Plane missing in the Channel

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:55 pm

Test User wrote:Is that unusual?

There was an aviator on the radio earlier saying that a single-engine plane choosing to go the long way over the Channel (115 miles instead of 20 at Dover-Calais) and go at (reportedly) 2,500 feet so reducing any chance of a glide seemed an odd choice to him. He thought the height might have been to avoid icing.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:10 pm

Surely the idea of flying twice as far to have a shorter sea crossing, is an idea that went out of fashion shortly after "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines" era. It's not as if crashing over land in the dark is much safer than crashing in the sea in the dark. The standard route, allowing for flight traffic rules, would surely be a straight line?

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:24 pm

Just being reported that the search has ended for the day and they will resume tomorrow.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:26 pm

dsr wrote:Surely the idea of flying twice as far to have a shorter sea crossing, is an idea that went out of fashion shortly after "Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines" era. It's not as if crashing over land in the dark is much safer than crashing in the sea in the dark. The standard route, allowing for flight traffic rules, would surely be a straight line?

I'm no expert. He seemed to think that a single-engine plane over water wasn't a great idea and while crashing land or sea isn't any better, I understood him to be saying (rather obviously) that you would want to be over something solid you could glide down on to if there were a failure.

jedi_master · Post by **jedi_master** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:27 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Just being reported that the search has ended for the day and they will resume tomorrow.

I think with that, any optimism goes, sadly.

What a tragedy.

bfcmik · Post by **bfcmik** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:32 pm

thatdberight wrote:There was an aviator on the radio earlier saying that a single-engine plane choosing to go the long way over the Channel (115 miles instead of 20 at Dover-Calais) and go at (reportedly) 2,500 feet so reducing any chance of a glide seemed an odd choice to him. He thought the height might have been to avoid icing.

The pilot had radioed in to ask for permission to land at Guernsey.

Flying an extra 250 - 300 miles so as to use the short sea route hardly makes sense. If they were flying from Bordeaux or Spain then would that aviator still have expected them to fly up to the Straits of Dover?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:34 pm

bfcmik wrote:The pilot had radioed in to ask for permission to land at Guernsey.

Flying an extra 250 - 300 miles so as to use the short sea route hardly makes sense. If they were flying from Bordeaux or Spain then would that aviator still have expected them to fly up to the Straits of Dover?

I wish I hadn't bothered reporting what the pilot on the radio said; I had no idea this forum also doubled as the main meeting place for rest-day BALPA members.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:39 pm

thatdberight wrote:I wish I hadn't bothered reporting what the pilot on the radio said; I had no idea this forum also doubled as the main meeting place for rest-day BALPA members.

It's fairly normal, when you enter a conversation, to expect other people to respond to what you say. What were this radio pilot's qualifications? Are you sure he wasn't just shooting a line? I don't think anyone would double the length of a flight because it would make a crash landing safer; if the chances of a crash landing were statistically significant enough for that, then the plane wouldn't be allowed to take off. One hopes.

Paddy1882 · Post by **Paddy1882** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:41 pm

Absolutely awful news, was only the other day reading in the paper his Cardiff move was fulfilling his dream of playing in the premier league and then this.... sad sad stuff!

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:42 pm

Is it possible that the observation was that (rather than fly over Calais), it might be surprising that the pilot did not travel around 20 miles to the East of his apparent route, which would have had the plane travel over the Cherbourg peninsula (right up to about the point where it appears to have come down), and so halved the time over the water?

Anyway, its probably neither here nor there. Terrible tragedy.

bfccrazy · Post by **bfccrazy** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:56 pm

I love this forum.

A pilot and a promising young life has (as far as we can assume) been lost .... and folk on here are pettily picking out holes in their flight paths.

gsyclaret · Post by **gsyclaret** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:04 pm

Searched over 1 thousand square miles and found nothing, search due to be resumed tomorrow.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:05 pm

dsr wrote:It's fairly normal, when you enter a conversation, to expect other people to respond to what you say. What were this radio pilot's qualifications? Are you sure he wasn't just shooting a line? I don't think anyone would double the length of a flight because it would make a crash landing safer; if the chances of a crash landing were statistically significant enough for that, then the plane wouldn't be allowed to take off. One hopes.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:09 pm

Test User wrote:Ugh! I've just had a morbid moment. I was looking on flight radar for similar flights to see if flying at that altitude is normal when i noticed a weird flight path north of Guernsey. Then realised it's a search and rescue plane.

aye very grim news

gsyclaret · Post by **gsyclaret** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:28 pm

Just heard that debris has been spotted but impossible at the moment to say if it was the plane.

Oshkoshclaret · Post by **Oshkoshclaret** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:55 pm

I ran a corporate flight department that ran flights across Lake Michigan in a variety of aircraft types. No way were we sending a single engined plane over the lake at night, into known icing. And that would be with the janitor on board, never mind a high value executive. It might be legal to do it, but whether it's sensible is different matter. There are now reports that this was a PISTON Malibu being operated VFR. Everyone's risk tolerance is different. By my personal standards this was a very risky flight. Get a good night's sleep in France and do the flight in the morning.

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:10 pm

I wonder if the fee has been paid,contract signed and he was a Cardiff player.

Reecey1987 · Post by **Reecey1987** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:16 pm

bfcjg wrote:I wonder if the fee has been paid,contract signed and he was a Cardiff player.

All that was signed saturday he was saying his goodbyes to his friends and teamates .

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:18 pm

Oshkoshclaret wrote:I ran a corporate flight department that ran flights across Lake Michigan in a variety of aircraft types. No way were we sending a single engined plane over the lake at night, into known icing. And that would be with the janitor on board, never mind a high value executive. It might be legal to do it, but whether it's sensible is different matter. There are now reports that this was a PISTON Malibu being operated VFR. Everyone's risk tolerance is different. By my personal standards this was a very risky flight. Get a good night's sleep in France and do the flight in the morning.

Good to read that a janitor would be more expendable

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:19 pm

DCWat wrote:Good to read that a janitor would be more expendable

Capitalism, baby!

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:21 pm

Reecey1987 wrote:All that was signed saturday he was saying his goodbyes to his friends and teamates .

That could really scupper Cardiff's survival bid.

Nonayforever · Post by **Nonayforever** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:16 pm

Reecey1987 wrote:All that was signed saturday he was saying his goodbyes to his friends and teamates .

Unfortunately and sadly, that is a very ominous statement.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:17 pm

bfcjg wrote:That could really scupper Cardiff's survival bid.

Im sure its the least of all involved concern really.

Reecey1987 · Post by **Reecey1987** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:19 pm

Nonayforever wrote:Unfortunately and sadly, that is a very ominous statement.

I didnt mean it to come across that way but thats the reason why he wasnt here earlier . Its horrible what has happend

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:20 pm

Oshkoshclaret wrote:I ran a corporate flight department that ran flights across Lake Michigan in a variety of aircraft types. No way were we sending a single engined plane over the lake at night, into known icing. And that would be with the janitor on board, never mind a high value executive. It might be legal to do it, but whether it's sensible is different matter. There are now reports that this was a PISTON Malibu being operated VFR. Everyone's risk tolerance is different. By my personal standards this was a very risky flight. Get a good night's sleep in France and do the flight in the morning.

Personally, I wouldnt ever fly in one of these (or a helicopter) but especially in poor conditions.

For the sake of saving a few hours or to save flying on a flight with the general public just seems it isnt worth it. Their safety records and capability seem way less than 'normal' planes.

Are they subject to the same checks or even rules as commercial airlines? I am pretty sure helicopters arent.

Its also come out now that he said to team mates that he didnt feel safe going back on the plane after a tense flight out to nantes.

Bertiebeehead · Post by **Bertiebeehead** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:25 pm

We should definitely be speculating wildly on an Internet forum about this.

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:27 pm

Bertiebeehead wrote:We should definitely be speculating wildly on an Internet forum about this.

Isn't that essentially what internet forums are for?

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:44 pm

Bertiebeehead wrote:We should definitely be speculating wildly on an Internet forum about this.

you'd better not take a look on the aviation/pilot forums then

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:50 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:you'd better not take a look on the aviation/pilot forums then

Link?

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:00 pm

thatdberight wrote:I'm no expert. He seemed to think that a single-engine plane over water wasn't a great idea and while crashing land or sea isn't any better, I understood him to be saying (rather obviously) that you would want to be over something solid you could glide down on to if there were a failure.

In this day and age aircraft are, almost always, rather more than reliable enough to fly over the channel. IIRC, Sala was in a Piper Malibu which has a gas turbine fitted with a prop, and as such is deemed safe enough to transit shortish passages over water. It would appear he and the pilot were simply unlucky in having a failure out of range of land. It has been reported that the a/c had descended to 2300’, possibly to avoid thick cloud and icing, and this has severely compromised the gliding range. Unfortunately, with general aviation, circumstances can conspire against you and this, it would appear, is one of those occasions. I was always told, take the number of engines, divide by 2 and if you end up with a fraction don’t get on it. I haven’t been in a single engined bug smasher for over 20 years and probably never will again.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:04 pm

BennyD wrote:In this day and age aircraft are, almost always, rather more than reliable enough to fly over the channel. IIRC, Sala was in a Piper Malibu which has a gas turbine fitted with a prop, and as such is deemed safe enough to transit shortish passages over water. It would appear he and the pilot were simply unlucky in having a failure out of range of land. It has been reported that the a/c had descended to 2300’, possibly to avoid thick cloud and icing, and this has severely compromised the gliding range. Unfortunately, with general aviation, circumstances conspire against you and this, it would appear, is one of those occasions. I was always told, take the number of engines, divide by 2 and if you end up with a fraction don’t get on it. I haven’t been in a single engined bug smasher for over 20 years and probably never will again.

According to this the pilot was at 5,000 ft and requested 2,300 ft and then contact was lost.

Source: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=220997" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Source of source: https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.ph ... 7&start=45" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pimlico_Claret · Post by **Pimlico_Claret** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:14 pm

This is certainly tragic, and yet statistically he could have met a similar fate driving from Cardiff Airport to the ground, such is the fragility of life. Enjoy what you have, while you have it, none of us ever know what is going to happen tomorrow.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:23 pm

Pimlico_Claret wrote:This is certainly tragic, and yet statistically he could have met a similar fate driving from Cardiff Airport to the ground, such is the fragility of life. Enjoy what you have, while you have it, none of us ever know what is going to happen tomorrow.

Very True.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:23 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Personally, I wouldnt ever fly in one of these (or a helicopter) but especially in poor conditions.

For the sake of saving a few hours or to save flying on a flight with the general public just seems it isnt worth it. Their safety records and capability seem way less than 'normal' planes.

Are they subject to the same checks or even rules as commercial airlines? I am pretty sure helicopters arent.

I can't find the supporting evidence sadly but I remember reading helicopters are the only mode of transport which have saved more lives than they have killed. Air Ambulance, Military Evac etc.

The increased risk comes often with the role they play not necessarily the vehicle itself. A "normal" plane such as a 747 can't support a remote oil rig or provide Grand Canyon tours for example, both of which have seen fatal accidents.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:37 pm

CombatClaret wrote:I can't find the supporting evidence sadly but I remember reading helicopters are the only mode of transport which have saved more lives than they have killed. Air Ambulance, Military Evac etc.

The increased risk comes often with the role they play not necessarily the vehicle itself. A "normal" plane such as a 747 can't support a remote oil rig or provide Grand Canyon tours for example, both of which have seen fatal accidents.

Fair enough point. Still wouldnt get me on one conscious

BigChaCha · Post by **BigChaCha** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:44 pm

I just hope it was quick! Being plummeted into the icy depths doesn't bear thinking about.

Goobs · Post by **Goobs** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:03 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Fair enough point. Still wouldnt get me on one conscious

OK B A

Oshkoshclaret · Post by **Oshkoshclaret** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:13 pm

BennyD wrote:In this day and age aircraft are, almost always, rather more than reliable enough to fly over the channel. IIRC, Sala was in a Piper Malibu which has a gas turbine fitted with a prop, and as such is deemed safe enough to transit shortish passages over water. It would appear he and the pilot were simply unlucky in having a failure out of range of land. It has been reported that the a/c had descended to 2300’, possibly to avoid thick cloud and icing, and this has severely compromised the gliding range. Unfortunately, with general aviation, circumstances can conspire against you and this, it would appear, is one of those occasions. I was always told, take the number of engines, divide by 2 and if you end up with a fraction don’t get on it. I haven’t been in a single engined bug smasher for over 20 years and probably never will again.

It seems pretty clear that the accident plane was N264DB, which does not have a gas turbine engine.

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:50 pm

BigChaCha wrote:I just hope it was quick! Being plummeted into the icy depths doesn't bear thinking about.

Probably (hopefully) quick. Having been at the end result of a plane crash on land, they don’t usually end up in good news.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:53 pm

Unless there was structural damage the pilot would have ditched so i doubt it'd have been quick.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:52 pm

CombatClaret wrote:I can't find the supporting evidence sadly but I remember reading helicopters are the only mode of transport which have saved more lives than they have killed. Air Ambulance, Military Evac etc.

The increased risk comes often with the role they play not necessarily the vehicle itself. A "normal" plane such as a 747 can't support a remote oil rig or provide Grand Canyon tours for example, both of which have seen fatal accidents.

I used to work for a company that kept track of air accidents..........you couldn't pay me to get on a helicopter

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:07 am

Let's all remain hopeful.

Oshkoshclaret · Post by **Oshkoshclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:05 am

Test User wrote:Unless there was structural damage the pilot would have ditched so i doubt it'd have been quick.

If this was an engine failure/ditching the pilot had plenty of opportunity to make a Mayday call. It's more likely that he lost control in icing conditions.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:29 am

papers reporting he sent a whatsapp message voicing his concern about the state of the aircraft

THEWELLERNUT70 · Post by **THEWELLERNUT70** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:40 am

An audio sent by Emiliano Sala to his friends/family moments before his plane went missing yesterday.

English Translation: "Hello brothers, how are you all? I was here in Nantes doing things and [inaudible]."

"I'm here on the airplane and it seems like it's going to fall. I'm headed towards Cardiff because tomorrow afternoon we start to train boys, we're a team."

"Let's hope and see what happens. How are you, my brothers? Everything alright?"

"If in an hour and 30min you don't hear back from me... I don't know if they're going to send someone for me because they won't find me, so you'll know."

"I'm so afraid man."

BurnleyFC · Post by **BurnleyFC** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:40 am

Bloody hell, that’s absolutely haunting.

wilks_bfc · Post by **wilks_bfc** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:43 am

****. Imagine hearing that from a loved one

The Enclosure · Post by **The Enclosure** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:05 am

Terrible tragedy.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:13 am

It looks like visibility was poor but what is the gliding range on these type of aircraft compare to a normal airliner based on normal travelling heights ? Can a normal airliner fly comfortably on one engine ?

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:48 am

Oshkoshclaret wrote:No way were we sending a single engined plane over the lake at night, into known icing. And that would be with the janitor on board, never mind a high value executive.

I hear the janitor values himself pretty highly.