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?
