Not only is the flight legal, in my opinion it’s a good thing that the regulations are this way: advertising cost sharing is very beneficial in some cases, but passengers have to be informed (like they are on Wingly & co). This should be mandatory or systematic as soon as the flight is advertised publicly (not just on main platforms). Maybe it should also insist on dangers of weather (“flying into any form of clouds, rain, or strong winds IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS”, period), but that may undercut the pilot. We’re not far off from the optimal point and regulations (hopefully) should not substantially change.
I agree reckless pilots will be reckless, but I do feel like it’s a big problem if the passengers did not get access to the basic level of information that the EASA charter has. If they knew the dangers they faced and decided to trust the pilot anyway, and the pilot himself was too reckless, there’s not much more we can do.
Anyone has more info on the level of discussions on the FB group, or if there are / were such warnings there ?
I don’t accept that we weren’t taught meteorology and how to get the weather for a flight. My PPL or TT (as it was then) certainly did include how to get and analyse the weather for a flight. Windy wasn’t around then and I still don’t use it now. I am quite happy with Aeroweb.
As I wrote although I have PPL SEP SEIR and MEIR I have never thought it necessary to train either for CPL or ATPL.
However, as IUI whilst there is very little difference in the actual flying there is or can be a difference in decision making. As an employed CPL you are subject to commercial pressures if you want to stay in work.
Peter wrote:
And those of us who have been in this game for a bit should fully understand this! Nobody, absolutely nobody, is teaching this. How many schools or instructors have ever heard of windy.com? Or meteox.com, sat24, etc?
You´d be happy and possibly shocked to know that the ATO I did my FI at had windy.com projected on biggest monitor in the ops room, and that all available, including weather (aeroweather etc.) and notams were collected at various sources – HOWEVER you must obviously know where to collect official data, or have the fancy gen 2023 applications approved. Firstly, perhaps you haven´t visited any of the these sausage factory schools recently, and secondly, the UK is, please don´t take personal offence, a bit backwards, or at least slow, in the adaptation of technology in society.
Peter wrote:
The biggest factor I see in these “totally puzzling crashes” is that the pilot seemed to simply not know how to “get wx”. Yet this has been possible, and in common knowledge for those on the right GA social media, since probably 2005. Different sites in the old days; some pretty weird.
It could be the case. T
Though I lean more towards the idea of target fascination and wanting to perform, and disregarding the information (that was actually at hand). But, I also don´t believe most pilots (all levels) are as restricted in there utilization of modern technology as you seem to believe. I admit I could be wrong with regards to private GA flying!
In line with what you´re referring to regarding Wx., I would believe that the ability to interpret and digest actual (and historical (“play function” )) satellite photos, as well as “forcasted” (eg. windy.com) cloud/precipitation/fog presents challenges for the less educated (self taught or professionally!) pilot.
Only cost sharing is restricted to the extent that the pilot cannot make a profit; he needs to incur some cost and that can be €0.01.
That’s subject to interpretation ever since the change of the law a few years back (which removed the clear wording on equal share of costs).
I tried to find an answer to this question from aviation lawyers and university professors a few years back.
Answer: While the law is not clearly worded, and without any precedent cases in court, when looking at the intent of the regulator, they all agreed that it means a reasonably substantial, if not equal share of the direct operating, or in case of renting, charter costs. The direct operating cost is fuel and oil. Contributing 0,01€ to a flight costing 1000€ will probably not impress a court to believe “someone did this without personal gain”.
RobertL18C wrote:
I believe all programmes today have a teaching objective of TEM, whether schools pay lip service to this or not may be worth considering by the regulators who audit the schools.In addition Integrated Schools have a philosophy of inculcating SOPs, in effect ensuring the students are good candidates to get through their TR/LFOT when they join the airlines.
The TEM comes into force during the flight briefing by the student, which at CPL/IR standard should be at a professional standard. In addition there will be SOPs Training Manuals, Operations Manuals with stated conditions and minima for dispatch. In further addition, most integrated schools will have Risk Assessment Tools to score the flight.
The integrated schools do wash out students with poor airmanship.
The FAA has a more scenario based philosophy with more varied testing of ADM during the practical tests, while EASA/UK tend to be highly choreographed. Hopefully one day Europe will align.
I would agree on the entirety of this – non of which is taught at the modular PPL training, nor considered during PPL examination (certification).
The poor airmanship is a reality as a result of a the sausage factory mentality. The ATOs have little care about details and not enough focus on the quality of the finessed product. Again, they expect the future employer (airlines mostly) to do that job!
I wasn’t trained in any of top European ATPL schools, so I can’t say what they deliver but I somehow doubt that freshly minted CPL is aware of all tools available for planning and conducting challenging A to B flight.
You are, as usual, spot on!
What is produced in the marketing dream machine pay2fly sausage factories is rote learning and company profit. Pay 100k to click multiple choice question banks, and get 150 “flight” hours (as cheaply as possible to produce for the ATO so the profit margin is hefty). Then be dropped into the sharktank of LCC airline assessment and recruitment. My connections at airlines tell me the standard is steadily going down hill, and extension line training due to inability for basic flying, is frequent. The extreme cases weed out, and even the worst pilots make the cut as the system is set up for it, so it has little safety consequences (maybe in a few years it will show). It’s pay2play until landing a job at the airlines, then it’s pay2play with a safety management system.
However, the majority of today’s real A to B flying stuff I learned myself.
There’s no way around that to some degree, however not everyone is lucky enough to survive the process. And it can be expedited greatly with the right methods.
In the US there is a large market for mentoring and training specifically owner pilots doing “real” flying. It’s not cheap, though, with daily rates starting at 4 figures.
The main divide between the guys in the plastic suits on an Airbus and those in jeans in a DA42 is that training at airline level is done by instructor pilots training pilots to flip the correct switches, whereas at the private flying level the work revolves mostly around behavior modification. Looking at this recent accident, a hefty dose of it wouldn’t have hurt.
“What do you mean I can’t fly my Commander 112 through the alps in winter through a frontal weather system? I will be higher than the mountains and not hit them!”
I agree reckless pilots will be reckless
It can’t be fixed by a regulation unless it would severely restrict personal freedoms (eg prohibiting flying with any passengers in a SEP). We don’t want that.
The people that went flying in that 112 trusted the pilot. He accepted a huge responsibility. Highlighting and remembering what this means, to us and our peers, and not being jovial about it, is important. Flying isn’t simple and has risks, that’s just the way it is.
The problem is super complex. Maybe if flying wouldn’t be so expensive he would have flown alone? Maybe if the IR was more accessible he would have better understood the risks involved? Etc. etc. etc..
I hope we find out what caused the crash.
For the record, my understanding is that it has been established herein that there is no evidence that the cost-sharing nature of this flight had any relevance on the fatal outcome. This cannot be said of personal attitude, aircraft performance, terrain, weather…so the focus on cost-sharing is misleading to “outsiders” .
Snoopy wrote:
Maybe if flying wouldn’t be so expensive he would have flown alone? Maybe if the IR was more accessible he would have better understood the risks involved? Etc. etc. etc..
The regulator heard you and, wisely, implemented regs aiming to increase flight utilization (and hence indirectly lowering cost) re cost-sharing flights and simplifying obtainment of an IR.
So, if anything, rather than changing regulation, we could praise them and ensure they are used properly. Maybe for another thread, but yes, it is a disgrace that the relative numbers of PPLIR’s are still so low in EU vs the US.
I would say there was a very high cost recovery (not any significant profit though) motivation on the pilot’s part, otherwise why advertise it so widely.
He could have got three 100-120kg passengers. That is very likely in “prosperous Europe” these days 
Then what the hell do you do? At best this will come out in PMs or emails before the flight. He could have also got some pretty weird people… It takes a lot of cost recovery motivation to advertise a flight, particularly to advertise one as widely as this.
Yes, looking at his FB reports he did do a fair bit of the Alps but always in near-CAVOK conditions.
