Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 75
#1673662
Although in fairness to those outside aviation (the innocents, not the sh..stirrers) it's easy to see how things like flags of convenience and holding companies and overseas licences can come across as an attempt to conceal. Hell, in a very small number of cases that's exactly what it is.

For now I'm just sitting it out and awaiting the AAIB's findings.
User avatar
By SteveC
#1673669
romille wrote:I find it quite perturbing that they have included details of the pilots social and work activities and given details of CCJ against him as on the face of it they have no relevance to the loss of the aircraft.


It's the salacious type details that attract the readership not sex in this case but equal scandal as they see it.
#1673680
Not so long since, Bob Bevan was kind enough to post on the various limitations and options facing pilots/owners looking for 3rd. party and/or hull insurance. Either way, IIRC, you could have a "total maximum payout" -type policy, or a 3-rd party "section" with a separate Hull "section. and these had standard , preset base- limits, unless the client requested an upward lift with a commensurate premium increase. Either way, I am doubtful that the subject- aircraft would be insured to cover £15M for any one occupant, let alone the seating- capacity in what , to my uneducated eye, looks more like a small business aircraft, rather than a small family aircraft. (different standards apply to Oligarchs, Sheiks and John Travolta :P )

I am pretty sure that the insurers will be able to refuse liability if the terms of the insurance have been breached.

I know this to be true of motor- insurance.....you insure a standard car for your offspring, but he fits a fartcan exhaust, wide wheels and tyres and flared wheelarch trims.

That is not what they insured! irrespective of the modifications having any material bearing on an accident.....but supposing he comes out one morning and finds the wheels have been stolen...would they have been targeted if they'd been standard wheels and tyres?

This is, indeed a huge can of worms. the Welsh football business (I may be a pedant, but I don't see "club" ) reckons they are out £30 mil. (i read it on line so it must be true) Then there's the bereaved families, their dependants the lost earnings.......... against all this, the airframe is loose change.

The gutter-press are intimating that the Pilot's finances were connected with his undertaking the flight. It may or may not be relevant, but ,yes, they'll look for an angle to keep selling their scurrilous rags. When I see it in Private Eye, I'm more inclined to give credibility to the report.They have a track-record of "publish and be damned" (and subsequent to losing cases, being proved right after all!
User avatar
By tomshep
#1673689
I don't see how they are going to turn this accident into a £15 million profit. They agreed to pay £15 Million,
(which they are obliged to pay over three years.) So where does a £30 million figure come from?
Buy in a youngster for £15 million, grow him on and flog him for twice that, maybe but I don't think so. Buy a youngster who suffers a career ending tackle three minutes into his first game could also happen. The club will probably be insured. The aircraft will probably be insured as well so long as there is no provable wrongdoing but the passenger's cover won't make up the whole sum. Baldly and as callously as this, To the insurers, he was worth one soul. As much as yours or mine, no matter how well he could play football.
By daysleeper
#1673698
tomshep wrote:I don't see how they are going to turn this accident into a £15 million profit. They agreed to pay £15 Million,
(which they are obliged to pay over three years.) So where does a £30 million figure come from?
.


The headline “fee” is not the total contracted liability for a player. An article the other year in (July 2017 can’t link from here) the Independent paper about football transfers suggested that with agents fees, personal terms, image rights etc the book cost of a player may be double the headline amount. Admittedly that may include “salary”. Although in accounting terms it would all be deprecated over three or five years much like a bit of machinery.
Cardiff have said their liability for Sala is about £30 million. They have also said they are insured for £15 million (assuming it pays out). Nantes say they are owed £5 million immediately and they in turn owe his previous club something. Sala’s agents seem to be due £2.5 million from someone.
If I was advising whoever currently has the money (club or insurers) i’d say sit tight.
Complicated isn’t it.
User avatar
By tomshep
#1673705
Well, Cardiff's liability is clear cut so anybody that they need to pay will get their money. I do not see the aircraft's insurers coughing up £15 Million or more so some organisations will lose money. Hardly relevant to the families of two people who have lost their lives. My fear is for the pilot's family. I hope that their assets are secure and that the insurance companies' lawyers do not create even greater hardship and misery.
By daysleeper
#1673716
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
The agents being the ones who booked the flight?


Who knows?

tomshep wrote:Well, Cardiff's liability is clear cut so anybody that they need to pay will get their money.


I think Cardiff's lawyers may disagree.

WalesOnline are saying...

The first surrounds whether Sala was actually a registered Cardiff player or not.
His international documents are understood to have been lodged with the Football Association of Wales, but there are doubts about whether they were registered with the Premier League at the exact time of his disappearance. Whether he was or wasn't also throws up important questions about insurance cover and liabilities between the two clubs.

Cardiff had announced Sala as their player two days before the accident, but emphasised it was subject to clearance from the authorities.


so if you had £15 mil + in the bank and there was a chance of keeping it... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
#1673731
tomshep wrote:Well, Cardiff's liability is clear cut so anybody that they need to pay will get their money.

I wonder if they will follow your advice :roll:
About the only thing that is clear cut is that two unfortunate people died in an aircraft accident.
cockney steve liked this
#1673735
The ownership article was dishonest, sensationalist rubbish and I'd have expected to see it in The Express, not the BBC.

1) Ownership through a trust like SAC is primarily done to comply with the US-majority ownership requirement, not hide the owner from the public.

2) There is nothing wrong in hiding the owner from the public. Why on earth should that info be public? We don't have a database of every car number plate and its' owner. It's none of the public's business who owns an aircraft.

3) Implying that the N-reg as a "flag of convenience" is somehow less safe and trustworthy than a UK reg is simply a lie. N-reg maintenance is far more suited to light aviation, and the more sensible cost means aircraft tend to be better maintained, not worse. US licensing is the same; the accessibility of the FAA IR means US certified pilots can much more easily get trained to be safer. This is all reflected by the fact that the N-reg has a far better safety record than anything in EASA.

Whichever excuse for a "journalist" spewed that out should be ashamed, but is unlikely to be capable of it...
#1673779
Katamarino wrote:Whichever excuse for a "journalist" spewed that out should be ashamed, but is unlikely to be capable of it...


Good luck getting the BBC to correct and admit to a mistake (or just pish-poor reporting). I complained several weeks ago about their sensationalising of the Essex near miss in which their online article said the aircraft were 20ft apart. In fact the report said there was a 20ft difference in altitude but 600ft lateral separation.

The (eventual) response today said that they understood that I objected to them reporting the incident (not what I said at all), that they were only citing the official report (boolsheet) and were not responsible for the content of that report. Somehow though they forgot to mention that they had changed the article a few days ago and removed the "20 feet" reference.

Lazy, sensationalist and dishonest.
Rob P, NickC, Katamarino liked this
  • 1
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 75