FLYER Forums

Blimey, that's a turn up for the books. Might that incentivise the CAA / insurer / family to raise the airframe for a look see?

eltonioni wrote:Blimey, that's a turn up for the books. Might that incentivise the CAA / insurer / family to raise the airframe for a look see?

The family have already raised the issue, though whether it would be useful is an open question. AAIB already in contact with Piper on fault scenarios.

Paul_Sengupta wrote:I haven't fitted a CO detector, but I did buy one for the aeroplane. It normally lives in my living room though, I take it to the aeroplane from time to time to check.

I've got one (recommended from another aviation forum) sitting on my desk where its been for the last six months.

Peter

A highly plausible explanation. Nice work AAIB.

Potential or actual legalities aside (non actually proven that I’ve heard of) perhaps at least some of the vitriol directed at the pilot and other parties might have been misplaced.

So far as I can see, this explanation offers some insight into why the aircraft may have crashed. What it does not do, is to remove all of the elements relating to the situation in which the two men found themselves that have already been reported. The pilot's licence was still invalid, the circumstances of the flight do appear to suggest illegal charter, and now it would appear that the aircraft was badly maintained too...

This is an additional issue, not a replacement for the others.

The pilot's licence was still invalid, the circumstances of the flight do appear to suggest illegal charter,

Have this factors actually been proven to be true?

Genuine question. I don’t know the answer.

So it could even be possible that the pilot's reported comment about having difficulty with the ILS approach when he landed in France might have been because he was suffering from the symptoms of mild CO poisoning?

flybymike wrote:Have this factors actually been proven to be true?

Genuine question. I don’t know the answer.

The pilot's colour-blindness has been publicly reported in numerous places. HERE is just one example.

The AAIB have commented in their interim report that licensing continues to be a focus of their investigation.

The fact of an N-registration Malibu being used to transport a passenger under conditions suggestive of a charter, and the subsequent arrest of a connected party are suggestive of a regulatory and/or legal concern.

Proof will come if and as courts are involved.

Dominie wrote:So it could even be possible that the pilot's reported comment about having difficulty with the ILS approach when he landed in France might have been because he was suffering from the symptoms of mild CO poisoning?

It could be. And it might also be that the difficulty arose because he lacked (and had never held) an instrument rating valid for the aircraft and location. That much is established fact. The CO status of the aircraft on arrival into Nantes is probably unknowable.

... but will probably add various levels of uncertainty over causes in any future litigation?

Scarcely matters. Poor buggers.

... It may well matter greatly to the families.

More questions, I know, but if the pilot was overcome in the manner suggested one might expect that the pilot’s body would be in the aircraft, along with that of the passenger especially with the exit door being rearward of the pilot’s seat and closer to the passenger than the pilot?

Maybe we will never know.

BBC report, with some reaction from interested parties. I predict some litigation wriggling ..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-49345186