47 CFR 87.27 License term.
Licenses for stations in the aviation services will normally be issued for a term of ten years from the date of original issuance, or renewal.
One of the fallouts of this crash may be a crackdown on dodgy charters although it is mostly the uninformed who think they take place only in N-regs.
New AAIB report just come out here.
Interesting about the in-flight breakup. Some interesting PA46 crash history on page 43. They reckon it takes at least 7.7G to pull the wings off a PA46, while this one reached 11G.
Some of the maintenance stuff doesn’t read too good…
Peter wrote:
Some of the maintenance stuff doesn’t read too good…
Nor does the state of the CAA’s licensing database:
Safety Recommendation 2020-005
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority ensure that the system in place to meet the requirements of EASA Part ARA. GEN.220 is effective in maintaining accurate and up-to-date records related to personnel licences, certificates and ratings.
and
It is AAIB experience that CAA licensing records provided to AAIB investigations often appear to be incomplete.
Wonder if they will send CAA inspectors off to a Gasco safety course?
Charlie wrote:
Wonder if they will send CAA inspectors off to a Gasco safety course?
More than a GASCO course is required. My experience of these individuals is one of the usual UK approach. Jolly Hockey sticks and a G&T at the Golf Club bar.
Number of years ago I had cause to MOR a couple of maintenance organisations due some dreadful antics. The old owner/operator chestnut was played by the CAA Inspector/Surveyor. The surveyor actually said to me that he had given the offending parties a ‘’small slap on the wrist’’.
Ended up being all my fault of course.
It comes as no surprise that anomalies exist in licensing, overview, and regulation. The way it is.
The UK CAA has a number of issues. One is the closeness of maintenance industry inspectors to the industry; I got a hilarious demonstration of this some years ago when the CAA inspector suggested I meet that (widely known as dodgy) company for a cup of tea and all will be well. Another is that a lot of ex RAF people set up a nice “club” within the CAA where they look out for each other, and they are invincible; the crazy infringements policy is one such example. Another is general incompetence in certain areas from which many people have left (FCL in particular is in a deep mess). And I bet every CAA suffers from these because they are inherent in aviation regulation specifically (specifically the way it runs in Europe, with the CAAs getting money from the companies they rule over) and human nature generally.
One point of the accident report I don’t really understand:
The report states the assumption, that the cabin was unpressurized at the time of the accident (that is concluded from the fact, that CO contamination in a Malibu is extremely unlikely while pressurized).
What would make a Malibu-Pilot to do this flight w/o pressurization? Or did I miss something in the report?
There is a (fake) theory, used by resellers to promote the Matrix, that with pressurisation off there is more available power.
I understand they were pretty low level, too.
