Half-baked,
"Nothing wrong with it whatsoever if done properly and using a little common sense. I know a chap who makes a living out of doing just this."
If you seriously think that photography using a hand held camera in a solo cockpit is ok, then your username is most apposite, and I must congratulate you on its selection. But if that's what you do think, perhaps you could explain to me how flying one handed (at best) in an orbit, with no lookout, at low level, is anything other than sheer f*cking insanity?
Until then, I'm with the CAA, who judge that "using a hand held camera whilst flying a light aircraft... cannot be considered either prudent or in accordance with good airmanship."
They suggest that a "second pilot, dedicated camera operator and more suitable equipment would seem to be a much safer option."
If this is still too blooming difficult for you....
"A pilot who is manually flying a light aircraft with one hand whilst operating a camera through a side cabin window with his other hand cannot be considered to be able to maintain a proper lookout for other traffic.... his ability to take prompt avoiding action must be in serious doubt."
It astonishes and horrifies me that anyone interested enough in aviation to read and post on PPRuNe should be this clueless about the basics of airmanship.
If that's what your acquaintance does, then he is a tw@t. And if you're seriously defending him, then so are you.
Monty,
I suggested that 1,000 ft (or circuit height) ought to be a sensible minima for civvies, not 2,000 ft. This allows a margin, and avoids the 200-600 ft band at which most mil low flying takes place.
Though actually, 2,000 ft in a single engined light aircraft would seem to be a good height to allow (frequently rusty and less-than-current) PPLs enough time to plan and execute a proper forced landing if they get a technical problem. The AAIB observe that: "Pilots' abilities to cope safely with an engine failure, bird-strike, or even difficult wind conditions or down draughts while flying at such low levels (500 ft) must also be open to question."
Flying lower than you need to, as a PPL, in a single engined light aircraft is poor airmanship. End of story.
If your precis ("To blame a slower aircraft for an accident when you have rocked up from his six at 420, late sighting followed by a departure from controlled flight due to control inputs that exceed the envelope and it's his fault?") is intended to summarise the Carno incident, then you are either a fool, or beneath my contempt, and your summary is inaccurate and misleading.
The Jaguar's departure was, according to the AAIB, caused by the fact that "the entire Jaguar wing detached from its fuselage mounting points", and the aircraft was doing 450 kts not 420 kts. (The rolling moment was imparted by the aircraft hitting the Cessna's engine).
Moreover, we know that the twit in the Cessna pilot was flying below 500 ft AGL (he was estimated to be at 350 ft - which would have required special dispensation from the CAA, which he didn't have), was almost certainly contravening rule 5, and was using a hand held camera through the left hand window, and had 'previous' illegal low flying 'form'.
(It seems likely that the camera was being held up to the window even as the Jaguar hit the Cessna, as it was found at the point of collision, whence it fell, and not in the Cessna wreckage).
These were the main factors in the accident, and that's why it was the Cessna pilot's fault.
And it was pi$$ poor airmanship, as the AAIB point out: "In the event of an engine failure at low level his chances of carrying out a successful forced landing must be considered to be remote." They also pointed out what some PPRuNers seem to have trouble grasping: "This activity was detrimental to his ability to keep a good lookout for other aircraft... it must be presumed that he was aware that he was flying over areas that were frequently used by low level military fast jets.
His airmanship may be further gauged by his failure to visit the tower, file a flight plan, or even to obtain a met forecast..... let alone to use the CANP.
"It is not possible to establish whether this was due to his ignorance of the procedure or an unwillingness to draw attention to draw official attention to his low flying activity."
And he killed himself, and John Mardon, all to try to sell some pictures of houses and holiday homes (a pointless and unnecessary activity) and hadn't the wit to separate the roles of photographer and pilot. His company was an outfit that didn't have an AOC, and that tried to avoid the aerial work definition by not directly paying its pilots.
Even this circus did issue some guidance, and directly required that they did not fly below 600 ft.
By contrast, according to the AAIB: "The Jaguar crew were alert and carrying out their training flight in a responsible and professional manner."
And you choose to defend the Cessna pilot?
Words fail me.
TSR22,
You seem like a sensible chap. I'm sure that Carno and the later Tornado/Cessna collision will give you pause for thought.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 8th Mar 2009 at 20:28.