Talk:2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash

Hawkesbury River seaplane crash and CO poisoning

The final report into the Hawkesbury River seaplane crash in Australia has just been published. This also found that the pilot was overcome by carbon monoxide from the plane's engine getting into the cockpit; there are similar cases in the USA here and here, and in the UK here. Although not directly related to the Sala crash, it is interesting that aviation laws in the UK and USA do not make it mandatory to have a carbon monoxide detector in the cabin of a light aircraft, even though it would cost only a few dollars. This is considered to be surprising by regular pilots in light aircraft.

The final report into the Sala crash notes that "CO detectors are not mandated for general aviation aircraft, as from an initial design viewpoint, the requirements for the certification of the aircraft are such that the system design should minimise the likelihood of CO contamination, but the maintenance of sometimes notably highly-utilised airframes and/or their ageing systems means that contamination can occasionally take place. The more widespread use of CO detectors is thus currently down to the pilot/ owner’s discretion." (p60/61) The report also suggested that certain types of piston engine aircraft should have CO detectors, and that regular maintenance of the exhaust should check for damage that could lead to leaks. (p8) The article could say more in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree, it should say more. Here's the 2017 Sydney Seaplanes DHC-2 crash article. Maybe that should go in a "See also" section here? Maybe User:Mjroots has some comments. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea for a see also. The Sala incident is far from the first time that CO poisoning caused a light aircraft crash.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, for large commercial jet airliners, there's been the ongoing bleed air scandal. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason why both articles can't have a see also section linking to each other with a note re CO poisoning being a major factor. Mjroots (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, does anybody have time to add more context to the poisoning, perhaps from the final report? What was the cause of the poisoning? The summary reads "Loss of control, mid-air breakup, with a contributory factor of carbon monoxide poisoning" but there is almost nothing about that in the aricle, which on the other hand says he was "in control of the plane up to the time of the crash". Thanks WikiHannibal (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Carbon monoxide got into the plane's cabin due to a faulty exhaust, which is the usual cause of these accidents. Ibbotson cannot have been completely unconscious in the moments before the crash, because he attempted an "abrupt nose-up" manoeuvre at excessive speed which caused the plane to break up even before it hit the water.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Coroner's inquest in Bournemouth

This is under way and is expected to take five weeks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC source says: "Senior Coroner Rachael Griffin told jurors that the inquest will focus on the arrangements for the flight, the condition of the aircraft and the cause of the accident. ... Sala's brother, Dario, has flown from Argentina for the hearing at Bournemouth Coroner's Court." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Useful info from the inquest here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Television documentary

Re this edit: Wikipedia is not competing with IMDb or a TV guide. Unless this documentary is discussed by reliable secondary sources or contains some significant new information, it does not add anything to what is already in the article. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Since this has been removed several times, I have watched the TV documentary about the crash. Most of it covers ground that is already in the article here. There was only one thing that caught my eye in the documentary, which is how a plane's exhaust system is tested for leaks. The investigation found that small cracks in a plane's exhaust system would not necessarily show up in a visual inspection, so even if Ibbotson had done this he might not have seen the crack in the exhaust tailpipe containing the heater muff that is believed to have led to the carbon monoxide poisoning. Had the plane been licensed for commercial flying, a pressure test would have been required during maintenance. This involves spraying soapy water on to the exhaust to check for bubbles and is described here. Since N264DB was a privately licensed plane, it was not required to have a pressure test and only a visual inspection was required during scheduled maintenance. N264DB completed its final significant maintenance on 30 November 2018 and was considered legally airworthy by the FAA at the time of the crash. It may be just bad luck that a crack in the exhaust system developed that was not easy to spot with the naked eye; this has happened before, as the TV documentary pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Surprising that all UK motor vehicles are required to pass an MOT test to even get onto the road. But a privately licensed aircraft does not need something as rigorous to get into the air. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

All of the information given here is in the final report. It shows that there is a gap between what would be an acceptable maintenance schedule for a private aircraft and a commercial aircraft. N264DB's owners were exonerated by the final report because the plane was legally airworthy for private flights only at the time of the crash, but it would not have passed commercial safety standards. This is the one thing that the article could make clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it could. And using the same final report as a source. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

N264DB had flown only eleven hours since its final scheduled maintenance in November 2018. Nevertheless, it had a range of faults including the autopilot being faulty. This doesn't inspire confidence in the scheduled maintenance of privately licensed aircraft, and some of this will be added to the article (in due course when I have the time).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Cause

Having read through the article from top to bottom I’m surprised to find no explanation whatsoever as to how the plane actually crashed. I would at least expect the investigation section to detail what was found to have made this airplane to deviate from its cruising flight into the sea. Yet there’s nothing but excessive focus on the pilot’s (lack of) ability. The only thing that actually deals with the distress of the flight is the infobox, but it isn’t corroborated by the rest of the article as it should. This should really be adressed. Tvx1 07:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot more detail on this in the crash report, page 68 and some of it is quite technical. The autopilot on the plane was regarded as faulty, and some of the input into the plane's final manoeuvres was made by Ibbotson, who was probably drowsy due to carbon monoxide poisoning at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I've added a short summary to the lead and I'll add a more detailed explanation to the article body later. Autopilot failure is believed to be a factor, but it wasn't listed as causal, so I omitted it from the lead for the sake of brevity. Carguychris (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, the final report did not say that autopilot failure definitely caused the crash, but it may have become unreliable and led to Ibbotson making manual adjustments to the plane's course that ultimately contributed to the plane's loss of control, as he was probably drowsy at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. The implicit conclusion of the report is that the pilot should have been able to continue the flight without a fully functional autopilot, but was unable to do so due to some combination of CO poisoning and lack of experience in "hard IFR" at night. Carguychris (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Most of the focus in this crash has been on Ibbotson's lack of competence as a pilot. However, even if the pilot had been competent, the crash might still have occurred if the pilot was overcome by CO poisoning in the cabin. This leads to questions about the scheduled maintenance of privately owned aircraft (see the section above).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I just finished an extensive edit to the article mentioning how the operator had not followed regulations for legal air charter, which would have required a more stringent inspection of the aircraft exhaust system. Carguychris (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)