Emiliano Sala’s plane 'did NOT fall to pieces': Ex-pilot of

Emiliano Sala’s plane 'did NOT fall to pieces': Ex-pilot of doomed aircraft dismisses claims that mechanical fault caused crash - as Cardiff City striker's body will be flown home to Argentina on Friday.


Daily Mail

Wednesday 13th February 2019


A pilot who used to fly the plane that was carrying Emiliano Sala has slammed claims that a mechanical failure caused the crash that killed the footballer.

Eduardo Hernandez Vidaurreta, 65, said he is 'sure' the aircraft did not 'fall to pieces' as the Cardiff City star's body is set to be repatriated to Argentina.

The £15million Premier League signing died after the Piper PA-46 Malibu David Ibbotson was piloting crashed over the Channel, leading to an outpouring of tributes including from netball player Luiza Ungerer, who said she had a secret relationship with him.

Mr Vidaurreta flew the plane plane between 2012 and 2015 and said the aircraft was 'marvellous' and told Spanish paper El Pais that any problems with it would 'surprise' him.

Sala's (pictured with netball player Luiza Ungerer) remains will be repatriated on Friday to his childhood home
Sala's (pictured with netball player Luiza Ungerer) remains will be repatriated on Friday to his childhood home

After the Cardiff City player's body was recovered (pictured), the aircraft's former pilot rubbished claims that his death could have been caused by mechanical failure
After the Cardiff City player's body was recovered (pictured), the aircraft's former pilot rubbished claims that his death could have been caused by mechanical failure

A commercial pilot since 1976, he said the aircraft first belonged to a Floridian aviation school.

His friend Roberto Sastre forked out 500,000 euros to buy it in 2012 and bring it to Spain.

Mr Vidaurreta flew it for 200 hours over a four-year period and said it didn't give him any problems and believes anyone searching for a mechanical error are mistaken. 'The plane didn't fall to pieces, I'm sure it didn't,' he added.

But Sala - whose body will be flown home on Friday - sent WhatsApp messages to friends expressing fears over the plane's safety.

The former pilot has claimed that he is 'sure' the plane (pictured) did not fall to pieces despite Sala's fears as expressed to friends over WhatsApp
The former pilot has claimed that he is 'sure' the plane (pictured) did not fall to pieces despite Sala's fears as expressed to friends over WhatsApp

One read: 'Boys, I'm here on top of the plane that looks like it's about to fall apart. And I'm going to Cardiff, crazy, tomorrow we already started. In the afternoon we started to train, boys, in my new team.

'If you do not have any more news from in an hour and a half, I don’t know if they need to send someone to find me... I am getting scared!'

Seasoned flyer Mr Vidaurreta says the plane had life jackets and emergency oxygen tanks when a British firm bought it in 'good condition' four years ago.

Aviation experts told The Sun that ice building up of the wings may have caused the crash.



Body recovered from Emiliano Sala's plane is brought ashore



Heartbroken family of Sala pilot appeal for body to be found

Julio Muller, mayor of the town of Progreso in Santa Fe where Emiliano grew up, confirmed his remains would reach Ezeiza International Airport in Buenos Aires around 9am local time on Friday.

The footballer's body will then be taken to the provincial capital by road on a six-hour journey before reaching Progreso on Friday night for the wake on Saturday at the San Martin Club gym.

Mr Muller said Emiliano's mum Mercedes and sister Romina, who travelled to Europe after the light aircraft taking him from France to Cardiff disappeared over the Channel near Guernsey, have already rejoined his lorry driver dad Horacio in Progreso.

Referring to the footballer by his shortened name Emi he said: 'Emi's remains will reach Progreso, 300 miles north of Buenos Aires, late on Friday. The wake will be organised in the gym at San Martin FC.'

Sala's body will be welcomed home to the club at which he trained as a boy (pictured) following his tragic death
Sala's body will be welcomed home to the club at which he trained as a boy (pictured) following his tragic death

Flowers and tributes have been laid for Emiliano Sala at FC Nantes Stadium in western France
Flowers and tributes have been laid for Emiliano Sala at FC Nantes Stadium in western France

Body of pilot Dave Ibbotson whose body is still to be recovered from the depths of the Channel after search crews hauled Emiliano Sala's remains from beneath the surface
Body of pilot Dave Ibbotson whose body is still to be recovered from the depths of the Channel after search crews hauled Emiliano Sala's remains from beneath the surface

San Martin President Daniel Ribero added: 'Emi's body is going to reach Argentina from Europe on Friday and on Saturday we will spend several hours saying farewell to him at the club.'

It emerged earlier this week Cardiff City owner Vincent Tan had told Emiliano's relatives he would pay for the striker to be repatriated.

An inquest at Bournemouth town hall in Dorset heard on Monday the footballer, whose body was recovered in a privately-funded search, died of head and trunk injuries when the plane he was on crashed into the Channel.

The body of the pilot of the single-engine Piper Malibu which disappeared on January 21, 59-year-old David Ibbotson, has yet to be found and his family are insisting the search must go on.

Wife Nora said earlier this week: 'We just know we can't leave him out there on his own until we have tried to do everything we can.'

San Martin de Progreso, where the footballer played until he was 15, has already indicated it intends changing the name of its stadium and calling it Estadio Emiliano Sala.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

how on earth can someone judge the condition of something mechanical that they last operated 4 years ago.

how on earth can someone judge the condition of something mechanical that they last operated 4 years ago.

For there 5 minutes of fame.

Obviously something wrong with that bloody plane.

That would be like me saying the car I sold a few years back could not have crashed due to poor maintenance as it was fine when I last drove it in 2015.

The more I look at that plane I just get the feeling those planes are for taking someone up sight seeing for the experience of flying. NOT to take someone on a 2hour flight across the channel at night in bad weather ffs.

He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.

The more I look at that plane I just get the feeling those planes are for taking someone up sight seeing for the experience of flying. NOT to take someone on a 2hour flight across the channel at night in bad weather ffs.

You're half right there. I wouldn't personally get into a single engine plane over the sea and I've refused to do so in the past, but this model is regularly used for that sort of flight. A very important thing would be the competence or otherwise of the pilot in the event of a problem arising.

The more I look at that plane I just get the feeling those planes are for taking someone up sight seeing for the experience of flying. NOT to take someone on a 2hour flight across the channel at night in bad weather ffs.

You're half right there. I wouldn't personally get into a single engine plane over the sea and I've refused to do so in the past, but this model is regularly used for that sort of flight. A very important thing would be the competence or otherwise of the pilot in the event of a problem arising.

Wasn’t it a 4.5 hour flight?

He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.

I feel its best left to the experts to tell us exactly what happened because nobody on this board or any board know what happened that tragic night

I think it was well over a four hour flight . When it crashed it had been flying for nearly two hours.
A commercial flight from
Nantes to Bristol on easy jet is 75 minutes.
It still doesn't make any sense to me , how easily this tragedy could have been avoided.

Ohh my god what a tool, that’s like a ship captain saying I sailed that shop around the world 5 years ago and it never capsized..... or a person who brought a car brand new, sold it on and somewhere down the line it breaks down and they say well it worked fine for me when I had it, or a caravan owner well it never had damp in it when I owned it.... ffs anything for 5 mins of fame

Ohh my god what a tool, that’s like a ship captain saying I sailed that shop around the world 5 years ago and it never capsized..... or a person who brought a car brand new, sold it on and somewhere down the line it breaks down and they say well it worked fine for me when I had it, or a caravan owner well it never had damp in it when I owned it.... ffs anything for 5 mins of fame

not sure which is the more stupid. bozzo saying it or whoever at the Daily Mail decided to print it.

Ohh my god what a tool, that’s like a ship captain saying I sailed that shop around the world 5 years ago and it never capsized..... or a person who brought a car brand new, sold it on and somewhere down the line it breaks down and they say well it worked fine for me when I had it, or a caravan owner well it never had damp in it when I owned it.... ffs anything for 5 mins of fame

not sure which is the more stupid. bozzo saying it or whoever at the Daily Mail decided to print it.

He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.

I feel its best left to the experts to tell us exactly what happened because nobody on this board or any board know what happened that tragic night

I don't share your faith in "experts", since I have seen them proven completely wrong on many occasions . Side issue, but it's a worrying thing that you think it impossible that anyone on a board might have a few marbles and the ability to put things together - reminds me of Groucho Marx comment, " I wouldn't join any club which would have me as a member".
Saying this, you're perfectly correct that I'm neither a technical expert nor in possession of any of the evidence and so it's only speculation on my part , but unless there's something we don't know lurking in the background , I think it's the most probable hypothesis.
If I've gotten it completely wrong then no doubt you will point it out when the report is published, but with great respect I don't think we should ever defer so easily to our " betters" , and most certainly not discourage people for thinking about stuff for themselves. All investigators need to feel that they're under informed public scrutiny you know.

The more I look at that plane I just get the feeling those planes are for taking someone up sight seeing for the experience of flying. NOT to take someone on a 2hour flight across the channel at night in bad weather ffs.

You're half right there. I wouldn't personally get into a single engine plane over the sea and I've refused to do so in the past, but this model is regularly used for that sort of flight. A very important thing would be the competence or otherwise of the pilot in the event of a problem arising.

Wasn’t it a 4.5 hour flight?

Yeah I should think it's something along those lines but a long stretch over water on instruments and no second engine.

I think it was well over a four hour flight . When it crashed it had been flying for nearly two hours.
A commercial flight from
Nantes to Bristol on easy jet is 75 minutes.
It still doesn't make any sense to me , how easily this tragedy could have been avoided.

hindsight is a wonderful thing...its the case in most if not all accidents. if only.

I think it was well over a four hour flight . When it crashed it had been flying for nearly two hours.
A commercial flight from
Nantes to Bristol on easy jet is 75 minutes.
It still doesn't make any sense to me , how easily this tragedy could have been avoided.

hindsight is a wonderful thing...its the case in most if not all accidents. if only.

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.

Look it up buddy before you dout

And read again what it says

Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %

He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.

I feel its best left to the experts to tell us exactly what happened because nobody on this board or any board know what happened that tragic night

I don't share your faith in "experts", since I have seen them proven completely wrong on many occasions . Side issue, but it's a worrying thing that you think it impossible that anyone on a board might have a few marbles and the ability to put things together - reminds me of Groucho Marx comment, " I wouldn't join any club which would have me as a member".
Saying this, you're perfectly correct that I'm neither a technical expert nor in possession of any of the evidence and so it's only speculation on my part , but unless there's something we don't know lurking in the background , I think it's the most probable hypothesis.
If I've gotten it completely wrong then no doubt you will point it out when the report is published, but with great respect I don't think we should ever defer so easily to our " betters" , and most certainly not discourage people for thinking about stuff for themselves. All investigators need to feel that they're under informed public scrutiny you know.

Think I will still listen to the experts rather some half baked idea on here.

He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.

I feel its best left to the experts to tell us exactly what happened because nobody on this board or any board know what happened that tragic night

I don't share your faith in "experts", since I have seen them proven completely wrong on many occasions . Side issue, but it's a worrying thing that you think it impossible that anyone on a board might have a few marbles and the ability to put things together - reminds me of Groucho Marx comment, " I wouldn't join any club which would have me as a member".
Saying this, you're perfectly correct that I'm neither a technical expert nor in possession of any of the evidence and so it's only speculation on my part , but unless there's something we don't know lurking in the background , I think it's the most probable hypothesis.
If I've gotten it completely wrong then no doubt you will point it out when the report is published, but with great respect I don't think we should ever defer so easily to our " betters" , and most certainly not discourage people for thinking about stuff for themselves. All investigators need to feel that they're under informed public scrutiny you know.

A “pilot switch” to control the altimeter ?????

Really ???

He probably heard ice falling off the wings which is disturbing but what you expect at that ( incorrect ) altitude in those conditions. The plane was in very regular use and subject to stringent air worthiness tests, so there probably wasn't anything wrong with it mechanically .
The pilot probably knew that the answer to this is to drop altitude and attempted to do so, but he also probably did it too late and wasn't qualified to fly on instruments so maybe he didn't know that the 'pilot switch' which controls the altimeter is mounted outside on this aircraft and thus tends to ice up , giving false altitude readings. In short he probably flew straight into the sea in the belief that he hadn't yet reached the point of descent to level off.
I've tried to avoid frank explanations so far, because some will find them upsetting , and I've avoided speculating , but since everyone else seems to be having a bash at it, this is probably the most likely hypothesis in my opinion.

I feel its best left to the experts to tell us exactly what happened because nobody on this board or any board know what happened that tragic night

I don't share your faith in "experts", since I have seen them proven completely wrong on many occasions . Side issue, but it's a worrying thing that you think it impossible that anyone on a board might have a few marbles and the ability to put things together - reminds me of Groucho Marx comment, " I wouldn't join any club which would have me as a member".
Saying this, you're perfectly correct that I'm neither a technical expert nor in possession of any of the evidence and so it's only speculation on my part , but unless there's something we don't know lurking in the background , I think it's the most probable hypothesis.
If I've gotten it completely wrong then no doubt you will point it out when the report is published, but with great respect I don't think we should ever defer so easily to our " betters" , and most certainly not discourage people for thinking about stuff for themselves. All investigators need to feel that they're under informed public scrutiny you know.

A “pilot switch” to control the altimeter ?????

Really ???

Theres my point Sky High Bluebird, although I understand what you do for a living and IMO you have the best understanding here

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.

Look it up buddy before you dout

And read again what it says

Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %

ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.

Look it up buddy before you dout

And read again what it says

Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %

ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.

So you are telling me that the stats of a 747 are not correct ?
The state of the aviation and grounded aircraft of the Malibu piper are not correct ?
And the stats of a harrier are not correct ?

I would be very interested to see yours so please reply to me on the stats of all 3 aircraft I'm intrigued as you haven't actually produced a debate just an attitude that your right

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.

Look it up buddy before you dout

And read again what it says

Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %

ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.

So you are telling me that the stats of a 747 are not correct ?
The state of the aviation and grounded aircraft of the Malibu piper are not correct ?
And the stats of a harrier are not correct ?

I would be very interested to see yours so please reply to me on the stats of all 3 aircraft I'm intrigued as you haven't actually produced a debate just an attitude that your right

its not an attitude .your maths is completely wrong.
you've done simplistic maths on something that's way to complicated and has way to many factors to have a reasonable conclusion.
as for the harrier, you said its like junping in a harrier at war..really, thats not a stat is it.

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.

Look it up buddy before you dout

And read again what it says

Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %

ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.

So you are telling me that the stats of a 747 are not correct ?
The state of the aviation and grounded aircraft of the Malibu piper are not correct ?
And the stats of a harrier are not correct ?

I would be very interested to see yours so please reply to me on the stats of all 3 aircraft I'm intrigued as you haven't actually produced a debate just an attitude that your right

its not an attitude .your maths is completely wrong.

as for the harrier, you said its like junping in a harrier at war..really, thats not a stat is it.

Please do the maths for me then and im more then happy to say I'm wrong if I am.

It comes down to the fact that the airport should never had let the aircraft go after numerous attempts to take off so they need to be accountable having it on there logs

Everything after that will be pilot error and should never had flown.

Not taking away the fact the plane is a pile of shit as whole.

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.

Look it up buddy before you dout

And read again what it says

Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %

ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.

So you are telling me that the stats of a 747 are not correct ?
The state of the aviation and grounded aircraft of the Malibu piper are not correct ?
And the stats of a harrier are not correct ?

I would be very interested to see yours so please reply to me on the stats of all 3 aircraft I'm intrigued as you haven't actually produced a debate just an attitude that your right

its not an attitude .your maths is completely wrong.

as for the harrier, you said its like junping in a harrier at war..really, thats not a stat is it.

Please do the maths for me then and im more then happy to say I'm wrong if I am.

It comes down to the fact that the airport should never had let the aircraft go after numerous attempts to take off so they need to be accountable having it on there logs

Everything after that will be pilot error and should never had flown.

Not taking away the fact the plane is a pile of shit as whole.

that's the point mate, the maths required aint something you can just rustle up. too many variants


personally i think this is tragic enough without attempts to make it worse.. numerous attempts, yes i read that on day one as well, not mentioned since or corroborated by anyone. so your next sentence about it all then being pilot error is built on quicksand { unless someone comes forward to confirm }.also read Henderson was the pilot { he was not } Henderson scanned through security { he didnt } Mckay was a con a spiv and was billing the club { he probably is over other things but the texts suggest a favour in this case }..

I am all for anyone that might be to blame for doing wrong being held to account but as it stands we do not know enough.

50 / 50 on crashes with that particular plane

Pilot error
Mechanical failure

The plane has had 247 write offs to the 1100 made

25% have been written off near enough

788 Boeing 747s 15 crashes 2% chance

You have pretty much the same chance of surviving in a harrier jump jet at war as you do in the Malibu

your not factoring in how many flights..i hope 2% is hugely exagerated ot i would never fly again.
as for the last line its rediculous.

Look it up buddy before you dout

And read again what it says

Harriers obviously have more flight time and not far off the same planes made to written off %

ill tell you what you look it up. i mean really look it up and show me those figures youve come up with from an official source...i dont mean bits of those figures where you your self attempted some maths.
I have read your link btw. and it does not conclude what you have.

So you are telling me that the stats of a 747 are not correct ?
The state of the aviation and grounded aircraft of the Malibu piper are not correct ?
And the stats of a harrier are not correct ?

I would be very interested to see yours so please reply to me on the stats of all 3 aircraft I'm intrigued as you haven't actually produced a debate just an attitude that your right

its not an attitude .your maths is completely wrong.

as for the harrier, you said its like junping in a harrier at war..really, thats not a stat is it.

Please do the maths for me then and im more then happy to say I'm wrong if I am.

It comes down to the fact that the airport should never had let the aircraft go after numerous attempts to take off so they need to be accountable having it on there logs

Everything after that will be pilot error and should never had flown.

Not taking away the fact the plane is a pile of shit as whole.

that's the point mate, the maths required aint something you can just rustle up. too many variants


personally i think this is tragic enough without attempts to make it worse.. numerous attempts, yes i read that on day one as well, not mentioned since or corroborated by anyone. so your next sentence about it all then being pilot error is built on quicksand { unless someone comes forward to confirm }.also read Henderson was the pilot { he was not } Henderson scanned through security { he didnt } Mckay was a con a spiv and was billing the club { he probably is over other things but the texts suggest a favour in this case }..

I am all for anyone that might be to blame for doing wrong being held to account but as it stands we do not know enough.

Your right it is pretty much speculation at the moment

Whats getting to me is the aaib are or have been reluctant in the past to retrieve smaller planes from oceans as it's costs a few quid so will there ever be a full explanation if it lays there.

The first day I found it strange the media hadn't reported the failed take offs.

Pilot issue is an alarm in my ears

The actual plane are church bells in my ears 229 actual in flight write offs and the rest were ground due to economic beyond repair.. I've read there are more grounded also there just the figures I've read.

It's labbeled as the best worst plane of it's type pretty much like an rx8 car awsome performance but shit goes wrong quickly and sells cheap second hand. Constant maintenance and constant problems. Also read alot about the cockpit at night not being the best. the systems are low budget.

It's a plane used for jumpers. Goes up and comes down in the day time.

The stats were just to compare the logic of how can a plane that goes into a war and does alot more mileage and is up against it have a stat against a plane that does not do alot of mileage.
The 747 is I were to say that 98% of those planes are safe then you would look at it in a different light.

In regards to speculation on what's happened the plane should have been grounded like any commercial airliner would have been failing to take off.