Wherever I have been in my ~2500hrs I see the worst condition planes being on the local registry. In the UK, G-regs are the most neglected, with many maintained right on the margin. N-regs tend to be privately owned and looked after.
Sure I tend to agree with the last bit. N-regs tend to be in private, individual‘s hands, and are thus maintained/operated not only on a shoestring, but with pride and joy.
But the „system“ whereby an aircraft needs a thorough lookover only once a year, and a subsequent sign-off by just one single person (and where, as Silvaire says, all the rest of the airworthiness responsibility lies by the owner, who very often, is clueless about things technical and who might be on a tight budget) is prone to lead to deficiencies is the technical status of the aircraft (and yes, I do know that EASA Part-M is not all that fundamentally different from that).
That said however, I still think it is highly unlikely that the poor technical status of this aircraft (and not piloting error) was the primary cause if the accident.
all the rest of the airworthiness responsibility lies by the owner
That is same in EASA-land as well, in terms of the definition of who is responsible.
You can find dishonest / corrupt people anywhere. My view is that the greater sanction is available to bust such people, the less they are likely to try it 
An A&P/IA based in Europe is quite vulnerable, as the example I gave above. Whereas a Part M company is almost impossible to bust, starting with the owner usually not knowing who in there did the actual work.
Ultimately, anybody can operate a plane which “doesn’t exist” at all, and do that on almost any reg. Preferably one would choose a reg which doesn’t have a public database. N or G are thus not good.
Also any owner can arrange for his plane to be very nearly run into the ground. On N, G, D, whatever. There may be small differences in how close to the ground he can get I am familiar with a TB20, G-reg, which one day got a huge bill for landing gear squat switches. Turned out they were corroded right through; the result of 30 years of total neglect. Not quite as bad as this though, and that plane was signed off not long before I took those pics.
That said however, I still think it is highly unlikely that the poor technical status of this aircraft (and not piloting error) was the primary cause if the accident.
That’s probably true, because the exhaust system failure likely happened not long before the crash. And an INOP autopilot is not legally a problem (thanks to the dire situation in Europe for getting them fixed, much of the GA fleet that has one fitted has an INOP one )
The alleged INOP de-ice boots and flaps are a no-go on the Annual, however. Flaps, really?? The Daily Mail guy must be making that up. Surely nobody would operate a plane with a broken flap motor.
boscomantico wrote:
I still think it is highly unlikely that the poor technical status of this aircraft (and not piloting error) was the primary cause if the accident
An interesting position. Do you believe that the measured 58% COHb level in the passenger is wrong, or that it was caused by something that happened after the accidenr, or that the pilot would have had a significantly lower COHb level than the passenger for some reason?
With a 58% COHb level one is somewhere between barely conscious and dead, BTW.
I think the “legal” Q would be whether the deficiency was something that definitely would have been detected at the last Annual. Exhaust system inspection is not required at the 50hr service. Also the 50hr is not a legal requirement either (for airworthiness requirements; there are numerous applicable angles e.g. oil change, etc).
So to get some “learning experience” we need to be practical about this. No autopilot + no CO detector = really dumb.
boscomantico wrote:
That said however, I still think it is highly unlikely that the poor technical status of this aircraft (and not piloting error) was the primary cause if the accident.
I think this conclusively reminds us that without some sort of flight recorder, there will always be some element of doubt. Initially it might be said that the probably cause was going to one of the many permutations where the pilots skill set, aircraft capability, and actual weather didn’t match. I think the investigator seemed to hint at that line, when they suggested that finding the aircraft wasn’t essential…
At the very least a totally different plausible explanation is now presented…
the exhaust system failure
Was there? All we have is high CO levels in the blood of the pax that was on board.
You guys are now speculating, just as you did a few months ago.
@Cobalt: I am not saying this definitely wasn’t the cause. Just that it would be very unlikely to be. I heard somebody say that there has never been a known CO accident in a PA46, ever.
boscomantico wrote:
That said however, I still think it is highly unlikely that the poor technical status of this aircraft (and not piloting error) was the primary cause if the accident.
The AAIB seem to be heading in a different direction to you then.
Peter wrote:
No autopilot + no CO detector = really dumb
I’ll think of that when I next fly my Super Cub
The AAIB seem to be heading in a different direction to you then.
Well, of course. Such finding as the CO concentration in the pax’s blood is the low hanging fruit for the AAIB, givin them a “likely cause” they can cite and close the case.
If the wreck isn’t recovered (and the pilot ever found and examined successfully) we will never really know.
Peter wrote:
No autopilot + no CO detector
From my understanding of things, CO can incapacitate (and then kill) so fast, in a way that you will not realise
The autopilot won’t do you much, the difference is you’ll die in straight and level (and then crash) rather than die in a spiral dive or crash directly.
