Swooping RAF Pilot Fined

[PPRuNe Radar]

RAF pilot fined over Open swoop (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7349623.stm)

Seems it's not just civvy pilots who get fined for indiscretions !!

[wg13_dummy]

If youre going to bust your minimas, why not do it in style, live on telly whilst an international event is taking place. :D

[Tigs2]

:D:D:D

Good drills, do it in style. I can only imagine what was going through his mind as he realised what he had done. Does anybody know what height he ent down to?? Incidentally if you are fined (in this case £1500) where does the money go??

[BentStick]

Would anyone have noticed if he had done it at Vbg? :E

[Rigger1]

How high do pro golfers hit their balls?

[scottc]

The money should go behind the squadron bar :)

[Navy_Adversary]

I doubt if he got a cup of tea at Colchester, never mind a Chocolate Digestive.
I hope he's not flying a desk for too long.

[Rotate]

The most alarming thing to come out of this for his oppo's is the mention that they used the GPS trace to try and hang him out to dry (according to the reporter present!!!!:ugh:)!

Now, correct me if I am wrong, I am sure there are more qualified people out there on this than me, but the GPS on a Tutor in DGPS mode is not always THAT accurate in height mode!

His counterparts regularly teach/instruct LOW FLYING to students based on a VISUALLY judged 500' MSD. If everyone is now subject to action based on the GPS readout my concern is that people will now switch the damn thing off!!:=

Please tell me I am not being mad when I say how can you prosectue someone with evidence based on an aid that cannot even be used for approaches due to the technical limitations inherent with the software and accuracy!? (The GPS is not certified!)

By the way I have imposed a no fly zone round my house, but I haven't told anybody because ignorance is no excuse! You should all know! Naturally!!! :ugh:

[Tigger_Too]

How high do pro golfers hit their balls?

About 2ft 10ins, same as the rest of us

[XV277]

The most alarming thing to come out of this for his oppo's is the mention that they used the GPS trace to try and hang him out to dry (according to the reporter present!!!!:ugh:)!


Much worse than that:

A satellite was tracking and photographing Rodriguez's aircraft at the time and images of the incident were shown to the court.


Big Brother IS watching you...............:ok:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/04/16/raf-pilot-fined-1500-for-buzzing-open-86908-20384339/

[goldcup]

From The Scotsman:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/RAF-pilot-who-39buzzed39-Open.3985042.jp

"The court martial heard Rodriguez had flown more than 1,600 hours in the aircraft, often on dangerous missions over Iraq."

Now that IS dangerous!!

[tonker]

Not an afterburning Grob GTI Mk69 from Miramar!!!!

eeeeooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

ps being a golf tournament he should have done us a favour and flattened the place. Pringle everywhere.

[TwoDeadDogs]

Let me see if I can understand this. A guy is stupid enough to risk his job/self/aircraft/other persons (tick as appropriate) over a large public gathering, on an unauthorised "display" and the prevailing "wisdom" on this thread is that he should be allowed to get off with it??!! What rule did he not break? Is his position as an RAF pilot deemed enough not to have him prosecuted/charged for what Ppruners would eat him alive for if he was a civvie pilot....I served in the Military and what I remember from the pilots was their overriding self-belief that they were much, much better than civvie pilots and that the "normal" rules didn't apply to them.
Double standards, lads. Do better next time.
regards
TDD

[sitigeltfel]

IIRC a Tremblers Jock was hauled over the coals back in the 80's for doing a low pass over Dundee / Broughty Ferry in his F4 so that the nav could get some pics of his house. The shots and lens info were sent to JARIC, who were able to calculate the height being flown.

[petoprobe]

Rodders you are a very naughty boy. Next time use 5 iron. Remember runways not fairways

[Dan D'air]

It's not all bad. At least he didn't shoot down a Jaguar.

[sitigeltfel]

Remember runways not fairways
I always thought that the Par 5, 16th Fairway on the Buddon course at Carnoustie would make an excellent forced landing strip. Maybe that was what was in his mind! :}

[stercus-accidit]

TwoDeadDogs:

Let me see if I can understand this. A guy is stupid enough to risk his job/self/aircraft/other persons (tick as appropriate) over a large public gathering, on an unauthorised "display" and the prevailing "wisdom" on this thread is that he should be allowed to get off with it??!! What rule did he not break? Is his position as an RAF pilot deemed enough not to have him prosecuted/charged for what Ppruners would eat him alive for if he was a civvie pilot....I served in the Military and what I remember from the pilots was their overriding self-belief that they were much, much better than civvies pilots and that the "normal" rules didn't apply to them.
Double standards, lads. Do better next time.
regards

...what I remember from the pilots was their overriding self-belief that they were much, much better than civvies pilots and that the "normal" rules didn't apply to them.

Unfortunately this attitude is commonplace at one civilian establishment I can think of, 5 feet over the sea, etc.

Military pilots are 'selected' unlike most civilian pilots.

Anyway engineers have 'double standards', far worse than any a pilot has exhibited in my experience.

I doubt there was any real risk to job/self/aircraft/other persons.

[Prop-Ed]

I thought NOTAMs were only advisory for aircrew?......No wait, that’s road signs.

Nice work Rodders!

[Uncle Ginsters]

Good drills, do it in style

If only it was done in 'style' and not plain ignorance
:D

[Bob Viking]

1 large pot of sticky tar - £50
1 very large brush - £25
Ability to alienate yourself to an entire fraternity with one massive, sweeping (and might I add, bollocks!), completely unfounded generalisation - Priceless!!

Tool!

BV:=

[Monty77]

Two Dead Dogs

If you had served in the 'Military' (Irish by the look of it, therefore not proper mil) you would know that all rules are merely advisory for British Officers, be they speed limits in the USA or a Post Office queue in Bombay.

"Stand back! British Officer coming through!" is my loud and happily bellowed refrain, be it the Tescos checkout queue or a crowded pub bar.

;)

[flighthappens]

talking about doing it in style...

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/1 ... index.html (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/15849294/index.html)

[Lurking123]

Note to self: "Must switch off GPS next time":eek:

[2close]

Lower than 1,000', hey.

How much lower? 950'? Seems a bit harsh if that was the case.

And what's all this about a 500' rule?????? :confused: The open flat 'expanses' of Oxfordshire and surrounding counties are great for teaching PFLs, right down to cow level. How else are you going to convince students that they actually can get into that field and that it is bigger than than they realise until you get right down to the tops of the hedgerows (last second intrusions by power lines permitting!!).

As for officers being greater than civvies, I couldn't agree more so long as you remember you've got your SNCOs to help you along! ;) :ok:

[Spacer]

It would have been hard to miss this "avoid".... even ATC reminded you about it, never mind what was in the FOB/hot poop.

[AdmiralPiett]

I am really enjoying this thread.

Cheered up my Wednesday no end!

Thank you to all contributors, especially you 'Two Dead Dogs'.

Priceless.

[Monty77]

Everyone knows that in the wake of a wild-eyed loony shouting, 'British officer coming through!' there is a smart, lean, worldly-wise individual called a SNCO.

Only made in the British Isles, they are quietly and efficiently responsible for smoothing over diplomatic gaffes and ensuring the fixing of furniture broken by aforementioned wild-eyed loony.

I should bloody well know. They looked after me for 18 years. Without them, I would have been incapable of putting my flying suit on the right way round. Let alone find the entrance to the helicopter I was supposed to fly.

"This looks a little dicey Sergeant. The number 5 iron please."

"I think the GPMG is better suited to this situation sir."

"Righty ho. You carry on. I haven't done the course, dontcha know."

"Er, yes sir"

Gentlemen, I thank and salute you.

[c130jbloke]

Fantastic thread !!!!

Good work Rodders, at least you gave the thought police something to do.

:ok::ok::ok:

Tried the British officer routine once in San Diego, got lots of strange looks - did not get to the front of the line to order more drinks though :{:{:{

[Monty77]

Some parts of the world don't have sufficient language skills to understand that a British officer is needing to conduct Empire business.

The answer is to say it again louder. Unless you're in Burma where a theatrical stage wink followed by a tiger impression will suffice.

Sadly, in some parts of the world (USA does in fact spring to mind), the locals will actually be obstructive upon discovering you are B.O.

No other option but the Riot Act.

"Disperse now, or we will open fire!"

This will invariably prompt the aforementioned SNCO into action to head off another major diplomatic incident.

[peterperfect]

eagerly waiting for the tabloid headlines involving words selected at random from the list:

bogey or bogie (a contact on the nose sir !)
birdie
eagle
and albert ross

pp

[Monty77]

As in, " I don't give an Albert Ross"?

[knowitall]

"the prevailing "wisdom" on this thread is that he should be allowed to get off with it??!! "


by who?

are you reading the same thread as me?

all i've seen in one comment on the accuracy of GPS

would you like some polish for that chip on your shoulder?

"Disperse now, or we will open fire!"

probably not the smartest thing to say in the U.S. given the amount of firepower carried by the average member of the population!

[Aeronut]

"smart, lean, worldly-wise individual called a SNCO. "


smart?.... yes, sometimes,.......worldy-wise?......always....lean?..............................

kABOOoooOOM!!!!

..........SIZE OF A CHIEF TECH!!!:eek:

[3 bladed beast]

Personally I think Rodders should be shot for he has committed one of the worst crimes this country has ever seen. All of us commenting will definately never have done something a bit silly when flying. For we are all angels and perfect in every way.

Infact, I see Rodders has recieved more of a punishment than one of Englands' finest fellows, who killed a child whilst driving without insurance or licence, and who didn't stop even after running the boy down.

But after all, we are quite easy to prosecute in the RAF and our hierachy does not look after us in any way. We are so quick to condemn a man for flying at 500'.

Did anyone die?

[Monty77]

I'm talking SH.

OK. There were a few bloaters.

I refer to the archetypal SNCO.

Without blowing sunshine out of their pants.

They are the men who look after junior officers who have to lead men older than them into situations that will involve danger to all concerned.

They do this because despite the fact that they have more experience than the junior officer, they appreciate the fact that the baby-face in front of them has gone through a certain selection phase. This selection phase is supposed to ensure that said sergeant and his subordinates will not die as a result of baby-face being an arse.

The purpose of the military is to kill and destroy. This is what the military do. And only when a democratically elected government say so.

Unless you live elsewhere.

If you do not, God bless.

[High_lander]

That Fenway flyover looked incredible.



Shame the guy was reamed out.


Wouldn't mine seeing that over a British stadium; at night; with 'burners.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Whilst I am loving the comedic aspect of this thread, I feel there are more pressing issues at its heart:

- OK, so Rodders was inexperienced on type, but exactly how much training is given on the various aspects of the ANO at CFS?
In fact, I'm led to believe that Tutor units are no longer even mandated to hold the ANO, the very document that Rodders was in contradiction to during this incident.

We are getting more and more PFIs - Tutor, Firefly, King Air and even soon (allegedly!) FSTA, but the training is still delivered by the old and bold who have never worked under or lived by such rules.

Perhaps this case shows that if we are as professional as is claimed on this thread, then it may be time to wake up and smell the roses...the CAA have a duty of care too, you know!

Pin pulled, running bravely away,

Uncle G:ugh:

[Zoom]

Apparently many moons ago a Canberra crew decided to have a look at a mate who was skiing at Kitzbuhel. They really enjoyed flying up the piste a couple of times at an impressively low level. Unfortunately the mate was taking part in the RAF Skiing Championships and the top brass were out in force and saw the whole (flying) show. Can't remember what happened to the crew......

[Donna K Babbs]

His really crime was not having the sense to snag the altimeter when he landed back at Cranwell! :}

[XV277]

His really crime was not having the sense to snag the altimeter when he landed back at Cranwell! :}

Long way to go from Leuchars......

[Roguedent]

A rule was broken and in that there is no doubt. The civilian punishment is similar...but as was quoted in the Daily Mail the RAF punishment seemed harsh. The can of worms it will and has opened is the overriding factor. For all the uninformed types the main points of the Defence and Prosecution are below (Attempting to clarify). In the end a rule was overlooked and for that, as professional aviators, there is no excuse.

1. No NOTAM (Avoid) at the Golf:D
2. Local Avoid (Stn Cdr) not passed to Tutor Ops:=
3. Flown at 500ft - Visually Judged :rolleyes:
4. Below 1000ft and over an organised gathering of more than 1000 people.
(these points were all made public) :\

TWODEADDOGS - If you only post to criticise with uninformed information and unsound conclusions, then please restrict yourself to Bebo or Facestalk, as that is all they are fit for.:mad:

Enjoy the rest of the thread...

[TwoDeadDogs]

Hello all
Roguedent et al, I admit to not being fully aware of absolutely all the facts concerning this event but having spent a decade in our little Air Corps (monty, we are as "proper" as we need to be.Besides, we export our men to fill the gaps in your ranks that your young men won't fill) seeing pilots per-petuate the same kind of stunt over and over again and occasionally having to go and pick up the pieces(twice...not pleasant), it gets a bit weary to read about it in the newpapers and to find his peers implicity supporting him (which, in fairness, is right,too), no matter how wrong he was.
regards
TDD

[Bob Viking]

Stupid...Yes!
However, let's please not pretend this was a capital offence for Christ's sake!
Please don't confuse high speed, fast-jet flypasts with a guy taking a cheeky look at the Open!
I'm not saying I think he should get away with it, but let's stop the holier than thou cr@p, shall we?!
BV:8

[Roguedent]

Ginsters - Pre-empted and briefed on the ground...yes...:ok:rule over-looked....yes...:(all other rules in the air followed....yes:ok:. The accident was not following the rule that was buried in mounds of JSP and the ANO:ugh:. Again, as I said, for this rule breach there is no defence:uhoh:, as we should know about all the rules.

Two dogs.....If you're weary of reading it, as you say, perhaps you should stop reading.:} If the incident in question was an impromptue aeros display then I would agree:ok:....but if you ask around...it wasn't!!:ugh:

[Bob Viking]

"Ironically, a high-speed fast jet fly-by would have been more legal, as fast jets aren't required to abide by the ANO."

It would have looked a damn sight cooler as well!
BV
:}

[Roguedent]

Uncle - We could argue about where the rules are all day. The ANO wasn't massivly emphasised at CFS (TGO(e)s are!...it is now:ok:. Rule 5 was reproduced in the TGO(e)s, but wasn't complete...it is now:ok:. The FAST Jet would have been in as much trouble, as JSP550 states that over congested areas or public gatherings you must be above 1000 feet(JSP550 330.110.5):\. So if you had done this in a military Jet as you said in your post you also would be facing court marshall!!!!! Your point about lacking in airmanship and legality is very broad, again you are only looking at this from your blinkered perspective and have formed your opinions from the info on here and in the media. As was said before, a rule was overlooked and broken. The individual has been punished, but to say he has made us all look like idiots is unfounded and ignorant on your part. If you start throwing rules into the game, then quote them correctly.:mad::mad:

p.s The Auth - Again more to argue about. How many times have pilots missed things from Auth sheets and been reminded the day after?? How many Pilots have been court marshalled for Auth sheet mistakes...I think (and know) none. How many pilots and authorisers have been done for deceit on the auth sheets..lots. This incident was attempted in the confines of the rules....just a rule was over looked.:( and the individual has been correctly punished. Please climb down off the slandering and look at this for what it is!:ugh:

[T-21]

Did the RAF win the Battle of Britain ?? The new one is just beginning !!

[BEagle]

When I attended the Flying Supervisor's Course, I had just passed my ATPL Air Law exam, part of the (then) requirement to gain a BCPL/FI Rating.

I asked the lecturer about the interface between the ANO and JSP318 regarding Rules of the Air (e.g. Rule 5, 'low flying') because I'd learned that it was lawful for the Rules of the Air not to be observed if 'complying with Military Flying Regulations (Joint Service Publication 318) or Flying Orders to Contractors (Aviation Publication 67) issued by the Secretary of State in relation to an aircraft on which the commander is acting as such in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces.'

In other words, you have to obey the ANO except where JSP318 specifically permits non-compliance.

The lecturer hadn't a clue what I was talking about - and suggested that the ANO "doesn't apply to military aircraft"....:rolleyes:

[Training Risky]

Rodders......you didn't mention this little nugget of info on the Ski Champs did you?!? You naughty naughty boy!!:E

But what can you expect from a ex-McDonalds Manager! (Just joshing chap!;))

[cazatou]

TwoDeadDogs

I posted this some years ago - but in view of your assertions I'l do it again.

Flying my RAF VIP aircraft into Casement Airfield - Dublin Centre said :

"Ascot xxxx call Irish Military on 120.0 - GOOD LUCK".

You weren't the Reservist who told us we were all legitimate targets - were you?

[Flying Lawyer]

Does anyone know the actual charge to which the pilot pleaded Guilty?

As a civvy, I resist the temptation to express my view upon this incident being dealt with by Court Martial rather than locally. However, what I am able to say is that the punishment was far in excess of that which civilian courts generally impose for overflying large public gatherings in breach of Rule 5.

Magistrates Court:
Fine about £800.
No action re pilot's licence.
The Court has no power to do so. The CAA has, but is highly unlikely to do so in circumstances such as these, and does not in my experience.

The Court Martial:
Fine £1500.
+ (if what I've read in various press reports is correct)
Grounded for 2 months
Ordered to undergo retraining/requalifying as a QFI.
Was the grounding pending Court Martial?
I ask because a civvy court would take into account when sentencing that the pilot had already been penalised while awaiting the hearing and/or would be further penalised (in addition to the punishment imposed by the court) after the court appearance.

I wonder if the pilot's lawyer referred the Court Martial to punishments imposed by civvy courts in such circumstances?
Additional factors might apply in the case of Mil pilots, but typical civvy penalties would at least be worthy of consideration.
There are links to recent CAA prosecutions and penalties in these threads:

R&N (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=322658)
Private Flying forum (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=322772)They relate to 2007-08, but information from previous years is also available.
If, as some press reports suggest, the pilot intends to appeal against the severity of the punishment, it would at least be worth looking at the civvy penalties.


TwoDeadDogsA guy is stupid enough to risk his job/self/aircraft/other persons (tick as appropriate) over a large public gathering, on an unauthorised "display" (Other than the risk to his job), what do you say was the risk to himself or to the aircraft or to other persons? :confused:
Are you suggesting what he did was dangerous?:confused:
Given that someone in the RAF saw fit to build this relatively trivial incident into a Court Martial, it seems highly likely the pilot would have been charged with endangering offences if there was a shred of evidence what he did was dangerous. I've read nothing, even in the more silly of the various press reports, to make me think it was.

"I served in the Military"
Can I safely assume it wasn't as a pilot? ;)


FL

[MightyGem]

Nice to see that the Low Flying Complaints Cell has up to date kit:


Unknown to him, a spy satellite was tracking his flight and recorded every movement, the court martial in Colchester, Essex, was told. A set of pictures taken by the satellite was handed to the panel.

Courtesy of the Daily Mail.

[Head to Earth]

NOTAM or not, as he approached the site to 'have a look' he knew he was being just a little bit naughty but let's be clear - this was no sort of 'unauthorised display' that 2DD is waffling about. We've all 'had a look' at stuff as we've been flying about but this was a little misjudged, that's all. Whatever happened to a Hats On with the Staish and a month of Orderly Officers? That slaps him on the wrists, sets an example and keeps the laundry out of the papers.

Although the CAA (and many ppruners) might argue - he was hardly putting anyone at risk and has suffered far harsher consequences than many downright evil and violent offenders in this country today - and had his name and picture dragged through the press in the process! Another RAF own goal. :rolleyes:

[T-21]

Head To Earth,
Totally agree someone is making an harsh example. I have given up instructing because the minute you do something wrong the lawyers and ground waller's are waiting to have a field day. I am happier flying my Radio Controlled glider, but how long befor EU laws and officialdom ground that.
I hope the pilot will carry on flying and I am sure in time he will prove himself a worthy RAF pilot.

[Head to Earth]

Harsh example - you're not joking! Don't forget though - he already has proven himself to be a worthy RAF pilot - Ops over Iraq! Multis though... mustn't be too praiseworthy:E I can't claim to know the bloke, he didn't have it coming did he??

[3 bladed beast]

Rodders, you're an oak.

Keep that chin up mate! Although you are now a war criminal, i'll still have a beer with you!!!

Hope you didn't upset those golfing fellows too much on your reckless and pre planned flying display! Oh thats right, you were 400 feet...still, at least you've got your Rad Alt to help you judge your flight...how many loops and rolls did you do in the end??

And how many people did you actually kill in the end?

:=

[Dr Schlong]

Quick question for any legal types.

As a pilot flying a civvie ac and breaking a civvie rule, why was a court's martial necessary? As Flying Lawyer alluded to, a magistrate's court would've had more limited powers of punishment and would've taken previous punishments into account. A guilty plea had already been given, is this not a case of overkill? Also, how much does it cost to convene a court's martial - more than £1500 surely?

The whole case smacks to me of someone (Low flying complaints?) getting their teeth into this and trying to get a court martial at any cost when a hats-on in front of staish/AOC would've been more appropriate.

Sorry to go on a bit, but I'm struggling to see the service interest in bringing this case to court's martial.:confused:

[NutherA2]

but I'm struggling to see the service interest in bringing this case to court's martial.

Pour encourager les autres?:=

or should that be "pour décourager les autres":confused:

[snapper1]

I hope you will excuse a civvie intervention but I think you are missing some important points.

He broke a very basic rule for which even a newly qualified PPL, bimbling around in a Cessna, should not be excused.

The organised assembly of more than 1,000 people was an international sporting event attended by many thousands of people – no NOTAM needed – you can see that many clearly enough from a lot higher than 1,000ft.

It seems he didn’t deny being less than 1,000ft, and if he was as low as 400ft it would be very obvious to anyone in the crowd with some aviation experience.

His ‘’registration’’ number was recorded by a number of individuals at the event. Not difficult – big black letters under the left wing, and on a Tutor beginning with a ‘G’ of course.

With so many members of the public clocking him it surely wouldn’t have been a good idea to keep any resultant action within the RAF.

But most importantly, I don’t think you fully realise just how highly we regard service pilots. We know they are ‘selected’ as was pointed out earlier in this thread. We know they are head and shoulders above ordinary civilian pilots. So when an RAF instructor drops a b****ck like this in such a public manner he surely should expect to be treated more severely than a civilian pilot.

I hope he’s soon back up there passing on his wisdom to the next generation of Sky Gods, having put this indiscretion behind him.

[Tim McLelland]

Good luck to him say I. Hope that his colleagues helped to pay his fine. Nice to know there are still a few spirited aviators out there who refuse to be stifled by this country's suffocating obsession with tedious rules, health & safety and political correctness. It's forty years since Allan Pollock's brilliant Hunter flight over (through?) London and Tower Bridge. Shame it was only a Tutor that turned a few heads this time but he gets my admiration.

It won't be too long before military flights are herded into a corridor over the North Sea with a base height of 2,000 feet. Or maybe the RAF's aircraft should be kept on the ground - they'd be much less of a threat to the population there. But wait... what if one should taxy through a fence and run unchecked through the local villages? Let's just keep them in the hangars with the undercarriage removed. Bet that will still be too much for our sad and sorry country.

[FFP]

Hope that his colleagues helped to pay his fine

What a good idea. Next time I do something f***ing stupid, I'll hope my colleagues have a whip around for me. Frankly, I'd be embarassed if that was the case.

Nice to know there are still a few spirited aviators out there who refuse to be stifled by this country's suffocating obsession with tedious rules, health & safety and political correctness

Tedious rules ? Those kind of rules are there because the type of people that think it makes sense to fly over such an event at such a height are precisely the people you DON'T want flying over such events at such a height and you hope such a rule deters them! I think it's a pretty good rule actually. Don't fly low over lots of people ! Something might go wrong and then things would be bad !

Ever heard of Murphy's law ? At what point in that flight, in relation to the said law, do you think the engine would have been most likely to quit ?

Should the aircraft's engine had failed (and having done EFATO's in a Bulldog from about 400 ft, the options can be few and far between) it may well be a different story. In fact, most "tedious rules" stem from instances where accidents have happened.

Never mind the £1500 fine. How many squares on the Pigz Board is that worth ?!?!?! ;)

[Navy_Adversary]

If Rodders had done the flyover in a Vickers Funbus rather than the Tutor, I would have gladly contributed fifty quid towards the fine:D

[Squirrel 41]

Chin up Rodders! Sorry to hear about this, next beer is on me. And yes, would have been much more entertaining in a FunBus!

S41

[FFP]

Having said that, I may have chipped in had it been the mighty 10. Probably double if the hoses were jettisoned on the 18th....;)

[c130jbloke]

But most importantly, I don’t think you fully realise just how highly we regard service pilots. We know they are ‘selected’ as was pointed out earlier in this thread. We know they are head and shoulders above ordinary civilian pilots.

Whoa, we are talking about Rodders here.......:}:}:}:}

[Redcarpet]

AAAAGH. Make it stop. Has anyone on this thread never done anything,aviation related, that they have then subsequently regreted? Chin up Rodders, don't let 'em grind you down ;)

[6foottanker]

One small point that has ben missed - the length of time this has taken to run to it's conclusion...if it even has!

From what the rumour mill has been churning out, I understood Rodders was ticked off by the RAF, but then the CAA then wanted another pound of his (ample spare) flesh, hence the court martial.

Surely if you break a rule, you should get a slap on the wrist, a fine, whatever, and then get back to doing the thing that RAF pilots are the best in the world at. And what we're paid for. Not have it dragged around for many months and costing the taxpayer more dosh. As several have mentioned, no-one died, or was injured and there were no (illegal) drugs involved. Get over it!

Beer in the tap at the Lion's Den from me, next time you're down Rodders! GWF! :D

[Tonkenna]

Perhaps I am just getting old, but I don't understand the attitude that this was a jolly thing to do and lets all buy him a beer and slap him on the back next time we see him?? It was stupid and there was no good reason to do it:rolleyes:

... as for doing in in a Funbus, well, he was a co-pilot and MOST captains just would not let that happen.

Tonks :hmm:

[BEagle]

And Tonks, my sources tell me that there was more to this than a simple mistake......

TMAC, I also learn from those who know.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The organised assembly of more than 1,000 people was an international sporting event attended by many thousands of people – no NOTAM needed – you can see that many clearly enough from a lot higher than 1,000ft



Imagine a hazy but still VMC Saturday morning out of Cambridge many, many years ago. My ex African bush pilot FI tests my power failure landings North of the Field. Pick the biggest, levelest field you can see, says he, and down we go to a rather big field to the East. Vital actions taken and pretend R/T (sorry, RTF) calls made and, stable on the approach, I point out the sparkly lights in our 10 o' clockish. Its the sun reflecting off some greenhouses says he and we descend further. Very soon the sparkly lights resolve into a car park full of very shiny car windscreens in the Newmarket Racecourse car park. " I have control" says he and we lift away as quietly as possible. How many people are gathered on the deck for an un-NOTAMed event isn't always that bloody obvious! Thanks Graham H****r for a very memorable lesson.

OK, this was different as he seems to have deliberately gone for a closer deko at a sporting event. The point I would make, though, is don't assume how obvious it is how many bodies are present beneath you for a single Event.

[Flying Lawyer]

BEagle In other words, you have to obey the ANO except where JSP318 specifically permits non-compliance.
The lecturer .......... suggested that the ANO "doesn't apply to military aircraft"....:rolleyes:
Perhaps the lecturer and you were both right, up to a point. ;)
Unfortunately, straightforward answers are not a feature of the ANO, which is widely regarded by aviation lawyers as an appallingly drafted and unnecessarily complicated document.
It's become worse with additions/revisions over the years, and is one of the exceptions to the move in recent decades towards making modern legislation more easily comprehensible. In common with most aviation legislation, it's drafted in-house by the CAA, and passed through Parliament without any debate as per parliamentary rules for 'secondary legislation'.

(The underlining below is mine)

Article 152: Application of Order to the Crown and visiting forces, etc.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this article, the provisions of this Order shall apply to or in relation to aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed in the service of Her Majesty as they apply to or in relation to other aircraft.

Seems simple enough; unless specifically excluded, the ANO does apply to or in relation to aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed in the service of HM.
However, the ANO is rarely simple and finding an answer usually requires cross-referring to other Articles, sections, sub-sections, sub-sub-sections etc etc.
So what does "Subject to the provisions of this article" mean?
(2) .....
(3) .....
(4) .....
(5) Save as otherwise provided by paragraph (6), article 80(5) and (12), article 81(3), article 95(1)(a) and article 131, nothing in this Order shall apply to or in relation to any military aircraft.

Checking those cross-references, we find -
Article 80(5) and (12) (Flying Displays)
Article 81(3) (Fatigue of Crew etc)
Article 95(1)(a) (one sub-sub-section of the Rules of the Air)
(1) Without prejudice to any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of State may make regulations (in this article called the "Rules of the Air") prescribing —
(a) the manner in which aircraft may move or fly including in particular provision for requiring aircraft to give way to military aircraft;
Article 131 (Noise and vibration on aerodromes)

Now back to Article 152 -
"Any military aircraft" seems simple enough.
But, it’s not ‘any’ military aircraft because -
(6) Where a military aircraft is flown by a civilian pilot and is not commanded by a person who is acting in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces or as a member of a visiting force or international headquarters, the following provisions of this Order shall apply on the occasion of that flight, that is to say, articles 73, 74, 75 and 96 and in addition article 95 (so far as applicable) shall apply unless the aircraft is flown in compliance with Military Flying Regulations (Joint Service Publication 550) or Flying Orders to Contractors (Aviation Publication 67) issued by the Secretary of State.
And ‘military aircraft’ is defined in -
Article 155:
‘Military aircraft' means the naval, military or air force aircraft of any country and —
(a) any aircraft being constructed for the naval, military or air force of any country under a contract entered into by the Secretary of State; and
(b) any aircraft in respect of which there is in force a certificate issued by the Secretary of State that the aircraft is to be treated for the purposes of this Order as a military aircraft;

Does the above provide the full answer?
No, because it's now necessary to go back to -

Article 95: Rules of the Air
(3) It shall be lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary —
(a) .....
(b) .....
(c) for complying with Military Flying Regulations (Joint Service Publication 550) or Flying Orders to Contractors (Aviation Publication 67) issued by the Secretary of State in relation to an aircraft of which the commander is acting as such in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces.

Perhaps it's fair to say:

the ANO does not generally apply to military aircraft (ie with some exceptions)
the Rules of the Air do apply except to the extent necessary for complying with Military Flying Regulations or Flying Orders to Contractors.Apologies for the lengthy post. My aviation law days are over, and I don't often get the opportunity now. ;)
I welcome correction if I'm wrong. The above is from a very quick look at the ANO; I haven't researched the military provisions thoroughly, either now or previously.


snapper1
It's a mistake to assume people with whom you disagree "are missing some important points"; they may simply hold a different view from you. Although I share your respect for military pilots and your hope that the Grob pilot's 'indiscretion' is soon forgotten, I disagree with the main thrust of your post. Like you, I'm only a civvy and I would have been perfectly content if the matter had been dealt with by a 'Hats on' visit to the Station Commander.
I see no benefit to the RAF (or anyone else, except the press) in the publicity - and some of the ridiculous headlines - which the Court Martial inevitably generated; quite the contrary.


FL

[BEagle]

Thanks, FL!

One general point - if an acknowledged expert in the field finds the ANO an appallingly drafted and unnecessarily complicated document, what hope is there for the man in the street? Or cockpit??

The Sir Humphrey-speak 'shall not unless save as otherwise provided' language of a bygone era is of no help to anyone. I really cannot understand why it cannot be written in language as simple as, for example, the Highway Code.

(By the way - see you in a few weeks at the Dinner!)

[glad rag]

...........you mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QhwObGG57A

[snapper1]

Flying Lawyer,

It seems that I expressed myself badly.

The only point I really wanted to make was this. Service pilots are held in very high regard by the general public. If they do something like this it shouldn't be a surprise if they are dealt with more harshly than a civilian pilot would be.

[Tightflester]

Maybe they could fly past at the next Calcutta Cup match.... above 1000ft of course :rolleyes:

However (can of worms time) how would the Blue Angels et al be treated as they are not
...aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed in the service of Her Majesty....


Are they (and other foreign military aircraft) bound by the ANO, JSPs or some other legal documetation?

[buoy15]

His flight profile was not authorised as briefed and signed for - therefore he broke the rules
I'm sure he's big enough and daft enough to know what he was doing
Seems to me most of the posters defending him are those who break the speed limit and whine when they get fined - hoping their pathetic excuse " I weren't really going too fast me 'lud" - will get them off!
Service pilots might have every reason to consider themselves a cut above the rest - therefore, they must lead by example to the aviation world
I support derring do - Nelson and telescope etc - but not when you illegaly make a pratt of yourself in living colour in front of the nation - So, expect to take a hit as a deterrent to those coming behind you
Now, had he landed on his girlfriends croquet lawn - all would be forgiven:D

[airborne_artist]

The saddest thing about the entire story is he was going to look at the golf. Mark Twain was right about golf, IMHO.

[3 bladed beast]

Now, I'm sure we all agree that we love Jeremy Clarkson and all the hard work that he's done for the enviroment but also the armed forces....

Now, according to the God that he is...rodders is '' the best of the best'' and '' 400 feet is like a thousand miles''

Argument over.

Pub??

[MrBernoulli]

Oh dear Rodders! Not like in the days at the secret base in Oxfordshire, where we could keep an eye on you! :D

[atcgroupie]

As long as he remembered to transmit "Downwind, GRASS to Overshoot", I think he should be fine!!!:=

[3 bladed beast]

Bet Rodders is feeling a bit green about the fine! Putt it another way - he probably won't be doing it again and he'll have a fairway to go to beat it.

He does however, feel agrieved as the evidence given was under par...and he felt compelled to flag it up. He is philosophical about it as he is taking the rough with the smooth and he's not allowing it to drive a wedge between him and his Sqn members.

After all the blame shouldn't be pinned on him. Fore he is innocent and will go off to a club tonight called the 19th hole. Glad he's back flying now though, but heard he had a birdie strike - apparently he thinks it was an albatross, but it could have been an eagle.

Ironically enough, he does drive a golf!!

P.s as a punishment Rodders, surely it would have been better to send you to the sand.....at least there's bunkers out there!!!!

:eek:

[buoy15]

So that's that ironed out then:sad:

[Tim McLelland]

Oh well, heaven forbid anyone broke the rules. Let's have some more rules, whoopee!

I just don't understand how some people can get so upset about a bit of fun. It's pointless pondering what could have happened; if that was a credible way of looking at things, we might as well keep all of the RAF's aircraft in their hangars. The whole saga just sounds typical of our modern society, where people will obsess about rules and regulations, and whine about health and safety issues until you begin to wonder whether it's worth getting out of bed!;)

Ahh for those happy days when the Red Arrows Gnats would cut the grass. That reminds me - I see that the RAFAT has been given permission to do their run-in from behind the crowd again. Gasps of horror! Doubtless they'll be restricted to a minimum height of about 2,000 feet?!

[Airbrake]

If a civvy PPL had done it the tone of this thread would be somewhat different.

He should be fined for being stupid rather than the actual flying itself.

[glad rag]

FFS!

Rodders (? stupid name) thank you for some "elan", don't let the bastards drag you down, who ever you are..............:confused:

[buoy15]

Tim
Oh well, heaven forbid you should encourage
Are you suggesting having signed for GASO's, briefing and authorisation, the flying pilot annotates the remarks column " intend to have a bit of fun as well"
This is Bud Holland mentality
I dislike Health & Safety, and all the other crap that has crept in to destroy the ethos and fun of flying - however, if you observe the rules that have evolved since first flight and have been amended after every accident since - there is no reason not to enjoy safe flying
If a pilot decides to have a spur of the moment - 'girl racer brain fart and speed through the local high street to impress the locals' - then he should get pinged and have his wheels taken away until he sits another test:8

You never have enough fuel, except when your on fire!

[12 twists per inch]

Rodders,

legend (for the wrong reasons on the Funbus, remember Asi with the OC?) The RAF needs characters ...... or is it scapegoats! You knew the rules dude - fly safe!

[Dr Schlong]

12 twists - re the Asi story, I think you may have confused one legendary Funbus pilot with another beginning with 'B' but also ending in 'ers' or should that be 'errrrrs!'