindsight. The front moving west to east seems to have been the most relevant planning consideration and the related escape options?
I am not sure any of this is important, although interesting in terms of the different airspaces involved, as the real learning lessons are probably else where.
Charlie wrote:
I don’t think anyone knows FOR SURE, but the only person matching the pilot’s name in the FAA database has a licence dependent on a U.K. licence, no instrument rating, and it doesn’t appear he was that current (or st least, he says he wasn’t that proficient himself).He definitely had to have a valid US licence to fly that aircraft outside of the UK. What’s on his EASA licence is irrelevant (apart from it must be valid to piggy back on the UK one)
Kind of an off-topic question but,
What happens if a PPL with no IR files and flies an IFR flight plan. Assuming the pilot is competent to fly under IFR (say he has a UK IMC or just a lot of simulator experience or whatever…)? Nobody actually checks whether the pilot is legal to fly that flight, correct?
What I mean to say is, certifications, ratings, licences are one thing but actual competence is a different one. In the air, physics, aerodynamics etc don’t care whether you have a valid EASA Instrument Rating, whether you’re flying an N-reg or a G-reg or any of that. If the pilot is competent to fly such a mission, at night, I assume he is also competent to fly on instruments. Otherwise it’s just a suicide mission. Night VFR over the sea is as good as flying in IMC, I have done it quite a few times as I am NVFR rated, but I am a bit amazed on the “huge” privilege that a NVFR grants and I feel that the authorities are a bit “reckless” to grant it so easily. I have hundreds of hours of IFR simulator time and that has helped me a lot in being more confident exercising the privileges of the NVFR. But otherwise I believe one would be overwhelmed.
On several of my cross-country flights around Spain I was treated just like any other IFR flight, particularly by en-route controllers, but also sometimes by approach controllers. I happened to fly beneath the airways, hopping VOR to VOR, at FL105, 115 or so. Several times controllers gave me headings, altitude instructions and asked me to fly direct to waypoints (the 5 letter waypoints). As I was always flying VFR, I didn’t even have to know anything about waypoints but I always complied anyway (and always stayed VMC by the way.). Sometimes they asked me to climb to stay at or above their minimum radar altitude for that sector, even though I was visual with terrain. On one occasion I was given a vector and cleared to fly the ILS to Granada, which I did for “fun” and for practice. I never lied about me being IFR, and my flight plan was indeed filed as VFR. Always in good, legal VMC of course. I have the feeling when Spanish controllers see an aircraft flying in a straight line in a predictable and “determined” way they treat it as if it was IFR.
Sorry for the off-topic.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Actually, flying a Malibu without IR simply makes no sense whatsoever in normal operation, so I wonder why anyone would want to do that. Almost nowhere in Europe can you operate VFR in the altitudes where a Malibu should be flying.
Two things puzzle me now.
First, what will Dave Henderson tell. Was he really in Nantes and stepped back from flying this mission. Why?
Second, why did the pilot request to descent instead of going up? Indeed, this would be an indication for no-IR.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
And I am almost sure that there will be a call for new regs due to this, even though existing regs should be more than enough to prevent such insane behaviour.
Agree. We have more than enough regs already. More education and a pan european database of accident reports in standardized format would be a start!
