Light aircraft disappears with two people on board...
Discussion
Cantaloupe said:
Meanwhile your local serial thieves, burglars , shoplifters, drunk drivers and muggers with offence sheets as long as your arm escape custodial sentences.
Sentencing, It's an utter farce, are these people remotely a danger to the public ?
I understand your concerns, clearly the people you outline should also be in jail for even longer.Sentencing, It's an utter farce, are these people remotely a danger to the public ?
We all know there are failings in the system and not enough resources (prisons).
No ideas for a name said:
So Carbon Monoxide poisoning, occupants presumed deeply unconscious at impact. Ayahuasca said:
No ideas for a name said:
So Carbon Monoxide poisoning, occupants presumed deeply unconscious at impact. Edited by eharding on Friday 13th March 16:35
No ideas for a name said:
A quick skim reading... the maintance record doesn't come across very well at all.
Not enough seems to be made of the unlicenced flight and unqualified pilot.
Though I think we should remember also that the AAIB never apportions 'blame' just the fact about the aircraft.
It looks like the licencing/qualifications wasn't particularly relevant to the accident.Not enough seems to be made of the unlicenced flight and unqualified pilot.
Though I think we should remember also that the AAIB never apportions 'blame' just the fact about the aircraft.
Dr Jekyll said:
No ideas for a name said:
A quick skim reading... the maintance record doesn't come across very well at all.
Not enough seems to be made of the unlicenced flight and unqualified pilot.
Though I think we should remember also that the AAIB never apportions 'blame' just the fact about the aircraft.
It looks like the licencing/qualifications wasn't particularly relevant to the accident.Not enough seems to be made of the unlicenced flight and unqualified pilot.
Though I think we should remember also that the AAIB never apportions 'blame' just the fact about the aircraft.
However, from the AAIB report: "He held a valid Instrument Rating (Restricted) (IR(R))4 on his UK EASA licence but no Night Rating"
So, flying at night, in IMC, without a night rating. Not a good start. From reading the report, there was significant cloud cover that the pilot tried to avoid. Again, from the report: "He had little experience of flying in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) or operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)8. The pilot last renewed his IR(R) in May 2017, which meant the rating was valid at the time of the accident. All his recorded flying since the renewal had been recorded as single pilot operating under VFR, so it was unlikely he had practised much instrument flying since then." What's more, his SEP class rating had expired. None of the clubs I've flown with would ever permit a pilot to fly with expired ratings. Having said that, they also wouldn't allow you to fly at night without a night rating.
In summary, although qualified to fly in IMC he certainly wasn't experienced or in current practice. He wasn't qualified to fly at night. On this basis alone, the flight should not have taken off. The AAIB report states:
"In summary:
● The pilot’s ability to control the aircraft was probably impaired
by the effects of CO poisoning, but he appeared to have some
level of function at a late stage of the flight.
● The pilot’s lack of training in night flying and recent practice
in instrument flying is likely to have increased the risk of loss
of control."
I'm personally amazed that this aircraft was not fitted with any form of CO detector. The aircraft will have an option to bring in fresh air - which would be cold but CO free. What's more, having flown SEP quite a lot I'd expect an un-stressed pilot to realise that something wasn't right and select a cold fresh air vent on the basis that it 'could' be CO related. This has been the subject of more than one club safety briefing over the years.
As always with aircraft crashes, it's a combination of a number of factors that lead to the end result. In this case, some of those factors are frankly shocking - a pilot knowingly operating beyond the limits of his licence, and an aircraft not equiped with a CO detector, despite being pressurised by a turbo-charger system on a piston engine.
Astacus said:
Report I was reading says that CO detectors are not required in non commercial craft. Hmm. It was, however, being used commercially!
Awful awful awful. I really feel for the family. He should never have even been carried in that plane.
They’re not. But I have never, and would never, fly in a piston engined aircraft without one. Cabin heat is usually provided from a shroud around part of the exhaust - any failure of the pipe work will dump CO into the cabin.Awful awful awful. I really feel for the family. He should never have even been carried in that plane.
Dr Jekyll said:
No ideas for a name said:
A quick skim reading... the maintance record doesn't come across very well at all.
Not enough seems to be made of the unlicenced flight and unqualified pilot.
Though I think we should remember also that the AAIB never apportions 'blame' just the fact about the aircraft.
It looks like the licencing/qualifications wasn't particularly relevant to the accident.Not enough seems to be made of the unlicenced flight and unqualified pilot.
Though I think we should remember also that the AAIB never apportions 'blame' just the fact about the aircraft.
tty weather; that's 3 feet in the incident pit before they left the ground.Dr Jekyll said:
It looks like the licencing/qualifications wasn't particularly relevant to the accident.
Not sure about that.Aircraft flying under Part 135 have significantly more stringent maintenance and inspection requirements compared to a Part 91 aircraft.
Perhaps a pilot more used to flying in adverse conditions might have been more comfortable flying in the conditions that night and been more able to recognise CO poisoning and react to it before it doomed the flight.
I have not read the AAIB report yet, so apologies if my comments are off.
The Mad Monk said:
Why did they (whoever "they" are) not book the trip from France to Cardiff(?), with a commercial organisation?
It sounds as though someone "has a mate who could do that trip for you at a sensible price".
This is all discussed up the thread. It sounds as though someone "has a mate who could do that trip for you at a sensible price".
Cardiff City’s player liaison officer was trying to book a commercial flight from Paris CDG but agent Willie McKay’s son ‘helpfully’ interjected to offer Sala a flight.
How none of the people involved in this unlicensed flight charade have not faced prosecution is beyond me.
Dogwatch said:
We had a well worn air cooled VW with a similar heating system of air blown over the exhaust system and the possibility of a leak always worried me. CO detectors weren't around then and I was very happy when it went for scrap and I wouldn't ever have another.
Who maintained the plane?Isnt it doubtful you'd beware of CO poisoning
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff