Motorway Flying ...

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Would the pilot of the (locally based) Cessna F150J who was flying South following the M6 motorway in Lancashire yesterday lunchtime please explain what pre-flight planning s/he carried out, and what particular attention was paid to threat and error management, that resulted in the aircraft having to navigate alongside the motorway and remain visual with the surface at an estimated height above the ground of between 150 to 250 feet in heavy rain?!

You were lucky my friend.

I hope you will take that as a salutary lesson, because if you consider that exhibition of flying acceptable you may not be around too much longer!

:=

[ak7274]

Overbearing posts on here do nothing to help either. Advice and assistance is better than posting holier than thou comments.
I bet he isn't your friend either.

[Steve6443]

Really? No holier than though comments? I thought that was the point of forums :p:p:p

Ok, I'll get my coat......

[SpannerInTheWerks]

ak7274

Neither are you.

'Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect'.

There's a piece of good advice!

Another is to read and understand TAFs and METARs - and act on them.

Yet one more - don't succumb to 'press-on-itis' - the weather was reasonable from where this pilot had come from and it seems s/he continued into an ever lowering cloud base rather than turn around and/or divert. Heaven knows what would have happened to this non-instrument pilot if the cloud base had lowered even further or s/he had lost sight of the motorway?

Another CFIT statistic no doubt.

Aviation is no place for fools and a soft approach giving 'advice and assistance' is not likely to press this point home - although I imagine the pilot of the C150 is unlikely to want to repeat this particular experience?!

[banditb6]

And you are??

[ShyTorque]

How do you know where the pilot had come from? How do you know that he hadn't already turned round?

[Sop_Monkey]

Where were you when you saw this aircraft? Hopefully not at the wheel of a moving motor, on the MW.

If what you say is true, then he or she would have given themselves such a fright they will learn a very good lesson and wont get sucked in again.

This is how we learn. Some need more lessons than others.

We all make mistakes and will continue to do so.

[TRY2FLY]

How do you know he/she was a "non instrument pilot"

[Crash one]

I can't do smilies on this thing but I'm sick of the waggy finger thing.If you know the (locally based) aircraft then go to the local base, find out who was flying the aircraft at that time & have the guts to speak to the pilot rather than try to score points on here as a "concerned person".

[Maoraigh1]

My eyesight is so bad I could hardly tell a Cessna F150J from an I or a K when preflighting on the ground.
In a car, in heavy rain, at motorway speeds, and the resulting spray, even as a passenger, I'd have difficulty seeing the reg at that distance.

[gasax]

Well spanner, full marks for being so, so, much smarter than someone who you do not know - or really much care about. We are truly impressed by the 'outraged of Surbiton' posting.

Spanner by name and nature.

[m.Berger]

Or being instructed in operation at minimum level and finding conditions worsening.
And what if he has more qualification and experience than you Spanner? Is he then still an idiot?

[md 600 driver]

It's politically not correct to call him a spanner anymore

[Steve6443]

I'm not correct. Politically or otherwise......:cool:

[m.Berger]

Can he be called a socket?

[flarepilot]

so, you saw a plane flying along in the rain, alongside a major road.

I've been flying along the road in rain and still been in VMC having INFLIGHT visibility better than 3 miles.

IF you were sure the plane was in some violation of safety regulations, I suggest you contact the CAA (isn't that the equivilent of the FAA in England)along with their registration number and time/location.

Then the proper authorities can take proper action after a proper investigation. AFter all you only estimated the height (we might say altitude).

I once reported someone for getting an instrument clearance without an instrument rating...the FAA investigated and took them to lunch, telling them not to do that again.

Just think, someone could get a free lunch if you call in!

[Frightened nose gear]

Every so often i see an aircraft flying in the local area near my works in dreadfull weather conditions. Sometimes at below 1000 feet. A couple of years ago one crashed into the nearby "hill". It made the front page of the local paper which is great news for the shut airfields down brigade.
The poster did not mention the aircraft reg just made an observation.Jump on his case and feel good about yourselves as a bunch and feel you have gained brownie points but maybe think about his post.
I stopped reading Pprune a few years ago cos of crap postings then revisited the site but it seems its not changed!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Possible scenarios:-

(1) Highly experienced captain with good situational awareness permanently about to climb into IMC if it got too bad but it never quite did.

(2) Crap weather but line feature to destination, competent pilot flying field to field using the road as reference prepared to make a field landing if it got too bad, but it never quite did.

(3) Idiot out of his depth who somehow got away with it.

(4) Visibility along the flight route rather better than it appeared from the ground.


I think I've been in all four of those at some point in my flying career. Certainly I'd not be worried about landing a C150 in a field - it's an excellent short field aeroplane. It also flies slowly well - and in such conditions visibility is much more important measured in time rather than distance.

Regardless, if it was me on the ground seeing it, I don't think that I'd post on a forum about it in quite this manner. I *might* phone the CFI / club chairman where the aircraft came from, if I knew them, for a private chat to suggest that he should have a chat to make sure that any necessary learning points had been made.

However, you can see why one might want to blow a bit of steam off after seeing something that seems a bit daft. So I'd not judge Spanner that harshly.


But a comment about mindsets. A year or so ago I was flying (as it happens with another forum member who may recognise the scenario if they read this) a microlight home from a long all day navex. The weather was forecast to deteriorate significantly, but it did so around 4-6 hours earlier than forecast and I got trapped in a valley VFR - in a VFR only aeroplane, with no way out. Oh well, I landed on a golf course, without incident, and was eventually able to fly out again solo a few days later - I didn't even get charged green fees.

The interesting thing about it afterwards however was the response of various types of pilot I told the story to:-

Light aircraft pilots: "YOU DID WHAT? ARE YOU MAD?"

Microlight pilots: (brief pause for thought) "Yes, good call, well done.

Glider pilots: "So what? that's not even a good story".

Which is just to make the point that different pilots, with different perspectives, may see these things very differently. We should all bear that in mind before criticising other people's flying.

G

[Sop_Monkey]

Flarepilot

You sound like a real nice guy.

Can you explain this to me please:

"I once reported someone for getting an instrument clearance without an instrument rating...the FAA investigated and took them to lunch, telling them not to do that again."

You're trying to tell me, fact a pilot receives a clearance and reads it back, he is in trouble if the clearance is not legal? Don't you read back a clearance, check if you can carry out the clearance, legally? If not call it in and say it can't be done.

I have heard of this sort of strange behavior before. Heard an FAA guy pitched up in Aspen, Col years age and violated at least 3 pilots for taking clearances, then upon review, the departure couldn't be carried out legally for that aircraft on that day.. Or is it in the US you have to know every departure in your head, for every airport you visit?

[Steve6443]

"I once reported someone for getting an instrument clearance without an instrument rating...the FAA investigated and took them to lunch, telling them not to do that again."

I think he was referring to the fact that a non IR rated pilot requested and got an IFR clearance, which he then reported to the FAA - and if that's so, with friends like that, who needs enemies :}

[SpannerInTheWerks]

How do you know that he hadn't already turned round?

At that height, in those conditions, in my opinion, no chance.

Hopefully not at the wheel of a moving motor, on the MW.


Absolutely - the aircraft was so low I was able to read the registration through my windscreen, with the wipers on, in heavy spray and rain. The aircraft was mid-windcreen flying directly adjacent to the motorway.

How do you know he/she was a "non instrument pilot"

It would be a sad reflection on any IMC or Instrument Rated pilot to have found themsleves in that situation.

If you know the (locally based) aircraft then go to the local base, find out who was flying the aircraft at that time & have the guts to speak to the pilot rather than try to score points on here as a "concerned person".

I know the aircraft and base well and I've flown the aircraft on many occasions.

What I in fact did was to (conveniently) pull into the Charnock Richard services and call Liverpool ATC. I was concerned that, although I thought the aircraft had been 'caught out' by the weather, there was a chance of a actual problem with the aeroplane. Liverpool informed me they were not aware of an emergency but had a 7000 squark in the general location. I told them the reg and they said they would call the local airfield just to make sure all was okay.

My eyesight is so bad I could hardly tell a Cessna F150J from an I or a K when preflighting on the ground.

I know the reg, I've flown the aircraft, so quoting the type was an obvious way to avoid giving the reg out here.

Or being instructed in operation at minimum level and finding conditions worsening.

In that case the instructor should be shot!!!

AFter all you only estimated the height (we might say altitude).

True an estimate of height based on nearly 40 years of flying experience. We would not say altitude, I would say HEIGHT above the ground.

Genghis

Agreed.

Although I think the only story that might have come out of this would have been bad, just like it was when two clubmates of mine were killed some years ago flying into the top of the Wrekin.

Possible scenarios:

(1) No, far too low (in breach of Rule 5(3)(b) etc)

(2) No (ditto);

(3) Most likely scenario in this instance;

(4) No, because if s/he was either of the pilots in (1) or (2) they would have turned back/diverted/climbed to avoid breaching the Rules of the Air, apart from any thoughts of self-preservation.

This aircraft was REALLY low and my estimate of the height is good - about the height you would expect to see any aircraft on finals shortly before they cross the airfield boundary at a typical grass strip.

I appreciate no one knows my flying qualifications and experience, but I would not post here unless I felt there was a real danger and risk of an accident to the aircraft.

This was an unprecented experience and I've never seen an aircraft en route so low, is such poor conditions and obviously struggling with the situation - so much so that I called Liverpool to express my concern for their wellbeing.

Not, you may note to report the pilot for low flying!!!

IF you were sure the plane was in some violation of safety regulations, I suggest you contact the CAA

Oh it was, without a doubt - but I am resisting any temptation to 'dob in' a fellow aviator - hopefully there are other ways to 'learn'.

I think Genghis has the best idea:

I don't think that I'd post on a forum about it in quite this manner. I *might* phone the CFI / club chairman where the aircraft came from, if I knew them, for a private chat to suggest that he should have a chat to make sure that any necessary learning points had been made.


However, I don't know them which is why I posted - nevertheless I'm sure someone on PPRuNe must know the situation, especially if Liverpool ATC rang the airfield around 13:00Z on Saturday and asked if the Cessna F150J in question had landed safely.

Hopefully 'they' will instigate the appropriate learning and achieve something from all of this?

[Sop_Monkey]

Spanner

Is not driving a full time occupation, especially in those conditions? By "rubbernecking" aren't you endangering your fellow drivers on the MW with your inattention?

[Peter-RB]

I bet he was driving an Audi....Vorsprung Crunch..technics...opps sorry I thought the radar was on, possibly a pax , but still it takes all types, even Audi drivers,,:cool:

Peter R-B

[soaringhigh650]

You were lucky my friend.

IFR (I follow roads) flying? Sad.

As has been said many times already, arrange any necessarily clearances and go and do IFR properly.

Don't scud run. It ain't worth the risk. :=

[ShyTorque]

What I in fact did was to (conveniently) pull into the Charnock Richard services and call Liverpool ATC. I was concerned that, although I thought the aircraft had been 'caught out' by the weather, there was a chance of a actual problem with the aeroplane. Liverpool informed me they were not aware of an emergency but had a 7000 squark in the general location. I told them the reg and they said they would call the local airfield just to make sure all was okay.

So - end of story. The aircraft obviously landed safely. The pilot will no doubt have learned from his frightening experience. Why should he "appear" on a public forum, on demand, to explain himself? Would you? I doubt it.

It's quite possible that he was setting himself up for a precautionary field landing. He was entitled to do so.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

soaringhigh650

Exactly.

:ok:

On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashire UK

Another a**e posting on PPRuNe it seems! :D

The incident wasn't far from there - must be two in the area that day?!

It's quite possible that he was setting himself up for a precautionary field landing

Whatever :}

[JamieE]

I'm amazed that anyone could defend a pilot that was flying so dangerously.

I know that we all make the occasional mistake from time to time, but learning by them is not the route to improving flying skills, learning through good instruction is.

The only slight question is that this is or not a suitable post on a forum, but is that not what forums are for?

As for criticising the person who made this point for looking at the aircraft whilst driving, can any of you (as people interested in aviation) say you have never looked at an aircraft whilst driving?

[Sir George Cayley]

What was the forward visibility? Not in the motorway spray but at the height the plane was at?

SGC

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm amazed that anyone could defend a pilot that was flying so dangerously.

I know that we all make the occasional mistake from time to time, but learning by them is not the route to improving flying skills, learning through good instruction is.

The only slight question is that this is or not a suitable post on a forum, but is that not what forums are for?

As for criticising the person who made this point for looking at the aircraft whilst driving, can any of you (as people interested in aviation) say you have never looked at an aircraft whilst driving?

I'll defend them - provisionally - because he (or she) were in the cockpit seeing the conditions that pertained to them, and none of the rest of us were.

G

[Jetblu]

Well said Genghis.

I would also go a step beyond that even, and say that I am surprised we are stabbing our brethren in the back on a public forum, with what could have been an genuine actual emergency in the cockpit.

[maxred]

Well said Genghis

+1

I had stayed out of this discussion because frankly some of the vitriol was unnecessary. We have all at times found ourselves in a position where it would have been preferable to turn the clock back and be on the ground. We do not know under what circumstances the pilot of this aircraft found himself in poor weather, but, we assume he landed, and have to assume the flight was completed successfully. The end result was positive, so, no issue. As for contacting all and sundry, seems a bit drastic to me, but it takes all types......

[flarepilot]

sop monkey, I am a nice guy.

the person getting the clearance (USA) had filed a flight plane (Instrument) without having an instrument rating.

this is illegal.

against the rules.

dangerous to others as he was incompetent.


it is sort of like the guy who is alone in a plane and puts the hood on over his face so he can practice.


it is dumb.


the FAA was very lenient.


And I would report anyone who did the same thing .


It had nothing to do with the clearance...he didn't have the right to navigate on an IFR clearance without an instrument rating (that's what we call them here in the USA).

[flarepilot]

could there have been an instrument approach (non precision) in the area of the motorway? could the pilot have been flying the approach, properly cleared?

there are a number of instrument approaches in the US that fly near a roadway at low altitude. If you fly them properly, legally, safely, you have every right to be there.

flying at low altitude when needed for landing or takeoff is quite legal.

[abgd]

As for criticising the person who made this point for looking at the aircraft whilst driving, can any of you (as people interested in aviation) say you have never looked at an aircraft whilst driving? Absolutely... Partly because I don't drive, but also because even when I'm on my bicycle I make a point of ignoring distractions. I'm sure I'm not without blame in other respects, but I've never used a mobile whilst cycling, or checked a text, or more than glanced at an aircraft without stopping.

In a way, I'd go as far as saying that taking down an aircraft registration whilst on the motorway is more reprehensible than getting yourself into a sticky situation. The latter is likely down to a series of misjudgements ending with someone making the best of a bad situation. But staring at an aircraft whilst driving is something that you absolutely have the choice not to do.

[Steve6443]

sop monkey, I am a nice guy.

the person getting the clearance (USA) had filed a flight plane (Instrument) without having an instrument rating.

this is illegal.

against the rules.

dangerous to others as he was incompetent.


it is sort of like the guy who is alone in a plane and puts the hood on over his face so he can practice.


it is dumb.


the FAA was very lenient.


And I would report anyone who did the same thing .

Remind me not to tell Flarepilot what ratings I have.... or not.......:hmm:

[SpannerInTheWerks]

I know this is PPRuNe, but the level of response has, to say the least, generally been disappointing.

It was hoped that there would be a sensible and balanced discussion about what was a very serious and potentially life-threatening situation (even on this amateur Forum).

This pilot, for whatever reason, not only broke a number of the Rules of the Air but, in my opinion, endangered an aircraft and its occupants.

Talk of precautionary landings and instrument approaches and other such scenarios are out of the question given the position of the aircraft and the atrocious state of the weather at the time.

I was startled by the aircraft due to it's low height above the ground and did not need to 'rubberneck' the registration as it was plain to see in my windscreen by simply moving my head!

My initial thought was for the safety of the occupants and I stopped in the motorway services within a couple of minutes of seeing the aircraft to enquire of Liverpool ATC whether an aircraft was in difficulty, not to report the pilot for low flying.

In view of the comments and criticisms I have received I consider the only way forward is to file Form FCS1520 for an Alleged Breach of Air Navigation Legislation against this pilot.

This is not a laughing matter.

I'll let the CAA be the arbiter in this case.

:=

[AndoniP]

I thought you left it to Liverpool ATC to check that they got to their destination safely?

You don't have to file a form just because of criticism you've received.

The pilot will know what kind of a sh*t sandwich they got themselves in, and will probably have learned from this.

I'd call Liverpool ATC or the club to discuss the matter further and gain more clarity on the circumstances IMO.

[500 above]

In view of the comments and criticisms I have received I consider the only way forward is to file Form FCS1520 for an Alleged Breach of Air Navigation Legislation against this pilot.

That's jolly decent of you. Commendable. Let's hope you never get caught out and encounter a person such as yourself.

FFS, call the club, speak to the pilot. To err is human... No doubt, he/she learned from this.

[BabyBear]

To err is human... No doubt, he/she learned from this. Agreed, they were not there by choice, but by necessity. Given they had already made the error of being in poor weather what would you expect them to do?

If it had been a wonderfully clear day and they were at 150 feet it is an entirely different situation.

BB

Edited to add that for the response on PPRuNe to determine whether it is reported or not is simply ridiculous and does you no credit whatsoever.

[PA28181]

How many vehicles were speeding past you in the atrocious weather conditions?, I hope you got all their registrations and contacted the DVLA/Police. Having decide yourself that a breach of the ANO has taken place without knowing the facts, do you not think you have overstepped the mark of an over zealous policeman and possibly ruined someones life. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Support the wrongdoer.

Usual fare in this day and age.

[500 above]

Have you never breached the rules of the air Spanner? Have a little leniency and compassion. I guarantee you that the pilot would have learned from this flight.

Yes, he or she stuffed up, but it's better than punching up into the clouds and freezing level in a probably poorly equipped C152 with barely a pitot heater. Evidently, this pilot probably didn't have the capability or knowledge to fly in IMC.

I'd be interested to hear Flying Lawyers take on this.

[Jonzarno]

I know this is PPRuNe, but the level of response has, to say the least, generally been disappointing.

It was hoped that there would be a sensible and balanced discussion about what was a very serious and potentially life-threatening situation (even on this amateur Forum).

This pilot, for whatever reason, not only broke a number of the Rules of the Air but, in my opinion, endangered an aircraft and its occupants.

Talk of precautionary landings and instrument approaches and other such scenarios are out of the question given the position of the aircraft and the atrocious state of the weather at the time.

I was startled by the aircraft due to it's low height above the ground and did not need to 'rubberneck' the registration as it was plain to see in my windscreen by simply moving my head!

My initial thought was for the safety of the occupants and I stopped in the motorway services within a couple of minutes of seeing the aircraft to enquire of Liverpool ATC whether an aircraft was in difficulty, not to report the pilot for low flying.

In view of the comments and criticisms I have received I consider the only way forward is to file Form FCS1520 for an Alleged Breach of Air Navigation Legislation against this pilot.

This is not a laughing matter.

I'll let the CAA be the arbiter in this case.





I agree that much of what has been posted in this thread has not been helpful but have to ask if your decision to file the form is intended to help the pilot or a reaction to criticism of your point of view and thus intended to justify your own actions?

If you are trying to help the pilot avoid a similar situation in the future, and given that you say you know the aircraft and where it came from, surely a quiet word with the pilot or the CFI at the airfield will achieve more than filing the form. After all, if the pilot won't listen, you can always file the form later.

My £.02 worth.

[md 600 driver]

Spanner

Glasshouses

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Quote:
On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashire UK
Another a**e posting on PPRuNe it seems! :D

The incident wasn't far from there - must be two in the area that day?!




Oh dear; it's always considered bad form to make personal attacks on people who don't see things one's own way.


In view of the comments and criticisms I have received I consider the only way forward is to file Form FCS1520 for an Alleged Breach of Air Navigation Legislation against this pilot.


Feel free; it's your democratic right. Don't hold your breath for a result that's pleasing to you though. You weren't in the "offending" aeroplane so don't know the true horizontal vis and the perceived distance from the nearest person, vehicle or structure. Remember that the PiC's perception and judgement of what was safe and legal carries more weight than that of a well meaning and "informed" spectator.

As regards reporting people for flying IFR without the appropriate Rating, flarepilot, there can be extenuating circumstances. As an ATCO Cadet on a gin clear Winter day at Manch In '72, I listened to a fellow Controller under training give a SID (Otringham One if I remember rightly) clearance to a light aircraft. As clearances go, it was an instruction. By a moment of distraction, his Mentor missed the salient details. Probably at about 2 and a bit thousand feet and climbing generally towards Congleton, the Mentor realised what was happening and recovered the situation. Was it the PPL holder's fault for flying in Rule 22 airspace (Class A in new money) without the correct rating? The general concensus in the Tower was "no". The Watch Supervisor (Bill) did call the Stude and Mentor to one side for a quiet word.

Have you chaps considered being a Police Special (or Deputy Sheriff) or Parking Warden in your spare time?

[Dave Gittins]

Once upon a time in my youth I was flying from the Preston direction towards Barton and it didn't seem in the least untoward to let down to about 600 ft and look at the signs on the M61to check my position ... somewhere near Horwich I was.

[PA28181]

"Support the wrongdoer. Seems to the usual fare these days"

You have obviously made up your mind that this "criminal", which is what they will be if proved to have broken the law, is guilty before the possible trial, then that seems to be the usual fare these days........

[BabyBear]

Spanner, you've lost any support I had for you causing me to question your motive.

Faced with the pilot's options on the day would you have chosen to fly in cloud to prevent becoming a wrong doer?

BB

[flarepilot]

golf bravo zulu


there is quite a bit of difference between being caught in class A airspace and a mistake

and

sitting on the ground, filing an IFR flight plan WITHOUT HAVING AN INSTRUMENT RATING, then going to a plane, calling clearance delivery (aka ground) getting the clearance, then switching to tower and taking off .


one is a mistake (and shouldn't have happened) and one is an intentional act.


the pilot involved had also done other questionable things like flying under bridges.


but maybe all that stuff is ok, just youthful hijinks, right?

[md 600 driver]

Spanner

the penny has dropped this aircraft or pilot is associated with fly bpl isn't it
was he insured ?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

flarepilot, fair point. Please disregard the deputy and parking wallah question.

[flyalotbob]

Everyone at egnh better watch out from now on. Spanner is about. Keep exactly on the yellow lines while taxying or you'll end up on a form :ugh:

[Steve6443]

Originally Posted by SpannerInTheWerks
In view of the comments and criticisms I have received I consider the only way forward is to file Form FCS1520 for an Alleged Breach of Air Navigation Legislation against this pilot.


I find this so petty and childish.... Your attitude comes across as being

"because none of you think I am doing the right thing and bowing down to my superior intellect and aviaton skills, I'm going to file a report.....":ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Captain Smithy]

A worrying trend of current times is for individuals to be publicly lambasted and ridiculed on public forums, Keechbook, Tw-atter etc. by largely anonymous individuals who freely pass comment on incidents and goings on without being in posession of the full facts but instead seem to get some sort of cruel and sadistic pleasure out of publicly dragging folks' reputations through the sewers, usually accompanied with many personal insults. This achieves nothing at all.

If we witness someone doing something wrong or dangerous, not just in aviation but in life in general, then we have duty to report it through the official channels, instead of (anonymously) going onto a forum to moan and bitch about it and get all high and mighty.

Character assasination and hanging without trial (metaphorically speaking) seems to be a very 21st Century thing in Britain. Why?

Smithy

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can't be the only person here with an understanding of CRM?


Some basic principles.

(1) Somebody does something wrong.

(2a) They are then criticised or punished. Result, everybody else runs for cover, recriminations surround, nobody deals with the underlying problem.

(2b) They are asked to participate in finding the solution and preventing a recurrence. Most people muck in to help, the underlying problem gets tackled.


(3a) Somebody repeats the mistake, go back to (2a) again,

(3b) Everybody knows how to avoid the mistake, hopefully it doesn't happen again.


Public accusations and recriminations are really really unhelpful because although the punitive culture makes people try hard to not mess up, they don't resolve the underlying issues that ultimately will cause somebody, somewhere, to screw up.

Hence the well known phrase on the front of AAIB's website...

The purpose of the AAIB is:

To improve aviation safety by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents and making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence
...It is not to apportion blame or liability.

Keith Conradi, Chief Inspector

G

[Lightning Mate]

THIS is motorway flying..

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu82/Lightning_29/motorway_zps2afe8e47.jpg

Ex Jaguar pilot.

[maxred]

Thats three points on the licence, and a sixty quid fixed penalty for that me son.....

Did anyone get the reg:hmm:

[Unusual Attitude]

The Jags reheat would certainly be handy for tailgaters.... :E

[500 above]

I heard that Jags were ground grippers...

[Lightning Mate]

The Jags reheat would certainly be handy for tailgaters.... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Only on take-off - this one is landing if you didn't notice the tyre smoke.

[Silvaire1]

Character assasination and hanging without trial (metaphorically speaking) seems to be a very 21st Century thing in Britain. Why?In the 20th Century and until today, people have been instructed that if they run their lives by ever more preordained legal process, life will be good. The value of personal initiative has been downplayed to the point of being suspect. Quite predictably it hasn't worked out except for those taking initiative to control the rules, and now the mass of people who went down that road without great result are frustrated. I think its clearly an epidemic in the UK, but its certainly not limited to the UK. I had an old guy in Germany strike me because I was standing slightly in the bicycle lane - same thing I think, for the same reason: inappropriate rage caused by having ineffectually sacrificed a lifetime of opportunity in favor of conformance.

Regardless of cause and as Genghis lays out, a punitive approach does not work as well as a balanced approach.

[englishal]

(1) No, far too low (in breach of Rule 5(3)(b) etc)
500' ? It is not really that far, 160m? Can you REALLY be sure he was in breach of rule 5?....No I thought not, I rest my case your honor :=

There are two issues here...1) What someone thought was a dangerous act., and 2) What really happened. We don't know 2 as there is no one to answer their case but it could be explained by a million reasons....Aircraft landing at a private strip, good inflight vis below the cloudbase, aircraft positioning to land somewhere, student pilot caught out....Who knows. And for that reason I am not keen on throwing accusations around on a public forum. I reckon that in 14 years of flying, I don't reckon I could judge 500' very accurately from the ground.

[ShyTorque]

I had an old guy in Germany strike me because I was standing slightly in the bicycle lane

Ooh, you rebel, you!

[Steve6443]

The Jags reheat would certainly be handy for tailgaters....

Not forgetting Sidewinders for the lane hoggers in front.......:E

[First_Principal]

In reading GtE's post #18 I'm reminded of another scenario.

A C150 I once flew had the carb heat flap control lever connection to the cable become loose in flight, meaning that the flap freely and intermittently moved from fully closed to fully open.

Those that have flown the 150 will recall I'm sure that they're not well endowed with power, certainly this machine with the carb heat full on really wasn't particularly effective at staying in the air... so while I'm not necessarily suggesting this particular fault it's always possible that there was some issue with the 'craft.

In which case Spanner's concern and initial actions are commendable.. his/her latter suggestion of action however does seem to reek a little more of spite than anything else.

FP.

[abgd]

I had an old guy in Germany strike me because I was standing slightly in the bicycle lane - same thing I think, for the same reason: inappropriate rage caused by having ineffectually sacrificed a lifetime of opportunity in favor of conformance.

I've noticed this in Germany too. When I was in Florida, on the other hand, people seemed to run you down for sport and the green traffic light was something akin to the opening of the hunting season. In Britain I guess they run you down because they're looking at aeroplanes.

[Lightning Mate]

Not forgetting Sidewinders for the lane hoggers in front.......http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Wouldn't acquire.

Cheaper to use the 30mm.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

I agree that much of what has been posted in this thread has not been helpful but have to ask if your decision to file the form is intended to help the pilot or a reaction to criticism of your point of view and thus intended to justify your own actions?

If you are trying to help the pilot avoid a similar situation in the future, and given that you say you know the aircraft and where it came from, surely a quiet word with the pilot or the CFI at the airfield will achieve more than filing the form. After all, if the pilot won't listen, you can always file the form later.

My £.02 worth.

That reply's worth more than tuppence, Jonzarno.

All I can say is that with traffic slowed to 60 mph on the motorway, low cloud, strong wind, heavy rain and spray he was VERY low!

I have no intention of taking any further action, however, because I can't see anything would be gained by it - I don't want an argument with the CFI or the pilot and a complaint to the CAA would be time consuming, expensive to me and difficult to prove.

[Jonzarno]

Spanner

Thanks for your reaction to what I wrote.

It all depends on what you want to achieve: the very fact that you posted in the first place shows that you care.

If it was me, especially if I knew any of those involved, I wouldn't mind upsetting either the pilot or the CFI by mentioning what I saw in as sensitive and non-confrontational way as I could. I wouldn't be trying to win an argument, just to try to help the pilot, or someone else in a similar situation, not to do it again.

I understand that the pilot might find it hard to listen: the CFI shouldn't if they are any good. All I would want them to do is think about what happened in this case and avoid it happening in the future.

Ultimately, though, if doing so ended up offending them: that would still be OK with me provided it at least contributed to making them think about it. There's also often a difference between what people say in response to something like this and their subsequent thoughts about what they have done.

Something to think about: if you don't say anything and next week the same pilot, or another from the same airfield, makes the same mistake and dies, how will you feel?

I know that that puts you in an uncomfortable position: the balance of probabilities is that there won't be a fatal accident but, that said, I know what I'd do.....

It's your call.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Jonzarno

Accepted.

the balance of probabilities is that there won't be a fatal accident

I'm weary of this case - let fate be the hunter, not me!

[Ivor Fynn]

Spanner,

I have to agree with the above post, for me it would be a no brainer, speak to the CFI. If he is sensible he would have a word, if he doesn't and there is a smoking hole at least you will have given him the opportunity to re-educate or offer advice.

I had the same thing 25 years ago, fortunately no one was killed but it did cost the tax payer £25 million.

Ivor

[Dave Wilson]

THIS is motorway flying..

Mmmm...centreline tank and 4xCBU's? Didn't know we had a stretch of motorway long enough...:E

[hotcloud]

I have just been advised by a colleague that there is a thread on motorway flying on Pprune. He told me that the tower had received a call from Liverpool regarding concerns that an aircraft may have been in difficulty and was following the M6 motorway at low level. This is the first I have heard of the incident as I was the one flying the aircraft at the time. I feel that I need to provide some balance regarding this thread.


This was a planned navigational exercise (18B operation at minimum level), and an exercise I have done over thirty times before. I use the same route as I believe it is highly beneficial to the students. I am certainly no maverick and I truly respect weather conditions that are within my limits. I have held a pilot’s licence for 30 years and have 8,800 hours of PI. I shall now provide the details of this particular exercise.
The route starts at Leigh flash at 650 ft on the Manchester QNH, the aircraft is then configured into the slow safe cruise. A track of about 320 is then flown to take us south of Wigan. The student is then told that we would be unable to cross Wigan at such a low altitude and therefore Wigan must be circumnavigated. A track is then taken easterly to follow round the outskirts of Wigan. The student is then told to climb up to 900 ft on the QNH to maintain the 500ft rule. This was duly done on the day. Whilst in the slow safe cruise I then ask the student how far landmarks are and estimate how long it would take to get to it, bearing in mind the wind direction. Once north of Wigan and flying in a westerly direction I then descend to 700 ft the QNH whilst passing over the M6 and following the railway line to Burscough. I demonstrate that the line feature must be to the left to comply with the rules of the air. At Burscough I then fly south to the M58 and again ask the student how long this would take. At the M58 motorway we overfly junction 3. With normal eyesight you can actually read the motorway sign legally, that is to say above 500 AGL. I happen to be fortunate I can read the motorway signs from a higher height as I have a visual acuity of 6/5. We then follow the M58 to the M6 and again I ask for an estimate to the M6. There is rising ground as the get close to the M6 and the student is then asked to climb to 900 ft on the QNH. At the M6 we then head southbound maintaining an altitude of 700 on the Manchester QNH. Southbound on the M6, I inform the student that we must keep the M6 close to us due to the Liverpool Airspace to the west. At the M6 M62 junction we head east to our destination airfield.



It is clear from reading this thread that people’s judgment can be inaccurate. I have not spoken to the student about this post as I have only just found out about it. Indeed I am happy to say nothing and would be prepared in front of the CFI to discuss the flight with the student. The reason why I am so confident is that during the flight I impressed on complying with Rule 5 with the student at all times. He will be able to independently verify the altitude flown. Indeed I drum it into the student that rule 5 must be complied with at all times. I certainly was not forced down by low cloud or poor visibility, indeed I actually pointed out Fiddlers Ferry at Haydock race track. I will even be happy to obtain the Metar at the time in question and the ATIS at my airfield. I would even go one step further, I would be happy to get a trace of our route from Hawarden, to prove I was not flying so low. Had I been flying at the altitude the instigator of this post suggested I am sure the trace would have drop out.



There are always two sides to a story, I know self-praise is no recommendation, however I would be more than happy for “Spanner in the werks” to contact the management at my airfield and also speak to the CFI about my airmanship. I have nothing hide about my conduct, I believe in being open and honest. I would be more than happy to meet with “Spanner in the werks” should he wish to take up the offer.


When I fly, I tell my students that I seek to achieve 3 goals, in that the flight should be safe, informative and fun. That was achieved on the day in question.

[DavidWoodward]

*Feet up, popcorn in hand, waiting*

[maxred]

There are always two sides to a story, I know self-praise is no recommendation, however I would be more than happy for “Spanner in the werks” to contact the management at my airfield and also speak to the CFI about my airmanship. I have nothing hide about my conduct, I believe in being open and honest. I would be more than happy to meet with “Spanner in the werks” should he wish to take up the offer.

Like to be a fly on the wall at that meet. Go, on, hotcloud, just thump him.

[JulietFoxtrot]

I've been enthusiastically following this one.......and I wait with bated breath! 2 sides to a story........and the truth.......please continue :D

[SpannerInTheWerks]

hotcloud

Thank you for your Post.

I have studied your route and the altitudes flown.

Your route does indeed appear to comply with Rule 5, albeit with minimum margin for error.

Unfortunately the aircraft I saw was not on any part of the route you describe - so whilst I appreciate your lucid description of the flight, the aircraft I saw cannot have been you particularly as:

I certainly was not forced down by low cloud or poor visibility, indeed I actually pointed out Fiddlers Ferry at Haydock race track.

That's the point, there was clear weather either side of these atrocious conditions I'm describing - both to the North and the South so I have no doubt that you complied with the Rules of the Air and provided valuable instruction to your student.

Would the pilot of the aircraft I saw in appalling conditions, flying at low level, please stand up!!!???

[First_Principal]

I had the same thing 25 years ago, fortunately no one was killed but it did cost the tax payer £25 million.

Hang on a minute, hold back some popcorn - what's this about Ivor?

[ShyTorque]

Somebody should file an Airprox - there were two of them.

[spekesoftly]

Unfortunately the aircraft I saw was not on any part of the route you describe - so whilst I appreciate your lucid description of the flight, the aircraft I saw cannot have been you

I fail to see how you reach that conclusion. You have stated the date, time and approximate location of your sighting of the Cessna F150J, and you know its registration which you reported to ATC. The pilot who was flying that specific aircraft, on that date, at that time, in the reported area, has subsequently replied with a comprehensive report .............

[SpannerInTheWerks]

spekesoftly

Yes, of course you’re right.

Looking at the Post from hotcloud in a different light you could argue that s/he has decided that ‘attack is the best form of defence’.

By making that detailed statement on PPRuNe s/he has effectively created an alibi in public - or hung himself/herself.

If we met and the meeting did turn out as hoped for by maxred then the argument would simply be his/her word against mine and, without witnesses, the case could not be proven.

Time to dig deeper …

On the face of it, the only obvious criticism would be that it could be considered inadvisable to route at minimum altitude towards Burscough – simply because the route passes close to Martin Mere bird sanctuary (SFC to 2000 feet). At this time of year thousands of migrating geese converge on the general area around Martin Mere and to fly at 500 feet AGL, apart from causing a b****y nuisance, there is an increased risk of a bird strike. If I were briefing the flight, I would consider the TEM and avoid the area.

… and now to refer to my ¼ mill chart:

Route round Wigan, climb to 900 feet … okay, although a bit of a congested area around Wigan, Standish … glide clear and all that?

I then descend to 700 ft the QNH whilst passing over the M6 and following the railway line to Burscough.

Hmmm … spot height on chart North of track of 515 feet, spot height South of track of 552 feet (Ashurst Beacon). Without anything other than his/her 6/5 Mk 1 eyeball that puts the aircraft roughly 150 – 200 feet above the ground at those points. I appreciate the ground falls away after the Gathurst Viaduct, but by how much is hard to say from the chart – and what was the precise track?

Approaches Martin Mere at minimum altitude – mentioned above.

I then fly south to the M58 – okay, I don’t think there’s a argument that the aircraft couldn’t glide clear of Skelmerdale.

However, what is the elevation of Skelmersdale?

Time to put my chartered surveyor’s hat on and refer to the 1:50000 OS chart.

Contours show about 135 -140 metres in the vicinity of the M58 – about 450 – 500 feet AMSL.

hotcloud, by his/her own admission, is still maintaining 700 feet QNH on this leg, but climbs to 900 feet approaching the M6 due to high ground, so 900 minus 450 equals 450 feet above the ground AT BEST on this leg.

At the M6 we then head southbound maintaining an altitude of 700 on the Manchester QNH.

Potentially this is where I saw the aircraft - although I think it was further North? Why, because I telephoned Liverpool ATC at 12:15Z. It took me 3 minutes to park my car (12:12Z), I noted the time I saw the aircraft (12:07Z). Driving at 60 mph I could only have travelled about 5 miles. So I saw the aircraft about 5 miles South of Charnock Richard services on the M6. I know I passed the M58 junction with the M6 when I saw it …?

If hotcloud is correct, the contours are around 70 metres adjacent to the M6 at this point – 700 minus 230 equals 470 feet.

The contours where I stated I saw the aircraft are around 100 metres – 700 minus 330 equals 370 feet.

Again, if I’m correct and the aircraft had to descend under the squally shower then my estimate of 150 to 250 feet AGL, gauged with my 6/4 corrected vision, is looking reasonable.

Nice try hotcloud but I’m not convinced your account is anything more than a bold attempt to deflect the accusation away from yourself.

Maps and charts don’t lie. You have stated quite clearly the routes and altitudes you flew and I believe both the route and the altitudes deserve closer scrutiny – in my humble opinion of course!!!

... and finally

an exercise I have done over thirty times before

'... I'd like 30 previous offences to be taken into account as well, M'Lord'

Bring it on boys ...

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Working nights at the moment.

I was asked to respond so I have.

If one day you're flying low and you think of this Thread and the potential dangers involved, then it will all have been worthwhile.

Best of luck with your flying - stay safe!

SITW

[maxred]

I am told that 10,000 piece jigsaws can give a tortured soul hours of therapeutic relaxation. Also 2x500ml aspirin.

Guys, is this actually for real?

[coldair]

For Gods sake Spanner, give it a rest now.

The student was being taught a very valuable lesson on safety by an experienced instructor.

This training could save that pilots life at some time.

Whether it was 600 feet, or 300 feet, is it worth reporting a fellow pilot / instructor who was educating a student in the dangers of poor planning and how to get safely out of such a situation.


coldair

[m.Berger]

Spanner. Your target fixation on convincing everybody that you are right is deeply worrying. I am sure that these are not the correct attitudes for a pilot.
Anybody challenging you in the cockpit would be open to some difficult CRM issues, I am sure. The instructor has given a reasoned explanation of the alleged incident that stacks up completely with the surmise that it was an OML exercise
but you still want to rant on at him.

You were wrong in the first place, have betrayed your attitudes to be those of somebody I would not wish to have in the left hand seat and you will not gracefully acknowledge your mistake.

Now for Pete's sake, put the shovel down!

[hotcloud]

This shall be the last time I shall be posting on this subject. I repeat, there was no time at all when rule 5 was breached, at Burscough I turned at the railway crossing, and therefore the flight does not interfere with Martin Mere.

I very rarely post on Pprune however I felt it necessary on this occasion. Seriously what is "spanner in the werks" trying to prove. Earlier on, he claimed it could not have been me having studied my route, but now he has changed his story, there is a lack of consistency. I suspect I may even know "spanner in the werks", aviation is a small community.

Once again on this public forum I shall state that I am prepared to meet with "spanner in the werks" with my student and the CFI, I cannot say fairer than that.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Certainly of the two main protagonists here, there's only one - on the basis of the evidence in this thread, who I'd wish to share a cockpit or an aeroplane with.

G

[GR3a]

Mmmm...centreline tank and 4xCBU's? Didn't know we had a stretch of motorway long enough...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

hahahahahahaha

[SpannerInTheWerks]

there's only one - on the basis of the evidence in this thread, who I'd wish to share a cockpit or an aeroplane with.

The one who nearly hit the ground it seems?

The End

[maxred]

The End

Role Credits....??

[Steve6443]

Quote:
there's only one - on the basis of the evidence in this thread, who I'd wish to share a cockpit or an aeroplane with.
The one who nearly hit the ground it seems?

Isn't that, according to Douglas Adams, the trick to flying? Nearly hitting the ground? Ah, that was it: Throw yourself at the ground and miss......

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Epilogue ...

*Feet up, popcorn in hand, waiting*

I hope you enjoyed the popcorn?!

Isn't that, according to Douglas Adams, the trick to flying? Nearly hitting the ground? Ah, that was it: Throw yourself at the ground and miss......

Not, unfortunately, as far as Rule 5 is concerned.

For Gods sake Spanner, give it a rest now.

The student was being taught a very valuable lesson on safety by an experienced instructor.

This training could save that pilots life at some time.

Whether it was 600 feet, or 300 feet, is it worth reporting a fellow pilot / instructor who was educating a student in the dangers of poor planning and how to get safely out of such a situation.

I was always told it's not what you say but what you do that impresses the student.

What does this tell the student?

It's okay to fly in crappy weather and break the Rules, because if you do everyone will support you and just say: 'that was a valuable lesson well learnt'

... now how about flying under the Gathurst Viaduct!!!

Amateur pilots, don't you just love 'um?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Amateur pilots, don't you just love 'um?

Yes, great people, generally full of enthusiasm. Also often much more knowledge about their corner of flying than most professionals. If I want to know, for example, about grass strip flying, a full time FI is likely to be fairly clueless, and an airline pilot completely clueless.

Out of interest, do you hold and use a professional licence yourself?

G

[ak7274]

If it's not what you say that matters, why in the name of God did you say what you did?
By your posts on here spanner, I am happy in the knowledge that I must never have met you. Had I done so I would most surely have remembered and made myself scarce from your company with all haste.
Please post on traffic websites when next you venture onto the roads. If you can spend several seconds recognising Aircraft you purport to be doing wrong in conditions of heavy rain and poor visibility, you endanger the lives of many more road users than a C150 could do in a City the size of London.:ugh:

[robby90]

Hi Spanner, please be careful what you say on a public forum. I am a colleague of hotclouds and know that the route is perfectly safe and doesn't break rule 5 at the altitudes flown.

[Jetblu]

FFS Spanner,

I/we told you from the outset that you were on dodgy ground.

Having reviewed the evidence, by popular demand, we the jury find your
defendant/s not guilty.

PLEASE! Drop it.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

PLEASE! Drop it.

I keep dropping it, but you all keep replying and picking the Thread up again!!!

I dropped it at Posts 69, 71, 79, 83, 94 and 97!!! :=

If you're not careful the CAA will take notice and start interviewing the pilot, checking radar data - and even motorway cameras for low flying aircraft!

the route is perfectly safe and doesn't break rule 5 at the altitudes flown

Yes that's the whole point.

Where on the route does hotcloud state that s/he flies South along the M6 where I saw the aircraft?

NOWHERE!!!

S/he wasn't on the b****y route!!!

My guess is that in the poor conditions and strong wind s/he drifted further North and then had to scud run South along the M6 to regain track at Gathurst.

From the evidence I've read there seems to be no other explanation?

So, please, no more Posts.

I know none of you have any respect for the Rules of the Air - that's obvious from the Posts and comments.

I'll leave hotcloud alone - let fate be the hunter.

I know what I saw and would stand up in any Court as an expert witness and say so.

But not here.

I've said my piece, I've dropped it, let that be an end to it.

NO MORE POSTS, PLEASE!!!

[ak7274]

Expert my anal orifice.
Pillock comes to mind.
You started the post and now because you have been found out, you want to stop it?
Nah......... I am having too much fun.:}

[Genghis the Engineer]

as an expert witness

Are you? I've worked as an expert witness in aviation, and your writing style looks somewhat unlike how we normally tend to work. I note you didn't answer whether you hold a professional licence.

Incidentally, from the bottom of the page, could I mention the standard PPrune warning...

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

I spot at-least one of those on this thread, and I don't mean Mr Werks. I can't be the only person to have spotted the person in question.

G

[AberdeenAngus]

NO MORE POSTS, PLEASE!!!

Why?...its not as if you HAVE to have the last word, is it ?

[ShyTorque]

I know what I saw and would stand up in any Court as an expert witness and say so.

Then why, if it really was so serious, did you not report your observation via more appropriate channels?

Btw, as far as being an expert witness is concerned, from your comments it appears that you haven't borne in mind that the "500 foot rule" doesn't necessarily mean that aircraft have to be flown 500 ft agl.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

I note you didn't answer whether you hold a professional licence.

No I didn't, but what part of 'Professional Pilot Rumour Network' do you not understand, Genghis the ENGINEER. Maybe a spanner would be more appropriate? I've got one if you want?! LOL :}

"500 foot rule" doesn't necessarily mean that aircraft have to be flown 500 ft agl.

No, the Rule states:

'an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure'.

I was a PERSON in a VEHICLE driving down the motorway, with its various STRUCTURES, and the aircraft was closer than 500 feet to all of these.

Then why, if it really was so serious, did you not report your observation via more appropriate channels?

... and grass someone up!!!

Not me - I only made a comment at the start of this Thread that stated how lucky I thought that particular pilot had been in the conditions.

ALL OF YOU have teased out the details from me and flushed out the pilot concerned.

I was willing to call it a day but no, you just couldn't leave it alone - like some perverse game I've been baited and ridiculed at the expense of a serious learning point.

But I can take it - at least at the low level the Moderators allow (no pun intended). Humour too!

I've worked as an expert witness in aviation, and your writing style looks somewhat unlike how we normally tend to work.

If i wrote like wot i nomrally do non of you would undrstand me!

You don't seem to be able to grasp that flying below 500 feet, in accordance with Rule 5, is WRONG and not a 'valuable learning experience'.

That people who do it are not to be supported and congratulated, but taken to one side and not told it is a BAD THING and may, if others so wish, be prosecuted for it.

That people who brave it out and hope it will go away doesn't make it RIGHT by attempting to undermine the evidence of a witness.

Evidence, if I remember from my law notes, is based on FACTS, FACTS, FACTS and FACTS.

The only piece of evidence which isn't a FACT is the precise height of the aircraft when I saw it.

The FACT it was flying below 500 feet, is!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis the ENGINEER. Maybe a spanner would be more appropriate? I've got one if you want?

My engineering and flying qualifications are in my profile :cool: A while since anybody paid me to use a spanner mind you.


The FACT it was flying below 500 feet, is!

Flying below 500ft is not necessarily either dangerous or illegal. Of course it can be both.

Evidence, if I remember from my law notes, is based on FACTS, FACTS, FACTS and FACTS.

Actually no, if you do have notes on the role of the expert witness - the complex and special role of an expert witness in court is that they are the only person permitted to express an opinion. However, you'd jolly well better be able to support that opinion!

G

[Flyingmac]

Any chance of deleting this whole thread? Six pages is six too many.:ugh:

[hotcloud]

"Spanner in the werks", I did say that I would not post again regarding this thread, but you leave me no choice. As I said before I was prepared to obtain a trace from Hawarden; that would confirm the route, in other words I flew between Wigan and Standish where there are fields to glide clear. I can assure you that my experience level can take into account wind drift. Please feel free to obtain motorway camera footage I have nothing to hide, as I stated before 500ft AGL was maintained at all times. Feel free to contact the CAA if you wish, you seemed prepared to do so when other posts did not agree with your comments.

I have not spoken to the student in question, and I shall reframe from discussing the matter until the CFI and I get together with the student. There will be no discussion with the student on this matter prior to the meeting. That way the student will be able to give an independent account of the flight.

I am going to state again publicly on this forum that I shall be more than happy to meet with you, the student and the CFI. Are you happy on this forum to state that you are prepared to do that?

[Genghis the Engineer]

In the interests of fairness, Mr Werks has expressed the opinion that the low flying aircraft he saw may well have been somebody else anyhow.

G

[Monocock]

werks,

Are you a real person?

[ak7274]

Someone who does something wrong should be taken to one side?????????
How about vilified by some anonymous poster on a public forum?
What part of the Private flying section of Pprune is difficult to understand.
Facts can only be proven as such by evidence and not one persons word against anothers.
This is fun.:=

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Genghis

Seriously, for once, this is becoming a bit of a mystery?

You're right - when hotcloud first published on this Thread I was not convinced it was his aircraft.

Then when spekesoftly Posted it seemed logical that it was.

Now that hotcloud has so vehemently denied any wrongdoing I'm beginning to wonder what the truth really is?

I know what I saw and will never vary that statement.

There is no point in meeting with hotcloud and his CFI at Barton, at this stage, as it will prove nothing - hotcloud will say he was never scud running below 500 ft, in breach of Rule 5, and I will always say the aircraft I saw was?

If hotcloud would be so kind as to PM me the reg of the aircraft he was flying, then I will know if it was his aircraft or not?

I've flown the aircraft I saw from Barton, so I know it well.

Before we can move on we must establish one fact - what aircraft was it?

[hotcloud]

"Spanner in the werks", there is no need to PM. I believe in being open and honest, the reg of the aircraft was G-AWPU. Please take me up on my offer to meet, I shall be very civil with you, as I am to anyone that I meet. Don't take my word for it, feel free to speak to the Management or my colleagues about my conduct. I take my work very seriously and therefore slagging me off on a public forum, seems very petty and immature. Why don't you meet with my student, CFI and myself to obtain further facts. You have my word that I will not discuss this issue with my student before we meet. He will be able to tell you that I drummed it into him about maintaining at least 500ft above ground level. I chose Hawarden as a place to obtain a trace, because I considered to be the furthest airfield from my position. If I was as low as you stated then I am sure the trace would have dropped out. Can you please confirm whether or not you spotted the aircraft north of Standish?

[Steve6443]

Whilst we're establishing facts, can we also remind ourselves who made the following comments:

... and grass someone up!!!

Not me - I only made a comment at the start of this Thread that stated how lucky I thought that particular pilot had been in the conditions.



In view of the comments and criticisms I have received I consider the only way forward is to file Form FCS1520 for an Alleged Breach of Air Navigation Legislation against this pilot.

And please do answer GtE's question as to whether you have a professional licence? This might be ProfessionalPilotsRumourNetwork but not all on here are professionals - after all, are we made to verify our credentials before we join?

[phiggsbroadband]

If you are looking at your 1:500k chart, then the 299ft power pylons will not be marked, so really you would need to fly at 299+500 = 799+ ft to avoid falling foul of the 500 ft rule.

What happens in the localised case where power lines from 300ft pylons cross a valley... the wires could be over 300ft agl.

[ShyTorque]

The FACT it was flying below 500 feet, is!

"Fact" is that this is your personal opinion of the situation. Your personal opinion would not stand up in court, just as a personal opinion of a vehicle speeding needs other evidence.

The thing you're really not understanding is that you have declared yourself to be an expert, and take exception to those here who have quite rightly questioned you about this, but you will not back that up by information regarding your qualifications.

Folks have been around here long enough to have seen this sort of thing here before. Someone who will not give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question possibly has something to hide and therefore will understandably be treated with suspicion, if not derision.

You have your "victim". He has explained the situation from his point of view but because this does not fit your "facts" you now claim it was someone else.

[Leeds-flyboy]

"................foreshortening, perspective, variations in the immediate landscape. I guess some peoples visual acuity can account for, and adjust accordingly to compensate for natural illusions. We all have to remember that there are some "Rain Man" type people out there who's brains and powers of perception are far more advanced than those of the rest of us. It would seem that our lovely spanner is one of these suitably advanced people.

Aircraft registrations are INTENTIONALLY large enough to be read from distances further than the limits of Rule 5. Depending on the type of vehicle spanner was driving, the shape of most windscreens dictate that objects above vehicle roof level must be a considerable distance away, horizontally, before they can be seen from behind the drivers seat. This horizontal distance then introduces several "curve-balls" to anyone bold enough to believe they can accurately measure the height/altitude of the object being viewed. Some are mentioned above..........

Spanner is competent enough to compensate for any induced errors and determine ACCURATELY; the height, track, etc of the aircraft in question; whilst driving SAFELY in low visibility (spray from rain!!!) from the comfort of his driving seat.

Go figure!!

LFB.

[maxred]

More popcorn please, and can I have a pint of bitter with a Malibu chaser.

Spanner you have been given the registration .

Is it the same aeroplane or not??

[AberdeenAngus]

10 pager....

[Russ.w.]

hotcloud will say he was never scud running below 500 ft, in breach of Rule 5, and I will always say the aircraft I saw was?


Spanner - how can you accurately evaluate it was below 500ft AGL?

[Echo Romeo]

Before we can move on we must establish one fact - what aircraft was it?

the reg of the aircraft was G-AWPU.

Well, was it that one or not, the suspense is killing me :(

[Jetblu]

This entire thread needs to be donked. It gets more bizarre by the hour.

I have now just read post # 101, which I am sure I did not see/read just
prior to my own post.

Spanner seems to have inherited a friend called "Johny 737" :ugh:

Johny 737 - A cockpit emergency is not JUST an engine fire. :ugh:
I'm glad that I have cleared up that misunderstanding. I have not read anything to suggest that the "alleged" flight in question had any bad/poor flight planning.
Lets please keep it real.

[Crash one]

I must say "spanner in the werks" was a most apt nom de plume if ever I heard one.Can I have some of that popcorn?

[Steve6443]

Aircraft registrations are INTENTIONALLY large enough to be read from distances further than the limits of Rule 5. Depending on the type of vehicle spanner was driving, the shape of most windscreens dictate that objects above vehicle roof level must be a considerable distance away, horizontally, before they can be seen from behind the drivers seat. This horizontal distance then introduces several "curve-balls" to anyone bold enough to believe they can accurately measure the height/altitude of the object being viewed. Some are mentioned above..........


Also, we shouldn't forget that the brain has excellent cognitive powers. If you see a car a couple hundred metres away, you probably won't be able to read the registration plate. However if you see something on the car which is unique - for example, some stickers, or accessories which denote the car as a particular example known to you, your mind WILL be able to identify that car before you can read the registration plate.

The same thing could have happened here - you saw the plane, you knew the colour scheme and type and what for most people would have been a jumble of letters is, for you, as clear as day because your mind can recognise and unscramble the letters rather than being hieroglyphics at distance for the person unfamiliar with that aircraft leading to your assumption, I saw the registration hence the plane was low. Try it at a club, you'll find you can recognise the registration of aircraft known to you further away than aircraft visiting the base for the first time because, with familiar aircraft, your mind forms the smears into visible letters.....

[Jonzarno]

Quote:
Unfortunately the aircraft I saw was not on any part of the route you describe - so whilst I appreciate your lucid description of the flight, the aircraft I saw cannot have been you


I reckon it was really the Ginger Sky God on a ferry trip to Greenland :p


Seriously, though, this thread has achieved all it is going to.

Spanner, as I suggested some time ago: take the pilot up on his offer to talk it through. That way you will both end up understanding what happened better.

If you don't want to do that, I suggest you drop the subject because it's an argument you are never going to win on here whether you are right or not.

[flyme19]

Reading this thread I am shocked to see the effort people go to to nit pick at people. I am personally very familiar with this airfield, and although I didn't learn with this school, I do know how they operate.

Along with this, I can say that all the instructors are very professional and this is something that they wouldn't do. I can also say I have witnessed excellent airmanship from them, especially from hotcloud on numerous occasions.


This would lead me to suggest that people are making something out of nothing and it is a standard exercise that many pilots do during their ppl in the North West!

[stickandrudderman]

30 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. I can't believe pprune has done it to me again. What kind of a mug am I?:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[ex_matelot]

Forgive me for the intrusion. I'm a PPL but I never really venture in here...it's too much like Mumsnet.

I can't help but think that the original intention of the OP was to simply harvest congratulations on his observance and concern. "Look at me being all airmanship aware".

It didn't exactly go to plan though did it..as it turned out that The majority of GA aviators are not utter cockstands trying to score points off the back of one another.

Sod meeting up with the OP for a discussion of this alleged incident - I'd happily cave his head in...The throbber!

[ex_matelot]

PLEASE! Drop it.
I keep dropping it, but you all keep replying and picking the Thread up again!!!

I dropped it at Posts 69, 71, 79, 83, 94 and 97!!!

If you're not careful the CAA will take notice and start interviewing the pilot, checking radar data - and even motorway cameras for low flying aircraft!

Quote:
the route is perfectly safe and doesn't break rule 5 at the altitudes flown
Yes that's the whole point.

Where on the route does hotcloud state that s/he flies South along the M6 where I saw the aircraft?

NOWHERE!!!

S/he wasn't on the b****y route!!!

My guess is that in the poor conditions and strong wind s/he drifted further North and then had to scud run South along the M6 to regain track at Gathurst.

From the evidence I've read there seems to be no other explanation?

So, please, no more Posts.

I know none of you have any respect for the Rules of the Air - that's obvious from the Posts and comments.

I'll leave hotcloud alone - let fate be the hunter.

I know what I saw and would stand up in any Court as an expert witness and say so.

But not here.

I've said my piece, I've dropped it, let that be an end to it.



You absolute throbber. I'd love to see you stand up and try to say your piece in front of the ones you try to criticise.

I think I know you btw. Do you wear Farrah slacks and **** checked shirts??

Did I say you were a bellend?

[HowlingMad Murdock]

:D Maxred - More popcorn please, and can I have a pint of bitter with a Malibu chaser. Too funny!

(I prefer maltesers...yum)

Stickandrudderman - Ditto................

ex_matelot - What's wrong with Farah Slacks and checked shirts?

Must study hard for local Navex now...................don't want to be 'temporarily unaware of my position' /infringe airspace etc.

[Desert Dawg]

@Spanner

The only thing I can say is that either you publicly answer the very simple questions posed to you by Ghengis et al and come clean about your claims of being an expert and or registered pilot/other aviator qualification, or......

http://fc02.deviantart.net/images/i/2003/3/1/b/A_nice_cup_of_shut_the_****_up.jpg

[AV83R]

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I more than likely am, doesn't rule 5 purely state you must maintain "500ft separation between any man made object, person or vessel". Which to me says you can fly at 200ft AGL if you so wish, providing that you are 500ft away from any of the formentioned, so yes Spanner, hotcould may well have been lower than 500ft AGL, but he still may well be in accordance with rule 5...

If I am wrong - ignore my post completely and carry on I'm quite enjoying it

If I am right and there are people that want to say it isn't possible to fly below 500ft AGL and maintain a 500ft separation, please study Pythagoras' theorem.

PS. I am right

[m.Berger]

Back at the beginning; "locally based." So you must have recognised the aircraft which, once the identity is confirmed you assert to be another aircraft.
Your expertise is beginning to look questionable.
Ah! Got it.
You are rumoured to be a professional pilot.
(Here in the private flying section, you may find yourself to be overqualified to argue with "amateur pilots.")

[Genghis the Engineer]

"beginning"?

G

[m.Berger]

The very first post, Genghis, in which the identity of the aircraft had to have been established as it was known to be locally based.

[Jonzarno]

"beginning"?

G


In the beginning the thread was without form and void. And darkness moved over the face of the thread............ :)

And it hasn't got much better since... :ugh:

[SpannerInTheWerks]

And it hasn't got much better since

No, and G-AWPU has got any higher in my estimation!!!

Scud running below 500 feet AGL in breach of Rule 5 is what I have always said and there it remains.

Sorry, hotcloud, but that's the way it is.

I wouldn't have stopped and rung ATC to report an aircraft unusually low, and be concerned about the safety of the crew, if I hadn't been startled by low height of the aircraft as it passed me on the motorway.

The fact is, without further corroborating evidence, it will always be your word against mine.

Stalemate I'm afraid.

SITW

[Artic Monkey]

SpannerInTheWerks

Are you the type of jobsworth who takes it upon theirselves to police the general public and go on a one man crusade? I bet you're the type who flashes other drivers to put their lights on when it's dusk but the light is perfectly fine & visible, or the type of person who shouts at people for having a button undone on their high vis jacket. You need to get a job as a Manchester Airfield Ops Officer, you'd blend right in. :ugh:

[AV83R]

Scud running below 500 feet AGL in breach of Rule 5 is what I have always said and there it remains.

Is it in breach of rule 5 though?

[Jonzarno]

Scud running below 500 feet AGL in breach of Rule 5 is what I have always said and there it remains.

Spanner

I quote rule 5 from the CAA publication

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1676/Rule%205%20amended%201%20April%202005a.pdf

"The 500 feet rule

Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure."


As I read it, that doesn't make a height of 500 feet a hard deck. In theory you could fly at 100 ft, or even lower, as long as you are at a slant distance of 500 ft.

As I've suggested twice before, if you have any interest in breaking what you say is a "stalemate": go and talk to the pilot with an open mind. Who knows? You might even do some good or learn something.

[Steve6443]

Jonzarno said:
In the beginning the thread was without form and void. And darkness moved over the face of the thread............ :)

And it hasn't got much better since... :ugh:

Hey, Jonzarno, now that would make a hell of an opener for a book....... We've also got intrigue - was the plane G-AWPU? Has Spanner in the Werks got a professional pilot's licence? Will Maxred get his Popcorn, Pint and Malibu Chaser??? All this and more in today's gripping instalment of.....

MOTORWAY FLYING

The question is: would "they all lived happily ever after" be suitable as an ending?????

[Jonzarno]

Ed

Quite right, you did:ok:

I don't think it was immediately accepted, though, and I just thought it might bear repeating as well as worth quoting the source as well.

[Cessnafly]

EdBarrett is the genius. He along with Jonzarno taught us about Rule 5. :)

Well done guys. :cool:


This spanner guy is hilarious. Please do keep up.

[Crash one]

This is better than the Biggles story, keep it up.

[maxred]

Got him....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Low_flying_cessna_150.jpg

[Monocock]

This is what happens when people spend too long on MS Flight Simulator. :rolleyes:

[SpannerInTheWerks]

You Guys cut me up!

maxred

Not quite THAT low, however the student was smiling :}

[Pace]

I can well remember picking up a Cessna 150 for the owner! the aircraft had not one bit of navigation kit available apart from the radio.

I took off VFR in VMC but seeing a front covering the hills decided to follow a river which I knew took me to within a mile of the destination field.

I took off with 1000 foot cloud base in light rain and approx 5000 meters in rain keeping the river below and on my left!
Soon the cloud was down to 600 feet and visibility down to 3000 meters.
Shortly after that I was down at 400 feet agl cloud base 400 feet in heavy rain vis approx 1500 meters.
Again i had the river on my left and knew by being over the river I would not hit anything.

I threw in the towel when I was again forced down to 200 feet visibility down to 700 meters and scud cloud below the aircraft.

Time to climb into IMC and the SSA which I did expecting a PAR into a military base.

I never took the PAR as I burst out of the front with 15 miles to run.
Yes we all do it at some point! or at least some of us do!
Some of us are even still here to tell the tale

Pace

[mr_rodge]

I remember having a discussion with a lecturer at university once, I think the subject was some aspect of building surveying, the particular topic was freehold land. We were taught (and this's as close as I can remember to his words) 'The freeholder of any land owns the land and 500ft of airspace above it, which is why aircraft aren't allowed below 500ft.'

I then repeated my recently memorised version of rule 5, particularly the part about person, vessel, vehicle or structure and pointed out that I had recently been taught that the 'within' wording meant I could fly within 10ft of the land if it had nothing but grass within 500ft slant of the aircraft. I was subsequently faced with a barrage of 'the CAA is wrong'.

Totally irrelevant to the thread but thought I'd share that little experience...

[cockney steve]

hotcloud will say he was never scud running below 500 ft, in breach of Rule 5, and I will always say the aircraft I saw was?

Totally irelevant!... 500foot clear of people or man-made objects....it does notsay "500' above"

As this spanner is so intent on pedantry, let's try another tack.


After you've taken -off.....what is the final conclusion of the flight?

the 500 foot rule does not apply to takeoff and landing. I submit that, having taken-off and reached his intended cruise altitude, the pilot 's next phase of flight would be to land.......perhaps that's when "spanner" saw the aircraft?-when it was on approach to land? :}

I don't se a huge number of corroborative witness-statements, from this slow-moving convoy of motor-vehicles,of which, strangely noneof the occupants are awareof , or post on, PPrune.....funny, that.

Take a gander at the "history and nausostalgia" threads
the most arcane subjects bring a load of first-time posters out of the woodwork....but , this vitalsafety issue, this near-catastrophy.....not a sausage....bugger all, zilch....from all those blind motorists, lorry drivers and outraged of Purley who failed to see and act in the public interest.

Perhaps we should be lauding Mr. Spanner for his public-spiritid actions? :E

[SpannerInTheWerks]

cockney steve

Read my Threads, read the ANO and then engage your brain!

[inbalance]

In Germany we have a word for people like Spanner: Blockwart.

In Nazi Germany, a Blockleiter (block leader) was the lowest official of the NSDAP, responsible for the political supervision of a neighborhood or city block and formed the link between the NSDAP and the general population. Also colloquially known as a Blockwart (block attendant or warden), he was charged with planning, spreading propaganda and developing an acceptance to the policies of the NSDAP among the households (typically 40 to 60) in his area.

It was also the duty of the Blockleiter to spy on the population and report any anti-Nazi activities to the local Gestapo office; this allowed a Nazi terror state. This was helped by keeping files on each household (Haushaltskarten). Due to such activities, Blockwarts were particularly disliked by the general population. Other duties included allocating beds in homes for visiting NSDAP demonstrators, the collection of subscriptions and charitable donations especially for Winterhilfe and organising the clearing of rubble after air-raids. It is thought that there were nearly half a million Blockleiter.

Today, Blockwart is a colloquial German insult word for a person who feels the motivation to keep people in line, esp. by reporting them to officials or pressing the enforcing of rules (esp. petty rules) upon people.


Inbalance

[Peter-RB]

Hey Spanner old Chap,

Even if you do drive an Audi, well they are quite a good car, but before you get on to the nasty comments again .... just a few questions:-

Were you ever a prefect at your School, or possibly a senior Milk Monitor, for you really are acting like one, shoe lace undone, coller not quite right along with clinc specs and palm trees.

I 'll just like to bet you work for the HMG, pssibly a snoop for the DWp, sorry to be late redressing the insult aimed at me, but I have been very busy helping the Old Soldiers, the sort who came home and just got on with their life, possibly a lesson there for you old boy.:ugh:

Peter R-B

[m.Berger]

It is time, gravely to intone:
"Do not feed the troll."

[Steve6443]

Ok, head bowed, hands clasped in front of me, I adopt a grave expression and somberly begin to chant:


do not feed the troll.....

Hey, anyone taking odds whether this thread can get to 10 pages length......:)

[piperboy84]

In Germany we have a word for people like Spanner: Blockwart

It's outrageous that you would actually have to employ someone to annoy the **** out of their neighbours , grassing them up for misdemeanours and repeatedly banging on their door to pony up for dubious causes. That would never happen in this country.

[inbalance]

That would never happen in this country.

Ohh,

This Spanner guy is akting like a real Blockwart and he is obviously British.
So why can´t this happen in your country?

In Germany it was called the GESTAPO, in East Germany the Staatssicherheitsdienst.
In Russia it was the KGB.

In the US it is the TSA aund the NSA.
They don´t care about any law.
They are spying on thier own population as well, not on foreigners only.
That with the help of the british.
Coalition of the 5 eyes spring to my mind.

The difference between germany and other countrys is, we have been there and we have learned our lessons.
GB is loosing its freedom without noticing it.


https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying
UK ?spied on Angela Merkel? from Berlin rooftop - GERMANY-UK - FRANCE 24 (http://www.france24.com/en/20131105-germany-britain-ambassador-summoned-spying-nsa-espionage)

NSA-leak hard drives ruined as agents watched, Guardian says - World - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nsa-leak-hard-drives-ruined-as-agents-watched-guardian-says-1.1324673)


regards
Inbalance

[Peter-RB]

Hi Inbalance,

Re washing cars or cutting garden grass on Sundays, is'nt that the sort of thing that ordinary neighbours in Germany complain about to the local Politzi...? only asking , I dont really want to steal the show from our cog breaker...:ouch:

Peter R-B
Lancashire:ok:

[inbalance]

Yes, we still have some of those people. But we have them under control, because we know what damage they can do.
It is like in every country.
It is a mixture of different people, but the percentage of arseholes always stays the same.

regards
Inbalance

[Jonzarno]

Spanner

Your last comment seems very apt:

"Read the ANO and then engage your brain!"

Had you thought of doing that yourself?

I have tried to remain balanced in what I have said so far but I have to say you are making it difficult..... :ugh:

[maxred]

Inbalance, some of us are very aware of it, and some of us work away, trying to keep out of the Corporate Cannibals clutches. Not easy:ouch:

Maybe one day the mindless mass in Europe will awake, to find that it was all too late:p

[piperboy84]

So why can´t this happen in your country

I guess you missed my point, the reason you would not have employ people to do it in this country is there is a healthy portion of the populace who would eagerly jump into the role described with unbridled enthusiasm and without the need for remuneration.

[inbalance]

Ah,
yes it seems that I have missed your point.

In germany they didn´t have to employ them in the beginning.
But soon they gave them a uniform and some bling bling.

I have rented an apartment near the airport for standby and short turn over.
The woman in the first floor is acting like a blockwart.
She is unemployed, uneducated and has nothing to be proud of.

I am suspicous to her, because she don´t know anything about me.
I am leaving my home at irregular times and my car is way to big for this residential area.

Saw her one day when she picked my waste out of the waste bin to check it.

Yes, we still have some people like that, but nobody listens to them.

regards
Inbalance

[worrab]

Hurrah!!!

It was also the duty of the Blockleiter to spy on the population and report any anti-Nazi activities to the local Gestapo officGodwin's Law in action

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)


Oh shucks, EdBarrett beat me to it!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I remember having a discussion with a lecturer at university once, I think the subject was some aspect of building surveying, the particular topic was freehold land. We were taught (and this's as close as I can remember to his words) 'The freeholder of any land owns the land and 500ft of airspace above it, which is why aircraft aren't allowed below 500ft.'

I then repeated my recently memorised version of rule 5, particularly the part about person, vessel, vehicle or structure and pointed out that I had recently been taught that the 'within' wording meant I could fly within 10ft of the land if it had nothing but grass within 500ft slant of the aircraft. I was subsequently faced with a barrage of 'the CAA is wrong'.

Totally irrelevant to the thread but thought I'd share that little experience...

Your lecturer was wrong on just about every count you'll be glad to know.

Under most countries laws a landowner owns the earth down in a cone to its centre below his land (including, for example mineral rights), and owns the space above it in an expanding cone to the far edge of the universe.

HOWEVER, to ask every landowner's permission to commit aviation is clearly impractical, so between around 1920 and 1950 most countries passed laws permitting free passage of aeroplanes. Most countries also passed something akin to rule 5, which was designed to minimise nuisance or risk to people below. It's nothing to do with ownership.

Again, all the countries with enough clout to matter have vested the various earth orbits in the United Nations to prise apart and co-ordinate. However, technically if a satellite passes over your back garden, it's passing through your property - you just can't do anything about it.

G

[AberdeenAngus]

You certainly don't own the mineral rights below your land in the uk.

[Pace]

and owns the space above it in an expanding cone to the far edge of the universe.

Does that mean if I own a field I probably own a few thousand planets in the space above me ad infinitum ?:ok: If its an expanding cone that would be pretty big by the time it got to infinity.

Never thought UK law had such far reaching authority :ok: would take them a few million years to send PC Blog all that way to tell me off :E oh well the far reaching hands of the law :ugh:

think if I could only get over this time thing I could have weekends away at one or other of my weekend away planets and all for the price of a grotty 1 acre field

Pace

[maxred]

10 pager....

And tonight's star prize looks like going to Aberdeen Angus. The prize is a one hour VFR flight with............

[Genghis the Engineer]

You certainly don't own the mineral rights below your land in the uk.

If you can find anything, it's yours.

G

[maxred]

GTE, where would you stand on fracking then. I assume if you owned 40 acres, fancied your chances on a bit of shale gas, it would yours, no?

[Monocock]

Mineral rights are the property of the landowner.

[Pilot.Lyons]

Aircraft registrations are INTENTIONALLY large enough to be read from distances further than the limits of Rule 5. Depending on the type of vehicle spanner was driving, the shape of most windscreens dictate that objects above vehicle roof level must be a considerable distance away, horizontally, before they can be seen from behind the drivers seat. This horizontal distance then introduces several "curve-balls" to anyone bold enough to believe they can accurately measure the height/altitude of the object being viewed. Some are mentioned above..........


Also, we shouldn't forget that the brain has excellent cognitive powers. If you see a car a couple hundred metres away, you probably won't be able to read the registration plate. However if you see something on the car which is unique - for example, some stickers, or accessories which denote the car as a particular example known to you, your mind WILL be able to identify that car before you can read the registration plate.

The same thing could have happened here - you saw the plane, you knew the colour scheme and type and what for most people would have been a jumble of letters is, for you, as clear as day because your mind can recognise and unscramble the letters rather than being hieroglyphics at distance for the person unfamiliar with that aircraft leading to your assumption, I saw the registration hence the plane was low. Try it at a club, you'll find you can recognise the registration of aircraft known to you further away than aircraft visiting the base for the first time because, with familiar aircraft, your mind forms the smears into visible letters.....

This is how road signs are designed. Clever really

[grow45]

Not sure about England but in Scotland (which is probably relevant to Aberdeen Angus) mineral rights can belong to somebody who is not the landowner by being "reserved" when the land is sold. It may have happened a hundred years ago and the rights can be sold on which can make finding the owner difficult. This separate ownership can cause huge problems if they have been reserved without there also being obligations created to pay for damage caused by subsidence when they are worked.

That aside the principal of ownership extending from the centre of the earth outwards in a cone applies in Scotland as in England (The legal principal of "a coelo usque ad centrum" if anybody is interested).


Apologies for drifting even further from the thread topic.

[Pilot.Lyons]

Jonzarno said:
In the beginning the thread was without form and void. And darkness moved over the face of the thread............ :)

And it hasn't got much better since... :ugh:

Hey, Jonzarno, now that would make a hell of an opener for a book....... We've also got intrigue - was the plane G-AWPU? Has Spanner in the Werks got a professional pilot's licence? Will Maxred get his Popcorn, Pint and Malibu Chaser??? All this and more in today's gripping instalment of.....

MOTORWAY FLYING

The question is: would "they all lived happily ever after" be suitable as an ending?????
Hahahahahahaha ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

GTE, where would you stand on fracking then. I assume if you owned 40 acres, fancied your chances on a bit of shale gas, it would yours, no?

This is getting rather beyond my level of knowledge which tends to be limited to stuff that affects airspace.

However, should anybody wish to extract shale gas from my back garden, I think I'd probably tell them to frack off.

G

[Steve6443]

Hey, Spanner, you'll be pleased to know you've gained a certain notoriety which has gone beyond this forum and have become the star attraction on another site (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=86486).

Keep it up, you still might yet receive that most coveted accolade, to become heir apparent to the Ginger One......

[Dave Wilson]

Not sure about England but in Scotland (which is probably relevant to Aberdeen Angus) mineral rights can belong to somebody who is not the landowner by being "reserved" when the land is sold.

Don't know if it's quite the same thing but I live next to an old gravel pit lake in England and on my deeds it says I can't dig for gravel on my property. Not that I'd want to...however it's the best draining land I've ever owned.

[xrayalpha]

I know it was a bit of thread drift, but...

The Government gets all the good bits:

ie The sky and the fuel! Plus the silver and gold to pay for it!

The other minerals are different!

Legislation & policy: mineral ownership | Planning | MineralsUK (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/planning/legislation/mineralOwnership.html)

and see:

Oil and gas

Ownership of oil and gas within the land area of Great Britain was vested in the Crown by the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 applied the provisions of the 1934 Act to the UKCS outside territorial waters.

For landward exploration a licence is required, which grants exclusive rights to exploit for and develop oil and gas onshore within Great Britain. The rights granted by landward licences do not include any rights of access, and the licensees must also obtain any consent under current legislation, including planning permissions. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills grants licences to explore for and exploit all oil and gas resources. Licensees wishing to enter or drill through coal seams for coalbed methane and coal mine gas must also seek the permission of the Coal Authority.

[rustle]

...and have become the star attraction on another site (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=86486).


"star attraction"? :hmm:

[SpannerInTheWerks]

you'll be pleased to know you've gained a certain notoriety which has gone beyond this forum

Maybe I'll be offered my own 'column'?

ILAFFT, 'Spanner on flight safety,' or something similar?

Time for a career change ... :ok:

[Cessnafly]

A 22' column with 11' rope. :oh:

[cockney steve]

A 22' column with 11' rope.

oh dear, naughty, Cessnafly...you obviously haven't checked Henry Bruce's Table of Drops...or the Home Office revised version.

[Cessnafly]

Whoops a daisy.......ok..15' of rope, but you get the concept.

[hotcloud]

I have now been given, from the Control Tower, the ATIS at the time I was flying. The ATIS is below:-


02/11/2013 12:34:52 Unofficial Weather EGCB 021230Z 20017G28KT 9999 VCSH SCT012 11/08 Q990 QFE988

02/11/2013 13:29:20 Unofficial Weather EGCB 021330Z 19015G25KT 9999 FEW025 12/09 Q989 QFE987

02/11/2013 13:49:32 Unofficial Weather EGCB 021350Z 20013G23KT 9999 FEW025 12/09 Q989 QFE987

02/11/2013 14:10:23 Unofficial Weather EGCB 021410Z 21022G32KT 9999 FEW015 FEW025 12/07 Q988 QFE986


"Spanner in the Werks" if you don't believe the above, you are quite welcome to contact the control tower.



I am now in the process of obtaining a trace of my route; the management at my airfield will be looking into this. I also will be seeking to obtain the METAR’S in the local area.

I can say hand on heart I was on the route I described earlier on this thread, a trace of the route will confirm that. I would just like to draw people’s attention to what “Spanner in the works “stated on this thread earlier, please see below:-



"hotcloud

Thank you for your Post.

I have studied your route and the altitudes flown.

Your route does indeed appear to comply with Rule 5, albeit with minimum margin for error.

Unfortunately the aircraft I saw was not on any part of the route you describe - so whilst I appreciate your lucid description of the flight, the aircraft I saw cannot have been you particularly as:
Quote:
I certainly was not forced down by low cloud or poor visibility, indeed I actually pointed out Fiddlers Ferry at Haydock race track.
That's the point, there was clear weather either side of these atrocious conditions I'm describing - both to the North and the South so I have no doubt that you complied with the Rules of the Air and provided valuable instruction to your student.

Would the pilot of the aircraft I saw in appalling conditions, flying at low level, please stand up!!!???"




Can “Spanner in the Werks” please state on this public forum, where exactly did he see the aircraft?


Again another post from “Spanner in the Werks” below:-


“Quote:
PLEASE! Drop it.
I keep dropping it, but you all keep replying and picking the Thread up again!!!

I dropped it at Posts 69, 71, 79, 83, 94 and 97!!! file:///C:\Users\test\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image0 01.gif

If you're not careful the CAA will take notice and start interviewing the pilot, checking radar data - and even motorway cameras for low flying aircraft!
Quote:
the route is perfectly safe and doesn't break rule 5 at the altitudes flown
Yes that's the whole point.

Where on the route does hotcloud state that s/he flies South along the M6 where I saw the aircraft?

NOWHERE!!!

S/he wasn't on the b****y route!!!

My guess is that in the poor conditions and strong wind s/he drifted further North and then had to scud run South along the M6 to regain track at Gathurst.

From the evidence I've read there seems to be no other explanation?

So, please, no more Posts.”

It seems that “Spanner in the Werks” wishes to cease further posts having on a public forum, effectively calling me a liar without being prepared to obtain further evidence such as the ATIS, now already provided, METAR’s, in the process of obtaining, and a trace of the route, which is being passed to management at my airfield to pursue.



Note “Spanner in the Werks” stated “S/he wasn't on the b****y route!!!” I have an awful feeling once I have obtained the trace you will be proved wrong.
People who know me, realize that I am an easy going person, but I am not afraid to defend myself, I certainly have the strength of character to do that. I don’t hide behind an avatar, and I am certainly upfront.



“Spanner in the Werks” if you have the strength of character, please respond to the following questions:-


1. Do you still stick to the story that I was off course, last chance to change your story before I obtain the trace.

2. To obtain further evidence as to the altitudes flown, why don’t you take me up on my offer to meet with the CFI, myself and the student. As I have stated publicly on this forum, I shall not mention anything to the student before we meet. He will give an independent account without any prompting.


3. Are you still flying commercially?


I look forward to your response, please PM if you so wish, after all you provided me with that option.

[Piper.Classique]

Well, spanner? Deep in the hole, do you propose to stop digging?
Or man up and face hotcloud?

[rustle]

I don’t hide behind an avatar...
"hotcloud", "...don’t hide behind an avatar..."? :hmm:

[hotcloud]

When I said that I don't hide behind an Avatar, I should have clarified that I would be prepared to meet anyone face to face.

[Kengineer-130]

Poor Spanner, it appears his uppance has come :ok:... What a horrible little man I bet you are, at least stand by your accusations & take hotcloud up on his offer of a face to face meeting, and put it to him face to face......

However I suspect you will hide on here behind frantic back peddling, pedantry to the nth degree & trying to brush it off as you can't be bothered, no point etc etc.

You started the thread trying to put someone to the sword, at least have the decency to die by it as well. You never know, if you held your hands up and admitted you had made a mistake in your judgement, you might even leave with a shred of credability left.

Looking forward to the traces :D

[HowlingMad Murdock]

An epic movie in the making indeed - this won't even need to be 'Rifftraxed'
Awaiting the next enthralling instalment...........have oodles of choc ice cream........:)

[fatmanmedia]

will there be a director's cut coming out?

fats

[tartare]

Jesus Herbert Christ.
I checked in a day or so ago.
Are you lot still beasting Spanner...???!!
Someone contact the BBC please - this is national news.

[Pilot.Lyons]

Haha herbert.... The things that tickle me ;)

[SpannerInTheWerks]

I am now in the process of obtaining a trace of my route; the management at my airfield will be looking into this. I also will be seeking to obtain the METAR’S in the local area.


Good, then hopefully this matter will be cleared up through the appropriate channels.

I have made several statements on this Thread and I stick by all I have said.

In summary:

On 2 November whilst driving northbound on the M6 motorway, shortly after 1200Z south of the Charnock Richard services, I saw a C150 flying in a southerly direction adjacent to the motorway at a height above ground level estimated at the time of between 150 and 250 feet. The weather conditions at the time were poor, with high winds and low cloud in a heavy shower.

Concerned for the safety of the aircraft I stopped at the Charnock Richard services and contacted Liverpool ATC and asked if they had knowledge of an aircraft in trouble as I had witnessed G-AWPU flying at low level. ATC informed me that whilst they had no knowledge of an aircraft in distress they did have a 7000 squawk in the area of my reported sighting. Liverpool ATC informed me they would contact the departure airfield to ensure that the aircraft had returned safely.

SITW

[Jetblu]

Great!

So then why do you come here on the 3rd November @ 16.40 and announce publicly that the aircraft was flying low and recklessly, when you first considered that the aircraft could have been in difficulty and not necessarily in contact with ATC?:ugh:

Spanner, do one.

[rustle]

So then why do you come here on the 3rd November @ 16.40 and announce publicly that the aircraft was flying low and recklessly, when you first considered that the aircraft could have been in difficulty and not necessarily in contact with ATC?

I must admit I can't see those words in the 1640 post you refer to (copied below so you can show me I'm wrong)

Would the pilot of the (locally based) Cessna F150J who was flying South following the M6 motorway in Lancashire yesterday lunchtime please explain what pre-flight planning s/he carried out, and what particular attention was paid to threat and error management, that resulted in the aircraft having to navigate alongside the motorway and remain visual with the surface at an estimated height above the ground of between 150 to 250 feet in heavy rain?!

You were lucky my friend.

I hope you will take that as a salutary lesson, because if you consider that exhibition of flying acceptable you may not be around too much longer!

:=

[Kestrel]

Spanner,

Either go and meet as invited or stop commenting in this thread.

You have made your point quite clear and now causing ill feeling.

Kestrel

[cockney steve]

will there be a director's cut coming out?

is that a brown envelope full of "ssshhhh. -shtum" money? ;)

You have made your point quite clear and now causing ill feeling.

now? now? stone me! he did that from his first condescending, patronising post.

[ShyTorque]

I'm looking forward to the Christmas DVD of this, when all will be sweetness and light...

;)

[rustle]

I'm looking forward to the promised radar tracks.

;)

[Peter-RB]

This is deffo an Ex Senior Milk Monitor..!...:ooh::E

Petet R-B
Lancashire

[Russ.w.]

Spanner - what do you want to gain from this? show some dignity and let it go.

[Ivor Fynn]

I hope we get to see the radar trace and mode C readouts, we can all go and plot it out - oh the excitement!!!

Then we can all feed someone some humble pie!

Ivor:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Somebody, I have come to the conclusion, with rather more Microsoft time than Cessna time.

G

[hotcloud]

Please see below an email that has been sent to a senior Manager at Barton.

"You may be aware of the thread on Pprune, Ref:" Motorway flying". In a nutshell, are you able to obtain a trace from Hawarden, Liverpool or Manchester of my flight on the 2nd of November 2013 over the lunchtime period. The aircraft flown was G-AWPU and the exercise undertaken was operation at minimum level. The route started at Barton and the first leg was to Leigh Flash. The next leg took us to the Wigan flashes, after that we circumnavigated Wigan to the east and then flew west between Wigan and Standish. At the Gathurst junction I then followed the railway line to Burscough. At Burscough I then headed south to the M58 (Junction 3). I then tracked east to the M6 junction and then followed the the M6 south to the junction at the M62. At the M62 I then followed the motorway back to Barton.

I have already received the ATIS information during the flight period from the control tower, and therefore a trace of the flight would be much appreciated, if that is possible. There is no doubt whatsoever that I was on the above route and I feel that I need to prove this to a certain gentleman that claims I could not have been on the route I described. Also I would be grateful if you could obtain the METAR's at the local airports, if possible.

Feel free to contact me, should you wish to discuss any matters.

Regards"



I shall not post again until such time I have further evidence regarding the flight.

[rustle]

hotcloud, how likely do you think it is that you will get this information? (trace/mode c) :hmm:

[Steve6443]

Jesus Herbert Christ.

Look, if you ARE going to take my name in vain, then at least get it right. It's Horatio, not Herbert.....:cool:

[hotcloud]

Rustle

Not sure, but I will do my best to get the information.

Best if I don't post until I am in receipt of further evidence. I understand that "Spanner in the werks" has been advised not to post and I therefore wish to respect that position by not posting either until such time I am in receipt of further information.

[Ivor Fynn]

Warton might provide a better trace, however, I suspect the low alt may preclude anything useful from any of the mentioned radar units. ( I am not having a pop but from previous experience even being below 1500' might not provide a usable trace)

Ivor

[piperboy84]

Hot cloud,
I wouldn't bother posting again whether you receive further info or not, it's pretty obvious to any rational or sane reader that the OP for whatever reason got ahead of himself and raised a ruckus over nothing not expecting any response, when one was received in a logical and reasonable manner the OP can't stomach withdrawing or back pedalling and instead appears intend on heading directly for Australasia by means of manual excavation.

[Nearly There]

how likely do you think it is that you will get this information? (trace/mode c)

Quite likely I'd think, a similar thing happened to me a few years back doing a few orbits over the parents house on the Wirral, somebody on the ground decided I too was well below 500' and wrote letters, one to the flight school I hired from and one to LPL ATC. "serious breach of Rule 5" "having studied the ANO" "risking inocent lives on the ground with stupidity"
ATC investigated using mode c data and acoustic monitoring data and the lowest I went to was 596' AGL....

Then we can all feed someone some humble pie!


I was asked if I'd like to respond to the complainant, which I did thanking him for pointing out I can fly 96' lower next time, which I did.

[rustle]

Rustle

Not sure, but I will do my best to get the information.

Cool. Thanks for the sensible reply :ok:

[ZOOKER]

Is G-AWPU fitted with a MODE C transponder? If so, was it squawking with MODE C during this flight?
If a radar trace cannot be obtained from EGCC/EGGP or EGNO, it may be worth asking the Barton management to contact NATS at Prestwick Centre. They should still have access to the radar data from St.Annes and Clee Hill, which, although distant from the area where these events occurred provide good low-level coverage. Do act fast though. I can't remember offhand how long the recordings are kept for. Scottish Centre should also have the data from the Manchester Approach radar, which they composite with the 2 radars already mentioned for use by the TMA sectors.
Safe flying as always.

[maxred]

Removed. I did not read the previous post correctly.

[Pilot.Lyons]

how likely do you think it is that you will get this information? (trace/mode c)

Quite likely I'd think, a similar thing happened to me a few years back doing a few orbits over the parents house on the Wirral, somebody on the ground decided I too was well below 500' and wrote letters, one to the flight school I hired from and one to LPL ATC. "serious breach of Rule 5" "having studied the ANO" "risking inocent lives on the ground with stupidity"
ATC investigated using mode c data and acoustic monitoring data and the lowest I went to was 596' AGL....

Then we can all feed someone some humble pie!


I was asked if I'd like to respond to the complainant, which I did thanking him for pointing out I can fly 96' lower next time, which I did.

Haha very good :D

[sharksandwich]

Country is full of jobsworths with nothing better to do, then too pompous to admit it.

[shakehandsman]

I think Spanner has decided that discretion is the better part of valour.

[rustle]

I suspect Spanner is merely complying with a request from a moderator not to post again...


But it may be more sinister than that after all Spanner is clearly a blind, paranoid jobsworth, only fit to be ignored and/or ridiculed... :).

FTAOD the sentence above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is not serious.

The irony of pillorying Spanner in this thread isn't lost on me. :rolleyes:

[Jonzarno]

I suspect Spanner is merely complying with a request from a moderator not to post again..

I do hope that isn't what has happened.

Whether you agree with what he wrote or not (I don't) and even if he has conducted the subsequent debate stupidly as I personally think he has, he should have the right to express his opinion, right or wrong.

If the mods think the thread has crossed the line, they can lock it as they have in many other cases.

My £.02

[mad_jock]

Its more likely they have contacted the CAA and the enforcement branch have told them not to post any more public comment in case it effects there evidence in court.

Then of course if it proved that they were incorrect the Pilot can take them to court for deformation.

[fujii]

And once he is back in shape, he can go for defamation.

[Crash one]

I think the pilot should take him round the back for deformation Jock. The court might object to the violence.

[sharksandwich]

Jonzarno - the freedom to express an opinion is generally: " subject to certain restrictions" including " respect for the rights or reputation of others" (Art.19 HRA)

[Jonzarno]

Shark sandwich

Sorry, but that's a bit of a stretch. He has expressed an opinion: yes, he has done it badly and no, I for one don't agree with him, but he has broken no law.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I tend to assume that he's fed up of being jumped on every time he electronically opens his mouth, and hasn't the spine to admit he's made a pratt of himself and apologise. My gut feeling is that neither moderators nor CAA were involved in that.

G

[rustle]

Spanner,

Either go and meet as invited or stop commenting in this thread.

You have made your point quite clear and now causing ill feeling.

Kestrel
GTE, better get your guts checked...


Kestrel is a moderator on this site.


HTH

[Genghis the Engineer]

Good spot.

G

(Happy to say when I'm wrong :8 )

[rustle]

Good spot.

Woof.

:ugh::hmm:

[hotcloud]

I have now received an email from a senior manager at Barton. He was able to provide the METAR'S at the time I was flying, unfortunately though he was unable to obtain a trace for the route. There are protocols to follow and my request did not meet the criteria. I am rather disappointed as the trace would have proved beyond doubt that I was on the route I described. This shall be the last time I am posting and once again I shall extend my offer for "Spanner in the werks" to meet with myself,the CFI and the student.

Please see the METAR'S below that were emailed to me by Barton:-

Chester Hawarden

METAR EGNR 021150Z 19017KT 150V240 9999 RA FEW008 SCT015
12/10 Q0990=
METAR EGNR 021220Z 19016KT 150V220 9999 FEW012 13/09 Q0989=

METAR EGNR 021250Z 19024KT 150V240 9999 SCT012 14/07 Q0988=

Liverpool

METAR EGGP 021150Z 15016KT 9999 VCSH SCT016 BKN028 11/09
Q0990=
METAR EGGP 021220Z 18021KT 9999 SCT015 BKN025 12/09 Q0989=
METAR EGGP 021250Z 18020KT 9999 FEW015 13/08 Q0988=


Manchester International

METAR COR EGCC 021150Z 17018KT 9999 -SHRA FEW009 SCT036 10/08
Q0991 TEMPO SHRA=

METAR COR EGCC 021220Z 18018KT 6000 SHRA FEW012 SCT021 BKN033 11/08 Q0990 TEMPO NSW=


METAR COR EGCC 021250Z 20021G32KT 9999 VCSH FEW016 SCT022
12/09 Q0990 RESHRA NOSIG=

[mad_jock]

Sorry for the spell check error :D

hotcloud good for you sticking to your guns.

[rustle]

hotcloud I have no argument with you however I always doubted you would be able to obtain radar traces of the flight.

Infact I would be disappointed if you had been able to or for the ANSPs to think that was good use of money/resources to prove a story on PPRuNe. :rolleyes:

The other interesting thing about this thread is how quickly people leapt onto Spanner's case (IMO unnecessarily harshly), yet stories of proving altitude busts / low flying by "proving" Mode C readouts of 596ft go unchallenged.

System tolerances alone make that "unlikely", notwithstanding Mode C / 1013.25 / QNH (spot height of that specific area to be pedantic) conversions.

Still, it made > 10 pages which isn't to be sneezed at these days. :ok:

[Flyingmac]

I for one have read this thread with interest and have not deemed it appropriate to have a go at Spanner. I believe his actions and attitude to be in the best interests of aviation safety.

However, I'm wondering if it's possible for him to NOTAM his whereabouts in case I'm ever flying over him?:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Woof.

:ugh::hmm:

http://thetangential.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Spot-the-dog.jpg

:cool:

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

I don't suppose, Hotcloud, that you were flying with a GPS that can be downloaded, purely in the interest of ongoing entertainment.

G

[rustle]

Glad we're on the same page with the whole "Spot" thing Genghis - could have been well embarrassing :ooh:

Mode S would do - bound to have been some spotters tracking flights with all of their kit - kind of share the enjoyment with our spotter brethren. :ok:

[ShyTorque]

I drive motorways a great deal, my daily commute is almost entirely on the motorways. Because we routinely land (rotary wing) from places other than airports I'm always very conscious of the local "actual" on my way to work, especially as I very often have to retrace my exact commuting route and land not long afterwards. One thing I do know is that accurate assessment of in flight conditions is not easily done from a car driver's perspective on a busy motorway. In wet conditions a veil of spray forms which decreases drivers' visibility considerably. However, just a hundred feet up, conditions can be far better.

In other words - Motorway driving conditions - horrendous.
Flying conditions just above motorway - far better.

For the record, I do not condone illegal low flying in any way. However, I am familiar with the low level environment. I began my career being trained to fly at very low levels. In thirty or so years I have been accused of illegally doing so twice, each time with a threat of legal action, once under military rules and once under civilian. The former complaint came at the behest of a government minister. Neither complaint was upheld as far as court because once the evidence had been gathered the complainant was found to be in error.

[Radix]

............

[Steve6443]

However, I'm wondering if it's possible for him to NOTAM his whereabouts in case I'm ever flying over him?

*lol*

+1......

[rustle]

However, I'm wondering if it's possible for him to NOTAM his whereabouts in case I'm ever flying over him?:ok:

Unless things have improved dramatically NOTAMing his whereabouts won't make a blind bit of difference to a lot of folk knowing he's there... :E [/contentious]

[Glamdring]

Good thread, 8/10, would read again.

[Steve6443]

Rustle:

Nice one...... Just when I thought it was safe to go flying again........ :)

[Red Chilli]

Pink Headsets anyone? (for those old enough to remember)

[shakehandsman]

Just got through reading the thread.. An entertaining read. Spanner for new head of CAA enforcement! The 'judge dredd' of general aviation!

[rustle]

The 'judge dredd' of general aviation!

At the risk of being very slightly pedantic, "Judge Dredd" should be capitalised.

HTH

[Munnyspinner]

Did Judge Dredd, spanner in the works etc. fail to eyeball the registration of said c150 at 100-250' AGL? Presumably, he was implying not only that conditions were below safe minima but that the 500' rule had also been broken. On that basis I am surprised that the registration mark would not have been clearly legible if the aircraft type ( F150J) was that obvious- I would find identifying most variants in the C150/152 line quite challenging. Having been taken on my PPL skill test in similar conditions ( having stated that actual conditions were marginal and the area forecast showing no immediate sign of improvement ) I found it to be a valuable learning experience. Whereas SITW concludes this a/c was lost and in peril, it may actually have been a very experienced IR demonstrating very challenging flight conditions in a controlled and safe manner. If it was dangerous - report it! If not, keep your eyes on the road. Safety first.

[m.Berger]

Spanner described the aircraft as locally based in his first post. From this it would seem that he would have recognised the aircraft and therefore have known the registration. Or not.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Pink Headsets anyone? (for those old enough to remember)
Don't recall any evidence that she wasn't a perfectly acceptable pilot, whatever you might have thought of her writing style.

[Red Chilli]

no nothing to do with the Pinkster herself (thought she was great), I simply meant as a challenge to the thread length - although that will probably never be beaten!

[Monocock]

I wonder if the pilot did ever manage to get evidence like they hoped to.

[AberdeenAngus]

"no nothing to do with the Pinkster herself (thought she was great), I simply meant as a challenge to the thread length - although that will probably never be beaten! "

Linky please :)

[mad_jock]

She was on a TV program a few years ago, some crap about dating on the west coast of Scotland.

There was some media rubbish going on and she begged me to delete it.

I started the thread with me as a Low hour'd FI because of a lovely but rather eccentric lady who loved all things pink wanted to have a pink headset and didn't like the normal colours. She used to fly in a skirt and camel boots, and had quite attractive legs from I can remember as well.

In the end we sent a pair of normal ones off to a motorbike helmet paint shop and got them painted pink.

She was a artistic type who lived on the west coast of Scotland and joined the thread, I bowed out on getting an airline job after about 12 months. But the thread continued for years. Some people absolutely hated it and others including some very experienced aviators seemed to love it.

She actually got to fly some very tasty hardware through ppruners and all the reports I got back were that she had a nice touch on the controls and I had done a good job teaching her ex 1-14.

But to be honest I more than likely learned more from her about instructing than she did off me about flying. Even to this day the things I learned about dealing with females in the cockpit get used regular line flying and line training.

It must be getting on for 11 years ago now.

Its properly best it doesn't get reinstated. She had had a quite ruff few years with husband dying and 2 kids to bring up and learning to fly was her way of getting out of her rut. And that thread I think as well was a bit of a therapy getting her away from her west coast community which can be quite harsh for anyone that's a bit different to the locals. I don't think it would do anyone any good bringing up old history.

I believe she is happy enough these days still living in the same place. Her boys must be grown up now but I presume she is the same as she ever was. Bloody infuriating at times and slightly scatty in what I see as a nice way but some hate.

[rustle]

I wonder if the pilot did ever manage to get evidence like they hoped to.

No he didn't, won't.

I have now received an email from a senior manager at Barton. He was able to provide the METAR'S at the time I was flying, unfortunately though he was unable to obtain a trace for the route. There are protocols to follow and my request did not meet the criteria. I am rather disappointed as the trace would have proved beyond doubt that I was on the route I described.

[Red Chilli]

Mad Jock - thanks for the update, I wondered how things had turned out, hope she's ok.

[mad_jock]

I don't really know to be honest how things are going for her.

She still has her radio show which I have on occasion listen to and she doesn't seem to have changed.