Emiliano Sala’s plane 'did NOT fall to pieces': Ex-pilot of

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.

Look it up buddy before you dout

And read again what it says

Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %

ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.

So you are telling me that the stats of a 747 are not correct ?
The state of the aviation and grounded aircraft of the Malibu piper are not correct ?
And the stats of a harrier are not correct ?

I would be very interested to see yours so please reply to me on the stats of all 3 aircraft I'm intrigued as you haven't actually produced a debate just an attitude that your right

its not an attitude .your maths is completely wrong.

as for the harrier, you said its like junping in a harrier at war..really, thats not a stat is it.

Please do the maths for me then and im more then happy to say I'm wrong if I am.

It comes down to the fact that the airport should never had let the aircraft go after numerous attempts to take off so they need to be accountable having it on there logs

Everything after that will be pilot error and should never had flown.

Not taking away the fact the plane is a pile of shit as whole.

that's the point mate, the maths required aint something you can just rustle up. too many variants


personally i think this is tragic enough without attempts to make it worse.. numerous attempts, yes i read that on day one as well, not mentioned since or corroborated by anyone. so your next sentence about it all then being pilot error is built on quicksand { unless someone comes forward to confirm }.also read Henderson was the pilot { he was not } Henderson scanned through security { he didnt } Mckay was a con a spiv and was billing the club { he probably is over other things but the texts suggest a favour in this case }..

I am all for anyone that might be to blame for doing wrong being held to account but as it stands we do not know enough.

Your right it is pretty much speculation at the moment

Whats getting to me is the aaib are or have been reluctant in the past to retrieve smaller planes from oceans as it's costs a few quid so will there ever be a full explanation if it lays there.

The first day I found it strange the media hadn't reported the failed take offs.

Pilot issue is an alarm in my ears

The actual plane are church bells in my ears 229 actual in flight write offs and the rest were ground due to economic beyond repair.. I've read there are more grounded also there just the figures I've read.

It's labbeled as the best worst plane of it's type pretty much like an rx8 car awsome performance but shit goes wrong quickly and sells cheap second hand. Constant maintenance and constant problems. Also read alot about the cockpit at night not being the best. the systems are low budget.

It's a plane used for jumpers. Goes up and comes down in the day time.

The stats were just to compare the logic of how can a plane that goes into a war and does alot more mileage and is up against it have a stat against a plane that does not do alot of mileage.
The 747 is I were to say that 98% of those planes are safe then you would look at it in a different light.

In regards to speculation on what's happened the plane should have been grounded like any commercial airliner would have been failing to take off.

my first thoughts regarding the failed take offs were the same as yours , trouble is they have not been reported on since so must therefore the initial report must be in doubt ?

as for the plane , many saying it as you do but others saying they have flown these for years over equal distances..? certainly no authoritative body has come out and said that plane should not have been flying that route so i have doubt there too.
anyway its going to be a long wait before any investigation is concluded if there ever is a conclusion.

He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.

I feel its best left to the experts to tell us exactly what happened because nobody on this board or any board know what happened that tragic night

I don't share your faith in "experts", since I have seen them proven completely wrong on many occasions . Side issue, but it's a worrying thing that you think it impossible that anyone on a board might have a few marbles and the ability to put things together - reminds me of Groucho Marx comment, " I wouldn't join any club which would have me as a member".
Saying this, you're perfectly correct that I'm neither a technical expert nor in possession of any of the evidence and so it's only speculation on my part , but unless there's something we don't know lurking in the background , I think it's the most probable hypothesis.
If I've gotten it completely wrong then no doubt you will point it out when the report is published, but with great respect I don't think we should ever defer so easily to our " betters" , and most certainly not discourage people for thinking about stuff for themselves. All investigators need to feel that they're under informed public scrutiny you know.

A “pilot switch” to control the altimeter ?????

Really
Theres my point Sky High Bluebird, although I understand what you do for a living and IMO you have the best understanding here

Well, I'm not Biggles or anything, but I spoke upon the subject to a well known former RAF Tornado Pilot in connection with the matter. He said that there's an instrument ,( which I'm sure he called a " pilot switch") mounted upon the exterior of the fuselage of a piper, which is effectively an independent barometer to act as a failsafe to the internal barometer in the altimeter itself and /or Radar altimeter if fitted. As you know the wings props and engine are very prone to icing in these conditions ,and more so the higher you go. Conversely , timely altitude reduction may clear this icing effect or at the lest prevent it worsening.
However , it is important for the pilot to be aware that since this instrument is mounted outside it is itself subject to icing, meaning that readings of altitude may become unreliable.
Of course I do not claim personal expertise in the mechanics of a piper or any such light aircraft, but I would regard my sources as reliable, and I've flown in enough light aircraft to be well aware of icing and the dangers of mis judging altitude over the sea when visual flying is somewhere between very difficult and impossible .
Are you saying that there is no such device , or that the name is wrong ?

He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.

I feel its best left to the experts to tell us exactly what happened because nobody on this board or any board know what happened that tragic night

I don't share your faith in "experts", since I have seen them proven completely wrong on many occasions . Side issue, but it's a worrying thing that you think it impossible that anyone on a board might have a few marbles and the ability to put things together - reminds me of Groucho Marx comment, " I wouldn't join any club which would have me as a member".
Saying this, you're perfectly correct that I'm neither a technical expert nor in possession of any of the evidence and so it's only speculation on my part , but unless there's something we don't know lurking in the background , I think it's the most probable hypothesis.
If I've gotten it completely wrong then no doubt you will point it out when the report is published, but with great respect I don't think we should ever defer so easily to our " betters" , and most certainly not discourage people for thinking about stuff for themselves. All investigators need to feel that they're under informed public scrutiny you know.

A “pilot switch” to control the altimeter ?????

Really ???

Theres my point Sky High Bluebird, although I understand what you do for a living and IMO you have the best understanding here

Any comment on here is a guesstimate!

The truth will out after the investigation and the rest (until then) is speculation; informed or otherwise

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

I think the aircraft part you mentioned earlier is probably the pitot tube. Would'nt be the first accident to happen due to ice forming over this component.

I thought it was referring to the 'Pitot Tube' to. If this did become blocked due to Ice, then Mr Ibbotson would have become very disorientated because of the poor handling of the Aircraft.

Thus, the Aerodynamics of flight could have seriously impacted on his Actions.

Indeed, if he was getting mixed messages in the cockpit, due to the erroneous altimeter readings, it is conceivable that he was much lower than he originally thought he was..by which time he realised..it was way too late.

The AAIB will have his QNH made available from which they can figure out at which height the Aircraft was at each point on its Path to its point from which it vanished from radar.

The QNH would have to have been constantly adjusted along the route, if the weather was continually deteriorating. If he did not monitor this inflight due to his other cockpit priorities then it would easily have distracted him from what he should have bee doing to correct the situation.

Like we are discussing, none knows what he was experiencing and or what the aircraft was experiencing up to its disappearance.

Though as I suspect, if conditions were that bad and the flight was flying in very low pressure say, at for instance, 978 Hectopascals that would have -25 below the ISO Mean Sea Level of 1013 hectopascals. So, immediately he would have had to have been aware of 750 feet of Pressure Altitude or Density Altitude.

If Mr Ibbotson had had this on his mind he would have thought to Aviate first, Navigate and Communicate if he was in distress.

Its at this point he was taking actions he thought would stabilise the aircraft. By altering his altitude.

If as is suspected his pitot tube was blocked then every action of his altitude was having a drastic affect on his height above msl.

He needed to account for the 750 ft msl when descending because the water below would have been 750ft closer to the aircraft.

Add that to the elements: fog, wind, rain and the darkness. He wouldn't have seen much until impact.

It will all be explained in the Interim report by the aaib.

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

I think the aircraft part you mentioned earlier is probably the pitot tube. Would'nt be the first accident to happen due to ice forming over this component.

Yes you're right. I apologise - I'm not sure whether it was his slight residual Yorkshire accent , my memory or the drink which led to my mistake during a fairly technical conversation on a subject which is not my area of expertise .
It also seems that it gives false airspeed readings after descent which are inconsistent with altimeter and other readings as opposed to directly interfering with the altimeter.
Thank you for that intelligently identified jig saw piece, because I kept googling " pilot switch " unsuccessfully and I was beginning to think he'd been pulling my leg , although crashing aeroplanes is a subject close to his heart and I didn't think he'd have made a joke out of it in this case.

I thought it was referring to the 'Pitot Tube' to. If this did become blocked due to Ice, then Mr Ibbotson would have become very disorientated because of the poor handling of the Aircraft.

Thus, the Aerodynamics of flight could have seriously impacted on his Actions.

Indeed, if he was getting mixed messages in the cockpit, due to the erroneous altimeter readings, it is conceivable that he was much lower than he originally thought he was..by which time he realised..it was way too late.

The AAIB will have his QNH made available from which they can figure out at which height the Aircraft was at each point on its Path to its point from which it vanished from radar.

The QNH would have to have been constantly adjusted along the route, if the weather was continually deteriorating. If he did not monitor this inflight due to his other cockpit priorities then it would easily have distracted him from what he should have bee doing to correct the situation.

Like we are discussing, none knows what he was experiencing and or what the aircraft was experiencing up to its disappearance.

Though as I suspect, if conditions were that bad and the flight was flying in very low pressure say, at for instance, 978 Hectopascals that would have -25 below the ISO Mean Sea Level of 1013 hectopascals. So, immediately he would have had to have been aware of 750 feet of Pressure Altitude or Density Altitude.

If Mr Ibbotson had had this on his mind he would have thought to Aviate first, Navigate and Communicate if he was in distress.

Its at this point he was taking actions he thought would stabilise the aircraft. By altering his altitude.

If as is suspected his pitot tube was blocked then every action of his altitude was having a drastic affect on his height above msl.

He needed to account for the 750 ft msl when descending because the water below would have been 750ft closer to the aircraft.

Add that to the elements: fog, wind, rain and the darkness. He wouldn't have seen much until impact.

It will all be explained in the Interim report by the aaib.

Very well put !

I thought it was referring to the 'Pitot Tube' to. If this did become blocked due to Ice, then Mr Ibbotson would have become very disorientated because of the poor handling of the Aircraft.

Thus, the Aerodynamics of flight could have seriously impacted on his Actions.

Indeed, if he was getting mixed messages in the cockpit, due to the erroneous altimeter readings, it is conceivable that he was much lower than he originally thought he was..by which time he realised..it was way too late.

The AAIB will have his QNH made available from which they can figure out at which height the Aircraft was at each point on its Path to its point from which it vanished from radar.

The QNH would have to have been constantly adjusted along the route, if the weather was continually deteriorating. If he did not monitor this inflight due to his other cockpit priorities then it would easily have distracted him from what he should have bee doing to correct the situation.

Like we are discussing, none knows what he was experiencing and or what the aircraft was experiencing up to its disappearance.

Though as I suspect, if conditions were that bad and the flight was flying in very low pressure say, at for instance, 978 Hectopascals that would have -25 below the ISO Mean Sea Level of 1013 hectopascals. So, immediately he would have had to have been aware of 750 feet of Pressure Altitude or Density Altitude.

If Mr Ibbotson had had this on his mind he would have thought to Aviate first, Navigate and Communicate if he was in distress.

Its at this point he was taking actions he thought would stabilise the aircraft. By altering his altitude.

If as is suspected his pitot tube was blocked then every action of his altitude was having a drastic affect on his height above msl.

He needed to account for the 750 ft msl when descending because the water below would have been 750ft closer to the aircraft.

Add that to the elements: fog, wind, rain and the darkness. He wouldn't have seen much until impact.

It will all be explained in the Interim report by the aaib.

The altimeter uses a PITOT STATIC system , a quick perusal of the PA46 MALIBU flight operating manual shows that the
System consists of a “HEATED pitot head (standard) , two static vents either side of the fuselage and an alternate static on the bottom of the fuselage.
The static pads/vents for the altimeter have been demonstrated as non icing , however in the event of icing the pilot can select the alternate static system to allieviate the effect” (Something the AAIB Will show particular interest in).

Whilst the pitot head is heated like any aircraft and noted in the ops manual “The airplane is not designed to operate for an indefinite period of time in every icing condition encountered in nature”
Note that this is despite the Malibu having de icing boots On the wing leading edge and heated pads on the propellor.

So for clarification a pitot tube blockage only affects AIRSPEED , not altitude.

A more plausible explanation would be an iced up aircraft which would add weight to the airframe and therefore a considerable increase in the stall speed
This with unreliable airspeed indications and a pilot not proficient in instrument flying would rapidly lead to disorientation And Loss of control.
A lack of a mayday call would suggest that the onset of the chain of events would have been rapid especially if the accumulation of ice was quick.

That would be my take on it and im still learning after 13000 hrs of flying and 1500 hrs instructing on and flying Piper aircraft.

I await the prelimary AAIB Report with interest.

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

The Malibu is a safe aircraft , the problem lies with the people who tend to own and fly it.

I thought it was referring to the 'Pitot Tube' to. If this did become blocked due to Ice, then Mr Ibbotson would have become very disorientated because of the poor handling of the Aircraft.

Thus, the Aerodynamics of flight could have seriously impacted on his Actions.

Indeed, if he was getting mixed messages in the cockpit, due to the erroneous altimeter readings, it is conceivable that he was much lower than he originally thought he was..by which time he realised..it was way too late.

The AAIB will have his QNH made available from which they can figure out at which height the Aircraft was at each point on its Path to its point from which it vanished from radar.

The QNH would have to have been constantly adjusted along the route, if the weather was continually deteriorating. If he did not monitor this inflight due to his other cockpit priorities then it would easily have distracted him from what he should have bee doing to correct the situation.

Like we are discussing, none knows what he was experiencing and or what the aircraft was experiencing up to its disappearance.

Though as I suspect, if conditions were that bad and the flight was flying in very low pressure say, at for instance, 978 Hectopascals that would have -25 below the ISO Mean Sea Level of 1013 hectopascals. So, immediately he would have had to have been aware of 750 feet of Pressure Altitude or Density Altitude.

If Mr Ibbotson had had this on his mind he would have thought to Aviate first, Navigate and Communicate if he was in distress.

Its at this point he was taking actions he thought would stabilise the aircraft. By altering his altitude.

If as is suspected his pitot tube was blocked then every action of his altitude was having a drastic affect on his height above msl.

He needed to account for the 750 ft msl when descending because the water below would have been 750ft closer to the aircraft.

Add that to the elements: fog, wind, rain and the darkness. He wouldn't have seen much until impact.

It will all be explained in the Interim report by the aaib.

The altimeter uses a PITOT STATIC system , a quick perusal of the PA46 MALIBU flight operating manual shows that the
System consists of a “HEATED pitot head (standard) , two static vents either side of the fuselage and an alternate static on the bottom of the fuselage.
The static pads/vents for the altimeter have been demonstrated as non icing , however in the event of icing the pilot can select the alternate static system to allieviate the effect” (Something the AAIB Will show particular interest in).

Whilst the pitot head is heated like any aircraft and noted in the ops manual “The airplane is not designed to operate for an indefinite period of time in every icing condition encountered in nature”
Note that this is despite the Malibu having de icing boots On the wing leading edge and heated pads on the propellor.

So for clarification a pitot tube blockage only affects AIRSPEED , not altitude.

A more plausible explanation would be an iced up aircraft which would add weight to the airframe and therefore a considerable increase in the stall speed
This with unreliable airspeed indications and a pilot not proficient in instrument flying would rapidly lead to disorientation And Loss of control.
A lack of a mayday call would suggest that the onset of the chain of events would have been rapid especially if the accumulation of ice was quick.

That would be my take on it and im still learning after 13000 hrs of flying and 1500 hrs instructing on and flying Piper aircraft.

I await the prelimary AAIB Report with interest.

Yes, well that's an equally plausible and very likely hypothesis. I should think it's possible that either, both or an entirely different and as yet undiscovered problem occurred.
I doubt that the presence of de icing equipment means that it functioned correctly on this occasion for whatever reason, or that it was operated correctly of course. We simply don't know as yet, and indeed it may not be possible for the exactitudes to be confirmed by the investigators , although they have the best chance of achieving that.

Common sense, however , increasingly leads us to questions of how competently the pilot reacted to this crisis , or contemporaneous combination of crises. Was he even qualified to fly on instruments, and if so did he have any experience of doing so in difficult conditions like this ?
The elephant in the room ,of course, is the question of whether he was acting as a substitute for the pilot who should have been at the controls in the expectation that he could have managed the flight in good daylight conditions, but that circumstances changed and he found himself facing a choice whether to take chances which proved ultimately disasterous to himself and the passenger. Would this be an alternative explanation for him avoiding an assistance request for too long, or landing in Guernsey to have the fault investigated ?
We hesitate to point the finger when the gentleman has lost his life in the process of course, but these questions must be addressed.

As you point out, we are all learning despite any expertise we might have in a particular field and those of us whose expertise is in investigating unexplained incidents on behalf of the public must in turn rely upon the specific expertise of those who work in those specific areas. We must try to remember in this process that the enterprise is entirely in the name of the general public , who have a right to expect answers to such questions. Thus, we must certainly never try to exclude the public from our deliberations or imagine that their interest is unimportant because they do not happen to be experienced or expert in whatever the particular case involves.

I am intrigued as to the reasons why David Ibbotson took on such a Job as important a VIP as a Professional Footballer.

We know he did it for his Family ultimately. How much do these Pilots get paid for such a flight ?

Whereby, I admire his Courage, as he throughout the flight was continually Aviating, Navigating and Communicating the aeroplane; in hindsight its easy to say. Its simple as A to B.

As well as having the well being of his Passenger to the front of his mind, I can't get out of my mind how the financial reward he would have received clouded his judgement and spatial awareness, of Aviating such an important passenger.

Im sure above everything he did not stop in his duty to see the job through and commendation should be given to him for that. Bloody courageous man!

If in his shoes, any doubt about anything that didn't feel right and, nobody would be going anywhere, until conditions become more favourable.

That has to be be the first rule of Aviation that of the Safety of the Passenger and the Aircraft, from where it flies into.

I am intrigued as to the reasons why David Ibbotson took on such a Job as important a VIP as a Professional Footballer.

We know he did it for his Family ultimately. How much do these Pilots get paid for such a flight ?

Whereby, I admire his Courage, as he throughout the flight was continually Aviating, Navigating and Communicating the aeroplane; in hindsight its easy to say. Its simple as A to B.

As well as having the well being of his Passenger to the front of his mind, I can't get out of my mind how the financial reward he would have received clouded his judgement and spatial awareness, of Aviating such an important passenger.

Im sure above everything he did not stop in his duty to see the job through and commendation should be given to him for that. Bloody courageous man!

If in his shoes, any doubt about anything that didn't feel right and, nobody would be going anywhere, until conditions become more favourable.

That has to be be the first rule of Aviation that of the Safety of the Passenger and the Aircraft, from where it flies into.

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)

I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)

I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned

You’ve lost me Sven ....which switch would you be referring to ?

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)

I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned

I guess that was directed at myself from someone who likes to have a dig at posters every so often, but surely its better to leave it to experts as I've already said

People will say hindsight is a wonderful thing but when you break the record for a signing I don't get why his agent arranged a flight on a plane that size. Will never make sense it's a record breaking transfer for us. I don't think I will ever wrap my head around it.

People will say hindsight is a wonderful thing but when you break the record for a signing I don't get why his agent arranged a flight on a plane that size. Will never make sense it's a record breaking transfer for us. I don't think I will ever wrap my head around it.

people have quite naturally avoided putting any responsibility on the player preferring to blame anyone and anything.
truth is he was a 28 year old millionaire on his own time that accepted a favour and had flown to france in that very same plane.

was an accident.

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

The Malibu is a safe aircraft , the problem lies with the people who tend to own and fly it.

AAIB and forum reports suggest that there is a 50/50 take on the aircraft.
Mechanical problems
Pilot error

And your quite right in saying it's a safe aircraft under the right pilot but does that take away the fact that alot have come down to the amount that were made.

I'm not a pilot and I do not maintain aircraft's I just look at facts and figures.

However what does stand out in what you are saying is if the person that owns the aircraft fails to properly maintain the aircraft can that lead to a pilot error.

I've read your previous stuff on the plane and you seem like you know a but about the flying of the plane.. out of curiosity how many miles do you do in it per flight ?

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)

I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned

You’ve lost me Sven ....which switch would you be referring to ?

The pitot tube. I'm the guilty party for incorrectly calling it a "pilot switch" , and not being absolutely accurate about the reason it works against the altimeter, although the bottom line is the same. I explained my misunderstanding in an earlier post, but I don't really understand why you seem to be getting annoyed that people who aren't pilots are daring to address the subject.
In matters of law I don't expect people who aren't lawyers to use Latin maxims or know intricate caselaw , but they're still entitled to explore cases and know what is going on behind the jargon.

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)

I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned

I guess that was directed at myself from someone who likes to have a dig at posters every so often, but surely its better to leave it to experts as I've already said [/quote

Spot on there Mr Harper, this forum of late is getting a bit touchy . I was accused last week of making up stories(sick)by this Sven character and he was plugging a free pint with a meal. He might be a moderator but the power gone to his head.

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)

I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned

I guess that was directed at myself from someone who likes to have a dig at posters every so often, but surely its better to leave it to experts as I've already said [/quote

Spot on there Mr Harper, this forum of late is getting a bit touchy . I was accused last week of making up stories(sick)by this Sven character and he was plugging a free pint with a meal. He might be a moderator but the power gone to his head.

the body in the plane video ?

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)

I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned

I guess that was directed at myself from someone who likes to have a dig at posters every so often, but surely its better to leave it to experts as I've already said [/quote

Spot on there Mr Harper, this forum of late is getting a bit touchy . I was accused last week of making up stories(sick)by this Sven character and he was plugging a free pint with a meal. He might be a moderator but the power gone to his head.

the body in the plane video ?

Correct

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)

I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned

I guess that was directed at myself from someone who likes to have a dig at posters every so often, but surely its better to leave it to experts as I've already said [/quote

Spot on there Mr Harper, this forum of late is getting a bit touchy . I was accused last week of making up stories(sick)by this Sven character and he was plugging a free pint with a meal. He might be a moderator but the power gone to his head.

Absolutely Blue Moon 1974. There was a thread a few weeks ago where we were asked to respect others as we don't know who is posting.
The general feeling was to respect each other but it does seem as if this is not being adhered to especially by certain posters, who have a dig when it is not needed.
After all we are all Cardiff City aint we

Well of course that's quite right Sven. I did say at the outset that I'd have avoided speculation but thought I might as well join in if everyone else was having a stab.

TBF, that wasn't aimed at you; more for Charlie Cairoli stating the obvious (again)

I'm not convinced by SkyHighBluebird either, as it seems there could be a switch of the type mentioned

I guess that was directed at myself from someone who likes to have a dig at posters every so often, but surely its better to leave it to experts as I've already said [/quote

Spot on there Mr Harper, this forum of late is getting a bit touchy . I was accused last week of making up stories(sick)by this Sven character and he was plugging a free pint with a meal. He might be a moderator but the power gone to his head.

Absolutely Blue Moon 1974. There was a thread a few weeks ago where we were asked to respect others as we don't know who is posting.
The general feeling was to respect each other but it does seem as if this is not being adhered to especially by certain posters, who have a dig when it is not needed.
After all we are all Cardiff City aint we

Some good points, but I must defend Sven strongly.
If we are talking about a moderator being unfair or nasty, it's certainly not Sven.
Like any other posters he states his opinions , separately from his moderator role, which some will agree or disagree with, but he's generally conciliatory I think, and certainly sticks to the rules.

The thing is that he addresses the issue being discussed and what someone might have said, rather than just insulting certain people personally whatever they have posted.
I'm sure that Sven makes mistakes , as we all do, but his integrity and intelligence are both clear in my opinion.

As has been pointed out, we all have a common interest in our Football Club, it's traditions and playing successes. Arguments happen in the best of families, but you know it's perfectly possible to disagree without being disagreeable !

Many posters feel belittled by the constant personal snipes. But I totally agree we are all firstly Cardiff City. More united than ever! !!

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

The Malibu is a safe aircraft , the problem lies with the people who tend to own and fly it.

AAIB and forum reports suggest that there is a 50/50 take on the aircraft.
Mechanical problems
Pilot error

And your quite right in saying it's a safe aircraft under the right pilot but does that take away the fact that alot have come down to the amount that were made.

I'm not a pilot and I do not maintain aircraft's I just look at facts and figures.

However what does stand out in what you are saying is if the person that owns the aircraft fails to properly maintain the aircraft can that lead to a pilot error.

I've read your previous stuff on the plane and you seem like you know a but about the flying of the plane.. out of curiosity how many miles do you do in it per flight ?

In the US the Malibu is know as a “doctor killer”
In as much that brand new it costs over £1m and so it attracts high new worth individuals.
The problem is the Malibu is an exceptionally high performance complex single engine aircraft , and pilots new
to it have usually only previously flown fairly standard light single piston engine aircraft.
It’s a huge leap , akin to going from driving a Ford Mondeo to a Bugatti veyron,and many of the pilots buying it are relatively Inexperienced.
You also tend to find these people are successful business owners, surgeons,lawyers etc ,however their busy lifestyles Usually means they are not particularly current on the aircraft and that combined with the Malibu being a particular “hot ship”,particularly the turbine version, lends itself a to higher than usual accident rate.
Since salas accident I’ve had a look at two dozen or so accident reports of this aircraft and a reoccurring theme
Is pilots getting into difficulty when encountering inclement weather and not being equipped to deal with it.
These aircraft are mini airliners , they have a ceilIng height of 25000 and with full reserves and 3 passengers can fly up to 1500 nautical miles, they are very well equipped however that gives many of the pilots that fly it
A false sense of confidence and a habit of flying in marginal weather, when Ill equipped to do so.

The aircraft without exception are maintained to a very high standard however the FAA concerns with the aircraft are now
Being Aimed at the initial and recurrent training given to pilots when they purchase the aircraft as that is where the problem lies.

Cheers for the info I've read a fare bit about it myself.


But my question was .. How many miles do you fly in it ?

Many posters feel belittled by the constant personal snipes. But I totally agree we are all firstly Cardiff City. More united than ever! !!

And what's more I think that both Sven and yourself are particularly decent chaps so you shouldn't be falling out.

- E Pluribus Unum !

Cheers for the info I've read a fare bit about it myself.


But my question was .. How many miles do you fly in it ?

As a flying instructor I only got to fly it once as a safety pilot.

It was brand new and Interestingly the owner always flew with a flying instructor the first couple of months
he owned it for extra safety , as he got used to its performance.
If memory serves me right He also did a 10 hour course with a Piper Aircraft company pilot when it was delivered brand new.

I doubt people who buy these aircraft on the second hand market do such a course.........I’d make it compulsory.