Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:45 am
Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:19 pm
castleblue wrote:Engineer David Smith next to give evidence. Answers yes to does he know Henderson and does he have his telephone number. He did a maintenance check on the aircraft on 30th November. No faults found.
Henderson and Ibbotson contacted him on January 19th to discuss possible issues with aircraft. Mr Smith says he told them both he could not certify the aircraft for flight without seeing it and insisted that they get a French Engineer to check the aircraft.
Henderson contacted him again to inform him of the crash and telling him to "Say Nothing". On cross examination he confirms no faults found on 30th November maintenance check. Again confirmed he could not certify a plane without seeing it and that he insisted a French mechanic look at the plane. No further questions asked.
Serious questions being raised was the aircraft airworthy?
Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:55 pm
piledriver64 wrote:castleblue wrote:Engineer David Smith next to give evidence. Answers yes to does he know Henderson and does he have his telephone number. He did a maintenance check on the aircraft on 30th November. No faults found.
Henderson and Ibbotson contacted him on January 19th to discuss possible issues with aircraft. Mr Smith says he told them both he could not certify the aircraft for flight without seeing it and insisted that they get a French Engineer to check the aircraft.
Henderson contacted him again to inform him of the crash and telling him to "Say Nothing". On cross examination he confirms no faults found on 30th November maintenance check. Again confirmed he could not certify a plane without seeing it and that he insisted a French mechanic look at the plane. No further questions asked.
Serious questions being raised was the aircraft airworthy?
Wow, some of this testimony is simply astounding.
Henderson must have a hell of a defence if he's not pleading guilty to this
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:28 pm
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:33 pm
castleblue wrote:Evidence this afternoon has focused on 2 main areas firstly the qualification of Ibbotson. A Mr John Overall of the CAA has given evidence and it's powerful stuff:
Ibbotson held a pilots licence, but NOT COMMERCIALLY, and therefore could not receive payment for any flights.
Ibbotson held a single engine piston rating and an IR restricted rating. UK only qualification. NO INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS.
Ibbotson IR Rating had expired on 30th November 2018. Any flight after 30/11/2018 without an instructor at his side was ILLEGAL.
There is no record of Ibbotson EVER doing the training required to fly at night, unless he was training and had an instructor at his side.
Stunning evidence which puts this flight firmly in the ILLEGAL BOX.
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:53 pm
Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:04 pm
Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:06 pm
epping blue wrote:Its pretty much what I was expecting although the extreme level of indiscretion is a bit startling. Always thought this would be the line of responsibility that would see Nantes ultimately and possibly unknowingly responsible for the flight. But there's enough grey still in this to scupper any premature claims of success. Our previous use of this transport arrangement for one.
The fact an employee of Cardiff city at the time, namely Mackays son had some involvement in the arrangement of the flight albeit the minor details. Nobodies suggesting he acted in anyway on behalf of the club but what if he gets up next week and tells the court, he told Warnock or someone else he was arranging the flight for Sala. They'd have told to get on with it, it was no big deal without the benefit of hindsight.
And thirdly we may have to pursue our claim in a French court - good luck there.
UEFA will make us pay the transfer fee as its a football related mater but could tell us our claim against them is a matter outside of their jurisdiction.
Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:15 pm
castleblue wrote:epping blue wrote:Its pretty much what I was expecting although the extreme level of indiscretion is a bit startling. Always thought this would be the line of responsibility that would see Nantes ultimately and possibly unknowingly responsible for the flight. But there's enough grey still in this to scupper any premature claims of success. Our previous use of this transport arrangement for one.
The fact an employee of Cardiff city at the time, namely Mackays son had some involvement in the arrangement of the flight albeit the minor details. Nobodies suggesting he acted in anyway on behalf of the club but what if he gets up next week and tells the court, he told Warnock or someone else he was arranging the flight for Sala. They'd have told to get on with it, it was no big deal without the benefit of hindsight.
And thirdly we may have to pursue our claim in a French court - good luck there.
UEFA will make us pay the transfer fee as its a football related mater but could tell us our claim against them is a matter outside of their jurisdiction.
I accept there will always be the worry of something coming out of left field but Henderson has already pleaded guilty to organising this flight. I can only imagine tomorrow or sometime before before the trial ends that the text messages between Henderson and McKay which have already been mentioned will be entered into evidence. Even today there was evidence from employees at Cardiff and Nantes Airport who told of communication from either Henderson and Ibbottson regarding the timing and providing fuel for the plane. The only time Cardiff City were mentioned was in relation to a club employee asking about the arrival time of the flight. The employee at Cardiff airport even gave evidence that he reported the plane lost to the person who arranged the flight - Henderson.
3 words are being repeated a lot in relation to Henderson and this flight, Recklessness, Negligence and illegal. For me this only strengthens the clubs position.
Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:05 am
Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:17 am
Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:21 am
castleblue wrote:First witness this morning is Mr Russell Woodland again of the CAA who gives evidence on Air Operator Certificates. Mr Woodland says an AOC is basically a safety certificate for commercial flights and gives the operator the right to carry passengers. He says it is an internationally recognised certificate not just UK.
Mr Woodland goes through the process of getting an AOC, he describes the process as a "Tough One" and takes between 6-8 months. He says in order to obtain the certificate, a high threshold has to be passed with the operator, senior management figures and those fulfilling safety roles on the particular flight required to meet with the CAA for an interview. You have to have a good background in the industry.
Mr Woodland then went through the standards required to obtain an AOC and the checks in place to ensure standards are maintained. We look at a whole range of issues, flight operator records is one of them. We would check training is completed and we will sometimes go and monitor that training. If an operator wishes to fly at night an operator would need to contact the CAA in order to expand their AOC privileges, and there would be a number of standards the operator would need to prove.
Under cross Mr Woodland is asked if an AOC would be required for the simple fact of carrying passengers in a non-commercial capacity.
Mr Woodland says an AOC would not be required in this instant but if money changed hands it would be a different matter.
He said: “We’re now approaching the line if this is commercial, is it then a commercial operator, am I taking money for the hiring of my services. You have to look at who is organising the flight.”
Suggests to me that Henderson is going to claim no money changed hands and the flight was therefore NOT COMMERCIAL.
Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:59 pm
piledriver64 wrote:castleblue wrote:First witness this morning is Mr Russell Woodland again of the CAA who gives evidence on Air Operator Certificates. Mr Woodland says an AOC is basically a safety certificate for commercial flights and gives the operator the right to carry passengers. He says it is an internationally recognised certificate not just UK.
Mr Woodland goes through the process of getting an AOC, he describes the process as a "Tough One" and takes between 6-8 months. He says in order to obtain the certificate, a high threshold has to be passed with the operator, senior management figures and those fulfilling safety roles on the particular flight required to meet with the CAA for an interview. You have to have a good background in the industry.
Mr Woodland then went through the standards required to obtain an AOC and the checks in place to ensure standards are maintained. We look at a whole range of issues, flight operator records is one of them. We would check training is completed and we will sometimes go and monitor that training. If an operator wishes to fly at night an operator would need to contact the CAA in order to expand their AOC privileges, and there would be a number of standards the operator would need to prove.
Under cross Mr Woodland is asked if an AOC would be required for the simple fact of carrying passengers in a non-commercial capacity.
Mr Woodland says an AOC would not be required in this instant but if money changed hands it would be a different matter.
He said: “We’re now approaching the line if this is commercial, is it then a commercial operator, am I taking money for the hiring of my services. You have to look at who is organising the flight.”
Suggests to me that Henderson is going to claim no money changed hands and the flight was therefore NOT COMMERCIAL.
I agree, I'm struggling to see any other way of refuting the factual evidence given.
Although how he is going to convince the jury that he and the pilot organised, paid for the fuel and agreed to fly in ropey, night time conditions out of the goodness of their own hearts with no money being exchanged, will take some doing !!!!
Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:09 pm
piledriver64 wrote:castleblue wrote:First witness this morning is Mr Russell Woodland again of the CAA who gives evidence on Air Operator Certificates. Mr Woodland says an AOC is basically a safety certificate for commercial flights and gives the operator the right to carry passengers. He says it is an internationally recognised certificate not just UK.
Mr Woodland goes through the process of getting an AOC, he describes the process as a "Tough One" and takes between 6-8 months. He says in order to obtain the certificate, a high threshold has to be passed with the operator, senior management figures and those fulfilling safety roles on the particular flight required to meet with the CAA for an interview. You have to have a good background in the industry.
Mr Woodland then went through the standards required to obtain an AOC and the checks in place to ensure standards are maintained. We look at a whole range of issues, flight operator records is one of them. We would check training is completed and we will sometimes go and monitor that training. If an operator wishes to fly at night an operator would need to contact the CAA in order to expand their AOC privileges, and there would be a number of standards the operator would need to prove.
Under cross Mr Woodland is asked if an AOC would be required for the simple fact of carrying passengers in a non-commercial capacity.
Mr Woodland says an AOC would not be required in this instant but if money changed hands it would be a different matter.
He said: “We’re now approaching the line if this is commercial, is it then a commercial operator, am I taking money for the hiring of my services. You have to look at who is organising the flight.”
Suggests to me that Henderson is going to claim no money changed hands and the flight was therefore NOT COMMERCIAL.
I agree, I'm struggling to see any other way of refuting the factual evidence given.
Although how he is going to convince the jury that he and the pilot organised, paid for the fuel and agreed to fly in ropey, night time conditions out of the goodness of their own hearts with no money being exchanged, will take some doing !!!!
Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:26 pm
Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:32 pm
piledriver64 wrote:The trouble is with this is that it would be laughable until you remember that a young, talented footballer died as a result of these wreckless actions.
Forget the money side of it, how would the poor family feel reading these details
Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:50 pm
Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:06 pm
piledriver64 wrote:The trouble is with this is that it would be laughable until you remember that a young, talented footballer died as a result of these wreckless actions.
Forget the money side of it, how would the poor family feel reading these details
Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:30 pm
Paul Keevil wrote:A while back I posted on this in relation to Vicarious Liability
https://www.cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=206206
Firstly, and this is the main priority, let us not forget that someones life was lost and his Argeninian Family, His footballing family and friends all across the globe were effected by this tragedy.
Following a death, particularly one like this, finances do come into play, and this guilty plea (In my opinion) will have an effect on the ongoing battle over "who owes what".
There are two sets of proceedings in play:
1) Criminal Proceedings - Over Sala death
2) Civil Proceedings - Between Cardiff and Nantes FC
Section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act states that if a person is found guilty in criminal proceedings then they are considered negligent in Civil Proceedings
So, if in organising the flight, Henderson was acting as an agent for Nantes FC then Nantes FC are vicariously liable for his actions.
And if he is negligent that Nantes, being vicariously liable for his actions, then become liable for any monies lost as a result of that negligence.
Monies lost could include (but not limited to)
1) Money owed to Sala family - as a result of lost income during his career.
2) Money owed to CCFC - in respect to the transfer fee
3) Money owed to CCFC - as a result of Loss of Income as a result of being deprived of his services (this could be huge given we were relegated that season).
The way I see it is as follows:
Irrespective as to anything else we owe Nantes £15m there was intention to form a contract there
As a result of being vicariously liable for Hendersons actions Nantes deprived us of the benefit of that £15m investment and civil proceedings should see it being restored to us.
I believe CCFC should also now pursue Nantes FC for Loss of Income as a result of being deprived of his services. If a Court could be persuaded that we would have stayed up then we could be looking at 1,2 or even 3 years worth of Premier League Income.
Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:25 pm
Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:30 pm
Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:14 pm
Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:32 pm
Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:20 pm
Desmiller wrote:Hi castleblue,is this case open to the public? And if so can you just turn up and walk in or have you to book a seat?
Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:41 pm
Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:10 pm
Paul Keevil wrote:Hi Ealing
Yes, your post is, in my opinion, entirely correct in my opinion.
There are two potential outcomes here in my opinion:
a) CAS find that a contract was in place or intended to be in place and CCFC owe Nantes £15m
In that scenario
(i) Cardiff can sue FC Nantes for £15m as they are vicariously liable
(ii) Cardif can also sue FC Nantes for somewhere between £50m to £100m for Loss of Profits
(b) CAS find that no contract was in place and CCFC do not own Nantes anything
(i) Its all even - No transaction. No fee due. End of any civil proceedings. Cannot claim for Loss of Profits in my opinion.
Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:11 pm
Paul Keevil wrote:I have purposely fallen short of saying that we should want the CAS to find that we do owe Nantes £15m
because:
A young man, a young promising footballer with his whole life ahead of him, has died - and the effect this has had on his family, his friends and many in the footballing world is immense.
I expect the club to recover the £15m. I also expect the club to recover a significant amount in Lost Profits.
But, on a personal level, I would just have preferred to watch him play, keep CCFC in the Premier League, and maybe one day being signed by a bigger club (eg Man City) because some have said he had that potential.
Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:31 pm
Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:21 pm
Mon Oct 25, 2021 5:59 pm
castleblue wrote:The evidence side of the trial ended today and prior to adjourning for the day the judge has given some of the basic aspects of the case. He has also given the jury some advice on "A route to verdict"
Mr Justice Foxton reads out from a document provided to the jury called the route to verdict.
The document states:
1.
Are you sure the flights did not have the required authorisation or permission
Are you sure the pilot David Ibbotson did not have a commercial pilots licence
Are you sure David Ibbotson’s rating to fly N264DB expired in November 2018
Are you sure bad weather was forecast and David Ibbotson was not confident to fly in such weather
If you are sure of any of these matters, proceed to question two.
2.
Are you sure that the relevant matters individually or in combination gave rise to a real risk to N264DB which could not be safely ignored.
If you are not sure of these matters you should find the defendant not guilty.
If you are sure, proceed to question three
3.
Are you sure that in organising the flights in circumstances which there was a real risk to the safety of N264DB which could not be safely ignored, firstly that the defendant was aware of that risk. If sure, you should find the defendant guilty. If you are not sure, you should move to part two.
If you are sure he failed to show such care or skill that a person in that situation should exercise, you should find the defendant guilty.
If you are not sure, find the defendant not guilty.
Tomorrow morning prosecution and defence will make their closing statements then it will waiting for verdict.