can someone tell me how all those 61.75 PPL are flying in the UK with all the iffy weather around
The same way they are flying a G-Reg, as their licence (including any IMC rating / IR(R) / full IR) is all that is needed as long as they are in the UK. A 61.75 is only required if they are flying abroad.
I doubt anyone with “any IR skills” flying an N-reg outside G-airspace will have issues climbing high in PA46 or diverting if getting caught by weather
As Alpha_floor already mentioned, the number of people with “any IR skills” coming to grief in VFR-into-IMC accidents is surprisingly high. They include capable and current pilots CFIT’ing because they didn’t plan for it, or the plan didn’t work, and people losing control because they don’t get the transition right.
Peter wrote:
Around Europe, lots of “instrument capable” PPL holders fly routinely in IMC without an IFR flight plan – partly because the Eurocontrol system has made life so complicated, and only in recent years has become easier due to the software tools. You just have to do it right
I am very interested about this comment and it’s always a tabu subject because, well just because.
I guess this is the thing you don’t talk about in a public forum anyway.
We all have no clue (yet) what happened and are speculating. Assuming the pilot did not have a valid FAA IR, I would assume that he would fly VFR and since there are no mountains, church towers and other high obstructions in that part of the channel and the stretch over water is not that far plus with freezing levels at higher altitudes, I can imagine that the pilot might have opted to fly at a lower altitude above the sea towards the UK. Let’s be fair: how many pilots are not flying very low from Oostende towards Dover across the channel? Even if the weather is great, they would often not fly very high. Not to say that I would do this, but I could imagine this happening even though the aircraft in question is better equipped to fly higher.
To be fair, I thought there was some evidence that the aircraft had been at 5,000 feet. Ok, not high, but it could well have been above an undercast, or in VMC, with an overcast above (probably more likely). This would not be surprising giving the front crossing from the NW, and I would expect the weather to build from above. It would also not be especially unusual if the pilot was reluctant to climb through the frontal weather, especially if he didnt know how high the tops were, which he probably didnt,, and felt he could continue below the base, and may be had some good reason to think so. For example, he could well have had the METAR and TAF for Exeter, Bournemouth and Southampton all of which would have still be open and could have been passed to him by CIs. This is all assuming it was weather related in any event. Whatever took place I do think the AAIB or whoever will look at the accident in context (of course) and what information the pilot may or may not have had, because at night coasting out somewhere near Alderney you arent going to have much idea of the weather ahead looking out the window!
Breaking news – two cushions from the missing aircraft have been recovered from the sea (AAIB via Sky News)
The information initially released was that he was at 5,000ft crossing the CICZ and then requested a descent to 2,300ft. I cannot see any reason to request that descent of than weather.
Assuming he didn’t have an IR and so couldn’t (legally) file IFR at FL200 or some such, 5,000ft seems a relatively sensible VFR altitude. I would have liked to be as high as possible, but maybe his planned route didn’t allow higher due to proximity of Class A.
Maybe 5,000ft was the highest Jersey would allow him on a VFR clearance? Leaving the Channel Islands I have often been told in my departure clearance “cleared VFR not above altitude 2,000ft” so they obviously like to keep the VFR light GA low. I have always responded something along the lines of “request as high as possible” and got a higher level. Basically I want to be in a continuous climb until I run up against the Class A ceiling for my crossing.
Chances are he planned to cross VFR at as high an altitude as he could get from ATC and weather would allow. Jersey allowed him 5,000ft initially. He ran into the front full of ice and filthy chop and had no idea where the tops were but he knew he couldn’t go much (FL80?) higher without needing to enter Class A. Ruled that out as an option as he didn’t want to make the flight anymore illegal than it already was or draw attention to himself. Therefore asked to descend to 2,300ft as according to the best info he had (metars before departure?) he ought to be VMC at that level. Then once he was down there something happened which caused either a breakup or a stall/spin/spiral dive into the sea, because from what people are saying controlled flight down to the water would have been trackable on radar much lower than 2,300ft.
Ice……
Graham wrote:
Then once he was down there something happened
Yeah. What about a heart attack? I mean, possible due to pilot age, high stress situation, no other pilot on board etc etc
Can these piston Malibus suffer from carburetor icing? Maybe he forgot to use it and the engine quit at the worst moment…
Pitot icing and loss of control due to unreliable air instruments indications?
Just “low value added” speculations of course and sorry in advance.
Cobalt wrote:
You meant to say that the pilot in question displayed a cavalier attitude towards flying and / or regulations.
We can’t tell for sure. What we know and has been reported here about it is that:
Why such profile was chosen or even the flight was operated is what some of us are wondering and is a train of thought that we are trying to understand.
Out of respect, I agree we should be careful to imply an attitude beyond what we know.
There is one more scenario we haven’t discussed yet. How about an inop pressurization system forced him to stay low? This may (may!) also explain the ‘four takeoff attempts’. What if the pressurization check failed on the ground and he tried to get the thing working, failed and then decided to scud run at a non-O2 altitude? Not a wise decision, for sure, but IMHO plausible.
172driver wrote:
What if the pressurization check failed on the ground and he tried to get the thing working, failed and then decided to scud run at a non-O2 altitude?
That would mean first flight plan was high altitude IFR canceled and replaced with low altitude VFR. However, I believe we don’t know anything about plan submitted.
