Dimme wrote:
I did a small frequency analysis
Thank you Dimme, that was enlightening!
Other than the lack of an IR forcing him to be at VFR altitudes
Do we know that? From what I’ve read, all we know is that the pilot flew unusually low, and appears to have had a PPL.
But the facebook posting indicates that he flew an ILS at Nantes. So it’s entirely possible that he did have an IR.
Actually I see that people are quoting the FAA database, saying that he had a “Foreign based” Airmans cert, and that there is no IR privlidges noted on it. As it was an N reg I don’t think he could have flown IFR from France to the UK based on an EASA licence if it had an IR.
So looks indeed like he could not fly IFR.
Thanks Antonio.
Croseed posts with you.
Graham.
Yes you would hope ! But the human factors kick in and he does not want to admit to himself ( or does not realise) that he is out of his depth with this thing.
The aircraft is not flying like normal , he can’t keep altitude , the vibration from the prop is severe and the passenger is screaming in panic .
I think that’s enough human factors to trigger a bit of denial.
Am I correct in thinking an EASA IR could be added to the 61.75 or there could be a standalone FAA IR, but, in isolation, an EASA IR would not be helpful, but strangely the EASA IR might be fine once in the CICZ? This is just interesting speculation and not specifically commenting on what licences may be relevant in these specific circumstances.
Graham wrote:
We know he was at 5,000ft and requested a descent before disappearing at 2,300ft. Why would you descend from 5,000ft to 2,300ft over the sea other than weather?I agree the TAFs and METARS were not that bad in the grand scheme of things, but ice and turbulence were certainly both forecast and (objectively) reasonably likely if you entered IMC.
The problem with TAFs and METARs is that information on the cloud base is useful, but for any flight where I might not be able to remain beneath cloud the information I really want is where the tops are. The base I can see before I launch!
Wx at departure was basically CAVOK if dark and if he had a serviceable aircraft he could easily outclimb the icing zone. This autorouter crosssection is not the same time but paints an idea of the wx enroute. This flight should have been flown above FL100. Some icing may have to be dealt with during descent but that is an entirely different matter than icing in cruise at night in the middle of the sea.
To any pilot having access to a reasonable wx picture before the flight, no matter the equipment on the aircraft, it is clear that climbing to FL150 or even FL120 if he had a pressurization issue would avoid most of the wx. Does anyone have a better wx picture he can post?
Notwithstanding any regulatory restrictions (VFR or otherwise), I can’t believe I am the only one that thinks 2000ft or 5000ft in the middle of the Channel in a dark night, even worse in an icy cloud, is no place for any aircraft (Cessna, Malibu, TB20, TBM900 or Boeing 737, SEP, MEP, SET or MET, deiced or non-deiced, autopilot or not ) unless on a police, military or SAR mission.
Never mind the condition or capability of the aircraft , these are only additional factors, which I would only factor for my risk matrix in flying the mission at FL120 or FL200 or cancelling, but not for flying at alt020 or even alt050 there and then.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Am I correct in thinking an EASA IR could be added to the 61.75 or there could be a standalone FAA IR, but, in isolation, an EASA IR would not be helpful, but strangely the EASA IR might be fine once in the CICZ? This is just interesting speculation and not specifically commenting on what licences may be relevant in these specific circumstances.
Yes it could be added on the basis of the EASA IR but it requires an FAA theoretical knowledge test.
This is of help if the EASA IR is current but not validated, since then you can safely (if not legally) conduct such flight at the proper altitude. Admittedly, you could also have the knwoledge and currency even without an IR, but the pilot already admitted publicly to the contrary.
Michael wrote:
I never gave a second thought to the possibility of a passenger exceeding my insurance cover.
Neither did I until shortly after the Islandic Volcano thing.
About 2 months after that someone told a story how he had been approached at a GAC somewhere in Germany when only VFR was allowed (on Saturday I believe) by a stranded VIP whose chartered Jet could not fly. She had overheard his destination and was quite desparate to go to that place as there were no rental cars available and she was quite late. Being the kind and helpful soul he is, he took her and one more guy from her band in his personal airplane, refusing any form of payment other than a selfie after arrival. She proved to be excellent company and kept in touch with him and his family later on.
He related this in the presence of some friends one of which is an aviation insurance guy, who paled slightly and told him that while it had been a commendable act of gentlemanly behaviour and of course maybe the only chance in his life to sit next to this quite stunning woman for 2 hours and make her acquaintance, he had put himself and his family at a huge risk financially, as his insurance cover of 10 m SDR would most probably not have covered claims which could have been made against him or his estate, had something happened. At the time she was on a concert tour, so her becoming unavailable would have had huge financial consequences. Particularly the idea that this happened during a time where VFR flying was the only mode of transport allowed but clearly was “on your own risk” the implication of a possible engine out with resulting crash in a volcanic ash scenario would have fed a few lawyers a healthy breakfast trying to determine how reckless flying in “unknown conditions” would have been.
Apparently you can call your insurance in such a case and get a one-off cover for such things, but who would think about that. I admit, had I been in this situation, insurance would have been the least thing on my mind.
In the case of the Malibu here, things are a bit different as it was owned by a trust. So the trust would be the first adressee of a claim. However, if it is found that the pilot acted recklessly, claims may also be presented against him or his estate. So this is something to be considered. And it doesn’t take a huge star for that, someone like a banker or similar with 1 mio income and a family at the age of 35 may well claim damages for lost income for the rest of his working career. Do the maths. A “normal” guy with an income of say 100k p.a on the other hand would be relatively safe within the usual 10 mio SDR cover.
In any case, being stingy on third party cover sum does not pay off. The minimum I understand these days for CSL cover is somewhere around 5 million, which is not anywhere adequate. There was a case where a guy crashed into a house with an airplane who only had this cover, setting it on fire, the damage however was close to 8 million. His estate is suffering the consequences up to today.
A_and_C wrote:
Yes you would hope ! But the human factors kick in and he does not want to admit to himself ( or does not realise) that he is out of his depth with this thing.
On the human factor bit,
I think it is very easy to admit that you are “illegally flying IFR on a PPL” and call for a mayday while picking your mum or your wife
This will not fly high when you are picking a famous footballer that you probably never meet before on something that looks like a CPL+AOC work on N-regs
Even a lifesaving diversion or mayday call were not an “obvious option”, fly at night & low were probably on purpose not to draw attention but unfortunately end up lethal…
172driver wrote:
- you have a 15 miilion pound asset
- said asset needs to go from Cardiff to Nantes and back within something like 48 hours
- you decide to use ad-hoc (as opposed to scheduled) air transport
- this trip has to be undertaken in winterNow you decide a SEP (P!!) flown by one of your mates who apparently is a PPL is just what’s needed…..
Am I the only one who’s totally aghast at the decision making process here?
I am sure risk perception for those involved in the decision was not as you imply here.
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 [edited after crossing messages to add:] at least with regards to pilot-decision-making , not necessarily insurance-wise.
