Fully agree with Dave!
Overall reading this forum and additional documents found online I came to the conclusion that it’s not sep planes or engines (mechanical failure is rare) that are dangerous but it’s the type of flying/people/training involved that’s not as safe. This accident (the way it looks now) is a textbook example for this. There was no malintent per se, the plane was capable and the weather was fairly standard for the area. Whatever pressure the PIC was exposed to and whatever (perceived or not) risks he accepted, he paid with his and his passengers life. Not. worth. it.
Cobalt wrote:
The difference between a pilot who does not depart because of WAT and one which does is not that the one who departs lacks theoretical knowledge, but has a different attitude. And that depends on the environment they operate in.
I agree. The PPL syllabus includes all necessary knowledge to make an informed and safe decision based on “WAT” factors.
For quite a good p1sstake treatment of the European CPL or IR theory process, you can read my JAA IR writeup 
I do not believe the acquisition of this sort of TK (or even the full 14-exam CPL/IR “ATPL” set, which btw I have waded through in the form of the huge set of A4 ring binders) has the slightest bearing on the decisionmaking ability of the holder.
Well, unless one makes the argument that anybody who has done it is probably qualified for the Masonic Lodge of General Aviation (let’s for the moment ignore that women cannot be freemasons 
) so will approach flying a PA46, with half the knobs and levers being unfamiliar in function, at night over water, in IMC, with a plain PPL, with the correct kind of positive attitude
Sadly, PPL (and PPL and IR) training in Europe does not prepare the pilot for the decisionmaking that is required – unless one confines one’s flying to very nice days. Having said that, even a quick look at the tafs and metars along the route (posted earlier) would have made it obvious the flight would have been in IMC.
I forget a bit whats been before on this thread, but sure a previous post said pilot did NOT have and IR.
Fair enough, but I would be very surprised if he did not have the old CAA IMC (now EASA IR (R) ) – even if not current.
Now I know an IR(R) is far short of a full IR, but it sure enables you to fly straight and level, turn, climb, descend with reference to a working panel.
So why the apparent catastrofic loss of control ?
I know we have poss ice and I posted another possibility (agreed fanciful) at #144 May2.
What else have we got ?
WarleyAir wrote:
So why the apparent catastrofic loss of control ?
….
What else have we got ?
I feel lika a parrot… “VFR into IMC”.
I think what Warley may be getting at is that if the pilot had an IMCR (which is a fair possibility) then he should not have lost control in IMC. Especially given the flight was obviously planned (in light of the tafs and metars) to be substantially in IMC.
And remember that VFR in IMC is the second oldest profession in the UK – due to the IMCR, the extensive Class A down to low levels, the tiny numbers of IR holders, and the general lack of service in Class G.
And if the autopilot was used then there was no reason for the loss of control – short of icing or heavy turbulence. And the pilot would have known if the AP works (or he knows how to use it) because he did a flight in the same plane immediately before. If the pilot knew the AP is not usable (for whichever reason) then he must have been confident he can hand fly in IMC OR he didn’t check the weather (which does happen, believe it or not, though Skydemon will presumably have server logs of any briefing taken through SD).
These are the sort of questions which a FDR would solve.
Peter wrote:
I think what Warley may be getting at is that if the pilot had an IMCR (which is a fair possibility) then he should not have lost control in IMC.
Full IR pilots, who are otherwise current and qualified, have crashed going VFR into IMC.
It’s not the ratings, it’s the mindset. If you’re on an IFR flight plan, fully legal, you’re already of the mindset that you’re going into IMC and are fully prepared both mentally and in terms of being ahead of the plane (you’ve got the IFR routes in mind, and already have a idea about the arrival procedure and what approach you’re likely to get at the other end), you likely know how to use the autopilot on the aircraft, etc. It’s all quite comfortable, planned, and you already had a good idea what you were likely to be doing the whole flight before you even started the engine.
If you’re VFR on the other hand even with the same ratings, perhaps in a slippery plane you don’t fly much, and it’s night – and you’re not in the “IFR mindset” but instead you’re trying to strain to see ahead, dodge IMC, try to think of a better routing based on the weather chart you looked at 2 hours ago, and then an insidious line of ships or oil platforms or whatever has presented you with a false horizon as you try to duck down low (and at the same time you’re looking down at your lap at your iPad to see what Skydemon is saying, because it’s not your plane and it’s not panel mounted) then you can really quickly run into trouble even if you’re instrument rated because now you’re making it up as you’re going along, the workload is very high, and you have no visual references. With very little sky between you and the water, you can hit it before you even realise you’re out of control, even if you do have a full IR. It’s not the ratings, it’s the mindset.
In the US where you can (in most places) trivially get a pop up IFR clearance as soon as you realise VFR isn’t going to work — pilots still come to grief this way, by pressing on VFR even though they can legally ask for IFR.
Indeed,as Peter said, I accept it could have been ‘VFR into IMC’ (sorry for having Airborne Again act like a parrot) but thought with a likely IR(R) / IMC continued control flight would be second nature.
Just get onto those instruments.
Agree you then have a problem how to let down / get out of it.
I had not considered the ‘mindset’ angle.
Low VFR in IMC while hand flying for 3h? I don’t think any IR pilot have that mindset (maybe a challenge for Peter to LIPV ;) ), the best you can find for that mission are probably moutain pilots, glider tug pilots, paradroppers, military puma pilots…the guys are probably best fit to fly in marginal VFR and very skilled in hand flying but the stats will show something else
As alioth said, there is a big difference between 10h IFR where you know which heading/level to fly by pressing buttons in the flight director leaving you 90% of mind capacity to think about emergencies and next steps and the case where 90% of your brain is about keeping wing level and how to get alive from your next 5min inadvertent entry in cloud and 10h of flight to go?
Keeping the aircraft in control when you enter IMC/VMC witout expecting it is not second nature IMO, most IR pilots are only used to 4 VMC/IMC transitions with enough time to get ready for the soupe or the visual, these happens at specific points something exactly as in the flight plan or the approach plates …
Airborne _ again.
You may be starting to feel like a parrot………….. but you are also totaly correct !
An interesting development is a Fr3nch newspaper has published the footballer text messages, it would seem Cardiff football club offered a commercial flight via CDG but he told them that the agent had offered him a flight at a good price……… what the courts will make of that will be interesting.
