Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

PA46 Malibu N264DB missing in the English Channel

Fuji_Abound wrote:

Is it me or would a NOTAM to this effect be just a little more helpful if it didnt refer to the AIP, but gave the frequency?

I think they just want to avoid typo mistakes like the one I just did, it’s 118.480 gosh, just edited my post…

Last Edited by Ibra at 22 Jan 16:08
ESSEX, United Kingdom

WarleyAir wrote:

Commercial mandatory turboprop.

Sorry but where do you get that from?

WarleyAir wrote:

Sure piston not authorised for commercial by EASA.

Commercial and AOC are different things, of course

EGTF, LFTF

lionel wrote:

Would it take them an arm and a leg to just write the actual frequency there instead of sending people fishing in the AIP?

And also the list in the AIP is very long and it’s not entirely clear which should be the replacement frequency. When I came across a similar NOTAM last summer, I tried looking it up (while on mobile too, which didn’t help). Fortunately Ronaldsway could provide service all the way to St Bees Head so I didn’t have to bother!

Andreas IOM

Quote from Darlington and Stockton News
Note ‘Turbine’
“Guernsey Police said the Piper PA-46 Malibu, a single turbine engine aircraft carrying two people, departed Nantes at 7.15pm for Cardiff and was flying at an altitude of 5,000ft”.

Last Edited by WarleyAir at 22 Jan 16:44
Regret no current medical
Sandtoft EGCF, North England, United Kingdom

Seems funny – would have thought a ‘turbine’ with only two on board could ‘punch’ it’s way up above the clouds (ice).
Also assume it would have some sort of ice protection.
Are we now talking about a pilot without IR or worse not even a IMCR.
Seems unlikely with a ‘turbine’ ticket.

Regret no current medical
Sandtoft EGCF, North England, United Kingdom

Graham wrote:

If not on a EuroControl IFR flightplan (which I think we can assume is probably the case, given the level) then they would indeed have had a bit of a radar gap. Plymouth Military would long have gone home, and the next radar service outside controlled airspace would have been Exeter.

Sadly they did not seem to get far enough for that lack of radar coverage to matter. Or maybe they did – maybe they got halfway across the channel at zero feet….

London Info have a long range radar (300nm?) but not the kind that offers useful aviation services: not the best quality one to separate you from traffic/airspace, but I think it still useful for an approximate S&R position fix (plus their VDF that I tried seems to work), however, the guy sitting behind, especially on weekends/nights, is probably not a “qualified radar guy”, the same probably apply to Plymouth Military, at least they will get a 20nm idea on where you are for a rescue operation

Flying low at zero feet will not help neither VDF/LRR contact, anywhere bellow 1500ft consider yourself on your own especially at night where radio interference in VDF/LRR are the greatest…

In the other hand, radar services from airports with controlled airspace are short range (80nm) but enough resolution to get as much as 1nm/5nm position fixes for S&R (aligned with airspace separation minima), yes the two available coming from CICZ OCAS will be Exeter west and Bournmouth/Southampton east but they are really far away

Last Edited by Ibra at 22 Jan 17:14
ESSEX, United Kingdom

Fuji_Abound wrote:

It isnt likely to change in six days is it, or if it were it might be worth mentioning!

I would think there are lots of different London Control frequencies depending on where you are!

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

From southern UK to Jersey you are certainly on radar the whole time. London Control see you a long way over France, and Jersey Radar takes over once inside the C.I. airspace.

London Info, I have been told at a NATS presentation some years ago, see all traffic but I don’t know how far, and in any case being FISOs they are not allowed to say anything on the radio indicating that they can see you. Even if you are about to bust somewhere they are supposed to hand you over to a radar unit which can then call you officially. Mad… but it is the ICAO-mandated ATC job demarcation which ATC unions carefully guard.

Anyway I don’t think anyone knows whether this has any relevance in this case. The accident report will probably contain radar tracks…

Has the UK CAA allowed any A-to-B charter AOCs in any single engine planes? There have been stories posted about the DGAC allowing it in a TBM, and the PC12 getting a similar concession. One thread is here.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Has the UK CAA allowed any A-to-B charter AOCs in any single engine planes? There have been stories posted about the DGAC allowing it in a TBM, and the PC12 getting a similar concession.

Following the DGAC’s “experimentation” with that, it is now authorised/recognised by EASA, and thus theoretically possible in any EASA country

ELLX

OK, but nobody will be doing a charter flight without a CPL, and there are very few pilots who are doing any kind of “work” (other than training) who have a CPL but not an IR – an IR which is actually valid. Plus, there may be restrictions on charter work limited to VFR… I have no idea what the AOC conditions are. OTOH it may not have been a G-reg…

The presence of a famous passenger should not infer it was an AOC flight, or a legit AOC flight… there is considerable history in that department… google on the Citation crash near Biggin Hill some years ago, with the famous motor racing passenger(s). The requirement for an AOC pivots on whether the passenger(s) has paid for being flown. I could fly the Queen, although I suspect old Philip would be more up for it

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top