|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 17:42:45 GMT
This seriously doesn’t look good for Cardiff if they’ve chartered a flight in essentially an airborne washing machine. They’re a Premiership side, fly the poor sod over first class. Some media reporting that the aircraft belonged to Cardiff’s owner and he sent it to pick him up. Jesus, I know people are saying it was a silly thing to do but if so imagine the guilt they must be feeling if that's true.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 22, 2019 18:02:56 GMT
I’m fucking terrified of flying. This is why. It’s the almost definite nature of an accident isn’t it. “Safer than driving” some smart arse will tell you. Yes but percentage wise, you are far more likely to be a fatality in an aviation accident than a motor vehicle accident, Flying on a big bugger with, say, Flybe doesn’t bother me. But I’ve been in a small plane and a helicopter once, and both times felt very uneasy. A big bugger with flybe?
|
|
|
Post by Bojan Mackey on Jan 22, 2019 18:09:49 GMT
This seriously doesn’t look good for Cardiff if they’ve chartered a flight in essentially an airborne washing machine. They’re a Premiership side, fly the poor sod over first class. Some media reporting that the aircraft belonged to Cardiff’s owner and he sent it to pick him up. Even more damning if that turns out to be true.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jan 22, 2019 18:10:42 GMT
This seriously doesn’t look good for Cardiff if they’ve chartered a flight in essentially an airborne washing machine. They’re a Premiership side, fly the poor sod over first class. Some media reporting that the aircraft belonged to Cardiff’s owner and he sent it to pick him up. If that's true, bloody hell. Trying impress him with a single engine hairdryer! Anything can happen to any plane, but I prefer as many engines on a plane as possible. If I'm in a 737 going Benidorm I've got the two, if one fails I'm still ok. If I'm on a jumbo with 4 engines even better. Single engine light aircraft, at night? Not a bloody chance. Poor lad, and pilot.
|
|
|
Post by cymap on Jan 22, 2019 18:34:25 GMT
Search called off for today, It doesnt look good does it
|
|
|
Post by VolvicStokie on Jan 22, 2019 18:39:34 GMT
So, whats the situation with the 15 million presumably that Cardiff paid Nantes?
Insurance have anything to do with it or what?
Surreal and almost unheard of situation to be in. But yeah, Cardiff pay 15 million and whatever the circumstances, said player goes missing / presumed dead hours / days later.
Very sad time. But I'm intrigued to know what happens to the fee etc...
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jan 22, 2019 19:14:26 GMT
So, whats the situation with the 15 million presumably that Cardiff paid Nantes? Insurance have anything to do with it or what? Surreal and almost unheard of situation to be in. But yeah, Cardiff pay 15 million and whatever the circumstances, said player goes missing / presumed dead hours / days later. Very sad time. But I'm intrigued to know what happens to the fee etc... Well, what OUGHT to happen if the transfer was done by the book: 1. Nantes will have (or will get) their fee - the player is no longer their player if contracts have been signed. 2. Cardiff should (if they have any sense) have insured their player (for the purchase price?) as soon as they signed the contract to buy him. 3. The insurers will have to pay Cardiff the player's insured value providing Cardiff have complied with all the terms of the insurance.
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Jan 22, 2019 19:14:26 GMT
It’s the almost definite nature of an accident isn’t it. “Safer than driving” some smart arse will tell you. Yes but percentage wise, you are far more likely to be a fatality in an aviation accident than a motor vehicle accident, Flying on a big bugger with, say, Flybe doesn’t bother me. But I’ve been in a small plane and a helicopter once, and both times felt very uneasy. A big bugger with flybe? Well, bigger than a small bugger!
|
|
|
Post by 1863 on Jan 22, 2019 19:23:44 GMT
So, whats the situation with the 15 million presumably that Cardiff paid Nantes? Insurance have anything to do with it or what? Surreal and almost unheard of situation to be in. But yeah, Cardiff pay 15 million and whatever the circumstances, said player goes missing / presumed dead hours / days later. Very sad time. But I'm intrigued to know what happens to the fee etc... I think it's obvious that even already there's an amount of 'damage limitation' going on. Nobody admitting to the ownership of the aircraft, nature of the flight, (private or charter). Heartbreaking to read this poor kids misgivings over the preceding flight to his old teammates. Whatever cheap bastard put this kid in that 35 year old kite, ought to remember the name of Peter Nielsen....
|
|
|
Post by bobby1eye on Jan 22, 2019 19:24:06 GMT
Terrible news,you just never know when it's "Your time". Anything can happen at any time and boom your no longer here.it makes your head hurt just thinking about it.
|
|
|
Post by canadianmoose on Jan 22, 2019 19:30:53 GMT
Piper Malibu is a fantastic aircraft. This will either be poor maintenance or poor decision making by the (non instrument rated) pilot.
Just some light reading here on the Single vs Twin debate.....
"Are Twins Safer?
The question of whether twins are really any safer than singles is guaranteed to trigger a vigorous debate in any group of pilots. I recently finished editing a Cessna 310 safety review for the AOPA Air Safety Foundation. In the course of this project, I took an in-depth look at the safety record of the Cessna 310 and a group of comparable aircraft (Aerostar, Aztec, Baron, Commander, Crusader) during the eleven year period from 1982 through 1992. Some interesting statistics emerged from this study.
The overall accident rates of high-performance singles (like Bonanzas or 210s or Mooneys) and light twins (like Aerostars or Barons or Commanders or Cessna 310s) are astonishingly close. Twins have a slightly higher accident rate per 100 aircraft and a slightly lower accident rate per 100,000 hours, but for all practical purposes the accident rates are the same. The same is true if you consider only "serious" accidents that involve death, serious injury, or substantial damage. For both high-performance singles and light twins, approximately one-third of all accidents are classified as serious.
For both singles and twins, roughly three-quarters of all accidents are classified as "pilot caused". While weather-related accidents dwarf all other pilot causes in the single-engine accident data, the pattern for twins seems to be significantly different. Weather is still the leading cause of pilot-caused twin accidents, but a variety of other non-weather-related causes are quite significant: botched takeoffs and landings, controlled flight into terrain, improper IFR procedures, fuel exhaustion, and gear-up landings, just to name a few.
About one-fourth of all accidents are classified as "machine caused" for both singles and twins. Only a small fraction of those are engine-failure accidents. But it's interesting to look at the impact of that second engine on engine-failure accident statistics.
For the group of light twins we looked at, mechanical failures of the engine or propeller were responsible for One about 3% of all accidents. Breaking that down, 15.3% of all accidents were due to mechanical failures, and 20.8% of those involved the engine or propeller.
In contrast, roughly 8% of all accidents in high-performance singles were attributed to engine or propeller failure: 17% of accidents were mechanicals, but nearly 50% of those involved the engine or prop.
The statistics showed that a light twin is about equally likely to have a mechanical-caused accident as a high-performance single. But the twin's mechanical problem is most likely to be gear-related while the single's is most likely to be engine/prop-related. A single is about two-and-a-half times more likely to have an accident due to engine/prop failure than a twin (8% versus 3%). And if we assume that a twin is twice as likely to have an engine/prop failure (since it has twice as many to fail), then we can conclude that an engine/prop failure in a single is five times more likely to result in an accident than an engine/prop failure in a twin.
So are you any safer flying a light twin than a high-performance single? In terms of the overall and serious accident rates, the answer seems clearly to be no. But your risk profile changes somewhat: in the twin, you're less likely to be hurt by an engine failure, and more likely to be victimized by something else."
|
|
wapiti
Youth Player
Posts: 397
|
Post by wapiti on Jan 22, 2019 19:31:10 GMT
Have flown hundreds of times in helicopters and single engine planes in the mountainous areas of the Western US. It's potentially risky. In the US, people making a lot of money (often doctors and dentists), once they have the big house, the large recreational vehicle and the boat suddenly get the bright idea that they would make excellent pilots. They tend to buy single engine planes and often crash them while flying their families into the mountains.
The wisest plan, fly commercial. New TWO engine commercial aircraft used to have to be in service for two years before they were certified to be flown over water for long distances. I believe that the Boeing 777 and 787 were exempted from this time requirement.
|
|
|
Post by canadianmoose on Jan 22, 2019 19:40:06 GMT
Have flown hundreds of times in helicopters and single engine planes in the mountainous areas of the Western US. It's potentially risky. In the US, people making a lot of money (often doctors and dentists), once they have the big house, the large recreational vehicle and the boat suddenly get the bright idea that they would make excellent pilots. They tend to buy single engine planes and often crash them while flying their families into the mountains. The wisest plan, fly commercial. New TWO engine commercial aircraft used to have to be in service for two years before they were certified to be flown over water for long distances. I believe that the Boeing 777 and 787 were exempted from this time requirement. No, all twin engine aircraft have to be ETOPS certified for travel over large expanses of water based on divert time from an alternative airport. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
|
|
|
Post by 1863 on Jan 22, 2019 19:43:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Jan 22, 2019 19:51:31 GMT
very sad.
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Jan 22, 2019 19:54:33 GMT
So, whats the situation with the 15 million presumably that Cardiff paid Nantes? Insurance have anything to do with it or what? Surreal and almost unheard of situation to be in. But yeah, Cardiff pay 15 million and whatever the circumstances, said player goes missing / presumed dead hours / days later. Very sad time. But I'm intrigued to know what happens to the fee etc... Know its the welfare of the player and pilot that should be at the forefront of people's minds and it will be right now but I've been wondering what happens about this 15mil aswell. It's not even like he's played a few games for Cardiff with literally only signing on Saturday. Guessing insurance somewhere will figure or will Nantes refund Cardiff some of the Fee back perhaps? Wonder in these deals if the money goes into other teams accounts straight away as soon as player signs contract. May have been a structured deal with parts of fee paid at different times. Sure the club's will come to some kind of compromise & the lads family will feature in their discussions too, but does seem an unprecedented tragedy that may be an awkward one to resolve behind the scenes.
|
|
|
Post by thunderduck on Jan 22, 2019 20:03:32 GMT
Nice little gathering in Nantes town centre tonight
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Jan 22, 2019 20:04:18 GMT
Very sad to read about this.
Having flown 100s of hours in a single engine Scottish Avaiation Bulldog and Tucano with the RAF I can atest to their safety record. That said over the sea at night I suspect there wasnt a lot the pilot could do but glide it in unless they nose dived. Attempting a water landling on anything other than an extremely calm sea state would have been a shit outcome. Having bobbed around in the irish sea for an hour in thermal protective gear I can say its unlikely this will have a good ending.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jan 22, 2019 20:16:36 GMT
Piper Malibu is a fantastic aircraft. This will either be poor maintenance or poor decision making by the (non instrument rated) pilot. Just some light reading here on the Single vs Twin debate..... "Are Twins Safer? The question of whether twins are really any safer than singles is guaranteed to trigger a vigorous debate in any group of pilots. I recently finished editing a Cessna 310 safety review for the AOPA Air Safety Foundation. In the course of this project, I took an in-depth look at the safety record of the Cessna 310 and a group of comparable aircraft (Aerostar, Aztec, Baron, Commander, Crusader) during the eleven year period from 1982 through 1992. Some interesting statistics emerged from this study. The overall accident rates of high-performance singles (like Bonanzas or 210s or Mooneys) and light twins (like Aerostars or Barons or Commanders or Cessna 310s) are astonishingly close. Twins have a slightly higher accident rate per 100 aircraft and a slightly lower accident rate per 100,000 hours, but for all practical purposes the accident rates are the same. The same is true if you consider only "serious" accidents that involve death, serious injury, or substantial damage. For both high-performance singles and light twins, approximately one-third of all accidents are classified as serious. For both singles and twins, roughly three-quarters of all accidents are classified as "pilot caused". While weather-related accidents dwarf all other pilot causes in the single-engine accident data, the pattern for twins seems to be significantly different. Weather is still the leading cause of pilot-caused twin accidents, but a variety of other non-weather-related causes are quite significant: botched takeoffs and landings, controlled flight into terrain, improper IFR procedures, fuel exhaustion, and gear-up landings, just to name a few. About one-fourth of all accidents are classified as "machine caused" for both singles and twins. Only a small fraction of those are engine-failure accidents. But it's interesting to look at the impact of that second engine on engine-failure accident statistics. For the group of light twins we looked at, mechanical failures of the engine or propeller were responsible for One about 3% of all accidents. Breaking that down, 15.3% of all accidents were due to mechanical failures, and 20.8% of those involved the engine or propeller. In contrast, roughly 8% of all accidents in high-performance singles were attributed to engine or propeller failure: 17% of accidents were mechanicals, but nearly 50% of those involved the engine or prop. The statistics showed that a light twin is about equally likely to have a mechanical-caused accident as a high-performance single. But the twin's mechanical problem is most likely to be gear-related while the single's is most likely to be engine/prop-related. A single is about two-and-a-half times more likely to have an accident due to engine/prop failure than a twin (8% versus 3%). And if we assume that a twin is twice as likely to have an engine/prop failure (since it has twice as many to fail), then we can conclude that an engine/prop failure in a single is five times more likely to result in an accident than an engine/prop failure in a twin. So are you any safer flying a light twin than a high-performance single? In terms of the overall and serious accident rates, the answer seems clearly to be no. But your risk profile changes somewhat: in the twin, you're less likely to be hurt by an engine failure, and more likely to be victimized by something else." I would have felt a lot better for the lad if he was on a 40 quid easy jet flight I know that.
|
|
|
Post by Gunslinger on Jan 22, 2019 20:20:16 GMT
This is a truly tragic situation. I'm hoping for a miracle but I fear the worst. Ditching (if they managed to do that) at sea at night and during difficult weather conditions doesn't give you much of a chance as someone else wrote here. Why o why did they go for a small single engine aircraft? Why not wait until next morning and send him on business class on a big commercial aircraft?
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Jan 22, 2019 20:38:55 GMT
So according to a report, sala expressed his concern for the flight. He used the same plane to fly from Cardiff to France, and expressed his concern on Monday before flying back.
If this is true it's making me even more angry.
|
|
|
Post by berahinosgoals on Jan 22, 2019 20:44:39 GMT
Interested to know who put this flight on for him and thought it was a good idea
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Jan 22, 2019 20:52:55 GMT
According to one of the biggest newspapers in France, he wasn't on the plane: Is it fair to speculate? I saw the ITV news tonight and didn't notice a mention of the pilot. :/
|
|
|
Post by stokieinaus on Jan 22, 2019 23:05:33 GMT
Piper Malibu is a fantastic aircraft. This will either be poor maintenance or poor decision making by the (non instrument rated) pilot. Just some light reading here on the Single vs Twin debate..... "Are Twins Safer? The question of whether twins are really any safer than singles is guaranteed to trigger a vigorous debate in any group of pilots. I recently finished editing a Cessna 310 safety review for the AOPA Air Safety Foundation. In the course of this project, I took an in-depth look at the safety record of the Cessna 310 and a group of comparable aircraft (Aerostar, Aztec, Baron, Commander, Crusader) during the eleven year period from 1982 through 1992. Some interesting statistics emerged from this study. The overall accident rates of high-performance singles (like Bonanzas or 210s or Mooneys) and light twins (like Aerostars or Barons or Commanders or Cessna 310s) are astonishingly close. Twins have a slightly higher accident rate per 100 aircraft and a slightly lower accident rate per 100,000 hours, but for all practical purposes the accident rates are the same. The same is true if you consider only "serious" accidents that involve death, serious injury, or substantial damage. For both high-performance singles and light twins, approximately one-third of all accidents are classified as serious. For both singles and twins, roughly three-quarters of all accidents are classified as "pilot caused". While weather-related accidents dwarf all other pilot causes in the single-engine accident data, the pattern for twins seems to be significantly different. Weather is still the leading cause of pilot-caused twin accidents, but a variety of other non-weather-related causes are quite significant: botched takeoffs and landings, controlled flight into terrain, improper IFR procedures, fuel exhaustion, and gear-up landings, just to name a few. About one-fourth of all accidents are classified as "machine caused" for both singles and twins. Only a small fraction of those are engine-failure accidents. But it's interesting to look at the impact of that second engine on engine-failure accident statistics. For the group of light twins we looked at, mechanical failures of the engine or propeller were responsible for One about 3% of all accidents. Breaking that down, 15.3% of all accidents were due to mechanical failures, and 20.8% of those involved the engine or propeller. In contrast, roughly 8% of all accidents in high-performance singles were attributed to engine or propeller failure: 17% of accidents were mechanicals, but nearly 50% of those involved the engine or prop. The statistics showed that a light twin is about equally likely to have a mechanical-caused accident as a high-performance single. But the twin's mechanical problem is most likely to be gear-related while the single's is most likely to be engine/prop-related. A single is about two-and-a-half times more likely to have an accident due to engine/prop failure than a twin (8% versus 3%). And if we assume that a twin is twice as likely to have an engine/prop failure (since it has twice as many to fail), then we can conclude that an engine/prop failure in a single is five times more likely to result in an accident than an engine/prop failure in a twin. So are you any safer flying a light twin than a high-performance single? In terms of the overall and serious accident rates, the answer seems clearly to be no. But your risk profile changes somewhat: in the twin, you're less likely to be hurt by an engine failure, and more likely to be victimized by something else." Good analysis, it is true that the biggest fault with aeroplanes, regardless of type, is human error. They are not like road vehicles where most people never check the mechanical basics from one day to the next, in aircrafts its a must to check everything and neglect can be disastrous.
|
|
|
Post by datguy on Jan 22, 2019 23:31:19 GMT
And there's now an audio message from when he was on the plane circulating where he was telling his father he didn't think he'd survive.
Scary as fuck and puts life into perspective.
|
|
|
Post by oatcakesteve on Jan 22, 2019 23:32:54 GMT
Weather most likely brought this plane down in my humble opinion. The pilot was hugely experienced apparently. A microburst can plunge a 737 hundreds of feet, a tiny plane like this would have no chance.
|
|
|
Post by Gifton on Jan 22, 2019 23:44:54 GMT
And there's now an audio message from when he was on the plane circulating where he was telling his father he didn't think he'd survive. Scary as fuck and puts life into perspective. Isn't his dad quoted as saying he heard of the crash from a friend?
|
|
|
Post by oatcakesteve on Jan 22, 2019 23:47:43 GMT
And there's now an audio message from when he was on the plane circulating where he was telling his father he didn't think he'd survive. Scary as fuck and puts life into perspective. Isn't his dad quoted as saying he heard of the crash from a friend? Oh yes, he was messaging a Nantes team mate?
|
|
|
Post by Gifton on Jan 22, 2019 23:54:52 GMT
Isn't his dad quoted as saying he heard of the crash from a friend? Oh yes, he was messaging a Nantes team mate? Just heard it, sounds like he's obviously nervous about the aircraft and the flight but there doesn't seem to be any imminent danger at that point. He's yawning and taking about training with his new team mates the next afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by oatcakesteve on Jan 23, 2019 0:04:38 GMT
Oh yes, he was messaging a Nantes team mate? Just heard it, sounds like he's obviously nervous about the aircraft and the flight but there doesn't seem to be any imminent danger at that point. He's yawning and taking about training with his new team mates the next afternoon. It's so sad in any case that lives can be snuffed out so suddenly. I feel for his parents and how they are right now. My eldest son is 29. It just makes you think.
|
|