Interesting conclusion to the report, which asks for better monitoring of platforms lending themselves to confusion with commercial operations, but does point out that “some platforms operate correctly and contribute to a healthy GA culture”. I’m sure some people at Wingly HQ feel a bit relieved, or even vindicated, by that.
DGAC has not yet decide what to make out of these online platforms, the one used is backed by AirFrance but don’t operate under it’s AOC not it’s account, to avoid confusion this was not Wingly or anything under “cost-share”, safety-wise, I would personally fly in a Jodel while sharing the costs with another PPL in Wingly than in a B747 flown with two CPL/ATPL to Chourcheval with BA 
I’m surprised that no one has commented on the commercial aspects. The report makes the account that @denopa gave of the circumstances of the flight look rather kind. It appears the operator was using the “two invoices” ruse that @Peter has previously mentioned, but appears to have put both line items on a single invoice to save paper,
Ibra wrote:
PA46 experience: 2*TnG on 1600m runway and first 25min flight, the next day to Courcheval loaded above MTOW, if it was a TR then one need 3 takeoffs & landings before taking pax !
What can you say…?
PA46 experience: 2*TnG on 1600m runway and first 25min flight, the next day to Courcheval loaded above MTOW, if it was a TR then one need 3 takeoffs & landings before taking pax !
The report is here:
denopa wrote:
The accident flight is marked as “private”, which it shouldn’t if the pax paid? In the comments section it says “RAS” which stands for “rien à signaler”, nothing to report.
That’s hilarious, but well in line with habits.
Very sad to see the state it’s in. I hope it flies again.
On the website you can see the docs, including the journey log. The last pilot (which is on the accident flight) appears only once before, the previous day, for 0.4h, for a flight marked as “instruction”. Obviously he could have had additional training on another PA46, but it correlates with the press report on his lack of experience on type.
I cannot make sense of the fuel uplift column, sometimes it’s in litres and sometimes in USG it seems.
The accident flight is marked as “private”, which it shouldn’t if the pax paid? In the comments section it says “RAS” which stands for “rien à signaler”, nothing to report.
Jacko, I had missed your post on August 4th. I have never, ever said the pilot is stupid. I’m saying that if the specialised press reports (this is the equivalent of Flyer, not the Daily Mail) are correct, he did something stupid. More importantly, that something is not running off the runway, but being overweight and inexperienced in type at a field he was not qualified for.
F-GUYZ is now for sale!
https://www.salvagesale.com/jsp/s/item/2562273
there is a good reason why Courchevel like others need a site qualification
No, it needs a mountain rating or a site qualification. The latter can be acquired in less than an hour. The former usually takes a week or two of training. The reason why Courchevel is open to pilots with so little training is that it is easy – perhaps the easiest of the French altiports.
In this discussion we have some very experienced PA46 pilots who have no mountain rating saying, on the basis of some unverified blog or news report, that a pilot who ran gently off the top of the LFLJ platform was stupid. Perhaps they are right. On the other hand we have a pilot who does have a mountain rating (but who has never had the slightest desire to set foot in a low-wing Piper airplane) who says “lets wait for the official report before we throw stones in our glass house”. Plenty of pilots who are by no means stupid have, on occasion, run out of runway on landing at airports which are even easier than LFLJ.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/august/02/rps-no-go-around
Relevant as it discusses a one way strip with a no go around decision point.
Good take aways on emergency equipment in the outback, and relevant currency for some operations.
