Peter wrote:
The lack of a CPL is a bit moot if there is no AOC.
True in this case: If Sala had owned the plane he could have paid a CPL to fly him under Pt.NCO or NCC.
Snoopy wrote:
Too bad Sala wasn’t confident enough (unusual for very wealthy people)
Well… Not sure I agree… What does he have to know about flying and aviation?
Maybe if you ask Sala he would rather take the private PA46 flight over the EasyJet, and we all know which one is safer and more professional… (and way cheaper, but that may be exactly the problem)
Alpha_Floor wrote:
What does he have to know about flying and aviation?
Standing with the crowd during boarding a brand new 30 million dollar 70 seat turboprop there are many „unfamiliars“ complaining about having to fly on an ancient, loud, rattling, uncomfortable puddle jumper. They have no clue and hate props. Google flights used to mark flight search results in red text saying „propeller airplane“.
So a 17 million euro football star (probably earning in a week what others earn in a few years) and subsequently primarily used to new and fancy stuff walks up to a decades old plane that has duct tape on the glareshield and goes „wow, my own private plane!“. I doubt it. Apparently he also sent whatsapp messages about the worrying condition (in his view, probably because of worn interior and noise) of the plane.
Just a note, low-cost flights (Easyjet, Ryanair, Norwegian) are far safer than any other other type of commercial/private flying you can get around for various reasons (e.g. aircraft type, diversion options, engine reliability, pilot currency…) but most consumers are not solely after the safety record?
Part of the decision making process here must have been the availability – or rather perceived lack thereof – of CAT between Cardiff and Nantes. A quick search brings up a KLM flight via AMS with a 4h10 duration. Prob90 not much slower than a PA46.
172driver wrote:
Part of the decision making process here must have been the availability – or rather perceived lack thereof – of CAT between Cardiff and Nantes. A quick search brings up a KLM flight via AMS with a 4h10 duration. Prob90 not much slower than a PA46.
Indeed, but Netjets would have been available….
Well this is one of those cases where GA has one big advantage over commercial…for about the same cost (in a PA46) 1hr surely beats 5.5 hrs…
This is the best there is to be found today…for over EUR500
I don’t really see what is dangerous about the accident flight profile.
Something was very wrong to cause the accident – without even a mayday call. Even from 2000ft the pilot would have had > 2 mins to transmit, and in the case of engine stoppage I can’t see any motivation to not do so even on an illegal flight.
Loss of control (i.e. a pilot who could not fly in IMC, together with an INOP autopilot) could be very fast (10 seconds to a spiral dive at Vne is possible in a TB20) and then you won’t be making any calls… This is what I don’t get with the Kennedy one, or that RBS banker in the Channel. Why should it happen if the autopilot works? A pilot who cannot fly in IMC but knows what the buttons do on the (functioning) autopilot should never crash enroute, other than unrelated stuff like empty tanks, a CFIT, heavy icing, or some mech failure.
From my knowledge of the GA scene it is quite possible this pilot didn’t know how the autopilot worked. It will be immediately obvious from the radar track whether an AP was being used.
The discovery of the cushions suggests a high speed impact.
I think that is absolutely correct. With a fully functioning A/P and a complete understanding of how the A/P interacts with the navigation equipment any flight can be completed with almost no input whatsoever from the pilot on the controls. I am sure we have all flown quite complicated routes, with a number of turning points engaging the A/P at 500 feet on departure and disengaging at a similiar height on arrival. Surprisingly (to some in the press I suspect) GA does that very well. Of course there are various degrees of fuctionality of A/Ps depending on the age of the aircraft, and, inevitably whether the A/P is functioning properly. Also inevitably if and when the A/P quits the immediate transtion to hand flying can cuase problems, as well as the continued flying by hand if the A/P will not re-engage. Even for a current instrument rated pilot undertaking this trip without a functioning A/P and without another pilot on board would be challenging, albeit it should not be impossible, but, I guess not many would undertake the flight if that was known to be the case from departure. In these circumstances having another pilot on board would be a distinct advantage.
It would be interesting to know how many pilots are tuned to making at least a position report qucikly in the event of rapidly escalating emergency and there ability to do so, but at least in this case I would have thought the low level radar cover would be very good and the last radar return would be very close to the point the aircraft ditched. After all, over the sea we know that the CIZ has very good coverage at least down to 1,000 feet, and, I guess, quite probably lower.
As a private pilot flying C172 and PA28s I wish I had an autopilot capable of just wings level… Never come across one that worked although many aircraft have the installation…
