Emiliano Sala

[Hipper]

The court case continues:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-58965072

[Hipper]

Henderson found Guilty:

If you want to look at the full case this site has it.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... l-21887929

Read from the bottom upwards and in particular note the judges 'route to verdict', about half way down.

To be quite frank, following this route, I would have thought Henderson was 'not guilty'. Henderson had already pleaded guilty to 'trying to arrange a flight for a passenger without permission or authorisation'. This case was about whether he was guilty of 'communicating information to endanger / likely to endanger safety of an aircraft, on January 18 and 19, 2019'.

The cause of the crash has been previously decided to be by carbon monoxide poisoning which could occur to any pilot whatever his qualifications or experience. This may have been caused by a maintenance issue but the aircraft was checked before the flight by an experienced mechanic. The pilot Ibbotson only had some minor infringements which the prosecution tried to make the most of but had not left a trail of destruction in his past flying. And, in aviation, if the flying conditions - weather particularly - are not suitable it is the pilot that decides whether it's safe.

[dsr]

The only question was, does deliberately arranging a flight when you know the pilot doesn't have a licence, count as serious enough to be guilty on this charge of endangering an aircraft. We can ignore all his barrister's guff about the operator making his own judgement as to whether the pilot was competent - it makes no difference whether we are talking about buses, taxis, planes, trains, - if the driver does not have an approved government licence to drive the vehicle, no PSV operator can override that decision.

[Hipper]

The only question was, does deliberately arranging a flight when you know the pilot doesn't have a licence, count as serious enough to be guilty on this charge of endangering an aircraft. We can ignore all his barrister's guff about the operator making his own judgement as to whether the pilot was competent - it makes no difference whether we are talking about buses, taxis, planes, trains, - if the driver does not have an approved government licence to drive the vehicle, no PSV operator can override that decision.

Ibbotson's qualification for flying this particular aircraft type expired a few months before. That doesn't make him a bad pilot. He'd already shown he could fly this aircraft as he piloted the first flight from Cardiff to Nantes.

You may have had a car driving licence and driven competently whilst you had it. If then the licence is no longer valid for some reason, does that immediately make you a poor driver? I think not.

[Rochdale Cowboy]

Hipper, have you ever heard of approvals in avistion? Trust me, you cannot legally do anything if an approval has expired, be it on a part, tyre or licence to pilot a plane.

[dsr]

Ibbotson's qualification for flying this particular aircraft type expired a few months before. That doesn't make him a bad pilot. He'd already shown he could fly this aircraft as he piloted the first flight from Cardiff to Nantes.

You may have had a car driving licence and driven competently whilst you had it. If then the licence is no longer valid for some reason, does that immediately make you a poor driver? I think not.

If the CAA, for whatever reason, deems that you are inadequately qualified to fly a particular plane at a particular time - then that's an end of it. No individual can overrule them.

I don't dispute that appointing an unlicensed incompetent to fly a plane is worse than appointing an unlicensed competent pilot, but the fact reamins that you cannot, in any circumstance, make that decision on behalf of the CAA.

[Hipper]

The case, according to the judge, should be decided by his 'route to verdict' - I'll post it here:

Mr Justice Foxton reads out from a document provided to the jury called the route to verdict.

The document states:

a) Are you sure the flights did not have the required authorisation or permission
b) Are you sure the pilot David Ibbotson did not have a commercial pilots licence
c) Are you sure David Ibbotson’s rating to fly N264DB expired in November 2018
d) 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.

You may be making a decision on other matters.

Part 1 is easy - b and c are clearly true - and we can swiftly move to part 2.

Part 2. I'm not sure. My feeling is b and c have no relevance to the flight's risk as I've described in my previous post. The only real possibility of risk is d. Bad weather does seem to have been forecast but it is the pilot who must decide the risks on this. He seems to have thought that he could fly under visual flight rules for which he is qualified. I assume Henderson had confidence in Ibbotson, and I assume Ibbotson had confidence in himself. I wonder if the judge meant 'competent' instead of 'confident' but if he meant confident then Henderson is 'not guilty'.

[Hipper]

Hipper, have you ever heard of approvals in avistion? Trust me, you cannot legally do anything if an approval has expired, be it on a part, tyre or licence to pilot a plane.

All you are saying is the pilot flew the plane illegally and Henderson, knowing he wasn't qualified to do this, was part to it. It doesn't mean the pilot couldn't competently fly the plane. He did!

Again, you cannot legally drive a car without insurance but people do.

[dsr]

The case, according to the judge, should be decided by his 'route to verdict' - I'll post it here:

Mr Justice Foxton reads out from a document provided to the jury called the route to verdict.

The document states:

a) Are you sure the flights did not have the required authorisation or permission
b) Are you sure the pilot David Ibbotson did not have a commercial pilots licence
c) Are you sure David Ibbotson’s rating to fly N264DB expired in November 2018
d) 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.

You may be making a decision on other matters.

Part 1 is easy - b and c are clearly true - and we can swiftly move to part 2.

Part 2. I'm not sure. My feeling is b and c have no relevance to the flight's risk as I've described in my previous post. The only real possibility of risk is d. Bad weather does seem to have been forecast but it is the pilot who must decide the risks on this. He seems to have thought that he could fly under visual flight rules for which he is qualified. I assume Henderson had confidence in Ibbotson, and I assume Ibbotson had confidence in himself. I wonder if the judge meant 'competent' instead of 'confident' but if he meant confident then Henderson is 'not guilty'.

Thanks, that's helpful. I agree all of it except your conclusion! And after all, the jury didn't agree unanimously either.

I reckon that sending a plane out with an unlicensed pilot gives rise to a real risk that can't be safely ignored. Why was he unlicensed? Perhaps the authorities wouldn't have renewed his licence if he had troubled to apply for it. IMO you can never safely ignore the fact that the pilot hasn't got a licence. Not when other people's lives are at stake.

[quoonbeatz]

Ibbotson's qualification for flying this particular aircraft type expired a few months before. That doesn't make him a bad pilot. He'd already shown he could fly this aircraft as he piloted the first flight from Cardiff to Nantes.

You may have had a car driving licence and driven competently whilst you had it. If then the licence is no longer valid for some reason, does that immediately make you a poor driver? I think not.

This is quite the defence. Makes you wonder why more people don't use it when they get done for driving offences without a licence.

"Well he wasn't qualified but he flew it illegally already and didn't crash so what's the problem?"

[CrosspoolClarets]

It comes to a point where enough corners get cut that lives become at risk. Seems to be the case here.

From pilots without appropriate licenses to planes without adequate maintenance (the carbon monoxide issue) it was an accident waiting to happen, and it did. Nobody knows exactly what happened on the plane but we don’t need to.

Can’t just have a society where we ignore paperwork, otherwise it will be total chaos and anarchy. I hope a judge decides a custodial sentence is appropriate, got to stamp out this kind of thing.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

They've jailed someone for 18mths, the man who organised the flight.

[Hipper]

It comes to a point where enough corners get cut that lives become at risk. Seems to be the case here.

From pilots without appropriate licenses to planes without adequate maintenance (the carbon monoxide issue) it was an accident waiting to happen, and it did. Nobody knows exactly what happened on the plane but we don’t need to.

Can’t just have a society where we ignore paperwork, otherwise it will be total chaos and anarchy. I hope a judge decides a custodial sentence is appropriate, got to stamp out this kind of thing.

In fact this is exactly what we have got with the so called grey charter business and it's not 'total chaos and anarchy', 'just' a few deaths now and then.

[Hipper]

Latest on Cardiff's transfer payments and ban:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60596499

Conclusion of Sala's inquest:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60767283

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Screenshot_20250410_081959_X.jpg (877.68 KiB) Viewed 957 times

https://www.foot-national.com/actus/dis ... tes-908615

[Woodleyclaret]

All agents are parasitic **** who want banning from any involvement in football

[Clovius Boofus]

Money grubbing turds.

[Rowls]

Oh for crying out loud.

Maybe the Burnley Express could loan Cardiff their 'supercomputer' that kept predicting the final league table?

Any self respecting data firm would do nothing other than confirm Cardiff would've been relegated regardless.

[Big Vinny K]

Clubs taking legal action because they think they have been unfairly relegated rather than accepting they were just a bit sh-it.
What kind of club does that ?

Oh hang on a minute…..actually best of luck The bluebirds. We’re right behind you !!

[jtv]

There could be a difference in being relegated because of a club's proven blatant disregard for FFP rules and a club being relegated on a hypothetical scenario of losing a player. What guarantee did Cardiff have of Sala not getting injured in his first match?

[turfytopper]

Paul Barnes didn’t want to go to Huddersfield

Glad he did though. Best transfer swap of the century.

[ecc]

It just gets sicker and sicker.

The poor lad's family suffering just goes on and on.

[CoolClaret]

I love having club legends and players who stay around for a while and end up embodying the club (Ash Barnes, anyone), but this disgraceful, dragged-out process from Cardiff makes you see why there's basically no loyalty in the game (and business in general) anymore.

There's no humanity on display here, and there hasn't been throughout this 'process', just Cardiff callously using Sala to try and make money.

I really feel for his family, they must be distraught.

[bodge]

I watched a documentary on this last week on National Geographic which explained what happened, it's called Aircrash Investigation, well worth a watch, they still haven't found the pilot's body, a grubby episode without doubt and a player cut off in his prime, overall a massive blow for his family of course and that's the main thing.

[NottsClaret]

You'd imagine Cardiff know full well they have no chance of winning this but some cynical law firm has convinced them to have a go, in the hope Nantes just want the whole thing finally over and offer a token amount to make it stop. As said, a very grubby way to behave.