Once is stupid, twice is irresponsible.

[Cornish Jack]

At lunch today, (house on the beach in Norfolk) and, for the second time in a fortnight, a low wing single flew past BELOW bedroom height.
If the mental retard who was in the pilot's seat in this aircraft reads this - you are neither clever nor accomplished and you are placing yourself (utterly unimportant) and others in danger. When you eventually kill yourself (and you will!) one can but hope that you don't take some other(s) with you.
If you ever unscramble your limited intellect and see your actions for what they are - self-indulgent childishness - perhaps you would consider joining the flying community and becoming professional, in behaviour if not in employment. PRAT:mad::mad:

[gyrotyro]

Yes, but at what DISTANCE from your house.

Just the facts maam, just the facts. ( Joe Friday, Dragnet)

[Human Factor]

If he was 501ft away (note away not above), in the eyes of the law he isn't endangering anyone other than himself.

[Cornish Jack]

How far?? Too :mad::mad::mad: close, is how far.
What is with this particular form of idiocy? The military do it because they HAVE to, If, as in this case, it is private flight, it is pointless, valueless and putting people's lives at risk for no good purpose. It becomes yet another of the plethora of 'look at me' activities which characterise so many pastimes. It's not clever, requires little skill and demonstrates little forethought as to the potential consequences. It is on a par with the mindless little toerags who believe that making tyre marks on public roads is some form of accomplishment. Flying is, or should be, an activity requiring planning, training and the application of public responsibility. It's not some sort of playtime activity for those with undeveloped social skills and demonstrable immaturity.

[ECAM_Actions]

Sure he wasn't landing or taking off? AFAIK there is nothing stopping you from randomly landing/taking off on a beach.

Had a Bell 206 nearly trim the top of my tree a couple of months ago, but he was landing at the time in a field behind the house, so he wasn't breaking the law (the top of the tree is about 50-60 ft AGL).

ECAM Actions.

[Cornish Jack]

The nearest airfield is 5 miles away. If he was going to land on this beach, or for many miles North or South he would have been flying something even more STOL than a Single Pioneer!! ... the groynes are about 100 yds apart!!
I say again PRAT!!
If you feel that I am being overly condemnatory, I would suggest that you try picking up the blood soaked personal effects of your predecessor-in-post who died as a result of just such stupidity... it might just add value to your viewpoint.:ugh:

[englishal]

The military do it because they HAVE to, If, as in this case, it is private flight, it is pointless, valueless and putting people's lives at risk for no good purpose.
How do YOU know what he was up to? How do you know he wasn't part of Skywatch and been tasked by the coastguard as a SAR asset and had been asked to look for something in particular? How do you know he hadn't received training in low flying? Just curious....Because you know someone who was stupid, doesn't mean everyone is.....

[Crash one]

The fact that he did it twice without killing himself would indicate he knows what he is doing, & you still haven't said how far away he was.

[WaspJunior]

Totally irresponsible, houses should not be built on beaches in Norfolk or anywhere else for that matter!
I've been 'dive bombed' by Cherokees on Holkham beach, seen bi-planes fly up the Glaven valley below the trees. Good luck to them all. Just because a pilot might not be military or ex. does not necessarily mean his capabilities are diminished in any way.
Long may Norfolk remain the last free flying zone in the country where people don't report enjoyment at every opportunity in this pathetically over regulated nanny state.

[Zulu Alpha]

How far?? Too close, is how far.

Well if it was more than 500ft then it's his business not yours as he would have been perfectly legal.

ZA

[Applecore]

Was he over 500m away from you?

Maybe he was practicing a forced landing on a beach?

[vee-tail-1]

Well there are some low flying incidents that are insane beyond dispute.
Last summer I was 500 yards off a Pembrokeshire beach in a canoe, when a microlight appeared and flew so low over me that it left a wake in the sea. It then turned inland and flew low over the mass of people and kids on the beach. Then followed the beach paralleling the surf until disappearing round the next headland. How it missed the kids kites and the flocks of seagulls was a miracle. But 5 mins later the same microlight reappeared and did the same thing, in spite of my outraged fist waving. By the time I had paddled back to the beach quite a sizable gathering of angry people had assembled. It was with some trepidation that I announced that I was a pilot and that I had made a note of the aircraft registration and would immediately contact the authorities. The guy was eventually traced to a local airfield and the ATC officer formally requested me to provide evidence to prosecute the idiot. But there but for the grace of god... So I asked if I could talk with the offending pilot first. He turned out to be a freshly qualified micro PPL, who had bought his Icarus microlight, and wanted to play with his new toy. More money than sense, perhaps, but it had never entered his head that he had put unknown numbers of peoples lives at risk. I hope I did the right thing by giving him the sort of bollo..ing that my C.O would have done to me. Sadly aeroplanes are affordable toys for some people, and they need to have their attitudes adjusted before they kill someone.

[goatface]

Not so long ago there was a notam out basically advising that the whole of the North Norfolk coast was to be regarded as an area of intense bird activity below, I think, 1000ft.
I can't find any reference to it now but I suspect that it's been incorporated into the half and quarter mill' charts.

Regardless of that, it's complete and utter madness to transit any beach at such low levels, the one's refered to especially as they are occupied by many different types of breeding and feeding birds year round.
Most of these birds don't give a toss about the ANO, and are more than capable of doing severe damage to any aircraft singularly, in pairs or flocks it signals the end if you become intimately aquainted.

Of course this isn't mandatory, but I dare say you'd have a job convincing your insurer that you'd have a valid claim if the worst happened.

[englishal]

but I dare say you'd have a job convincing your insurer that you'd have a valid claim if the worst happened.
Why?

I better remember that during every take off and every landing then...

Some people get so worked up and consider themselves the "aviation police" and just love to shop other people. I was canoeing along the coast from Lulworth Cove a year or so ago and this cub comes along pretty low. Lucky bugger I thought, must be great up there, so gave him a cheery wave...

There is stupid and then there is stupid. Stupid is trying to pull off a barrel roll over the airfield in a 172 with no training. Flying at 500' AGL is not - we all do it on every single flight. Flying at 200' is not stupid - against the law if you get close to someone I grant you, but then height is deceptive. 501' is not very high....

So with all due respect, get of your moral high horses and save all your ranting and raving for people who deserve to be ranted and raved at.....rather than someone flying along the beach at probably 500' (unless there is other proof available)...

Just MHO......

[Crash one]

Quote:
The military do it because they HAVE to, If, as in this case, it is private flight, it is pointless, valueless and putting people's lives at risk for no good purpose.


They may HAVE to but speak to any mil pilot & they love it.
Pointless, no, FUN is the point, valueless, no, experience is valuable, peoples lives at risk, are you sure they were? How many people were in his line of flight even, god forbid, within the 500ft limit?
OK so it was unusual, spectacular, different, so what?
I think we are regulated enough without doing it to each other.
When we see a mil a/c belting through a valley at low level, don't tell me you wouldn't like to be there.

[jamestkirk]

I agree that questionable flying is problematic at best.

But, as someone stated earlier, how far away was he/she?

Ans he/she may have been very experienced and fully ware of thier situation. And, obeying the law.

The point that someone made above about the new PPL microlight pilot is right. This sort of stuff is not for them. On the very odd (a bit over-confident student) occasion i took a PPL student low, about half a mile out to sea. They did not like it. I used to ask them questions about what would happen if???. Then quickly tell them not to push thier luck or ego's when they have a new brown book.

I am not defending or supporting the low level flyer in this post, but we should know the facts about the flight.

And don't be too harsh on Cornish Jack as it 'could' have been an illegal incident.

[gpn01]

.....and you are placing yourself (utterly unimportant) and others in danger.

How was the pilot placing themselves and others in danger ? All your post suggests is that they were flying low which isn't, in itself, inherently dangerous. Perhaps a few details like whether it was over land or sea, whether they were flying illegally (i.e. breaching 500' rule), whether there were local obstructions, other flying, low viz, bird sanctuary, etc. would help paint a clearer picture.

[LH2]

First of all, I admit I don't really know what this thread is about as nearly half the posts come from people in my killfile, but I suspect is something to do with some whinging bastard complaining that a plane flew so low it almost decapitated him, etc., etc.

Well, it takes all sorts and I agree that if you are 500ft or more away from person or object then you're legal as far as rule 5 (was it?) is concerned. I also agree that pathetic sad little idiots should try to get a life and all that. However, it concerns me that people here repeatedly mention flying "501ft away" as a licence to do what they please and sod the rest. Surely that is a misunderstanding on my part and everyone of us takes reasonable measures not to cause undue nuisance to other people in the air or on the ground? I mean, it doesn't take that much effort to fly a bit higher and farther if going along a crowded beach, or make a little detour if it looks like a festival or something is going on on the ground, or reduce power when overflying some villages, or try and avoid take offs and landings at intempestive times, or any of the other things we do out of consideration towards other people.

I believe in real life most of us understand that respect and tolerance go both ways, even though this thread might not necessarily show it. :)

[Pilotdom]

It was me Guv!

[Say again s l o w l y]

No, I'm Spartacus..............

Honestly though. Someone flew straight and level along the coast. Wooo. Scary! :rolleyes:

[eharding]

At lunch today, (house on the beach in Norfolk) and, for the second time in a fortnight, a low wing single flew past BELOW bedroom height.

Be positive.

Look on it as the pilot generously performing a morale raising exercise for Norfolk coastal property owners, to remind them that if he can fly past BELOW bedroom height, then at least the property isn't under water.

Given the rate that Norfolk is sinking, you'll be bitching about submarines going past ABOVE bedroom height on a couple of years.

I'll apologise in advance for the use of the term 'bitch', as a verb in the future continuous conjugation, if that helps.

[vee-tail-1]

OK I will take the bait.
In the incident that I recounted above the first pass over my canoe was low enough to hit my up raised paddle. The height the microlight then flew over the hundreds of people on the beach was less than 50 feet. A bird strike, or kite strike would have downed the aircraft and killed many people on that beach. If some posters here think that kind of flying is fun, then do yourself and me a favour go find another hobby for you are sure as hell not safe to persue flying. :\

[Say again s l o w l y]

Hundreds of people on a Norfolk beach?

What was it? A sh*g your sister festival or a special day trip for those with webbed toes?

[DX Wombat]

VT1 I don't think the bait was intended to catch you as your story speaks for itself as do your actions after what was clearly an episode of dangerous flying. Clattering about at low level in a busy, kite-ridden area with lots of people about (and therefore lots of gulls on the lookout for quick, free feed) is completely different from flying straight and level parallel to and at a distance from some housing. Part of the problem is that we are having to rely on a written description of the events and I for one, not knowing the area, can't quite visualise it.
SAS - turn your chart around, Norfolk is East - get one of your students to show you. :}

[vee-tail-1]

DX Wombat
Sorry; guess I should have listened out before butting in here. :oh:

[eharding]

Hundreds of people on a Norfolk beach?

What was it? A sh*g your sister festival or a special day trip for those with webbed toes?

http://www.pistonheads.com/inc/images/bow.gif

[DX Wombat]

VT1 don't worry, we can all be guilty of doing that. ;)Last summer I was 500 yards off a Pembrokeshire beach in a canoe,
eharding I know you normally only have to navigate around a 1km cube of airspace but I did think your navigation skills were a bit better than that. Pembrokeshire is in Wales not Norfolk and it is a very popular tourist area! :p

[jamestkirk]

I hate to do this but i cannot resist;

"No, I AM Spartacus"

I wonder how many have seen the film.

[gyrotyro]

Cornish Jack still hasn't answered the question.."How far away was the a/c ?"

It could have been two miles for all we know. Was it less than 500 ft ? If not then belt up and get a life.

[Cornish Jack]

Fascinating responses! The children appear to be overly concerned with distances - as though that has some magic property to offer safety. However to keep them from yet more irrelevancies, I have done a little measuring and calculation.
Subject idiot passed approximately half way between the sea-wall and the end of the nearest groyne. That groyne contains 22 vertical supports at approximately 10 foot intervals - for the benefit of today's younger generation, that is approximately 220 feet. Height when passing was below bedroom window - house sits approximately 20 feet above sea level, at high tide - bedroom is at first storey level, say another 20 feet. If anyone has further difficulties with the maths, let me know.
So, how accurate and reliable were my observations? Same as most people, I suspect, but perhaps slightly improved by a background of nearly 50 years in aviation (professional, military and civilian) which included 14 years on helicopters, mainly S&R, when a great deal of time was spent in this sort of coastal environment dealing with the end product of this sort of nonsense.
One has to suppose that a proportion of respondents are holders of pilot's licences. If so, I have grave doubts as to the level of professional application in an area of demonstrable potential danger.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I still say "Meh".

He was offshore and if they'd have gone in, they'd had nailed themselves, but no others.

I have indulged in some beachfront flying in the past. Perfectly legally I might add, mostly in some uninhabited areas of Oz.

I fail to see why the Daily Mailesque rage is necessary. If they were breaking rule 5 then that's one thing, but you as an experienced aviation person should known the extreme difficulty of judging distances by eye. The groyne distances could easily be 20ft instead of 10 and that would change things enormously.

Pilots are often the least reliable witnesses to airborne stuff. As ane fule nose.

I suggest you take some blood pressure pills and chill out. Or instead of whinging here, then do something about it.

[Droopystop]

I'm with Cornish Jack on this. I am also satisfied with his judgement of distance, although I think the question of legality misses the point.

Having had two bird strikes and numerous near misses, I would choose not to fly anywhere near where birds are likely to be concentrated. An S76 crashed earlier this year killing 8 people and is likely to have been caused by a bird strike.

It is interesting to see the varying attitudes to low flying (ie below 500'). To be honest having nearly 1000 hours of low flying, I think it is bloody hard work and at times terrifying.

Also we all too often hear the argument what's the harm if it's only him/herself that gets killed. Maybe consider those who have to scrape up your bits into a bag and tell your loved ones. Yes it goes with the job, but they are human too. Then of course think of the family. We are so quick to offer condolences on this website then just a quick to go out and do something daft ourselves.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It is hard work and not advisable as a long term survival strategy, but the odd bit of lowish flying for a short period isn't necessarily a killer.

You increase the risks of bird strikes certainly, but the 2 worst birdstrikes I've had weren't at low level, but were above 1500ft. I've hit a couple whilst on approach and on a go-around, but fortunately there was little damage, whereas the strikes at altitude made far more of a mess of the airframes. However, neither put the aircraft in any danger.

Bird strikes can do a massive amount of damage, but you have to be unlucky for it to bring the aircraft down. Though when you hit multiple birds it makes it far worse. I wouldn't want to hit a large flock of herring gulls in anything other than a chieftan tank.

However, most birds are usually not 500ft out to sea, but right over the beach and/or slightly inland. That's where their food is, so there are ways of minimising the risk.

Low flying might not be the most sensible thing in the world, but neither is getting in some manky old cessna in the first place.

[englishal]

The Hudson bird stikes were at about 3000'

Which S76 was brough down by bird strikes then?

[Keygrip]

If anyone has further difficulties with the maths, let me know.

I have.

If the walls in your downstairs rooms are the average 8' variety (and get three lengths from a roll of wallpaper) then how thick is your bedroom floor for the window to be 20' above ground level?

[Droopystop]

Say again,

The instance Cornish Jack mentions cites the guy over the beach - between the seawall and and the end of the groynes, hence right the area you say where the birds are most likely to be.

Englishal,

The S76 was a PHI flight out to rigs in the Gulf of Mexico

Paris,

You are still missing the point. It is not about illegal flying, it is about increasing Private pilots awareness of the dangers of low flying in such an environment. And how cr:mad:p it is recovering dead bodies.

[Jim59]

I once saw a low flying aircraft, at least 500' horizontally offshore from the beach where I was sitting, hit the mast of a sailing boat that the pilot failed to see. The aircraft entered the water and sank. The pilot ejected from his Red Arrow and survived. I was a casual bather not expecting a display - I don't think the skipper of the boat expected to meet low flying aircraft either. (Brighton some years ago.)

Below 300' one can expect to meet unmarked, unNOTAMed obstructions, either fixed or mobile. They may be too small (such as a kite) to see until too late. They may be offshore.

Flying below 300' has additional risks and may harm others, or their property. I doubt the boat owner above was too pleased about the loss of his mast - but maybe he dined out on it for a few years!

[Say again s l o w l y]

Say again,

The instance Cornish Jack mentions cites the guy over the beach - between the seawall and and the end of the groynes, hence right the area you say where the birds are most likely to be.


Not necessarily. Was it high tide or low tide? He may have been over water. rather than wet sand. Birds are generally above the hide tide mark as well (not always of course, but usually).

[Crash one]

Why is a little risk taking frowned upon so much these days? Rule police, Fun police, elfin safety. Don't we have enough regulation from authority without doing it to each other?

[Cornish Jack]

Crash One - you really don't get it, do you?

None of my 'diatribe' is about risk taking

per se. If you want to go and play Russian

Roulette, feel free - as long as you don't

expect sympathy when, (not if) it goes

wrong, AND don't want someone else to clear

up the resultant mess.
My rant is not even about MY HOUSE being

buzzed (it wasn't, in the normally accepted

sense), My post was about someone, who has

(presumably) been issued with a pilot's

licence, operating in a manner not only at

variance with the conditions of that

licence, not ONCE but TWICE. In so doing,

he, or she, was placing him/herself in

demonstrable danger and, more importantly,

other people also. To do so once was stupid

as viewed from the standpoint of competent,

professional aviation. To do so twice

indicates a total detachment from the tenets

of safe flying - something, which, I would

suggest, is incumbent on anyone being given

the PRIVILEGE of a licence to fly.
I have just been observing the same beach

area this afternoon - numerous sea birds and

kites all in the very airspace at issue.

Pretty things, kites, until, that is, one

'collects' the 'string'. From personal

experience, wrapping several yards of kite

string around a rotor head distorts pitch

change rods into very interesting (but badly

damaged) shapes.
From the responses so far, there are those

who view ANY restriction on their activity

as an intrusion into 'personal liberty'.

Commonsense and proven flight safety

pointers are ignored. This is the way

children view the world, hence my

(intentional) sarcasm. Why can't I do that,

Mummy, why, why? It seems, unfortunately,

that there is much growing up to be done.
Finally, re the suggestions of passing the

details to the authorities - it was so close

that there was no opportunity to note

registration or even type, other than low

wing single. Had that information been

available I would have attempted to pass my

concerns to the operator,not the

authorities, but I fear that it would have

been a fruitless exercise.
I am, and always have been, an aviation

enthusiast - hence my career choice. What I

have no enthusiasm for is self-indulgent

stupidity.

(apologies for the peculiar formatting - that's how it appeared)

[Zulu Alpha]

CJ must have been indulging in Scrumpy. One minute he's worried about kite string round rotor heads, then its a low wing single, and then its too low to get the number.

I suspect it was a seagull and he was just having a bad day. Mind you, I don't like seagulls flying past my bedroom window either.

I object to know it all's shouting their mouths off. Much better to have a quiet word with the person responsible. Ranting here is about as much use as getting a sandwich board with your complaint on it and walking up and down outside your holiday home. I personally would prefer you did that.

ZA

[goatface]

Bird strikes can do a massive amount of damage, but you have to be unlucky for it to bring the aircraft down. Though when you hit multiple birds it makes it far worse. I wouldn't want to hit a large flock of herring gulls in anything other than a chieftan tank.

Precisely my point and it's more than slightly suprising that the majority of posters have been prepared to ignore the fact, anyone wanting to deliberatly fly at low level through a notified area of intense bird activity needs their head testing.

However, most birds are usually not 500ft out to sea, but right over the beach and/or slightly inland. That's where their food is, so there are ways of minimising the risk.

Complete and utter nonsense, anyone familiar with this particular part of the country will know that it is particularly the gulls amongst other large winged beasties, which feed between the shoreline and out to sea.

S.O.S has an open invitation to come and see, whilst he's at it, also have a good look at our "webbed feet" - shortly before they connect with his knackers....:E:p

[Jumbo Driver]

CJ must have been indulging in Scrumpy.

He also seems to have developed a format problem with multiple <Word Wrap> ...


JD
:)

[Fuji Abound]

I thought I had logged on to "poet's corner" by mistake.

[Vino Collapso]

Don't you just love the way these threads degenerate into name calling, mud slinging, Pi** taking and general chest thumping.

The viewpoint that it is 'legal therefore I can do it' is going to be the deathnell of GA in this country.

No it is not going to be reported to the CAA as some kind of alleged breach of the ANO but it is another great tool in the hands of the environmentalists. Residents groups, consultative committees, pressure groups, tree huggers, local councils and all manner of other activists are just waiting for this sort of thing to happen.

The residents go anti, the councillors get onboard to get the votes and the next thing you know any planning application for aviation purposes within a 100 miles gets scuppered.

Been there, got the T shirt. (many times)

[SkyCamMK]

Probably the same aircraft that flew south to north across Pakefield beach at Lowestoft on wed or thurs evening about 1930 local. It was a white low wing aircraft with the standard Piper Cherokee blue and yellow stripes on the tail. It was low about 200 ft above the sea IMHO. I do not consider it was a dangerous flight unless there was an engine failure involved and even then a ditching or beach landing may have been possible by said pilot. I did consider her actions and concluded it was a fun session. Perhaps unwise but I am not convinced that it was illegal at the time I observed this action. As others have said there is a place and time for low flying practice and perhaps over the sea in summer evenings at low water is one of the best??? Just the sort of thing to sit back with a pint and a cornish pasty and deliberate and reminisce of those great summer experiences that we are privileged to generate and relive from time to time?????????

[ShyTorque]

A thought.

Someone exercises a personal choice, takes a known risk, it turns bad and ends up in the drink.

Lifeboat launched. Lifeboat crew are volunteers, no-one forces them to go. They exercise a personal choice, take a known risk.

Is there a difference?

[Crash one]

Cornish Jack.
I am afraid I DO get it.
A trivial act of slightly risky flying has allegedly been perpetrated & you have taken it upon yourself to be judge & jury & pronounce the pilot guilty of being a Prat.
Who gave you this authority?
Do you also report people who pass you on the road who you consider to be speeding?
I too have been involved in the business of "picking up the bits" hence the "Crash one". This guy did not kill anyone or any seagulls or puppies. Perhaps his competence & professionalism played a part. I hope he enjoyed his run along your beach, good luck to him. It is called LIVING.
I strongly suggest you take a chill pill, before you are prescribed Atenolol or some such.

[Say again s l o w l y]

However, most birds are usually not 500ft out to sea, but right over the beach and/or slightly inland. That's where their food is, so there are ways of minimising the risk.
Complete and utter nonsense, anyone familiar with this particular part of the country will know that it is particularly the gulls amongst other large winged beasties, which feed between the shoreline and out to sea.

S.O.S has an open invitation to come and see, whilst he's at it, also have a good look at our "webbed feet" - shortly before they connect with his knackers....

You see, the thing is, is that I do know a bit about this. I was brought up in a house, on a beach, on an RSPB nature reserve, on the East Coast. So I am intimately aware of the movement of birds along the coast and how they feed. Add in the fact that I spend many weekends a year covered in mud and cursing the fact that I enjoy wildfowling on the East coast as I get stuck for the 10th time in an hour, then you'll forgive me for saying that I do have some idea of what coastal birds do.

I also used to watch the local banner towers go up and down the coast line at no more than a couple of hundred feet everyday and you know what? They never crashed or died once.

Is low level flying dangerous? Yep, a bit. If things go wrong you have limited your options and that isn't the most sensible thing to do, however all this tub thumping is a load of knackers.

Even if the worst that could have happened, happened, then the only person to be injured or killed is likely to have been the pilot (as long as there weren't passengers on board.)

You can dream up doomsday scenarios until the cows come home, but frankly all that you are doing is turning into the HSE man who walks around his garden extolling how a bamboo stick is potential killer.

Nothing happened, no-one got hurt and this whole thread is a storm in a teacup.

Had they have been a member at one of the clubs I've been responsible for and I saw it, then they'd have got a rollicking. However, I've seen people do far more dangerous things on a daily basis. Many of them supposed aviation professionals with many years experience.

I just find the idea of whinging on here about it laughable. The pilot is unlikely to ever read about it and no action can be taken.
If you want to stop it happening, then get their reg. (they were supposedly close enough for you to have read it with the naked eye) and report it, or go along and have a quiet word with the person responsible.

There are just better things to get your knickers in a twist than this.

[Whirlygig]

Probably the same aircraft that flew south to north across Pakefield beach at Lowestoft on wed or thurs evening about 1930 local. It was a white low wing aircraft with the standard Piper Cherokee blue and yellow stripes on the tail.Sounds familiar; I've seen one very low-flying over Dereham. Easy enough to read the reg. And no, he hadn't just departed Shipdham.

Why would you want to fly that low :confused:

Cheers

Whirls

[Human Factor]

I once saw a low flying aircraft, at least 500' horizontally offshore from the beach where I was sitting, hit the mast of a sailing boat that the pilot failed to see.

Having flown with the gentleman in question, he was complying with his job description and doing his best to miss his mate coming the other way. He was also above the minimum height to which he was cleared (35ft in those days). Unfortunately, no-one mentioned to the other gentleman who drove his yacht between them that his mast was taller than the minimum clearance height. The rest is history and the Red Arrow in question thought he'd hit his mate..... :ooh:

[ShyTorque]

.... the Red Arrow in question thought he'd hit his mate.....

Hope that taught him not to close his eyes :eek:

[Human Factor]

I'd have my eyes shut at 35ft. What I can't see won't hurt me.:\

[goatface]

Lifeboat launched. Lifeboat crew are volunteers, no-one forces them to go. They exercise a personal choice, take a known risk.

Is there a difference?


ShyTorque

Yes, there's a huge difference, the lifeboat volunteers are highly trained in rescuing people who have had the misfortune to get themselves into bother, or, as is often the case, people who haven't given't a thought to the consequences of what they are doing and every year some of them give up their lives rescuing such folk.

I assume you have the same short sighted attitude about firefighters, paramedics, the UK armed forces and all volunteer rescue services?

Your post is crass and worthy of an apology.

[Whirlygig]

Goatface, sometimes it's only you who reads such things into posts. There's nothing crass about ShyTorque's post; he offers a thought, that's all, and maybe it's a viewpoint not personally held but postulated in the name of debate.

It's a thought with which you obviously disagree but it's nothing so severe that warrants such an outburst.

Cheers

Whirls

[airborne_artist]

A quick Q - has anyone here seen the results of a crash following a total power-loss at LL?

Course two before mine lost a QFI and his stude in N Yorkshire when their Bulldog's engine gave out at 250'. The stude got away from the aircraft, but died soon after, and before rescuers arrived. The QFI did not get out/survive. Bear in mind that the QFI was trained and auth'd for the sortie - can Cornish Jack's pilot claim that?

I saw the wreckage and debris laid out in a hangar at Leeming.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I've seen the results from a fair few accidents from all sorts of different scenarios, none of them have been pretty.

Losing the donk at low level doesn't necessarily have to have a fatal outcome, but it's a hell of a lot more likely than if it happened at a few thousand feet above something soft.

However, you could make the same argument about flying over water in a single. If it goes wrong, you're usually in trouble.

[gasax]

Well airborne I'm not sure of the relevance. 'Getting out' at 250 ft is not an option. Flying the aircraft to arrive on the ground at the usual 40 kts ish should mean not much more risk than any forced landing.

I say not much as obviously there is much less choice of the landing site - unless you are low level over a beach - when below the mid-tide mark it is all pretty much the same!

[gpn01]

If low level flying is so dangerous then I hope that everyone behaves responsibly and doesn fly below 500'. Love to know how you're going to land though.

I haven't seen anything about the risks of flying low over the sea which don't also apply to over land (birds, masts, etc. all appear over both land and sea).

If the original poster's concern is about engine failure then I'm sure this applies equally to those pilots who do 3-degree glide slope approaches into airfields which have housing estates on the approach.

[Cornish Jack]

Well, Chaps and Chapesses - what a fascinating little exercise this has been, to be sure.:hmm:
I have had no involvement in the GA world previously, other than picking up their relatively frequent 'trade' offerings in the S&R world. Most of those, from memory, would provoke the same thought - How COULD this have happened - how could this person have carried on into deteriorating conditions below safety height? How could they get themselves into a position such that there was no recoverable option? How could ... etc? Is the 'half crown/ sixpence' syndrome missing from GA pilots? (you may need to be pre-decimal to understand that one)
Now, to paraphrase my reply to Crash One, I get it, I really do. Demonstrably, among the GA fraternity there appear to be those who have no idea of the fact that aviation is an extremely unforgiving environment. There are, equally those who DO understand the potential problems and cater for them. This is not just a non-military thing. I have lost too many friends and acquaintances in the Services from just such lack of judgement to think that. The Flight Safety statistics make grim reading but they ARE available and, if you have enough sense to read and understand them, it might, one day make the difference to whether you live or die ... Yep, it's that stark!! Apart from not understanding the threat to themselves, it appears that there are an unfortunately large number who don't give a fig for other people's safety. Again, not limited to the GA fraternity but the potential for destruction is so much greater when the 'weapon' is an aircraft. This truism will be 'Granny's egg sucking lesson' for SOME of the contributors but will provoke yet more ' How dare he? Wind your neck in, etc., responses from others.
Well, so be it. While the Forum title may appear to exclude this particular niche, ALL aviation operates via the same aerodynamic laws and in similar environments. Private flying is not immune from the consequences of its actions any more than the professionals. Forget that and it will remind you - painfully!
So, we all make our own choices - mine is that I shall return to the areas where safety is considered to be both necessary and rewarding and leave those of you who feel that it is an intrusion into your personal liberty to your own devices. It's a shame, but "There's none so blind etc."

[ShyTorque]

Goatface, calm down.

You make far too many assumptions about what my opinions might be. Whirls is correct and I'm not going to apologise to you, or anyone else for posing the question.

I think I'm as qualified as most here to ask.

[Say again s l o w l y]

What an arrogant post.

Most of us here have as much if not more experience of aviation than you do. Not just in GA, but in Airline, Military, Heli etc.etc.

As someone who has been involved with all of those except mil flying and who has trained and looked after hundreds of PPL's and other GA flyers, then you are waaaaaaaay out of order in suggesting that GA flying has lower standards than you do.

What I am very aware of is that PPL's are slightly different from us professional pilots in that for them it is not a job, but a past-time. So their mindset is slightly different.

That's not to say that their risk acceptance profile is worse or better. In fact, some of the most sensible pilots I've flown with do "only" have the baby poo brown book from the CAA.

I'll tell you what, since you mention accident stats, go off and find out exactly how many accidents and fatalities have been caused in the last 10 years by low flying over the coast on a nice clear day.

No low level scud running and CFIT, that is a seperate issue, but actual loss of control, engine failure or bird strike leading to an accident caused by stuffing about at low-level.

Most of us are intimately aware of what is likely to kill us in small aircraft, though that doesn't mean I don't like pushing it a bit sometimes. Nothing too stupid, but away from the restrictive life of a professional pilot it is sometimes nice to cut loose a bit and remember why we started in this business.

So again. I say Meh. Some bloke did a bit of low flying. No puppies or nuns were killed. It wasn't the smartest thing they've ever done, but unless you are going to report it, then what is the point in whinging on here?

If someone is going to do it, what you type here will make naff all difference.

[Crash one]

Cornish Jack
I don't quite understand why you seem to have singled me out as an advocate of utter stupidity. I wish you could believe that most of us civilians do actually understand extremely well, exactly what we are doing.
We all get a copy of GASIL, far too often, to read over breakfast.
I have read the book "The Killing Zone" & it seems that inexperience, over confidence & ill-advised flight into IMC is what kills most of us. Your "stupid/irresponsible/prat" showed none of these un-enviable qualities.
I fly a low wing single & usually fly my circuits at 500ft max, often less than that. No doubt that makes me a prat! As Say again slowly has suggested, check the stats on accidents involving low flying over beaches/flat terain in good vis by civilian a/c. No mil supersonic mountain stuff.
You have got your SAR hat on & cannot seem to see past your latest rescue mission, Elfin Safety people are like that too, everything they see is life threatening.
If the wx is good tomorrow I'm going to bash along the beach at 50ft, maybe try a PFL, no groynes to measure distance with I'm afraid, just the occasional rocky outcrop!!

[ECAM_Actions]

Would the groynes be of standard or non-standard spacing? :E

ECAM Actions.

[Malcom]

Scud running and CFIT are what you need to whinge about, as is exercising the rescue services whilst diverting from Lydd to Switzerland and not telling anyone. Enjoying a 50' run clear of stuff on a nice day is not. Its just for NIMBYs.

Anyway-50' is not low enough.....

YouTube - T6 Waterskiing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeeAI1wTMiA):ok:

(I know its been on before, but its worth just one more look at!)

[hatzflyer]

I have read some bo****ks on some of these forums , and seen postings by all sorts, but this one is worthy of a prize!
If you give me the co-ordinates of your house I will fly up the beach at 501 ft, which is the level set by the CAA as the safety level (NOTE NOT SET BY US PILOTS). Any one below me will then clearly be illegal and you can report them if it makes it easier for you.
I will not charge you for this service as this would be illegal.

[Mikehotel152]

Okay, so we know that flying within 500 feet of a person, vessel, vehicle or structure violates Rule 5. CJ's description of the length of his groyne (!) shows that this pilot is guilty and the Rule is there for a good reason, so I won't condone the pilot's actions.

What surprises me is the other posts on this thread damning low-flying per se. Surely it's perfectly acceptable where legal?!

Every PPL course includes a lesson on flying at low-level and every landing and take off is at low-level. Flying close to the ground is a skill that should be practised because it requires concentration, improves hand-eye co-ordination and general flying skills. IMHO flying down to, say, 100-200 feet is no more dangerous or difficult than driving down a busy road at 70mph amongst poorly trained drivers who are chatting to passengers, changing radio stations or CDs and generally not concentrating.

Don't get me wrong, I only fly low twice per flight, as a rule, but I don't agree with those who object to anybody who is willing to take greater (legal) risks than they themselves feel comfortable with. Shall we ban aerobatics, landing in high crosswinds, complex aircraft, and dumb-down flying so the lowest common denominator feels comfortable with the risks? It might sound facetious, but I'm quite serious.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Despite my earlier comments, I wouldn't want anyone to think that low flying as a regular occurance is particualrily safe or sensible.

It does take specific training and when things do go wrong at low level, then you have a vastly reduced series of options.

It isn't massively safe or smart, however if it is thought about and flown properly, then you can make it as safe as possible.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it smart, it's just that a bit of low flying isn't the instant suicide that the OP seems to believe it is.

[Mixed Up]

I'm in my fiftees, a dad and a granddad, established and run a successful business, paid myself to learn to fly some years ago and flown regularly since. I don't like being barked at by some ex-military type who it seems has never paid for a private (fun) flight and who enters my community calling one of my number a prat. I think there are better ways of influencing people's opinion, but no doubt Cornish Jack knows best.

(I've nothing against ex-militrary types in general - many of my firends are.)

[hatzflyer]

Lets hope that if anyone does have the misfortune to crash ,they make a hole in the beach big enough to get this pratt's head buried!:\

[goatface]

ShyTorque

You're right - sorry, I clearly took the Prozac and Vaigra in the wrong order.

Apologies.

GF (wearing sackcloth and sitting on barbed wire:O).

[ShyTorque]

GF, Thanks; accepted!

(I volunteered for all my low level stuff, over 25 years of it, all in).

[worrab]

Low flying is not always the safest option:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Bride's bouquet brings down plane (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8149910.stm) :eek:

[Crash one]

CJ.
What we (I) disagree with most is your attitude that the civilian contingent of aviation is somehow inferior to the "real thing" How dare you have the audacity to lecture us on the "unforgiving environment" "if we have the sense to read & understand flight safety blah blah blah".
I ask, Who do you think you are?
You may, for all I know, be the ex NAAFI barman at some Stone Frigate that may have had a SAR unit operating out of it once. Or you may be the most experienced Sea King driver of all time. Neither gives you the right to refer to some innocent, & still alive, pilot as an irresponsible prat, just because he upset your lunch.
I have only had a licence for a couple of years & had no idea that such pompous nimbyism existed. & I too do not like tar brushes.

[Fuji Abound]

For what it is worth I have seen plenty of threads like this over the years and contributed to a few :).

Sometimes we have to accept people have very different views from our own. When they do, it is impossible to have a rational debate, because the protagonists have moved beyond rationality.

In short by all means enjoy a few wind ups if that is your thing, but dont expect to have a meaningful debate or to change anyone's views.

:) :)

[Jumbo Driver]

(I've nothing against ex-militrary types in general - many of my firends are.)

... mmm, firends ... are they like bookends, only hotter ... ?


JD
;)

[DX Wombat]

Reading through here again and the first post in particular, it struck me that CJ was frightened by this aircraft. Flying low it would not have been where he would have normally expected to see an aircraft so startled him and if flying into wind might not have been heard until it was very close. The end result is his rant in here which is really just a way of dealing with his fear. Maybe he thought it was about to hit his house - not an unreasonable thought if it was as close as he says.
SAS be very careful what you say about lovely little Cessna 150s and152s. :E It won't be too long before some of them are old enough to be considered Classic Aircraft then everyone will want to fly them. ;) Then they will discover just what great little aircraft they really are and those of us who already know that may find ourselves having to fight for time to fly them. :\

[Droopystop]

If you'll excuse the thread creap......

It is interesting the differing attitudes regarding the quality (for want of a better word) of military flying vs that of private flying.

So here's a question for those who have been exposed to both:

Does the quality of ab initio and continuation training in private aviation match that in the military?

Does this matter?

I have never been in the military, but I work in an job which is normally performed by the military and thus exposed to ex military personnel who continue the ways of old. My opinion is that the military system is far more thorough. It is my perception that this is bourne out by the number of CFIT incidents in private flying vs that of military and commercial flying.

Does this matter in my opinion? For most private flying, no. But the more specialised aspects of flying yes it most definitely does. I believe low flying falls into this category. And lets not confuse low flying with landing and taking off. When landing and taking off you have a well defined and familiar set of visual references and more rigorous knowledge of obstructions.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Well obviously, the military training is to a higher standard. There is a whole heap more tax payers money spent on it.

That however doesn't make low level flying any safer. Military pilots still get killed at low level. In fact the only examples that leap into my mind of accidents from low level flying are from military pilots.

Military aviation is a completely different beast from the civvy PPL world. You cannot compare them. I wouldn't compare airline flying to flying a spamcan either. Different horses, different courses.

The training that is provided for the "average" PPL is alright. If you get a decent instructor, then it can be very good indeed.

You get a very variable range of students, but hopefully we bring them all to at least a minimum standard.

I have taught some who would be perfectly capable of becoming a fast jet jockey if they wished and I have taught others who, frankly, would struggle to reverse a car out of their drive.

How about some of those people who "only" have a PPL and yet display ex-military machines at low level? Or those other people who aren't military pilots but compete in things like the Red Bull air races? Yeah, they're crap aren't they................

Lowish level flying is taught in the PPL. It isn't rocket science and anyone is able to do it. It has some specific problems and issues to be aware of, but it isn't beyond the wit of anyone to be honest.

To suggest that it is the sole realm of the military is, to be honest utter crap. Anyone can be taught how to do it as safely as possible and anyway, we aren't talking about performing high G manouevers at low level, just a bit of straight and level for what is likely to be a short time period. Few people will hang about at low level for an entire flight.

[Droopystop]

I am not suggesting that ppl's shouldn't low fly, fly ex military jets or do aeros. That is the great thing about private flying - you have a wonderful diverse mix of options with a ppl, far greater than most military or commercial pilots do in their work.

And yes low flying does kill military pilots (and by low flying I mean less than 200 feet). The very fact that military training doesn't fully mitigate against low flying accidents suggest that there would be even more if there were no training. I believe the only reason that we don't hear many if any ppls dying from it is that very few hours are actually spent doing it on a national scale.

But the point is low flying, and again I am talking about below 200', is a special skill set (and not one that is necessarily beyond most ppls), but where does one get the proper training and experience to gain and maintain that skill set?

So by all means low fly if you have the training and experience and only if it is legal and as safe as is reasonable. In fact that goes for any aspect of flying. That is the difference between the military/commerical pilots and private aviators. They can't do something new without training. There is only the law and good airmanship (common sense) that prevent a ppl from getting the right training and experience and sadly there are some who are quite happy to ignore both.

[Crash one]

At last a breath of fresh air common sense.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Anyone, who as general rule tools about at below 200' on a regular basis. Is asking for trouble, both legally and physically.

None of us here know the circustances of this particular flight. It may have been a simple cruise down and climb back up almost immediately rather than an entire flight at low level. Something that can be done perfectly legally and safely.

PPL's shouldn't really be doing something new and for the first time without training either. It's just that they don't have the same monitoring that professionals do.
Hopefully the initial training is good enough to instill this mindset into the PPL.

However, who's to say that this light aircraft pilot was wing co. somethingorother who just fancied a flight in a spamcan? The person flying it, may well have been very experienced at low flying. We have no idea.

Low flying is different and shouldn't be attempted lightly, but neither is it difficult to perform safely. You need to concentrate alot more, plan it properly and be aware of the risks, but it is hardly rocket science.

[kevmusic]

PPL's should really be doing something new and for the first time without training either.

Er, should that be 'shouldn't'? :}

[gasax]

Flying a low momentum, low speed aircraft is fundementally different to a fast jet or heavy transport. Largely that is why it is generally a pretty safe thing for a civil pilot to do.

The aircraft largely goes where it is pointed unless significant levels of G are being pulled.

In the military example this is not the case, the aircraft will often point in a very different direction to its actual direction. This makes military type low level flying very much more dangerous. The speeds are much higher so there is less reaction time. In the military there is specific initial and then recurrent training in a civil context this brings in display pilots but it is very infrequent.

Given a flat surface you will find that virtually every ppl can fly an aircraft a couple of feet above the ground with reasonable precision. Make that 200 and the height variances will be bigger - but the chances of hitting the ground are very very low. Obstacles make it a bit more difficult - but not much. Do it in an Airbus and you will need the assistance of instrumentation.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Ahem. I've edited my previous post!

[Phil Space]

And let us not forget that those of us who also fly helicopters are low flying every time we lift off the skids:ok:

[Torque Tonight]

So here's a question for those who have been exposed to both:

Does the quality of ab initio and continuation training in private aviation match that in the military?


I've done both and I have to say that private training doesn't come close - but then you wouldn't really expect it to. Military elementary flying training has a bigger budget, better currency, stricter assessment, greater discipline, closer supervision and significantly more pressure on the student to learn, perform and put in effort.

Although not rocket science, low flying is potentially hazardous and a PPL who just has a go may be exposing himself to a number of risks that he hasn't even considered. In the event of surprises you have fewer options and less time to react. The military operate down there because they have to. Private pilots are well advised to steer clear unless there is good reason to go low and they know what they are doing.

If you are looking for examples of civvies killed by low flying, two that spring to mind are Colin McRae's crash and the illegal aerial photography Cessna vs Tornado midair a decade or so ago. There are others.

[Maoraigh1]

Colin McRae was in a helicopter. The "illegal" Cessna you mention was NOT from my memory breaking the law. It was hit by a Tornado, claiming to be VFR, but flying far too fast to see and avoid. A helicopter on powerline inspection work in NW England was also hit by a "VFR" jet, going too fast to see and avoid.
The law is 500 ft horizontal and vertical from structure, person, etc. ( away from build up areas). Any military suggestions otherwise should be either made law,or dropped.
A large part of Northern Scotland is available for 8 hours a day (from memory) from Monday to Thursday, for exclusive military use, up to 5000ft. Flying faster than allows them to "see and avoid" civillian aircraft is irresponsible in class G airspace.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Cant believe there have been 90 posts on this subject already. Does anyone actually care other than CJ or the Feds?

If you are looking for examples of civvies killed by low flying.........

Not wishing to get into yet another Mil/Civ pi$$ing match, but I'm sure there are numerous military pilots who have hit the hard stuff over the years, even with their fantastic training and amazing piloting skills...

91 posts now! D'oh

[Jumbo Driver]

... The law is 500 ft horizontal and vertical from structure, person, etc.

It's not, actually - it's 500 ft in any direction, viz:

Rules of the Air

Low flying prohibitions

5- (3) The low flying prohibitions are as follows—...
(b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.


JD
:)

[Whirlygig]

Colin McRae was in a helicopter.He was still flying below the tree line; just because he was in a helicopter didn't make his actions any the more or less dangerous.

Cheers

Whirls

[Torque Tonight]

Thank you Maoraigh1, I am well aware that Colin McRae was in a helicopter. If you hit the ground because your poor airmanship leads you to undertake untrained low flying that exceeds your piloting ability and the perfomance of the aircraft, it doesn't make much difference if you are in a helicopter or an aeroplane. Before I get jumped on for that comment, here is the report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Eurocopter%20AS350B2%20Squirrel,%20G-CBHL%2002-09.pdf).

The other example I raised (in response top Say Again Slowly's comment that he couldn't think of any civilian low flying casualties) was one of several similar fast jet vs light aircraft midairs. The general theme of these seems to be a LL-trained professionals operating fast jets legally in the low flying system colliding with light aircraft operating if not illegally, certainly unwisely at low level. Without looking for a mil/civ pissing contest, debating the UK Low Flying System, or apportioning blame, I simply suggest that this is another reason why low flying in your Cessna without good reason is a pretty bad idea.

Report 1 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/2-1992%20XX843%20and%20G-BMHI%20.pdf)
Report 2 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/3-2000%20%20ZA%20330%20%20G-BPZX.pdf)
etc

And yes Chuffer, there are many, many examples of military low flying fatalities and they occur for many reasons, none of which would make untrained low flying by private pilots a good idea.

[Say again s l o w l y]

If 2 aircraft bump into eachother, then that is a tragedy. If both aircraft were there legally, then it is nothing more than a tragic accident. I have on numerous occasions seen mil aircraft where they shouldn't be and had more than one terse discussion with a station commander.

Another problem is blasting through the middle of a well known and publicised training areas at hundreds of knots, where people might be performing manouevres such as PFL's isn't smart. So there are often two sides to a tale.

No-one is perfect and there's no point throwing brick bats, stuff happens.

With reference to Colin's accident. I'm afraid to say it was due to stuffing around, if he'd had more altitude, then it probably would have been ok, but that was a whole different ballgame from someone simply flying straight and level at a fairly low level. It counts as a low level accident, but for me the primary cause is the manouevers that were being performed.

Stuffing about at the limits of a machine can get you into trouble no matter what your altitude.

What do you define as untrained? ALL PPL's should have been taught low level flying. Navigation, awareness of the risks and potential problems.

It is a good skill to have in you armoury, so to say that people have no training or experience is simply wrong. It might not be as indepth as the military, but it does happen.

[Whirlygig]

Just because something's legal doesn't make it sensible. :}

Cheers

Whirls

[Say again s l o w l y]

Indeed, but just because something is illegal, that doesn't necessarily make it unsafe either!

[Unusual Attitude]

Flying in Scotland over the last 15 years I've had close calls with Military aircraft at a variety of levels both day and night, including whilst instructing within a combined MATZ, in a pseudo military aircraft (Vigilant) on the correct frequency.

When flying a GA aircraft, be it at 500' or 5000', if there is a mil aircraft manouvering in the area there aint really a lot you can do to avoid him given the speed differences and rapid level changes a pointy jet can attain. The best you can do is switch all the lights on, add a bit of bank to present a bigger surface area and trust in the capability of the other crew's Mk1 eyeball.

As for this particular scenario, fair enough the OP was annoyed by a low flying aircraft but if it was legal and not endangering anyone else I dont see the problem, if a pilot wishes to accept additional risk then thats his perogative, indeed flying comes with inherent increased risks and we accept these every time we leave the ground.

As someone posted previously "I am not suggesting that ppl's shouldn't low fly, fly ex military jets or do aeros..." I've done quite a bit of all 3 which would be considered by some as "risky behaviour" and I am still here to tell the tale, I'd like to think thats partly due to taking a sensible approach to any increased risk activity. When doing aero's make sure you leave yourself plenty of height to recover, even more so if your rusty, when low flying over mountains be very aware of the wind strength and direction, when low flying along a beach be very aware of birds, masts etc, in both cases be aware of your options should the engine quit, indeed many beaches make excellent emergency landing sites. When flying an ex mil jet be aware of your fuel state at all times and the extra speed and monmentum etc, particularily when doing aeros, a loop which uses 300' in a Tipsy Nipper uses 3000' in a JP! Just a few examples of ways to reduce risk that most of us probably do without even thinking.....

If the pilot in question was flying in breach of rule 5 then that is the matter for the authorities however to crucify him without knowing the facts seems somewhat harsh. How do we know he did not fly the length of the beach in the opposite direction at 1000' first to ensure there were no people / birds / obstructions?

[Whirlygig]

Indeed, but just because something is illegal, that doesn't necessarily make it unsafe either!
True. But it is against the law :}

Cheers

Whirls

[Torque Tonight]

Say Again,

If both aircraft were there legally, then it is nothing more than a tragic accident.

The military aircraft would certainly be there legally, but the civvy? The relevant CAA Safety Sense Leaflet (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webSSL18.pdf) recommends:

flying above 2000ft agl whenever possible
where possible avoiding flying below 1000ft aglWhilst PPL low flying maybe legal under certain circumstances, I still suggest that doing so without good reason is unwise.

With reference to Colin's accident. I'm afraid to say it was due to stuffing around, if he'd had more altitude, then it probably would have been ok

In my book that demonstrates one of the many ways the low flying can bite and is certainly relevant as a LL accident.

ALL PPL's should have been taught low level flying.

I did a PPL before I joined the RAF and don't recall that!

[Jumbo Driver]

ALL PPL's should have been taught low level flying.

I did a PPL before I joined the RAF and don't recall that!

I do ...

Exercise 16 - Operation at minimum level


JD
:)

[Torque Tonight]

And that minimum level would be what exactly? The 250ft that FJs generally knock around at? The 50ft that we used to routinely fly in rotary wing? The 10ft authorised for concealed approaches and departures? Somewhat higher I suspect (but it has been quite a few years since my PPL) :uhoh:

[Say again s l o w l y]

Then you should go back in time and slap your FI around the chops. I've only been teaching for 10 years, so I don't know much about it.............

A safety sense leaflet is nothing more than advice. It carries no legal standing. I am certain that Low Level training in the mil brings in the point about potential traffic in airspace that is open to us all.

Nobody has more right to it than anyone else, no matter if they are flying a fast jet, Herc or Cessna.

There is no argument from me that in areas such as the highlands of Scotland, then flying at low level down a valley isn't the smartest thing you can do. Not just because you are likely to mee something pointy and fast, but also because of the wind and weather problems you could meet.

However, this is still about the chap in the OP. The Norfolk coast isn't the world's busiest low level area, so the chances of not meeting something from the military are better than other places.

That's not to say it won't happen, but you are at more risk of someone bumping into you as you join a busy circuit pattern.

The fact that Colin was low flying was obviously a factor, but in itself it wasn't the sole cause of the accident. Stuffing about was the primary cause and it was compounded by the altitude. It doesn't prove that LL flying is by it's very nature dangerous. LL + stuffing around = major potential problems.
LL = Slightly riskier
Stuffing about = increased risk

Combine the two and your asking for trouble as they found out to their cost.

edit to add: I take minimum level to mean the lowest level we can legally fly at. I have taken students down below 500ft offshore. Not to anything daft like 10ft, but around 250ft. All precautions are taken and students are left in no doubt as to the risks and the reasons for performing this excercise as you would expect.

[Jumbo Driver]

And that minimum level would be what exactly?

Instruction at Minimum Level, as far as I can recall, was civil minimum legal - 500 feet - a bad weather "get-you-home" exercise ...

Quite a few years (40-ish) since my PPL too ...


JD
:)

[Torque Tonight]

Aah yes 500ft. Not the 'below 500ft' which is the focus of this thread.

Safety Sense Leaflets may not be legally binding but I'm sure the CAA consider them to be good airmanship advice.

Past my bedtime. Nighty night all!:ok:

ps Just seen your edit Say Again. Cheers for that and I take your point, but I presume you do not take your studes below 500ft over land for this exercise, which is the band in which many of the LL accidents I am thinking of occur.

[Maoraigh1]

2000 ft above ground level VFR is rarely possible if flying E-W in Scotland. My flight is usually through valleys, 600 to 1500 ft AGL. 2000 ft AGL would also take me close to the mogas height limit.
Flying below mandatory map obstacle height over land has obvious risks. Doing so in poor visibility to get somewhere is stupid. But legal low flying can be fun in good viz, where you can see boats or hikers.

If I am 500 ft vertical, and 500 ft horizontal, from a point, how can I be less than 500 ft from it in any other direction?

[englishal]

PPLs are their own worst NIMBYs. ;)

Are helicopters somehow safer than fixed wing? Just curious because it is common for helicopters to fly around low level, and no one gets upset. I flew back into a place in Brazil the other day in an AS355 - 1000' for 100 miles, it was great. Also I notice that the police chopper was flying around at sub 100' levels last night, in crappy weather and over a nature reserve which is marked on the map and happens to be frequented by Canada Geese (and lots of other birds).....So really the danger is not that great. 500' is 152.4m, which in a diagonal line from where I am sitting now is not even half way into the field behind my house, and an aeroplane flying over that field at 10' but 152.41m from me would look close - but be totally legal.

[Jumbo Driver]

If I am 500 ft vertical, and 500 ft horizontal, from a point, how can I be less than 500 ft from it in any other direction?
Indeed you can't.

However, the reverse is not true, as you can be 500 ft diagonally from an object (and therefore legal) but neither 500 ft horizontally or vertically from it.

Therefore your assertion that ...
The law is 500 ft horizontal and vertical from structure, person, etc.

... is not correct.

That was my point.

JD
:)

[youngskywalker]

Can anyone enlighten me as to how you fly exactly 500ft vertically and horizontally from an object, do you have terrain following radar/autopilot that you can dial in 500ft and sit back and watch?! :E What is it with flyers and rule books?! I wonder if you all pay so much attention to the highway code when driving...:confused:

[gpn01]

Can anyone enlighten me as to how you fly exactly 500ft vertically and horizontally from an object, do you have terrain following radar/autopilot that you can dial in 500ft and sit back and watch?! :E What is it with flyers and rule books?! I wonder if you all pay so much attention to the highway code when driving...:confused:

At times it really would make more sense to fly according to the spirit of the rules rather than the absolute measured, legal, definition. Problem is when the lawyers become involved defintions/measurements, etc. become very important as that's where cases are won and lost. It's true that most aircraft don't have the equipment to accurately measure their height above or distance from an obstacle. Ditto the person on the ground, unless they have a laser-type device, can't accurately measure how high or far someone is (that said when I'm competing in aerobatics the judges tend to have a pretty good idea when I'm at the bottom of the box!).

I reckon that if an aviator on the ground is looking at an aircraft similar to what they fly and thinks f*ck that's low/close.....then it probably is. Whether the aircraft is being flown dangerously depends upon a whole set of additional parameters though and what's considered 'dangerous' flying when performed by a low hours PPL may not be as dangerous as that of a high hours pilot experienced in low-level ops. Both pilots are operating with the same risks though - it's just that one is better equipped than the other to deal with a situation if it arises.....Now what's that phrase about a superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid needing to use his superior skills?

[Crash one]

Can anyone enlighten me as to how you fly exactly 500ft vertically and horizontally from an object, do you have terrain following radar/autopilot that you can dial in 500ft and sit back and watch?! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif What is it with flyers and rule books?! I wonder if you all pay so much attention to the highway code when driving...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif


Not only an apparent obsession with the rules, but an insistence that they be interpreted absolutely correctly. Make no mistake, Rule 5 does not mean that you cannot fly lower than 500ft over something. Wait: yes it does, it's the over bit that is important. If on the other hand you were at 45 deg to the object you could be 353.55ft high & 353.55ft sideways. Or if at 30deg you could be 250ft high & 433.0127ft sideways. Now the Superior pilot will of course be well able to do these calculations of angle/distance with extreme accuracy, changing his height/distance repeatedly as he aproaches these objects. The inexperienced pilot will of course have to rely on poking a 500ft long stick out the window at the object.:ugh::ugh::ugh:
Further. Is it legal to fly under a bridge that is ~600ft high 1200ft span over water? No, there are no boats or swimmers.

[funfly]

The answer is so simple:
1. take a note of the aircraft number.
2. Contact the pilot/owner.
3. Tell him/her your concerns.

[Lister Noble]

Maybe we should give him a group flypast?
I reckon quite a few of us live nearby:}
Just need to find the exact spot,or do the whole coastline apart from the prohibited areas ,and there's not much military traffic at weekends.
Sorry ,if I'm being a bit too flippant.;)

[Flying Lawyer]

...



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/Westcoast.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Cape%20Town/LowlevelSaldanha.jpg



FLhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/touchngo.gif

[Say again s l o w l y]

Tudor!

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?
Or the nuns and kittens that were obviously slaughtered when you indulged in a bit of low flying.

[ShyTorque]

I'd get dizzy up that high.

[Whirlygig]

I'd get dizzy flying that fast :}

Lister, like your style :ok:; if it's who I think it is, you live closer :p

Cheers

Whirls

[long final]

Bother aside, when was Norfolk given t'internet? No good will come from it ...... :eek:

[Flying Lawyer]

...PD

PD
I know it's no excuse but, I'm not the only one.

There I was, just a couple of weeks ago, looking out of the window at the sea view when, all of a sudden, my peaceful enjoyment was shattered by this lunatic ............



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious115-800-1.jpg


Millions could have died!!! :eek:
(It was only luck they didn't.)

I had a feeling he'd be back so I went outside to get a clearer view the next time ..........


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious148_800.jpg


He was a bit further away the second time, I'll give him that, but you won't believe what he did next. Instead of just clearing off, he came to a stop in the air. In the air!!!. Then he started moving sideways and then he landed!!!
Landed, I tell you. Right in front of my eyes!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious151_800.jpg
(Horrified onlookers onlooking in horror)



These service types are often in pairs so I moved closer and lay in wait .....

Got him!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious175ps_800.jpg



I told the pilots exactly what I thought of their flying but they just took off again ..........



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious158_800.jpg

.......... using the skate-board ramp!!! :eek:

Hundreds of children could have been killed!!!
(It was only luck there were none on it at the time.)


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/HMS%20Illustrious/HMSIllustrious101p3_800.jpg



The authorities will be hearing from me!!!


..

[flybymike]

Brilliant stuff chaps...!;)

[Lister Noble]

I also have been increasingly concerned about these low flying chaps,annoying incomer residents by operating close inshore.
(Some of these incomers also annoy local people by buying their houses at inflated prices,thereby depriving said locals the right of living near their friends and places of work.):*
In accordance,today I am proceeding with my wife to a certain East Coast seaside town with groynes along the beach.
We will be keeping a sharp look out for these miscreants,will have powerful 7x 50 marine binnoculars,and will note said miscreants numbers.
If we find anything of interest I will report back later today.
Lister:)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

buying their houses at inflated prices
How do you "buy a house at an inflated price then"?

I suppose you can make an offer, have it accepted, and then insist on paying more than you offered, but I can't seriously believe that anyone ever does that.

Absent anything like that, the house is not being bought at "an inflated price", it's being bought at "the market price".

[Cusco]

C J:

When the pilot of the aeroplane which was the subject of your rantings knocks on your door with a beautiful mounted 10 x 8 photo of your house, will you buy it?

Cusco:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If you buy a house at above its market value expecting it to go up in value you have paid an inflated price....
I still don't see how you can do that.

If someone else offers £200k for the house and you offer £205k then you've paid the market price, the market price for anything being defined as "what someone [sane] is willing to pay for it".

OK, if the highest alternative offer is £200k and you come back with an insane offer of £300k then you probably will be paying above any rational estimate of "market price", but surely to goodness nobody ever does that anyway.

[kevmusic]

Gertrude and Jofm5, do you think you could carry on your discussion down in JB, or something? :) No offense, it's a very interesting topic, but this thread had just started to get very funny, and it's been hi-jacked big time.

[Lister Noble]

Well, we went to the coast ,there were a lot of craft at groyne level,but they were Javelin racing dinghies doing the Euro series,so although numbers were highly visible did not think they counted.
Saw a few Chelsea Tractors (4x4,nearest they get off road is Waitrose),taking up wide spaces in narrow roads.
Heard several DFL's,(Down from London)
BUT no aircraft at all,of any shape or at any height.
Mind you this was on the Suffolk border so maybe they have all gone up to Norfolk again?
Lister
;);)
Note to Gertrude,
The traditional small houses near the beach in one local seaside town became so expensive,the council built a housing estate to provide affordable homes for the locals,including the fishermen,as their cottages were priced off their affordabilty scale:rolleyes:

Sorry ,I won't post any more of these inflammatory messages:)

[Flying Lawyer]

Here's another low flier.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/Ray_Red1_low.jpg

And to make things worse, he's doing it with a massive oil leak.
The engine's obviously about to fail!! :eek:




.

[Dawdler]

Perhaps that's why he's chosen that nice green field to land in!

D.:eek:

[kevmusic]

They don't come much lower than this..........

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p88/kevmusic9/000181742_10_007_lo.jpg

[Lister Noble]

They wouldn't be laughing if they had to pay the bill:}

[Jackboot]

I read the official report about the low flying 'Red' ( I have flown with them BTW...) and the pilot apparently left the choke out, hence the smoke and the poor ROC.;)

J

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

this is what you call low flying....

Really Low Flying Jet Fighters - Video (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1142012/really_low_flying_jet_fighters/)

am particularly concerned about the bit when he has a look at this map to see where is going.

and for a bit of the flight, it looks like he is in ground effect.....

[Torquatus]

They wouldn't be laughing if they had to pay the billhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Mate, they're laughing because the wheel that fell off (causing them to decide to land wheels-up) landed on the CO's car :ok: