What recourse do I have against the newspaper, especially given that my aircraft is currently for sale.
Bloody hell. Get yourself a good lawyer and go for them. I would go for a 5 digit contribution to my avgas bill. That’s terrible – even though nearly all journos routinely steal pics from the internet, randomly.
that’s a very low bar
It is tricky legally however, if you want to bust somebody using criminal law 
Buckerfan wrote:
Very strange considering that I was flying it this afternoon.
@Buckerfan Never knew that they made a VTOL version of the Malibu! Looks…interesting! 
Must be a unique plane!
(Must be a small helicopter behind, but on the picture you just see the rotor)
Buckerfan wrote:
What recourse do I have against the newspaper, especially given that my aircraft is currently for sale.
What damage has this photo done to you?
Malibuflyer wrote:
What damage has this photo done to you?
I guess that prospective buyers could think that advertisements for N394SE are fake?
Airborne_Again wrote:
I guess that prospective buyers could think that advertisements for N394SE are fake?
Very far fetched in terms of basis for a legal damage claim.
So a prospective buyer would see the add on controller.com or barnstormers.com, remembers that he has seen a report on on Malibu-Crash in Daily mail, remembers the callsign on the picture in daily mail and then comes to the conclusion that daily mail is (always!) right and the add in controller.com has to be fake and is so sure about that, that he doesn’t even contact the seller to ask how the add relates to the picture in Daily Mail?
Quite unlikely if you ask me!
Have you written to the paper and asked them to change it?
Peter wrote:
Also, a 61.75 (this is from one issued today) states this…
But it will make a prosecution under this heading awfully difficult, because – in any civilised country – any ambiguity is construed in favour of the defendant.
I don’t read that as preventing night flight at all. It just says limitations and restrictions apply – but the ordinary UK (or EASA/UK) PPL carrying an SEP (land) rating doesn’t have a limitation/restriction on it saying “day only” or “not valid at night”. I am looking at mine now and there is no indication whatsoever that it is not valid at night – it takes specific knowledge of UK licensing to know that the separate night rating is required and that the licence one is holding does not confer the right to fly at night.
@Malibuflyer lots of stuff is very actionable in the UK that would not work anywhere else. That is why we have a lot of libel tourism. @Buckerfan would have quite credible arguments that his reputation as an aviator, as well as the value of his aircraft, are severely harmed by being incorrectly associated with the crash and the legal dramas surrounding it.
However insane UK libel laws are, and however many libel tourists it generates, can you actually libel an inanimate object like an aircraft?
Graham wrote:
I don’t read that as preventing night flight at all. It just says limitations and restrictions apply – but the ordinary UK (or EASA/UK) PPL carrying an SEP (land) rating doesn’t have a limitation/restriction on it saying “day only” or “not valid at night”
UKPPL/FCL with TMG/SLMG rating only will not have the following restrictions written on it: Night, IFR, SEPL, SEPS, MEPL, MEPS, SET, B747 TR, Instructor, Examiner I guess FAA61.75 based on that should be good to fly anything in that list
I think Night & IFR & ME & MEIR, needs extra training for initial FAA certificate/rating issue (why FAA61.75 would be exempt from this?)
However, for class & type ratings: when expires, RG/VP variants and scope where lot of ink has been around but so it’s fine to fly a PA46 piston on turbine with SEL on your license HP/Complex signoff by CFI and BFR in gliders
In my understanding you are not flying “the type” on SEP+FCL740/945 but on SEL+BFR
Ibra wrote:
why FAA61.75 would be exempt from this?
Its not, there is no night rating, its normally part of your private unless you did not receive instruction. Its NOT normally tested as part of your checkride. Instrument Rating and Multi Engine are separate and you will only be given these if you ask and are qualified when you apply. You would be foolish to fly at night without some instruction, in any case the FAA might try and get you on 91.13 if you did cause an accident. Also if you had something specifically printed on your license that says you can’t do something, then should not do that either. e.g. circle to land on instrument approach prohibited, night prohibited, licensed revoked or flying with pink underpants is required etc. AFAIK That is how it is from a FAA perspective. It is clear that some CAA doesn’t see it that way at all.
The later is probably very relevant to what jurisdiction you are in when something goes wrong as it is in this case… I can’t see the prosecution calling an FAA expert witness i.e. From a practical perspective I say there is a difference between a foreign 61.75 flyer touring the USA, compared to a national flying in Europe on a 61.75, the later need to be careful of the risks to there underlying license or action that might be brought against them in Europe.
Ibra wrote:
UKPPL/FCL with TMG/SLMG rating only will not have the following restrictions written on it: Night, IFR, SEPL, SEPS, MEPL, MEPS, SET, B747 TR, Instructor, Examiner I guess FAA61.75 based on that should be good to fly anything in that list
the only two on that list that you can never do on a 61.75 are Instructor, Examiner, the rest you might depending on what you apply for and qualify for at the time AND most importantly if you have satisfied the FAA requirements when you do the flight, if you don’t know the latter perhaps you should not be doing it
