What to do if someone flies dangerously?

[IanPZ]

So, this question came to me last week. I live just south of the northern boundary of the London CTR/TMA, and when I say just south, I mean a few hundred yards.

I know this for several reasons, including the fact that when I first started learning to fly and did a trial lesson, my instructor flew me down to the M1/A1/A41 junction to do an 'I can see my house from here' but was very clear at pointing out the boundaries (roads and pubs I knew well).

So, last Saturday, my wife says 'what's that?' and I look up to see a flexwing microlight doing circles around the Middlesex uni grounds. They are inside the CTR. Moreover, this flexwing could only have been a few hundred feet up, I certainly doubt 500.

So, it has flown within the boundary of CTR, it has flown within 500 ft of people/buildings etc, and has flown over a heavily populated urban area with no space or height to do a forced landing if needed.

In such a case, do you just ignore it, get annoyed because it gives other microlighters a bad name, or do you take the registration and report it, and if so, to whom?

What would you suggest?

Ipz

[Above The Clouds]

A few weeks ago it would have been shot down :}

[IanPZ]

In a microlight in the CTR? And just to do lazy circles then fly off? Really?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Was it dangerous or just illegal?

[toptobottom]

I was flying in the CTR last Saturday (rotary) and Heathrow asked me if I could see this aircraft, which had already been identified as an infringer. I'm not one to habitually squeal on fellow aviators, however, I am keen to ensure that my fellow aviators don't endanger the lives of themselves or others, for whatever reason. If the individual was clearly and wilfully flying dangerously and I had the opportunity to 'have a quiet word' later, then I would, but if that was impossible, I wouldn't hesitate to report them. On this occasion, I didn't see the aircraft anyway.

[IanPZ]

Spandex, dangerous or illegal...hmm. Well, first.y, I am no authority at all, given I am yet to pass my test. It was certainly illegal unless permission was given, as it was in the CTR. As for dangerous, well, I would have thought flying at a few hundred feet up where the only option if the engine dies is to crash into houses, well I would say that is dangerous.

Meldex, no, I don't do that. However, I do ride a motorbike, and if another rider did something ridiculously risky or stupid, I would have a word, at the very least. It reflects badly on a relatively small community, otherwise.

Toptobottom, thanks for that...I have an idea where it will have flown from, and will drop a few hints about it. Quiet word does seem a good idea, if possible.

Ta

Ipz

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Ok, seems to be illegal from Toptobottom's post.

Can you say for certain if he definitely had nowhere to land? I'm not familiar with that area.

[toptobottom]

Ian
I've just had a quick look at the Middx Uni site and if it's the one below (4.5Nm west of the King George/William Girling reservoirs), I've two points.

First, there seems to be plenty of space to land in the event of a forced landing and second, this is about 1.5Nm north of the CTR boundary :confused:

http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab71/prooner/Middx.jpg

[Above The Clouds]

Ianpz
So you haven't passed your test but you can judge altitude accurately from the street, and how do you know it didn't have a clearance ?

[BackPacker]

How accurate was your instructor in the first place pointing out the visual cues to the boundary of the CTR? He might have used a generous safety buffer (he was dealing with a student after all), and the microlight may just have used a less generous buffer.

I have, on occasion, had to operate very close (as in < 1 nm) to a CTR, to which I had no permission to enter (not asked since not needed). No problem if you prepare things properly, and use GPS and/or DME as appropriate. In my case I was also in contact with ATC who knew my intentions.

Furthermore, height is notoriously hard to judge, and 500 feet is not a lot. Without evidence such as transponder readouts, or another aircraft operating at the same height, it will be next to impossible to know/prove he was below 500 feet. And even then, there are various exceptions to the 500 foot rule, one of which may just apply to him.

[IanPZ]

Toptobottom, you need to search for five ways corner, or mill hill. Middlesex uni is quite spread out, and yes, that bit is outside the CTR, but look for mill hill and you'll find the bit I am talking about. As for space to land, well, the only gaps are copthall playing fields, but are surrounded by tall trees and on a Saturday, usually covered with kids flying kites and playing golf.

Abovetheclouds...I was asking the question, exactly because I am still learning. That said, many ways to judge height, and I find it hard to believe that the only accurate way is to be a pilot. Given some of the surrounding cranes etc, I am guessing he/she was around 400 ft up at most.As for clearance, I was going on what I have been told about CTR clearances and it seemed unlikely someone would get clearance in a microlight, during the day, to just fly around on the edge of the CTR. Seems from other comments there was no clearance.

[maehhh]

Given some of the surrounding cranes etc, I am guessing he/she was around 400 ft up

That is a difference of 30m to the 'legal' 500ft there is NO way you can judge the height of an aircraft by the eye that precisely especially when you are not too familiar with flying and that particular aircraft type and its dimensions.

[BackPacker]

As for clearance, I was going on what I have been told about CTR clearances and it seemed unlikely someone would get clearance in a microlight, during the day, to just fly around on the edge of the CTR.

Why not? He would not be transiting through the ILS or barging through the circuit. Just clipping a - presumably otherwise unused - corner of the CTR at low level. Easy to accommodate, especially if the pilot had phoned up the unit in advance and explained his intentions. And there is no rule anywhere that I know of that microlights should be refused access to a CTR wholesale.

The only thing that could possibly make the difference between a regular fixed wing and a microlight in getting access to a CTR would be that some flexwing microlights (not all) seem to have a dicey radio setup. At low level and at the edge of the CTR that might make the difference to ATC.

Furthermore, amongst microlight pilots there seems to be a larger proportion of pilots who are not really all that proficient on the radio, compared to regular fixed wing. Of course there is no indication whatsoever that that is the case here, but if you want to do airwork inside a CTR your R/T better be up to it.

But assuming your radio setup is OK, your R/T is up to scratch and your intentions are not causing a nuisance (or worse) to other traffic in the CTR, I don't see why a microlight should be refused access where a normal fixed wing would be allowed.

[toptobottom]

OK, the first site I looked at was actually 2.5Nm north of the CTR and about 1.5Nm north of the CTA. I've had another look and the Copthall playing fields are due west of the Banbury reservoir VRP, the centre of which happens to be at the same latitude as the top of the Heathrow CTR. There seem to be a lot of open fields that could be used in the event of an engine failure.

I reckon matey was probably flying outside the CTR, but obviously very close - unnecessarily close, particularly if he was just hooning around.

Regarding 'imminent danger' and the 500' rule, I agree that it isn't necessarily dangerous to fly closer than 500' to any person, vehicle, vessel, etc. but that doesn't mean it's OK to do it. I also agree it's difficult to accurately gauge the height of an aircraft flying at between, say, 400' and 600', but it's easy to gauge when it's flying at 200'...

[toptobottom]

Silvaire1
Virtually every time I fly, I'm in a position where engine failure would put me in the houses
That's legal in the US but not in the UK..

[sevenstrokeroll]

so pick up the telephone and call the CAA (that's your British FAA isn' t it?)

ask to speak to an inspector, and explain what you just told us here.

as far as judging 500'...wellllll, I think you would be pretty close to anything under 1000', beyond that gets tough.

the guy should be reported and let the British officials do what they want. I reported a guy for taking an IFR clearance in the USA>..only trouble was he didn't have an instrument rating. FAA called him up , bought him lunch and told him not to do it again.

some guy on the forum said , ''do you write down the registration of autos that drive too fast?)...well, if they were doing it near a school full of kids, I would sure do it.

you asked...you should report him...and that's that.

I reported another guy, banner towing super cub below min safe altitude over San Francisco...next day he crashed on a city street.

yup...stuff happens...dn't let it happen to you

[robin]

I'll have to check, but isn't there a restriction of a min of 1000' over congested areas, esp given the lack of glide performance of microlights and others. In that area I'd be surprised to see the 500' rule applied

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Toptobottom - thanks for the info and clarification, I'm aware of the 'glide clear' rule in the UK. FWIW, in my area they'd have to close every local airport and shut down literally thousands of single engined flights per day if it were the case.
Funnily enought they've thought of that and there's an exception for taking off and landing.

You're essentially just not supposed to cruise over congested areas (which includes playing fields, btw) at heights which mean you can't glide clear - this isn't difficult, you go up or you go round. Given a choice, you wouldn't want to land on houses anyway would you?

[Prop swinger]

The glide clear rule exists in the US as well; the exemption from low flying rules for the purposes of taking off & landing exist in the UK as well.

The low flying rules exist not just to protect us from aircraft falling on our heads but also to protect us from inconsiderate show-offs disturbing the peace. If he was pi$$ing me off I would happily report him. If you think he was annoying someone else - let someone else report him.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

The relevant bit of*rule 5 states that*a pilot must not fly below a height:-
** a)*which would enable him*to land clear of the*area in the event of engine failure, or
** b) less than 1,000 ft above the highest fixed obect within 600m.
whichever is the higher.

[englishal]

Not even from 10,000' ;) Still you could always put it down in the LA river :)

I can't even judge 500' myself and I have been flying for over 12 years. Anyway I wouldn't bother getting involved unless I saw someone blatantly being an alpha hole fool flying up the beach at 50', then I might if I had evidence.

TheRule 5 bit quoted above only applied to a "congested area". What constitutes a congested area is a bit of a grey area actually. Central London would be classed as a congested area, as would central Somehwereelse. Whether or not some little village in the middle of nowhere would be, only the courts can tell.

Some guy was busted for flying over manchester a while back. Actually he wasn't as he argued he was on an ATC clearance (absolving him of the foot rules but not the glide clear) and the fact that there were landing spots available which weren't "normally used for recreation" then he got off if I recall correctly.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Englishal, I believe that "congested area" is defined as towns and cities, nothing more specific that I can remember.

[thing]

I thought it was 1000' above 'Urban areas'? There are local rules, we don't fly below 2,000' above Lincoln (the Cathedral start whining if we do, spoils their services with their ear splitting bells and 9 billion watt organ.....).

[Prop swinger]

You have to maintain a certain altitude over urban areas in the US, but it should be obvious to anybody who has overflown the Los Angeles basin and its network of airports (probably the best example) that there is no possibility to glide clear from 1000 ft.Which is why the rules specifically allow an exemption for taking off & landing, in the FAR, in the ANO & in ICAO so it's probably the same everywhere.

Deliberately flying towards the suburbs, flying low over people's houses & then flying back to a rural airfield is a completely different matter.

[toptobottom]

I remember all too clearly, renting a helicopter 12-15 years ago in Boulder City to do a 'safety piloted' tour over the Hoover dam, Grand Canyon (permitted in those days), etc. and being surprised that i) I could fly down 'The Strip' in Las Vegas at night and at 1,000' in a SE machine and ii) that I could fly any helicopter (except Robinsons) if the owner would throw me the keys, without a separate ticket :}. US aviation law seems much more relaxed and, in many cases I have to say, much more pragmatic when compared with Europe.

[sherburn2LA]

After 13 years in the LA Basin compared to the green fields of Sherburn I am still somewhat uneasy at the stuff we have to fly over but I don't think the purpose of the glide clear rule is that it means you should be able to find somewhere to land only that you don't crash somewhere that is likely to hurt somebody else. Even ln LA that is usually easy enough except maybe round downtown..

[taxistaxing]

To the OP, how do you know he wasn't uncertain of position, aware he was close to the TMA and (sensibly enough) orbiting while trying to get a fix? Maybe he panicked and allowed himself to get too low. And that's even assuming he was too low. As others have said it's almost impossible to judge height accurately from ground level, even for experienced pilots.

Judge not lest thou be judged! You may be in a similar position yourself one day.

There's a real danger that going off half-cocked and reporting this kind of thing as "dangerous flying", where you are uncertain as to the facts, just gives more ammunition to NIMBYs and the anti-aviation brigade.

[IanPZ]

All,

Thanks for the comments, lots to think about. I suppose i should try to answer some of the points raised.

1. How do I know the height? Well, I don't, and to all of those who said am I sure, no I am not. It looked very low, is what I can tell you. Certainly lower that a microlight turning on to finals at our airstrip, and that is 600 ft. So, could they have been over 500ft? Yes, but I didnt get that impression. What I do know is that there is precious little space to put a microlight down there, what with tall trees around the few fields. The best bet would have been the road, but probably not the safest. Sure, I am still learning, and have a lot of experience yet to gain, hence asking. It seems the general response is that it's not dangerous if the pilot thinks they can put the craft down somewhere. I can understand that, but it doesn't give much scope for a plan B. surely, just like any other risk based sport, you should be thinking not just 'how do I deal with an emergency right now?' but also 'what is my plan B if things dont go as expected'. Am I missing something here?

2. Did they have permission? I have no idea, but would be very surprised at a microlight getting permission to enter LONDON CTR.

3. Unsure of position? I can imagine that's possible, but then flying circles around and about, for 10 minutes? Surely, by that time, you would have used the radio and asked for assistance, over such a built up area?Nor if no radio, have hotfooted it out of there. It's also not that difficult to see which way central London is (lots and lots of houses, and tall buildings) and which way out of London is (big green fields).

4. Should you report someone? Let's be clear here, I was asking what your thoughts are. In any sport with risks and a small user base, there is a constant balance between freedom of action, and guilt by association. Looking at some of the recent issues around airfields being closed or having complaints against them, it seems that it can often be the few inconsiderate ones who spoil it for the rest. I asked what the correct (or generally accepted) thing to do was, because I wanted to see how opinion fell. In sailing (a self regulated sport) you tend to leave people alone, but if you see them doing something dangerous, discuss it with them. More importantly, if you see someone doing something that will potentially put them and others (especially others) at risk, you do get the authorities involved, and leave them to sort out if the issue was an error, or someone being irresponsible. That is what regulation and due process in law is about.

Anyway, after that diatribe, can I just say thanks. I appreciate all the different perspectives, and it gives me something to think about, both in my own flying, and my approach to others.

Ipz

[Flyingmac]

2. Did they have permission? I have no idea, but would be very surprised at a microlight getting permission to enter LONDON CTR.

Why?

[toptobottom]

A perfectly reasoned and balanced conclusion I'd say :ok:

[Pace]

4. Should you report someone? Let's be clear here, I was asking what your thoughts are. In any sport with risks and a small user base, there is a constant balance between freedom of action, and guilt by association. Looking at some of the recent issues around airfields being closed or having complaints against them, it seems that it can often be the few inconsiderate ones who spoil it for the rest. I asked what the correct (or generally accepted) thing to do was, because I wanted to see how opinion fell. In sailing (a self regulated sport) you tend to leave people alone, but if you see them doing something dangerous, discuss it with them. More importantly, if you see someone doing something that will potentially put them and others (especially others) at risk, you do get the authorities involved, and leave them to sort out if the issue was an error, or someone being irresponsible. That is what regulation and due process in law is about.

Ian

Our sport, hobby, occupation has for decades been unfairly attacked, legislated on etc to the point that the sport cannot breath.

There are already so many pressure groups, residents associations who try to get GA closed down. We seem to loose airfields all the time.

Aviation used to be the dream of Kids with books like Biggles firing their imagination, the true pioneering age of flight.

My feeling is there are enough out there to take pot shots at pilots without us doing the same to our own.
Do not for one minute think these pressure groups or associations care about their peace being broken most are bored retired people with nothing to do but attach their flag to some mast or other.

Ok if we know of a pilot who is a danger to himself then a word in his ear or his flying club should be the first action but I think we are treading dangerous ground if we start snooping and telling on every perceived misdemeanor valid or not!


Pace

[Flyingmac]

IanPZ. No. Can't find the right words.:ugh: What Pace said.

[Dg800]

2. Did they have permission? I have no idea, but would be very surprised at a microlight getting permission to enter LONDON CTR.

Why?

1 - no transponder, hence no TCAS protection
2- no good reason to enter CTR, as I'm quite sure microlights cannot land in any of London's airports (but I might be wrong on that one, feel free to correct me) and he didn't appear to be going anywhere that might require routing through the CTR (as a matter of fact, it was just flying in circles)

[ShyTorque]

(absolving him of the foot rules but not the glide clear)

Not completely correct.

In UK, a SVFR clearance does absolve the pilot from compliance with the "1,000 foot" rule, but even then, the "500 foot" rule still applies for any flight over a congested area, irrespective of an ATC clearance to the contrary.

The only exemptions are if the pilot is taking off or landing at a government or licensed airfield, or under the terms of a specific written permission from the CAA. This applies to single and twin engined aircraft, including helicopters, btw.

In my office I have a box file full of written permissions, now at a mere £113 a pop from the CAA.

[Flyingmac]

1 - no transponder, hence no TCAS protection
2- no good reason to enter CTR, as I'm quite sure microlights cannot land in any of London's airports (but I might be wrong on that one, feel free to correct me)

I won't be flying the Eurostar with mode S and TCAS into Denham any time soon then.

[soaringhigh650]

1 - no transponder, hence no TCAS protection.

The last time I remember flying in London, transponders were not required in uncontrolled airspace under the TMA. So you won't get any TCAS protection if someone busts vertically anyway.

2- no good reason to enter CTR

You may want to enter terminal airspace to save time and fuel on your journey. You also let the controller know who you are and what you want to do. They will also give you a route to operate safely so nobody is panicking if you bust.

[Dg800]

I won't be flying the Eurostar with mode S and TCAS into Denham any time soon then.

You missed the part where the OP said it was a flexiwing microlight. Are there flexiwing microlights with Mode S and TCAS flying around in the UK?

[Dg800]

The last time I remember flying in London, transponders were not required in uncontrolled airspace under the TMA. So you won't get any TCAS protection if someone busts vertically anyway.

The OP claimed the microlight was flying inside the CTR. To my knowledge, that is controlled airspace. Busting a controlled area and being cleared to enter it are two completely different issues, we're discussing the possibility that it might have been CLEARED to be flying where it was (purportedly) been seen flying.

You may want to enter terminal airspace to save time and fuel on your journey. You also let the controller know who you are and what you want to do. They will also give you a route to operate safely so nobody is panicking if you bust.

Again, the alleged offender was (allegedly) seen circling around without apparent intention of flying from some point A to some other point B. I don't think stating as your intentions "I want to circle around a bit to look at the pretty houses" will get you anywhere with your average air traffic controller, much less so in such a busy airspace as LONDON CTR. :E

So, I still maintain that the chances that this particular ultralight was operating within the limits of an ATC clearance are rather slim, much slimmer than if it had been a Eurostar with Mode S transponder and TCAS flying along a well-known VFR crossing route. :p

[Crash one]

I don't think stating as your intentions "I want to circle around a bit to look at the pretty houses" will get you anywhere with your average air traffic controller,

I don't see any reason why not.
Air traffic controllers are there to help the pilot, not the other way round, or so I have been told by Air traffic controllers I have spoken to.
They may say "No we are too busy" but they (shouldn't) just say no for the sake of it, even in Hallowed London.

[RMK]

Ignore it. Did it harm you or anyone else?

...let go of your net curtains, sit down and stop watching what the neighbours are up to.

I fully agree with “Pace’s” comments above. Spend your spare time making GA better instead of ruining it.

[Talkdownman]

ATC Clearance should only be withheld for traffic reasons unless prevented by HM Government.
SVFR flights are not to hinder IFR flights.
A serviceable transponder is not a requirement for SVFR flight within the London CTR. The absence of a transponder, however, can make life somewhat difficult for the SVFR Controller because of the need to inform several other radar agencies that known, primary-only traffic is about to enter the CTR.
Procedures for Non-Standard Flights within the London CTR are published in the UK IAIP at ENR 1-1-4-1.

Other than for traffic reasons there is absolutely no reason why a microlight should not operate within the London CTR with ATC Clearance. Indeed, in the past there has been a gathering of microlights, including flex-wings, at Heathrow's (old) Block 102. I cannot recall the significance of the occasion.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I don't see any reason why not.
"Can I come a mile into your zone to do a few orbits round my girlfriend's house" is a perfectly resonable request. You might get "yes" as an answer. It's no worse than my asking Lakenheath if they mind me doing an orbit round Ely Cathedral at 1,500', obviously just for the entertainment of my passengers.

Still subject to low flying rules of course.

[toptobottom]

Pace/Flyingmac/RMK

With respect, I think you've missed the point. The OP has already made it perfectly plain in the thread title and subsequently in his post #35 (http://www.pprune.org/7461040-post35.html): Let's be clear here, I was asking what your thoughts are. ...that he was asking advice!

I don't think he said he was a curtain twitcher waiting to pounce on unsuspecting aviators, nor that he had any intention of reporting anybody or doing anything that might damage GA. He's not 'snooping', nor has he suggested that he's 'telling on every perceived misdemeanour'. He noticed something and asked what the PPRuNe community would do if it saw someone flying dangerously.

Whether this microlight chap was in the CTR/without or without permission/in breach of Rule 5/flying dangerously is not clear. However, if I saw someone wilfully flying dangerously i.e. risking injury or death to himself or others, then he deserves a good talking to at best, or reporting to the authorities at worst (or both). I'd expect exactly the same from any of my peers. Why protect an idiot whose dangerous behaviour is damaging GA?! :confused:

[IanPZ]

Sorry for the delay in responding, been out enjoying myself in Cornwall!

Toptobottom...thanks, and yes, you are spot on. I can see that others seem to think what I was posting was a 'hey look at someone doing something wrong I have to report you right now' kind of message, but I wasn't, as you correctly noted.

I was mostly interested in the responses, and what peoples views are. Personally, I think that the approach of 'leave well alone and shout at anyone who even looks like they might be interfering with my freedoms' tends to mean that issues get left too late to actually intervene, which is a shame.

Also, to those of you who have had a nice old go at me for being inexperienced, cos I am still learning, can I just note that perhaps that was why I was asking.

Anyhow, I get it now. How's this as a summary

- Keep my eyes open,
- don't jump to conclusions just because it looks wrong
- if you are sure something is wrong, speak to the person about it

Oh yes, and...

- assume that anyone who has less years experience than you must be wrong, so tell them so....a lot (sorry, couldn't help myself)

Thanks to all who helped...looking forwards to joining the ranks of qualified some day soon (well, within the next few years!!!)

[ShyTorque]

Oh yes, and...

- assume that anyone who has less years experience than you must be wrong, so tell them so....a lot (sorry, couldn't help myself)

Sorry to say that this is something that anyone posting here on this forum has to get used to because there are some who sit behind their own curtains..... eagerly awaiting the chance to do just that. :ok:

[Heston]

...less years experience...

Its either "less experience" or "fewer years experience".

That's another thing you'll have to get used to - pedantic k***heads just waiting to correct your English all the time:8. Sorry, I just couldn't resist it!;)

[IanPZ]

Touché, Heston, mea culpa :)