Manchester crash reported BBC
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: england
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One last point.. How often do you "experts" practice EFATO (Engine Failure After Take-Off) and pfl's? In my experience the vast majority don't do it enough.. Next time it may be YOUR donker that goes quiet - not someone else's...
A very important part of remaining current, unfortunately the airfield operator prohibits such practice on some runways.....
2.33.3 Practice Engine Failures on climbout from Runway 09L, 09R and 14 are not
permitted.
http://www.cityairportltd.com/downlo...othandbook.pdf
A very important part of remaining current, unfortunately the airfield operator prohibits such practice on some runways.....
2.33.3 Practice Engine Failures on climbout from Runway 09L, 09R and 14 are not
permitted.
http://www.cityairportltd.com/downlo...othandbook.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...very worrying particularly in light of the latest regs from the cynical money grabbing Euro gravy train known as EASA (the "S" stands of "screw") which makes it difficult on a European registered (e.g. G-reg) aircraft to replace originally specified rubber hoses with like-for-like modern teflon replacements.
On an N-reg you can fit teflon hoses and most N-reg owners have done that. A Piper will be all-American and won't have any expensive ISO (metric) fittings which cause hoses to cost a few hundred quid. Most American-pattern Teflon fuel hoses, fireproof and tested to 1500psi) are about £70 and they have no degradation mechanism (in this application), have no inherent life limit, and on some aircraft types (e.g. my TB20) they are not life limited even in situ.
t...
On an N-reg you can fit teflon hoses and most N-reg owners have done that. A Piper will be all-American and won't have any expensive ISO (metric) fittings which cause hoses to cost a few hundred quid. Most American-pattern Teflon fuel hoses, fireproof and tested to 1500psi) are about £70 and they have no degradation mechanism (in this application), have no inherent life limit, and on some aircraft types (e.g. my TB20) they are not life limited even in situ.
t...
IIRC though some of the Ravenair PA-38's are close to their wing life limit and I can't imagine the owners would want to spend more than was absolutely necessary to maintain them at this point in their life cycle. I'm not suggesting anyone's been cutting corners, but the incentive to invest in such upgrades on an aircraft that's close to the end of its structural life simply isn't going to be as great as it would otherwise be.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By contrast cars, buses and trucks kill pedestrians in their hundreds every year. Unfortunately, the public perceive the virtually non-existent risk from light aircraft as far more serious than the all too real risk from road transport hence the the news coverage of the Barton accident banging on about what a " miracle" it was that nobody on the ground was hurt while almost ignoring the fact that the two people aboard the aircraft were at that time both in a critical state from which one of them has since succumbed.
This seems to be unique to the reporting of light aircraft accidents. I've never seen a report on a road traffic accident that said that someone was killed when their car left the road but miraculously no pedestrians were hurt so it seems that we are considered to be engaged in a rather dodgy activity that the public needs to be protected from. What we probably need are spokespeople who can make this point whenever a light aircraft accident "miraculously" misses every school, playground, hospital and care home within a three mile radius. Something that AOPA or the LAA should be considering perhaps?
This seems to be unique to the reporting of light aircraft accidents. I've never seen a report on a road traffic accident that said that someone was killed when their car left the road but miraculously no pedestrians were hurt so it seems that we are considered to be engaged in a rather dodgy activity that the public needs to be protected from. What we probably need are spokespeople who can make this point whenever a light aircraft accident "miraculously" misses every school, playground, hospital and care home within a three mile radius. Something that AOPA or the LAA should be considering perhaps?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lichfield, UK
Age: 40
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh dear cant believe my post was quoted in the news. Yes im no expert, i was mearly mentioning what i thought when i saw the first images on that day.
To me it just appeared the pilot was attempted to find somewhere safe to land due to maybe aircraft failure, but at the time there was not alot of info on the disaster.
To me it just appeared the pilot was attempted to find somewhere safe to land due to maybe aircraft failure, but at the time there was not alot of info on the disaster.
Moderator
A sad event, I feel for the pilots. A crash is bad, burns are so much worse...
Stewmath,
Your being quoted would seem to be the action of over zealous, wreckless reporting. Perhaps in the context of "news" publications in England turning over a new leaf after phone tapping scandals, you should contact the offending publication, and ask for a retraction of your quote, citing the error they have made. I'm not suggesting this to put you on the spot, but rather to have that publication put on the spot. You were quoted, you're entitled to do that.
To have a news publication quote a "rumour network", without independently checking the authenticity of the information being reported, is totally irresponsible! If editors can loose jobs over phone tapping, should they not loose jobs for allowing un checked quotes from a rumour network on the internet?
Stewmath,
Your being quoted would seem to be the action of over zealous, wreckless reporting. Perhaps in the context of "news" publications in England turning over a new leaf after phone tapping scandals, you should contact the offending publication, and ask for a retraction of your quote, citing the error they have made. I'm not suggesting this to put you on the spot, but rather to have that publication put on the spot. You were quoted, you're entitled to do that.
To have a news publication quote a "rumour network", without independently checking the authenticity of the information being reported, is totally irresponsible! If editors can loose jobs over phone tapping, should they not loose jobs for allowing un checked quotes from a rumour network on the internet?
Rule 5 provides for this, but repeatedly (Barton, Biggin Hill, Southampton, most recently) does not work because pilots do not comply with it. The Authority doesn't prosecute, though, so that bit of the Rule is derelict and needs attention, either by way of prosecutions to make people comply, or by an acceptance that an aircraft which has suffered a power failure has some sort of 'right' to come to earth on someone's home...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: scotland
Age: 42
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was my understanding that pilots were essentially exempt from rule 5 (ie 500ft) when on climb out and approach as long as any published approach information and guidance is being followed. Nobody wants to come down on anyone's house and despite the best intentions of the pilot it is not always possible to comply with this rule in reality.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whopity,
It depends upon your interpretation of when a takeoff ends and a landing begins... This would be down to the court.
Jez, I'm not aware that the CAA has prosecuted in case of takeoff and landing without ability to alight clear...
...and why would you need Teflon hoses if you are going to touch down gently in a suitable field..?
It depends upon your interpretation of when a takeoff ends and a landing begins... This would be down to the court.
Jez, I'm not aware that the CAA has prosecuted in case of takeoff and landing without ability to alight clear...
...and why would you need Teflon hoses if you are going to touch down gently in a suitable field..?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Near an airport
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of which was there first (the airport or the housing), general aviation is, generally speaking, regulated more to protect non-participants than participants. Rule 5 provides for this, but repeatedly (Barton, Biggin Hill, Southampton, most recently) does not work because pilots do not comply with it. The Authority doesn't prosecute, though, so that bit of the Rule is derelict and needs attention, either by way of prosecutions to make people comply, or by an acceptance that an aircraft which has suffered a power failure has some sort of 'right' to come to earth on someone's home...
I don't fly single-engined aircraft any more, but respect the opinion of a close friend who refuses to operate an SEP aircraft into or out of a number of aerodromes, including Barton, which he views as simply unsafe and, in respect of Rule 5, impossible to operate to or from lawfully.
I don't fly single-engined aircraft any more, but respect the opinion of a close friend who refuses to operate an SEP aircraft into or out of a number of aerodromes, including Barton, which he views as simply unsafe and, in respect of Rule 5, impossible to operate to or from lawfully.
You are exempt from Rule 5 during take off and landing.
I would always instruct students to turn into the circuit at a safe height, not to high that you are over Eccles, and not to low that you compromise safety.
Barton in itself is not unsafe, what is unsafe is pilots, visiting or based, ignorance of its' surroundings and short runways.
As for Barton being in breach of Rule 5, no more so than at it's big sister down the road.
As you approach 23R at Manchester you pass within within 500ft of some houses. Is this a breach of Rule 5 or am I landing?
As for practice Efato's at Barton, they have never been allowed off 09/14.
For very obvious reasons. But you used to see a string of Fanstops on a summers evening from 27.
On a final note, I did not know Mr Dalglish other than in passing, but my thoughts go out to you your family and the other gentleman still in hospital.
Last edited by Check Mags On; 2nd Aug 2011 at 12:49.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh dear cant believe my post was quoted in the news.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR
I take a completely different view.
The press have a responsibility to quote accurately - which they did.
They reported that the comment was made on this site - which it was.
They referred to this site as "a respected professional pilots website" - which it is.
The error they made was assuming that Stewmath is an "expert" - which he is most certainly not. In other threads in various forums, he has said he'd love to get a PPL one day, but that's a long way off because of the cost involved so he's looking into the possibility of gliding.
It was Stewmath who chose to post that comment on a public aviation website despite the fact that he has no aviation expertise whatsoever. Some might regard that as "over zealous, reckless" and perhaps even "totally irresponsible!" Others might just regard it as a silly thing to do.
Stewmath
I agree with Exascot. One has to be aware of the fact that the press monitor PPRuNe - because it is the leading aviation website. It's happened in other forums. Posters who've never flown an airliner in their lives, or no aircraft of any sort, sometimes see fit to post their opinions in R&N, PPRuNe's 'flagship forum. Unfortunately, such comments are occasionally quoted in the press.
Lesson hopefully learnt.
On reflection, you may think that, at your stage, it would be wiser to read, learn and ask questions rather than post opinions.
FL
Stewmath,
Your being quoted would seem to be the action of over zealous, wreckless reporting. Perhaps in the context of "news" publications in England turning over a new leaf after phone tapping scandals, you should contact the offending publication, and ask for a retraction of your quote, citing the error they have made. I'm not suggesting this to put you on the spot, but rather to have that publication put on the spot. You were quoted, you're entitled to do that.
To have a news publication quote a "rumour network", without independently checking the authenticity of the information being reported, is totally irresponsible! If editors can loose jobs over phone tapping, should they not loose jobs for allowing un checked quotes from a rumour network on the internet?
Your being quoted would seem to be the action of over zealous, wreckless reporting. Perhaps in the context of "news" publications in England turning over a new leaf after phone tapping scandals, you should contact the offending publication, and ask for a retraction of your quote, citing the error they have made. I'm not suggesting this to put you on the spot, but rather to have that publication put on the spot. You were quoted, you're entitled to do that.
To have a news publication quote a "rumour network", without independently checking the authenticity of the information being reported, is totally irresponsible! If editors can loose jobs over phone tapping, should they not loose jobs for allowing un checked quotes from a rumour network on the internet?
The press have a responsibility to quote accurately - which they did.
They reported that the comment was made on this site - which it was.
They referred to this site as "a respected professional pilots website" - which it is.
The error they made was assuming that Stewmath is an "expert" - which he is most certainly not. In other threads in various forums, he has said he'd love to get a PPL one day, but that's a long way off because of the cost involved so he's looking into the possibility of gliding.
It was Stewmath who chose to post that comment on a public aviation website despite the fact that he has no aviation expertise whatsoever. Some might regard that as "over zealous, reckless" and perhaps even "totally irresponsible!" Others might just regard it as a silly thing to do.
Stewmath
I agree with Exascot. One has to be aware of the fact that the press monitor PPRuNe - because it is the leading aviation website. It's happened in other forums. Posters who've never flown an airliner in their lives, or no aircraft of any sort, sometimes see fit to post their opinions in R&N, PPRuNe's 'flagship forum. Unfortunately, such comments are occasionally quoted in the press.
Lesson hopefully learnt.
On reflection, you may think that, at your stage, it would be wiser to read, learn and ask questions rather than post opinions.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 2nd Aug 2011 at 18:25.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respected Professional website is a bit strong. If it does what it says on the tin it's a "rumour" network. The forum a lot of "professional pilots" are using is in fact Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA as was Stewmath when he made his remark.
I would suggest that any Journo quoting this site is wrong to state professional.
The Press monitor places such as this because they are lazy plagarists and although Stewmath may have jumped the gun a bit I would hope he continues to contribute as opposed to being driven away by his "betters"
I would suggest that any Journo quoting this site is wrong to state professional.
The Press monitor places such as this because they are lazy plagarists and although Stewmath may have jumped the gun a bit I would hope he continues to contribute as opposed to being driven away by his "betters"
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Safeguarding is ... divided into two distinct parts; officially safeguarded aerodromes and those that have tacit arrangements with the Local Authority Planners.
Policy 8/13 Cambridge Airport Public Safety Zone within the Cambridge Local Plan 2006 refers to the Public Safety Zone shown on the Proposals Map as a cone (with a corresponding cone in South Cambridgeshire). In addition, there are also safeguarding zones which restrict the height of new buildings in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire. These safeguarding zones are mentioned in paragraph 8.33 of the supporting text to the policy. These height restrictions will be taken into account in any planning decisions.
The mapping information held by the City Council on the safeguarding zones was provided to us by Marshall on the basis of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988: Town and Country Planning Aerodromes and Aeronautical Technical Site Direction 1992, which was issued with Department of the Environment Circular 2/92. At this point, we were required to consult with Marshall, the CAA and the MOD. This has since been replaced by Circular 01/03 Safeguarding, Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas. Annex 3 of the Circular 01/03 sets out the civil airports subject to official safeguarding. Cambridge Airport is not on this list of officially safeguarded airports. This means that we are not required to consult the CAA and the MOD. Although the circular does not apply formally to Cambridge Airport, the Department for Transport has confirmed that it is considered good practice for the airport to set out any necessary height constraints and to agree these as constraints with the Local Planning Authority. In the light of the constraints mapping data held by the City Council on height restrictions, Marshall is consulted on planning applications as a matter of course. In the event of their objection to any planning application, this is taken into account in decision-making.
The mapping information held by the City Council on the safeguarding zones was provided to us by Marshall on the basis of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988: Town and Country Planning Aerodromes and Aeronautical Technical Site Direction 1992, which was issued with Department of the Environment Circular 2/92. At this point, we were required to consult with Marshall, the CAA and the MOD. This has since been replaced by Circular 01/03 Safeguarding, Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas. Annex 3 of the Circular 01/03 sets out the civil airports subject to official safeguarding. Cambridge Airport is not on this list of officially safeguarded airports. This means that we are not required to consult the CAA and the MOD. Although the circular does not apply formally to Cambridge Airport, the Department for Transport has confirmed that it is considered good practice for the airport to set out any necessary height constraints and to agree these as constraints with the Local Planning Authority. In the light of the constraints mapping data held by the City Council on height restrictions, Marshall is consulted on planning applications as a matter of course. In the event of their objection to any planning application, this is taken into account in decision-making.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sad fact is that more often than not when incidents such as the one in question happen, the press do quote directly from Pprune, and more often than not they are quoting someone who has very little idea of what they are posting about - because those who are in possession of the facts generally know well enough to keep their opinions to themselves in the aftermath of the incident.
I'm all for personal freedom of expression, but in cases like this people should think long and hard, and then think again, before clicking that 'Submit reply' button.
I'm all for personal freedom of expression, but in cases like this people should think long and hard, and then think again, before clicking that 'Submit reply' button.
It depends upon your interpretation of when a takeoff ends and a landing begins... This would be down to the court.
In an emergency, anything goes, you do the best you can and land where you can, nobody is bothered about rules at that stage.
Guest
Posts: n/a
G the W
There are licensed aerodromes not officially safeguarded who choose not to enter into any discussions with their LPA as they think that keeping heads down and being nice is the way forward. And in some cases it might well be.
There are others that enter into formal agreements with their (willing) LPA and lodge a safeguarding map. This won't be signed by the CAA as Official ones are.
Circular 01/03 saw the demise of CAA involvement in day to day safeguarding and it was transferred to the licence holders of the OS aerodromes. A missed opportunity was to have persuaded John Prescott to make all licensed aerodromes safeguarded and then there would have been a level playing field.
On the semantics lets replace tacit with unofficial or mutually agreed, friendly, cooperative or formal basis. What ever you call it the call in process that applies to OS aerodromes could be difficult to follow if an LPA Committee went against a non safeguarded objection to an application on the grounds of air safety, which in effect is the end game of being OS.
If you glance out of Barton's VCR you can't help noticing the Salford City Reds new stadium. Its size and location are directly linked to the Aero Clubs reticence to object on safety grounds due to who there landlord was.
Two ps esses. Marshalls of Cambridge and Cambridge City Council. Little Gransden and Cambridge County Council. Is there a conclusion to be drawn in terms of scale?
Also, Public Safety Zones are not the same as safeguarding but is in the process of reverting from whence it came.
There are licensed aerodromes not officially safeguarded who choose not to enter into any discussions with their LPA as they think that keeping heads down and being nice is the way forward. And in some cases it might well be.
There are others that enter into formal agreements with their (willing) LPA and lodge a safeguarding map. This won't be signed by the CAA as Official ones are.
Circular 01/03 saw the demise of CAA involvement in day to day safeguarding and it was transferred to the licence holders of the OS aerodromes. A missed opportunity was to have persuaded John Prescott to make all licensed aerodromes safeguarded and then there would have been a level playing field.
On the semantics lets replace tacit with unofficial or mutually agreed, friendly, cooperative or formal basis. What ever you call it the call in process that applies to OS aerodromes could be difficult to follow if an LPA Committee went against a non safeguarded objection to an application on the grounds of air safety, which in effect is the end game of being OS.
If you glance out of Barton's VCR you can't help noticing the Salford City Reds new stadium. Its size and location are directly linked to the Aero Clubs reticence to object on safety grounds due to who there landlord was.
Two ps esses. Marshalls of Cambridge and Cambridge City Council. Little Gransden and Cambridge County Council. Is there a conclusion to be drawn in terms of scale?
Also, Public Safety Zones are not the same as safeguarding but is in the process of reverting from whence it came.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK - Sussex
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Site is called the Rumour Network. There is no requirement for anyone to prove themselves on this Site to be anything other than interested in aviation. The obsequieous attitudes that exist in the UK in aviation in this country are archaic and foster an entirely false perspective about what general aviation flying is about - it is simply a hobby, no more than that. You are not required to wear hours like epaullettes and only hold an opinion if you have more hours than the person you are speaking to.
If a Journo quotes from this Site then he/she is a Nob and there is no reason for anyone - Lawyer, Airbus Pilot or gazillion hours PPL to get on their high horse about it because this is an open web site.
Best the high and mighty create a Site where they need to submit evidenciary proof of their manliness and rights to exist over and above those that may just harbour an interest in aviation. Perhaps you could call it the professional pilots network as opposed to rumour network?
If a Journo quotes from this Site then he/she is a Nob and there is no reason for anyone - Lawyer, Airbus Pilot or gazillion hours PPL to get on their high horse about it because this is an open web site.
Best the high and mighty create a Site where they need to submit evidenciary proof of their manliness and rights to exist over and above those that may just harbour an interest in aviation. Perhaps you could call it the professional pilots network as opposed to rumour network?
Moderator
The press have a responsibility to quote accurately - which they did.
They reported that the comment was made on this site - which it was.
They referred to this site as "a respected professional pilots website" - which it is.
The error they made was assuming that Stewmath is an "expert" - which he is most certainly not.
They reported that the comment was made on this site - which it was.
They referred to this site as "a respected professional pilots website" - which it is.
The error they made was assuming that Stewmath is an "expert" - which he is most certainly not.
However, I opine that it is not an "error" to (apparently to me) latch onto a statement, and quote it in a news publication (thereby bolstering it's apparent validity), when it would appear that there was no effective due dilligence in verifying and qualifying the source of the quoted statement for "expertise". An "error" would be mistaking "stewmath" for the well known and well respected senior pilot "stewman" (okay, I made that up, but you get the point). My experience is that errors in newspapers are retracted. This "more than just an error" should be.
Wreckless, and over zealous are not errors in the news reporting business, they are just what they are called. You can see an error, in that the person obviously made an effort to get it right, and still got it wrong. I think that a person of stewmath's modest (or unknown, 'cause I have no idea) knowledge being quoted as an "expert" goes beyond an "error".
Sorry you're the focal point on this one stewmath, no slam against you personally! You're in the middle of your 15 minutes of fame by circumstance, don't let it put you off PPRuNe. I think there is an expert professional around here somewhere, but most of us are just trying to do our bit to contribute, and spread good will in general aviation....