| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Or maybe Mr Henderson turned up at the airport, and decided that due to the type of plane, and the weather conditions, he didn't deem it safe to conduct the journey and pulled out. Leaving Mr Ibbitosn to say "I'll do it".Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
The choice to fly is always the pilot's.
Don't forget Mr Henderson is well aquainted with that aircraft having sourced it in Spain according to a BBC video. So did he aquire it for himself or a 3rd party? Who owned the plane is a significant piece of the puzzle.
I'm not sure it is, unless the maintanance log shows it hasn't been maintained correctly.
So why is everybody distancing themselves from owning the plane? We know somebody owns it via a trust, it was sourced in Spain by Henderson, and is has been used for McKay's football agent business. It was also a N reg, which cannot be used for commercial purposes.
Because they're being accused of owning it when they don't? I'm sure that once the maintanence logs are checked, the AAIB will decide whether or not the the owners are culpable.
It is not the purpose of AAIB investigations to apportion blame or liability. ( The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 19961.)
The police will become involved if they suspect that any criminality may have occured. A civil case could also take place like the one Tan is considering, and possibly the Sala family too.
The trust ownership is a veil that prevents us from knowing who the true owners of the aircraft are. I'm not sure what the legal ramifications are, e.g. would Tan consider legal action against the trust, or would the real owners be unmasked?
If what you say is entirely correct, then Mr Henderson was happy to hand over the journey to someone who was less qualified to manage it than him. That would be a little risky even if it was a solo flight delivering some sort of goods, but when the "cargo" was a £15 million footballer, the decision he may have taken strikes me as a reckless one.
It's a valid point and one I made previously - McKay hired someone who hired someone not suitable. That puts McKay firmly in the frame.
According to news reports, all costs were charged to Henderson's credit card.
I doubt he could have stopped him. If I decide not to drive into work because I don't think it's safe, it isn't my responsibility if another driver decides to do it.
But, if the reports are correct, it looks like Ibbotson would not have been able to take the job on if Henderson hadn't paid for his hotel stay.
I find it hard to believe that Ibbotson would have accepted the job just on the basis of 'expenses', when he was allegedly in so much debt, especially considering this was a multi million pound 'transaction'. More likely cash was paid, or was to be paid, probably kept under-the-counter so as to avoid the flight being deemed as a professional trip which would have rendered it outside regulatory rules...
And not necessarily cash. A few weeks later an airline ticket in the post, a nice weekend break paid for, a few bottles of single malt by courier. If the pilot has been accurately reported as being in debt, CCJs x 4, it might be the case that cash plus expenses was given the nod. Risky.... easier to trace maybe. Depends where the originator of the deal has their bank account(s).
But that is expenses which Ibbotson is perfectly entitled to receive as a non commercial pilot. He can work for expenses but not profit. The other explanation is that a holder of a PPL needs to do a certain number of hours and often pilots do work for expenses just to bump their hours up to the required level.
I'm not sure if a weekend in a hotel would be considered a legitimate flying expense, as in it's not directly related to the flight.
I thought he flew sala out there?
Surely staying in a hotel in such circumstances would be an expense that is directly related to the flight?
Otherwise what was he supposed to do for the weekend in the meantime?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
