It does also say that a non-commercial fight cannot take place for the sole purpose of transporting a passenger, which I would suggest this was. No mention of the pilot’s eyesight as some have speculated.
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
The report is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...64DB_Final.pdf
Not as conclusive as I was expecting. The report indicates that Ibbotson would only be licensed to carry passengers if he contributed towards the cost of the flight and while that is unlikely it is theoretically possible. However, the report leaves the question of the other licensing issues open when it states:
"The pilot had an FAA PPL issued on the basis of his EASA PPL. His logbook and licence
were not recovered from the aircraft, and the ratings on his licences and their validity
dates have not yet been established."
I would have thought this information would have been available from sources other than the pilot's logbook but presumably more will be revealed when the final report is issued.
I am not sure whether the report takes the investigation very much further forward.
It does also say that a non-commercial fight cannot take place for the sole purpose of transporting a passenger, which I would suggest this was. No mention of the pilot’s eyesight as some have speculated.
Must have missed that bit as I read that his logbook etc. was lost and his qualifications had not yet been fully checked.
As a former holder of a PPL I think this is already as conclusive as you could get.
He was not qualified for instrument flying.
Bad weather ... loss of control of aircraft in bad visibility.
Nothing more to know. Tragic and should not have been in the air. Ask other pilots.
If you don’t know how challenging instrument flying is it’s hard to comprehend. It was also an old old plane making it harder.
I’m assuming that no instrument flying means no night flying, would that be right ?
This is the bit I read about licensing.
The pilot of N264DB held an EASA PPL, issued by the CAA in the UK, and an FAA PPL, issued on the basis of his EASA PPL. It is thought that the pilot’s licence and logbook were lost with the aircraft and so the ratings on his licences and their validity, and the extent of his recent flying have not yet been determined.
Can’t see a reference to the pilot’s eyesight, can you point that out ? I’m missing it somewhere.
No. VFR rating plus night rating. I had those.
Two qualifications.
I did not have IMC for instrument flying which is hard to say the least and requires constant attention.
I think he flew into severe showers at night reducing visibility and he lost spatial awareness. Ideally he should have flown out of weather front and landed. Easy to say but it’s clear I think that the conditions caused an experienced pilot to become overstretched.
The report shows the flights path, which looks like he turned around before crashing - I guess we’ll never know if that was intentional or not
The so called.
Meandering flight path is the pilot doing his job properly trying to find clear skies to fly in.
It’s not necessarily anything other than an attempt to avoid bad weather.
Eventually the adverse conditions got too severe.
Where’s Flier46? On the missing list since the report has come out?
More speculation. The reality....
http://www.ccmb.co.uk/showthread.php...=1#post4954023
"Will be back online this evening to see how it was received by you all "
Eveytime I see AAIB, I think of **** board
There is a pilot who posts on here occasionally, I'd be interested to get their take on the report.
I have been carefully reading the AAIB Interim Report to analyse it to see if it differs from what I already knew, funnily enough I don't see anything that I hadn't already disclosed ( if you guys can, I am here to answer whatever you think differs ).
I didn't go On the missing list since the report has come out, I was actually in consultations about that report & now I am just wondering who will be the first to 'call me out' on anything that I didn't get succinctly right?
The report states that, at one point, the plane was descending at 7,000ft per minute, roughly 80mph. Not sure if that means vertically. Also, the plane was going up and down, not just a general descent. Looks like the pilot was struggling to keep control. The pics in the report show the catastrophic damage to the plane with the engine detatched and part of the tail missing. No wonder the pilot hasn't been found.
I have stated previously that I have found your posts to be of interest. However, the report is not nearly as sensational as you have previously implied. There is nothing about colour blindness of the pilot, nothing about Henderson giving the flight to Ibbotson or the fact that Henderson's credit card was used to pay Ibbotson's hotel accommodation and flight expenses such as landing fees at Nantes as well as fuel for the flight.
Neither is there anything about Henderson lodging the original flight plan or anything in the report that would warrant your belief that Henderson and McKay would be shaking in their boots (or words to that effect) when the report is released. Indeed there is absolutely nothing to incriminate either Henderson or McKay and ,on first reading, they are not implicated at all. Of course these matters might be investigated further when the other reports are released. Another point is the licensing ratings of Ibbotson which do not appear to have been fully investigated by the AAIB as the report states emphatically that:
"The pilot had an FAA PPL issued on the basis of his EASA PPL. His logbook and licence
were not recovered from the aircraft, and the ratings on his licences and their validity
dates have not yet been established."
One thing is for sure and that is the legal ramifications of the flight will not be concluded for a very long time.
Again I state I have enjoyed your posts but you too must be disappointed that it failed to fully justify all your conclusions.
As the interim report is now in the public domain we are free to talk about any part of the interim report, I will pick out a few paragraphs that are very relevant that we wouldn't previously have made comments on.
(1) At about 2015:30 hrs, N264DB started to make a gradual left turn, which was followed at
about 2016:10 hrs by a right turn of approximately 180°. During this turn, data from two
independent radars (Guernsey and Jersey) showed the aircraft descend to an altitude
of about 1,600 ft at an average rate of approximately 7,000 ft/min. A few seconds later
(at 2016:34 hrs) the final secondary radar return was recorded, which indicated that the
aircraft may have climbed rapidly to about 2,300 ft. Two more primary radar returns
were recorded, timed at 2016:38 hrs and 2016:50 hrs respectively, but it is not yet known
whether they represent valid returns from the aircraft.
A descent of 7000ft is not a controlled descent rate, an ascent from 1600ft to 2300ft in a few seconds is not a controlled climb rate They are most likely attributed to the pilot having lost control in spatial disorientation or through disturbed airflow due to Ice build up causing the pilot to be chasing an artificial reading erroneously
(2)A PPL does not allow a pilot to carry passengers for reward; to do so requires a commercial
licence. The basis on which the passenger was being carried on N264DB has not yet
been established but, previously, the pilot had carried passengers on the basis of ‘cost
sharing’. Cost sharing allows a private pilot to carry passengers and for those passengers
to contribute towards the actual cost of the flight. Cost sharing brings benefits to private
pilots who, by sharing the expense of their flying, can fly more than they might otherwise
be able to, thereby increasing their level of experience. A higher level of regulatory burden
applies to commercial, compared with private flights (such as more stringent medical,
licencing and airworthiness requirements), and the additional requirements increase the
level of safety assurance. Therefore, although the UK, EU and US regulatory authorities
allow cost sharing, they apply restrictions to it.
As already stated in my previous posts, Dave Ibbotson was a PPL that disallowed him from flying paying passengers, so the emphasis on whether he was conducting a private flight or a commercial flight is highly relevant & something I have covered in previous posts.
(3)The pilot of N264DB held an EASA PPL, issued by the CAA in the UK, and an FAA PPL,
issued on the basis of his EASA PPL. It is thought that the pilot’s licence and logbook
were lost with the aircraft and so the ratings on his licences and their validity, and the
extent of his recent flying have not yet been determined.
Having seen a copy of Dave Ibbotson's EASA PPL I know that it clearly states 'DAY ONLY' & that is due to his colourblindness & I know exactly what licence privileges he had. His licence privileges didn't allow Night Flight nor Instrument only flight. ( I still have his licence copies on file & they are the same copies that the AAIB & CAA have been given in this investigation )
(4)The pilot had an FAA PPL issued on the basis of his EASA PPL. His logbook and licence
were not recovered from the aircraft, and the ratings on his licences and their validity
dates have not yet been established.
I find this paragraph slightly bizarre because I have seen a copy of his licence & the ratings attached, so I am pretty sure that the AAIB & CAA have seen the same details as I have.
Now, I will await the questions from anyone who thinks I put any speculation into my previous posts.... I have only ever stated facts that I could release & now the Interim report is in the Public Domain I can be part of an 'Open Chat'
The thing is, the AAIB are not there to apportion any blame, their job is to establish the facts of what happened as best as they can. The style of their report reflects this, i.e. it’s a list of facts along with some explanation for us non-aviation types.
They won’t be holding anything back pending any potential legal action because they won’t be taking any, but on the other hand they won’t publish anything they are not certain about either.