Antonio wrote:
While I understand and would agree on the business logic you try to convey, as a pilot I treat all my flights with pax as if I am transporting a$15M$150M asset
The most valuable asset I usually transport is myself (except when my kids are on board) and I take special care when making any flight related decision.
The only thing that is different from the depressingly familiar VFR into IMC scenario is that the accident happened in a very capable aircraft.
Most of these accidents happen in more than enough capable aircraft. But I agree, I don’t see any difference between this accident and other similar accidents.
dejwu wrote:
You state it was a VFR flight, was it and where does the information come from
Fair point, there is no definitive statement that it was. We cannot rule out that he departed IFR with the plan to fly at the lower levels in France and then to continue in Class G outside controlled airspace once out of the Channel Islands zone. But that would be a highly unusual IFR profile in a pressurised aircraft.
It also might have been an instrument failure at a bad moment, or sudden pilot incapacitation.
I am just saying that if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
It still a high profile case that is different from other accidents: there are 4 or 5 air accident investigation agencies that are looking at the case, again I don’t think this fall under a “fresh PPL going VFR into IMC” but who knows?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I completely agree. The discussion about levels is really irrelevant to a non turbine.
I don’t think aircraft efficiency or even performance or equipment (other than possible faults) were a major factor on this flight.
There is NO aircraft that should be flown per this profile at that time on that route unless on a military/police/SAR mission: I would like to believe there are few pilots who would consider flying that profile in that scenario, irrespective of equipment, unless in an emergency.
It should have been flown above FL100 and planning for an IMC descent for landing. If the PIC was not able to do it this way (and in my view this is about safety of the flight and beyond licenses and ratings) then the flight should have been postponed or a different PIC (apparently available?) used.
What makes you think a turbine would have made a difference on this occasion?
There is one important factor here. It was stated somewhere in this discussion and in other sources on the internet that the aircraft had troubles on departure, that it actually departed on 4th attempt. Is this confirmed? If the passenger sent a message saying the airplane is literally falling apart combined with several take off attempts, I must say that this is very wrong. I am quite sure that I would cancel the flight at night and over the channel if I would have such troubles departing the airport. Maybe something was telling the pilot not to go. So I ask again, is this confirmed? If so, does anyone know what caused the pilot to try several times? You can have technical problems and abort the take off. That is pretty normal but typically you do not try to take-off again without remedying the technical problems. Than you might have weather related problems that might cause aborting the take off, for example deep water or sludge on the runway, very strong cross wind etc. but it is not normal to try again after you successfully abort and the aircraft is still in one piece. This is a real mystery and this might be the real cause of the accident.
Pytlak wrote:
sources on the internet that the aircraft had troubles on departure, that it actually departed on 4th attempt. Is this confirmed?
This is just from the media and is subject to their usual misinterpretation. It could just refer to the fact that a few attempts were required to start a cold engine, or maybe it took him a few goes to read his clearance back correctly, or maybe the passenger needed to nip back indoors for a pee after the doors were closed.
It seems highly unlikely, to the point of farce, that there were four rejected take-offs.
Pytlak wrote:
It was stated somewhere in this discussion and in other sources on the internet that the aircraft had troubles on departure, that it actually departed on 4th attempt. Is this confirmed?
Are there no LiveATC recordings of the departure?
So it was my misinterpretation of what I saw elsewhere. Sorry for disrupting the discussion. Still I think that old beaten Malibu on N reg was old beaten Malibu, probably not much suitable for serious IFR flying. I can imagine how did it look like as I have seen some of those before.
