CAA Gone Bonkers

[TOT]

HERE (http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=16301780&method=full&siteid=50003&headline=spitfire-tribute-grounded--for-safety-reasons--name_page.html)

[View From The Ground]

Agreed Bonkers...our litigation obsessed society strikes again

[TOT]

1. I think its's a bloody national disgrace!!!!

2. Where would we be if this decision had been made in 1940.

3. Who the hell makes these decisions??

4. On what grounds are they justified?

5. I think every effort should be made to inform the general public

of this stupid decision!

[ROSCO328]

One again the Caa makes me bloody angry!!
I will bet if you waived a hand full of £20 notes infront of them it would be like a show of slobbering dogs and this disgrace would never have gone this far!!

[Paradism]

It is total bonkers unless there is more to the ban than we are being told, perhaps a height restriction?

Do I presume too much if I think that that the logical extension of the CAA being worried about "single-engine aircraft flying over built-up areas" is that no single engine type will be permitted to fly over a town or city?

[kms901]

Lets face it, a Spitfire flying a reasonable speed at (say) 1000ft on the edges of a built up area has quite a few "land clear" options. It is part of the campaign to destroy GA and Historic flying in the UK because it is an inconvenience for the adminisphere.

[Lou Scannon]

Time for a protest methinks!

This must be the start of a new policy. Presumably, if we accept this nonsense, the only places that single engined aircraft will be allowed to perform is over runways of at least 10,000 feet that have paid their CAA subs recently.

Today Bedworth...tomorrow... the bleedin' world unless we change their minds!:*

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

I have had years of dealing with the CAA for air display exemptions, and they could not have been more helpful. There must have been some good reason why they have refused this one, and I suspect you gullible chaps are reacting to half a story here..

Permit to Fly (Spitfire) = No flight over congested areas, at all, at any height......

The CAA are only doing what the law says, and in refusing to grant an exemption, obviously think it's not a safe option to have a single engined P to F aircraft operating over a congested area such as Bedworth. The same reason why there were no single engined aircraft operating over London for the VE day flypast. The DC3, on a Transport Cat CofA, has been given permsission I hear..

Sounds a bit like "I cant have my Spitfire flypast, so I'll go to the media and kick up a fuss, and then when I cant get my own way, I'll write to my MP"

Mr Leach sounds like a spoilt child!:yuk:

[CaptainFillosan]

And you CD sound as though you are like one as well.

The fact is that the CAA can issue expemtions. Why have they allowed it these years and want to stamp their big feet this year?

And you! Why call Mr Leach a spoiled child? He is very angry, and so would I be, that the BoB cannot be properly remembered on each of it anniversaries.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

:rolleyes: Such attitude Capt....I was only trying to explain the flip side of what seems like a teddy throwing exercise...

Yes the CAA can issue Exemptions, but maybe they feel that for whatever reason, they can't this year. Maybe a change in policy? Who knows?

An exemption is just that...a bit like being allowed to drive at 70 in a 30 MPH zone for a one off event. The 'no permit to fly allowed over a congested area' is the law. They don't have to issue them.

But as I say, over all the years I have been applying for exemptions for air displays, they CAA have been very helpful.

Can't be bothered to write anymore in reply to those who clearly don't know the Rules of the Air, or Permit to Fly conditions!:ok:

[Lou Scannon]

That's a relief!:ok:

[CaptainFillosan]

But as I say, over all the years I have been applying for exemptions for air displays, they CAA have been very helpful.


And so have I. But when they feel they want to obstruct a show they will. You don't have to quote the R of the A either I have years of experience that I think counts.

However, just think of the times when Spitfires have flown over London in recent years, how many times they have flown over towns, cities, villages and such in each summer. It blows your argument don't you think.

The CAA are NOT being helpful in this instance it seems, and after the 40 years I have been in aviation I have never found them to be anything other than representing the famous terminoligy of what the CAA stands for in most people's minds.

Never forget this. The CAA are servants TO aviation and not the other way round, and some people within its walls are only too happy to apply rigid rules when common sense will do equally well.

[Will Hung]

How ironic ! To think what those heroes did 65 years ago so that petty bureaucrats could s**t on them. If they had their way, they'd have probably banned them from dog-fighting over London. Health & safety. What an ass !

[SATCO Biggin]

Can't say that I have ever found the CAA GAD that much of a hinderance. :( The people there seem to be more enthusiastic about aviation than most regulators. Also the article notes that the two Spits were coming from Duxford which is a most reputable warbird operator.

There must be more to this than meets the eye, does anyone know anything about the proposed flypast site or any other feature that would make the proposal a non-starter :confused:

Never forget this. The CAA are servants TO aviation and not the other way round, and some people within its walls are only too happy to apply rigid rules when common sense will do equally well.

Strange I thought the CAA were the regulators of aviation rather than our servants to do as we ask. They may have a servant role to the protect the general public and to be answerable to the public for their decisions.

[Sailor Vee]

The CAA are servants TO aviation and not the other way round Err, wrong, that's because they are an authority, and not an administration, as per the U.S.

However, I still agree with the majority of posters to this thread, there must be more than meets the eye for them to ban this fly-past, (n.b it is only a fly-past and not a 'display').

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

There must be more to this than meets the eye, does anyone know anything about the proposed flypast site or any other feature that would make the proposal a non-starter
A Congested area, so no overflight by PtoF aircraft.

However, just think of the times when Spitfires have flown over London in recent years

No civilian Spitfire aircraft has been allowed to fly over London in the past 5 years, and maybe I have more information than you to say so. Maybe BBMF aircraft, not covered by the ANO or Rules of the Air. A couple of Spitfires have landed at RAF Northolt in the past year, but allowed to because landing and taking off at a Government airfield.

I actually think that the whole 'permit over congested area' thing is pants, but it's the law at the moment....But hey, its a good reason to slag the CAA off anyway, so why let reason and logic get in the way of an emotional slanging match about what our fathers did for us over dear ol blighty 60 years ago instead!

[Tartan Giant]

I am dismayed at the CAA not allowing these two aircraft to fly.

The newspaper report said: Spitfire tribute grounded 'for safety reasons' Oct 27 2005

What can be the factual objection under "safety reasons"?

As a few have mentioned here, there must be more to this than meets the eye - for there's never been a Spitfire that has come down in recent years in a "congested area".

I hope those at Duxford who were approached can throw some sensible light on this pathetic piece of news from nanny CAA.

Forgive me looking at these Rules, but can anybody see why a reputable couple of Duxford Spitfires fall foul within?

Section 2

Section 2 is amended by the Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 1110). These amend the low flying rule (Rule 5) as follows –

a) An aeroplane must fly at such a height as to be able to alight in the event of a power unit failure without danger to persons or property on the surface. (Rule 5(2)(c) and (e))

b) The minimum height permitted over the congested areas of cities towns and settlements or in the vicinity of gatherings of more than 1,000 persons is 1,000 ft. (Rule 5(2)(c) and (e))

c) An aircraft may not take off or land within 1,000 metres of open air assemblies of more than 1,000 persons except in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA. (Rule 5(2)(f))

d) A balloon that is becalmed may land within a congested area. (Rule 5(3)(d))

e) A helicopter is exempt from the 500 feet rule when conducting manoeuvres in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome, or at other sites with the permission of the CAA. (Rule 5(3)(i))

f) There is no exemption contained in Rule 5 permitting departure from the Rule where necessary for the purpose of saving life.

g) The restrictions on flying by single engine helicopters over central London are omitted from Rule 5 and are now set out in the Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying)

(Specified Area) Regulations 2004 (see Section 5 below).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Me neither!

I say the CAA are overstepping their Authority - unless proved otherwise PDQ.

Let's see the FULL Application and the FULL refusal. Unless the little FOI Act says too risky for national security!

TG

PS: Like many here, I would like to get to the root cause of the refusal - I suppose that will only come from the CAA or from the publication of their letter to the Spitfire chaps/organiser indicating the technicalities of the refusal.

It must be heartbreaking for so many veterans, and those following in their footsteps, that some non-combatant civvy in an office has decreed this year it is not safe for two Spitfires to be part of their Remembrance Day.

I for one share their anguish, and after reading their story through their website will certainly be sending my unbridled support to Alf Perry.

http://www.bedwortharmisticeday.org/story.htm

This year is the 65th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain. We are pleased to announce that TWO SPITFIRES will accompany the Dakota on its poppy drop. This will be a rare opportunity to see these legendary aircraft in a flypast.

"Never in the field of human conflicts was so much owed by so many to so few" Winston Churchill August 20, 1940. House of Commons

For further details contact Alf Perry

Whilst safety was mentioned, let us remember those who were thinking further than a desk bound Risk Assessment.


Poem: Lest We Ever Forget

Why do you still march old man,with medals on your chest?
Why do you still grieve old man,for those friends you laid to rest?
Why do your eyes gleam old man,when you hear those bugles blow?
Tell me why you cry old man, about those days so long ago.

I\'ll tell you why I march young man, with medals on my chest
I\'ll tell you why I grieve young man, for those I laid to rest,
Through misty fields of gossamer silk come visions of distant times,
When boys of tender age lost lives, and all their mothers pined;
We buried them in a blanket shroud, their young flesh scorched and blackened,
A communal grave newly gouged in blood stained gorse and bracken,
And you ask me why I march young man, I march to remind you all,
That but for those apple-blossom youths, you\'d never have known freedom at all.

author unknown


Damn the torpedoes... FULL SPEED AHEAD

TG

[RTR]

A very interesting post TG.



I actually think that the whole 'permit over congested area' thing is pants, but it's the law at the moment....But hey, its a good reason to slag the CAA off anyway, so why let reason and logic get in the way of an emotional slanging match about what our fathers did for us over dear ol blighty 60 years ago instead!

____________________________________________________

Who's being logical? It sure ain't the CAA.

And what's wrong with emotion? At this time of the year there is plenty around. In this particular case the CAA are not being very sensible with exemptions - whatever anyone says.

Reason to the slag the CAA is a self loaded blunderbus. I agree they are hiding something.

And by the way CD. However old you are you would not be here now but for our fathers from WW11.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Can anybody post a map or lat-long showing where the flypast was requested? I feel one should know exactly what was proposed before criticising the CAA and it's decisions.

G

[Tartan Giant]

I was sent an email from a well respected chap in these circles which perhaps shows where the application failed; but to my mind this special circumstance Fly Past, and the "risk", should qualify for approval.

All civil registered Spitfires operate on the basis of a permit to fly and not a CofA.

No permit aircraft is permitted to overfly any congested area.

The previous flypasts at that site were poppy drops by a DC3 operated by Air Atlantique, an AOC company on a transport category CofA.

If the week-end flyer in his Cessna/Tiger Moth/etc can overfly the said area (Nuneaton) within the rules, a DUXFORD maintained Spitfire or two should be allowed the same leeway.

I do not know the exact track/heights requested but you may glean more from here:

http://www.bedwortharmisticeday.org/events.htm

Long story short, my vote is let them fly, as the debt we owe and our way of showing it, far outweighs the "risk" measured by the CAA.

If they want "safety first" then ground every single-engined aircraft.


Let them fly.

TG

[treadigraph]

this is a multimap image of the area. (http://www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=436000.98505868&Y=287000.857236055&scale=25000&width=700&height=400&gride=435975.98505868&gridn=287059.857236055&lang=&db=freegaz&coordsys=gb)

It's hardly congested.

I've had various WWII aircraft overfly my house in connection with activties at the old Croydon Airport, which is a considerably more built up area. Also had Alan Wade performing unlimited aeros in an Extra over a nearby park some years ago.

A straight and level flyby at a reasonable level (500 feet?) would seem OK to me. So what is the problem CAA?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hang on,

That shows the centre of a town about 2 x 4miles in size, so a 500ft flypast, combined with a 10:1 glide ratio (this is an inspired guess, I've never flown a Spit) there is a substantial period where a failure of the single (and elderly) engine will give virtually no potential to avoid a crash into buildings, most likely houses.

A north-south flypast half a mile to the west of that site would be safe so long as there were appropriate turns to avoid Coventry and Nuneaton, so would a direct east-west overflight at, say, 1200ft (providing rule 5 compliance, although requiring a dispensation from the PtF conditions). But, if they are as you suggest asking for a 500ft overflight of the centre of the town, then I'm afraid that my sympathies are with the CAA for their primary stance, if not for their apparent inability to suggest an acceptable alternative.

I have absolute sympathy with the purpose and spirit of both memorial services, and any chance to display a Spitfire. But not at such a blatant risk to public safety. Surely the people getting all heated, should simply be negotiating and acceptable way to arrange an appropriate, but safe form of flypast rather than demanding the right to low-overfly a large connurbation in an elderly single-engined aeroplane - however historic.

Plus I see from the link that the primary aircraft is a C-47 doing a poppy-drop, which is CofA/multi and thus presents no similar problems.

G

[Tartan Giant]

I have to agree that 500 feet would not be appropriate if that was asked for in the application.

The idea of 1200 feet would be fine with me if I were in the Chair.

The fields (east and west) within a mile of the two churches at the DZ could be considered - though the overhead power cables runinng N-S in the East are factors, whilst the western fields look clear.

I don't think anybody is "demanding" the right to overfly.

TG

[Peter Barron]

Well, its lucky that the CAA was not in charge in WW2, because if they were then we would all be wearing jack boots and doing a funny walk.

Genghis -But not at such a blatant risk to public safety.

I don't think so, these aircraft are maintained to the highest standard, the pilots know exactly what they are doing, there is no Blatant Risk at all, there is risk as with everything in life, even stepping out of the front door, but Blatant, no.


Get Ray Hanna to do it at 50 feet and b@ll@cks to the CAA

[treadigraph]

The centre of the town as shown by the ring on the map which is where the parade appears to be around about a mile wide (east to west) according to the scale on the map; my point was that to the east and west of the town appears to be open country.

500' was purely a guess on my part, I've no idea what the application specified.

Thinking about it (a bit more than I did earlier!) 1200' would in any case be a better height as it would give more people the chance to see the aircraft without buildings getting in the way. And you can still hear that lovely growl!

I don't have CAA chart of the area, but presumably Birmingham Airport a few miles to the South West might be a consideration?

Cheers

Treadders

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've got the CAA chart in front of me, Bedworth is (just) under the Birmingham CTA, but only above 2,000ft - quite high enough not to be an issue one would hope. The ILS path into Coventry also runs not far south of the area, but not close enough I'd judge to interfere with a sensibly planned flypast.

I may be mistaken, but it reads to me that somebody put in a rather optimistic low/overhead flypast proposal and CAA simply rejected it (probably expecting them to then think about it and come back with something more sensible). Somebody, somewhere perhaps needs to put operator and authority together with a chinagraph pencil and a chart, and work out something acceptable to all parties.

Of course, it's completely impossible that the operator was double-booked and made up a probable excuse to get them off the hook?

G

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Some fantastic theories here....Has anyone actually asked the CAA their side of the story and why they refused the request? But then why let that get in the way of a good story in the press..

I may be mishtaken, but nobody seems to have considered the fact that these aircraft are operated on a Permit to Fly, and legally cannot fly over a 'congested area' at any height.

Surely the great Flying Lawyer himself will have an opinion?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not at any height, except...

(1) With special dispensation from CAA, or

(2) When taking off or landing at a government or licenced aerodrome in accordance with normal aviation practice.


I assumed that all the experts posting their opinions above had already taken that into account. Presumably one of them has also seen the wording of CAA's refusal? - perhaps they could post it?

G

[Tartan Giant]

I refer the Rt Hon Gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All civil registered Spitfires operate on the basis of a permit to fly and not a CofA.

No permit aircraft is permitted to overfly any congested area.

The previous flypasts at that site were poppy drops by a DC3 operated by Air Atlantique, an AOC company on a transport category CofA.

Let's hope the issue is resolved and the Spitfires fly, in fairly close company with the Dak.

Thanks G the Eng for the time you put in on this one.

TG

PS: I certainly don't have any first-hand info from the CAA or the Spitfire chaps, nor indeed the applicant.
I just saw the newpaper article here and want to know the technical reasons for the refusal.

[CamelPilot]

I have written to the organisers with a request to reveal the circumstances of the CAA's refusal. Or at the very least to get the details correct.

CP

[G-KEST]

I understand that the previous Spitfire flypast was granted in 2003 but over an area East of Bedworth and clear of congested areas. Writing to an MP will only get a reply from the CAA to the effect that they are only complying with the law.

I think this thread has run its course.

Hope the poppy drop goes off well and the weather is kind.

Cheers,

Trapper 69

:D

[Tartan Giant]

Having taken account of the Law which is apparently written in Tablets of Stone, and Gold Plated.

All civil registered Spitfires operate on the basis of a permit to fly and not a CofA.

No permit aircraft is permitted to overfly any congested area.

can none of us here direct the organisers (who need help) to a Group who run a Spitfire that lies outside the CAA's grasp of the PtF class? They will pay the going rate.

The organisers have said Spitfires have done this fly-past in previous years, and this is the first time it's been refused.

I know we have been saying there's more to this than meets the eye, but surely we cannot just throw in the towel?

Don't give up....... please.

TG

[Tartan Giant]

MJ
Looks like it's outside of the published BBMF Display Dates/Operational Programme.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/displaydates.html

We shall see though.

TG

[G-KEST]

I looked at the BBMF fleet today in their hangar at Coningsby and all their aircraft, apart from the Chipmunk and possibly the Dakota plus one Spitfire XIX, are in pieces for winter maintenance.
There are no civil registered Spitfires in the UK flying on a CofA as opposed to a PtoF.

With respect, this thread is flogging a dead horse. There are far more important matters such as the revised CAA charging scheme which has just been published and which still includes swingeing cost increases impacting on GA plus the Parliamentary Transport Select Committee inquiry into the CAA where submissions must be in by 14 November.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Sir George Cayley]

How many single engined warbirds went to London City on a Saturday recently?

Were any of those on a permit?

Did the Bedworth organisers ask said CAA for advise on how to propose an application first or did they just fire one orf?

Will Epping Forrest be saved?



Sir George Cayley

[CamelPilot]

I have received the following from the organisers at Bedworth.

Thank you for your support Re Spitfire refusal to fly at Bedworth Armistice Day.

I have been in touch with our chairman Mr Gil Leach and he as given me the following. All the spitfires flying were built by Supermarine, and as that factory does not exist any more, they are on a permit to fly category and by law are not allowed to fly over built up area's, to do so you need permission to fly from the CAA which they will not grant.

Hoping you can get pprune to help.
Cheers,
Alf Perry.
P.S. Gil Leach telephone No 02476 311821

Not telling us something we don't already know of course, but why have the CAA given the exemption before? Why are they baulking at the request now?

I received a further note from Bedworth which states that in the past they "have had both a Spitfire and a Messerschmit do a flypast."

[proplover]

I have experiance of both applying for CAA exemptions and being in the back of a Spit, in general the CAA have always been helpfull re display lines, heights, speeds etc. If they are not happy with something I have allways had a phone call and usually possible alternatives are discussed - I too believe that there must of been some immovable object regarding this application.
Spits do glide, not very well however the drag of say a stopped 4 blade prop has to be felt to understand why the CAA are VERY cautious over the "land clear" of congested areas with such aircraft. Even aircraft based and maintained at Duxford have problems and remember Duxford do not maintain Merlins - they can go clunk at any time - have had experiance of that - it is not a nice feeling watching your friend deal with such a problem. Imagine the headlines at Nuneaton - "65 year old plane in death plunge - just misses school and women pushing pram". Never say it can't happen.
re the BBMF over London, I have a vague memory of one pilot telling me that they were told at the 1st sign of any "problems" they were to ditch in the Thames as its the ONLY place to go, effectivily a death sentrance to the pilot, on no account try to put down in a park, road etc, the belief being that the £costs for death\damage and resulting publicity would be horrendus. Dont forget even the BBMF planes come down, not often but it would only take the one.

No more guess work, but it would be intresting to see what was applied for and what the ultimate reason for refusal was.

[FJJP]

Many of you will not be aware that at least one of the CAA officials responsible for vintage aircraft and pilot authorisations is himself a frequent flier of old jets and pistons. His knowledge of the classic ac world, including all the failure implications, ensures that all flying is conducted with public safety at the forefront of any considerations.

Although disappointed, I am content that this was a right and sound decision. Letting fly at the media and local MP is a complete waste of time and is based on a platform of ignorance of the implications of failures that could lead to death or injury of innocent people on the ground.

[Bus429]

I think Cs of A only relate to aircraft certificated to an original civilian spec and therefore having a Type Certificate (and are therefore supported by the manufacturer or current holder of the Type Certificate). This would prevent the Spit from operating under a C of A but aircraft such as the C-45, which originated as a Beech D18S, would qualify for a C of A in at least Private Category. Same applies, I believe, to the Tiger Moth (for example).

[Heliport]

FJJP

"I am content that this was a right and sound decision."

Good for you. :ok:

Just out of interest, can you tell us the basis of the 'right and sound decision'?
Or is your contentment based simply on a hunch?

[proplover]

FJJP is on the right track. If the CAA turned the application down there is a good reason for it, as I said earlier the CAA are usually very helpful.
We can speculate as much as we like, unless you know what was put on the application maps and what the request was regarding the flying you cannot make a valid judgement which is what the CAA have done.
We've had requests to fly down high streets, up rivers, under bridges so on and so on. These we have filtered out before even sending off to the CAA however a civilian appying directly to the CAA might not be aware of the restrictions that pilots have to fly\display under.

This leads to an intresting point, did the aircraft operator apply for the permission or was it the civilian organiser?

[Heliport]

Looks like everyone here is in the same boat.

No-one has seen the application and no-one has seen the reason given by the CAA for the refusal, so no-one is in a position to judge whether the reason is good/bad, valid/silly.
Some speculate one way and some speculate the other.

Without speculation, PPRuNe would have half as many threads and threads would be half as long. ;)

[Flying Lawyer]

Chuffer
Yes, I do have some opinions …..

Mr Leach didn’t sound “like a spoilt child” to me. Going to the Press is unlikely to achieve anything, but I can understand why the organisers tried that route.

Teddy-throwing exercise? Hmmm ….. ”Can't be bothered to write anymore in reply to those who clearly don't know the Rules of the Air, or Permit to Fly conditions!” Some might think that sounds ever so slightly like teddy-throwing.

”Permit to Fly (Spitfire) = No flight over congested areas, at all, at any height......” – Incorrect, as already pointed out.

” The CAA are only doing what the law says” – The law allows exceptions to the general rule.

”I actually think that the whole 'permit over congested area' thing is pants, but it's the law at the moment.” – Just as it's the law that a Permit a/c can fly with 4 POB max, even if it's a 5-seater. (The logic of that restriction has always eluded me.)

BTW, the CAA decides what the law should be. The ANO, Rules of the Air Regulations and all other aviation Regs are written by the CAA and then formally made law by Parliament without any debate/consideration of whether they are necessary or reasonable.

I think aviation in the UK is over-regulated but, from a self-interest perspective, it helps pay for my flying so I suppose I shouldn't complain.

Given that we don't knows all the facts, I find it odd that some on one side of the discussion criticise those on the other for making assumptions whilst doing just that themselves.

I have no opinion upon whether the refusal was reasonable or unreasonable. I haven’t seen the application or the refusal letter and I don’t know the Bedworth area.


Proplover"requests to fly ... up rivers, under bridges so on and so on ....... "

Good heavens. :eek:

We can't have that sort of thing.
It's far too dangerous!






















http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/PieceofCake.jpg
The Master in action

Circa 16-17 years ago - flown at about 200 kts if I remember correctly.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It might of-course be reasonably argued that flying under a bridge like that only really endangers the pilot and aircraft and nobody else.

Mind you, I've always wanted to fly under a bridge, how would one ever get permission do you think? Or should one try what Okay, we all know who it was, but nobody will say so did a few years ago and just turn up with your registration letters removed and fly under all the London Bridges at dawn with nobody but most of fleet street's photographic corps knowing anything about it.

G

[treadigraph]

It might of-course be reasonably argued that flying under a bridge like that only really endangers the pilot and aircraft and nobody else.

Unless of course one hits the bridge ;)

There was a case in the War of a P-40 clipping an arched bridge over the A33 (?) near Winchester during a misjudged fly-through - fortunately although he lost a portion of wingtip, he survived to take a rocket from his CO. Dunno how the bridge fared though!

About twenty years ago - stop me if I've told you this before - we were leaving the Ashton Court Balloon Fiesta after the early morning mass-departure, and decided to walk across the Clifton Suspension Bridge.

One of the balloons drifted down the Avon gorge, under the bridge and then used the burner to climb above the bridge level where the (light) wind happened to be going in the opposite direction.

So he flew back over the Bridge, dropped back down into the downstream airflow and drifted underneath again... As far as I can recall he did this several times.

[Genghis the Engineer]

My feeling is that if you pit a couple of tonnes of aluminium sheet held together with rivets agaist a couple of hundred tonnes of stone held together with portland cement, whilst the bridge may show a few scars, ultimately it's probably going to win.

G

[Flying Lawyer]

Genghis

It might also be reasonably argued (and I would) that "flying under a bridge like that" doesn't necessarily endanger either pilot or aircraft. It depends upon various circumstances - including who's flying.
'Like that' in the instance in the picture = proper planning (CAA approved) + the great Ray Hanna flying.

I'm not 100% sure after so many years, but I'm almost certain the road bridge was closed during the flight as a precaution. G-KEST might remember - he worked for the CAA at the time and issued the dispensation.

The possibility of a pilot having a heart attack (for example) at a critical moment obviously can't be excluded but, if the powers that be got too hung up about that, we wouldn't be allowed to fly solo. ;)

[montys ex teaboy]

Gone bonkers?? No, no no.

The 3 most important words in the public service. C. T. A, (cover-thy-a**e)

[proplover]

Actually Flying Lawyer some of the requests bl**dy well are dangerous.
I dont think your example of a 1 off film event which took weeks of planning, prior visits etc etc (which they got paid for) is compareable with someone asking you to fly under a bridge in the middle of a town as part of a "display". You may think its all very exiting - we didnt, furthermore we didnt think the CAA would either.
Another example was for us to carry out an attack on a mock battlefield, not to bad execpt the "battlefield" was a field in the middle of a large industrial area and they wanted us to fly in below the height of the buildings so we could "pop" up into view exiting over a large housing estate. How dangerous do you classify that one as then? (No, didnt do that one either).
At the end of the day most town & county show organisers have no idea what is possible for pilots to be able to do (both physically and legally). We just politely ask them is there some other way of doing the display, if not we decline.
I still take the view that there was something in the request that was not acceptable but unless a copy of the documents is released then we will be guessing for a long time.

[Flying Lawyer]

proplover

”Actually Flying Lawyer some of the requests bl**dy well are dangerous.”
Thank you for telling me, but I do have a little experience of the nature of some requests and the practicalities (or otherwise) from the years when I was actively involved in the warbird world.

I didn’t suggest anything was comparable but, if you can’t see why I found posting that picture irresistible in light of your comment about rivers and bridges, then I don’t think I’d be able to explain it to you because we obviously don't have the same sense of humour.

”You may think its all very exiting.”
Oh, I do - very exciting indeed. Not necessarily feasible of course, but very exciting nonetheless.
And I suspect I’m not the only pilot to whom the idea of flying under a bridge appeals – it has to me ever since I learned to fly Chipmunks over 30 years ago – and I suspect many (I include myself) have more than a sneaking admiration for Major Christopher Draper DFC who was prosecuted in 1930 for flying under a number of London bridges.
That doesn't mean I'd do it or encourage anyone else to do so, nor does it mean I think the CAA would or should grant all applications regardless of pilot and circumstances.
But exciting? Certainly. Just between us two, over the years I've flown the most amazingly exciting sorties, as skilled as anything you've ever seen by the best pilots around. Then the alarm goes and I have to get up and go to court.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It might also be reasonably argued (and I would) that "flying under a bridge like that" doesn't necessarily endanger either pilot or aircraft. It depends upon various circumstances - including who's flying.
'Like that' in the instance in the picture = proper planning (CAA approved) + the great Ray Hanna flying.

I'm not 100% sure after so many years, but I'm almost certain the road bridge was closed during the flight as a precaution. G-KEST might remember - he worked for the CAA at the time and issued the dispensation.

The possibility of a pilot having a heart attack (for example) at a critical moment obviously can't be excluded but, if the powers that be got too hung up about that, we wouldn't be allowed to fly solo
Sorry, not been looking at the thread recently.

Without a doubt, getting in and doing a carefully conducted ground run endangers the aircraft and pilot. To some extent.

Equally taking an aeroplane up for a few circuits on a perfect flying day will also do so.

Basically anything you do endangers the pilot and passenger, to some extent. And I'd defend the right of that pilot to endanger his own life, and that of an aircraft he owns (or at-least is duly authorised to fly) to to any extent he or she is trained and experienced enough to make a rational judgement about.

The issue surely should only ever in such cases be one of (having established that the pilot is capable of making sufficiently informed decisions about their own actions and safety) judging, quantifying and accepting the level of third party risk. Broadly speaking, that sounds like the approach taken by G-KEST in authorising the "piece of cake" underflight, and rightly so in my opinion.

G

[Flying Lawyer]

Genghis

I didn't appreciate your proposition was that all flying carries some degree of danger to pilot and aircraft. I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed with that. I don't doubt the same applies to ground runs and, for that matter, driving to the airfield. However, you referred specifically to "flying under a bridge like that" so I responded, I hope not unreasonably, to flying under a bridge like that.

I don't think anyone has suggested G-KEST's approach to the bridge application was anything other than entirely reasonable and correct. :confused:
Just in case I've missed something, I can confirm that it was. I was active with the OFMC in those days and involved in the application from the operator's side.