What would you do about this idiot?

[Big Hilly]

Big Hilly had a strange experience yesterday! Was driving up the M40 yesterday afternoon at 13:20 when I spotted an aircraft in my rear-view mirror!

This aircraft (a D.62B Condor – shan’t divulge the Reg at this point) was flying up the middle of the left hand carriageway at a height of not more than 200ft! He flew over the top of us and continued flying up the motorway at this height for about 3 miles and then turned right onto an easterly heading and disappeared off into the distance.

Now, I’ve seen some bloody silly stunts in my time but this takes the biscuit! Aside from the obvious distraction that he caused to the motorists (traffic on the southbound carriageway was visibly slowing down to take a look) it’s really the sort of thing that UK GA could well so without at this point in time.

To counter any possible questions – no, he wasn’t landing or taking off and yes he most definitely was ABSOLUTELY NO MORE than 200ft and yes the cloud base was a good 2000ft above him.

I have to say that when I saw it, it made me bloody furious and my blood is still boiling but, my question is this; what should I do about it? As I see it there are 3 options:

1. Do Nothing
2. Report Him to the CAA
3. I’ve obtained his home address from G-INFO – so maybe drop him a line and point out the error of his ways

What do you think fellow PPRuNers? Am I over-reacting or is this the sort of lunacy that if allowed to go unchecked has the potential to bring a whole heap of trouble and bad press at a time when GA is already under enough pressure?

BH

[High Wing Drifter]

There maybe another side to this. I would hate to jumped on by the CAA if I made an mistake or had a technical problem rather than deliberately breaking the rules. However, it is the CAA's job to investigate and come to a judgement. If however he/she was being truely reckless then again it is for the CAA to deal with.

Just my view,
HWD.

[skydriller]

BH

I guess if you are absolutely sure there was no farmstrip there and the aeroplane wasnt Landing/Taking off, and you feel so strongly about it then I suggest contacting the guy and ask him about it. As for getting the authorities involved, do you really want to go down that route? That may well publicise the incident, not something you (or any of us) would want. And if he had a legit reason, think if it was you that someone had dobbed in.......

Regards, SD..

Just had a silly thought....maybe he was lost and trying IFR...you know, I Follow Roads&Railways, and was checking out a roadsign.:}

[Binny]

Surely your only option is to report him. I agree it is for the CAA to decide whether he was at fault, and if he wasn't then your conscience is clear. If he was being a reckless idiot then, it can't be allowed to happen again, it tars the rep of responsible pilots, and more importantly that sort of behaviour costs lives. Although I can't see any legit reason why he would be at that height for over 3 miles, if he was suffering from a tech prob with his a/c then he should've been looking for an area suitable to land i.e a field not a busy motorway.

It's easy giving the advice but only you can make the choice.

[Big Hilly]

skydriller & HWD,

I am convinced that it was nothing more than a stupid stunt. If he had a technical problem the last place I would imagine he'd want to be would be directly overhead a busy motorway (when there are plenty of green field either side which don't have bleedin big trucks and cars wizzing along them) and if he were lost, I would hope that he would keep to the right of the motorway to read the signs! :}

Even if there were a farm strip nearby, why on earth would he have followed the road for about 3 miles at that height and then headed off East?

BH

[Warped Factor]

With tongue slightly in cheek.....was there any CAS nearby and might our hero have been making his escape at low level having inadvertantly been where he shouldn't have?

WF.

[scottish_ppl]

You that sure of your height judgement skills when driving along a motorway...

He says 500 feet, you say 200, who's to say which one of you is correct...

Did you note the registration numbers of any drivers who sped past you at 75mph as well, and when are you reporting them?

[flyingwelshman]

Scottish PPL

We have speed cameras and police cars to do that for us - and there is less of a case of community awarness. There are cases of members of the public reporting speeding vehicles on motorways so its not as fair fetched as you may think!

Biggy Hill
As others have said, its a difficult one, and its up to you. If you are passionate/worried about it then I think to do nothing is wrong. I think the quick note to the owner is the simplist way. This would let him/her know that they were spotted, and you were worried about the situation, and hopefully they will not do it again - but it should mean no unwanted extra publicity from the authorities.

Happy flying

FW

[J.A.F.O.]

Big Hilly

How can you be so sure that it was 200ft?

[Keef]

Personally, I'd leave it at having a quiet word with the pilot.

I once had a malicious low-flying complaint made against me by someone who gave a false name and address. I was accused of being below 50 feet AGL when I went over some poplar trees!

The case was rapidly thrown out when a phone call back revealed that the householder at that address had been on holiday at the time and knew nothing about it.

I was told that such complaints usually come down to the pilot being asked "What height did your altimeter show?" and the complainant "How did you determine the height of the aircraft?"

The complainant is then asked to state the height of a few aircraft as they pass by, and the case collapses.

[stiknruda]

My first thought upon reading BH's opening post on the thread was - thank goodness I was welding pointy bits on my fuselage yesterday at ths said hour.

BH - I put it to you that you don't know what height he was at - you don't know what he was doing and you don't know why he was there. You were chugging along the m'way and he was flying, perhaps a touch of envy.

If I were you I'd forget all about it.

"it made me bloody furious and my blood is still boiling"

Take a chill pill, chum - I'd rather not share the road far less the sky with someone who is so easily wound up, especially when they are NOT in possession of all the facts.

Stik

[shortstripper]

Easy,

If you've managed to trace him/her ... write him/her a polite letter and ask for an explaination by reply. Let that reply (or if no reply) decide your next action.

SS

[Monocock]

For crying out loud BH, relax!

Are you qualified to judge the difference between 200 ft and 500 ft whilst responsibly driving your car on a motorway?
If so, can you prove this to the CAA?

You say it made you "bloody furious". Were you involved in an accident because of this a/c? If not what was it that made you "bloody furious"?

You ask your fellow PPRuNer's if you are over reacting.

My answer is yes, you are.

I suggest you join the Pink Thread.

:}

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I'm amazed you're so wound up about this. Chill - let it go - there are far, far worse things going on every day to get your teeth into into if you feel the need to take action against someone.

SSD

[Big Hilly]

OK, thanks for the advice guys, I may just have a gentle word with the person in question and leave it at that.

Now, another poser for you all:

A chum of mine who works for a FTO received the following email this week:

I have been advised to remove the email for legal reasons

I suspect that it’s been sent to a number of organisations and I think that a copy has now been passed to SB but I mentioned to him that I would run it past people on here to see if anyone had any further suggestions.

BH

[Monocock]

I would say you could be getting yourself into deep water.

9/11??????????

Stop posting these kind of things Hilly!

[Big Hilly]

Monocock,

That is precisely my point. This email was received by the FTO in question on the 26th and as I said, Special Branch have been informed, however, I’m fairly sure that this had been sent to a number of organisations and we need to be aware of it.

BH

[Monocock]

My advice for what it's worth is:

1. Ignore the chap in his Condor.

2. Report the weirdo with his email.

I think you might find some others might agree.

Mono.

[Maxflyer]

<<edit: post removed to "administration forum">>

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If I know an illegal way to pass or easy way to pass, I will do or accept any offer to get rid of these exams. Are there really still people who read spam before deleting it??? Boggle.

As to the offer itself, you treat it as I treated the guy who took me out to dinner in Kosovo so as to ask me to fix a work permit for his cousin.

[Monocock]

Maxflyer

Monocock removes his hat to you!!!:ok:

One of PPRuNe (Private Flyings) classic comments perhaps?

[smarthawke]

At great risk of playing devil's avacado,

The facts as to why the Condor was allegedly flying lower than might be normal above the M40 are unknown, yet their are cries of report him to the CAA.

A few months ago, two aircraft blatantly contravened a TRA and carried out part of an extremely low level aerobatic sequence over members of the public and parked aircraft when apparently given permission for a 'run and break' and everyone was up in arms that anything should be done about them!! Bizarre!

BH

As for the 'having a word with him' bit, you have the name and address of the registered owner, who was not necessarily the pilot.

What if one of your fellow motorists on the M40 reported you to the Police for failing to pay proper attention to the job in hand whilst driving down the motorway - you even managed to read the registration! How would you feel?

As the others said, chill pill time.

[Big Hilly]

smarthawke,

you even managed to read the registration! Ah, that bit was made easy due to the fact THAT HE WAS FLYING THE DAMN THING SO BLEEDIN LOW!!!!!!!!!!! :D:ok:

BH

[Flying Lawyer]

Big Hilly

Ideally: Option 1
If you're unable to keep your urge to interfere in check, then: Option 3. If you're genuinely interested in the image of GA and/or flight safety rather than just giving him the benefit of your experience (whatever that is) you might want to write your letter in a manner which sounds less bombastic and 'pain in the rear' than your post.
I wonder if the flying did harm the reputation of GA? I doubt if the people slowing down to look were getting as hot under the collar as you. It's just possible they were enjoying looking at the aeroplane.
Blood still boiling since 13:20? I hope nobody annoys you when you're flying.

If you really must go for Option 2, please also write to the registered owner and tell him Flying Lawyer is so disgusted by your actions he's offered to defend him free of charge. It would be worth it for the fun of cross-examining you, and testing your ability to estimate heights.

People who advise reporting others to the CAA, often saying the reported pilot has 'nothing to worry about' if he's innocent (or words to that effect) either haven't got the slightest idea of the worry and expense to which such actions put the pilot or, possibly, just don't care.

smarthawke
Agree with you about the above incident.

However, your account of the other incident is a gross distortion of what actually occurred. Don't believe everything the 'powers that be' at the PFA tell you. In particular, don't believe anything that idiot Steve Moody says, or the version put about by some types in the PFA holy of holies who, since the event, have (a) denied that Moody walked off the job in a huff when the Controller on duty didn't agree the pilots had done anything wrong and didn't support moody reporting them and (b) have tried to say Moody wasn't trying to get the pilots in trouble but only trying to protect the PFA.

The pilots agreed to accept a formal caution from the CAA in order to put an end to the matter. They didn't do so because they thought they were guilty of any offence. I wish they'd fought it, mainly because I think they would have been acquitted, but also because I would have enjoyed myself cross-examining the ridiculous Moody.

BTW, I'm not prejudiced against the PFA as an association - some of my best friends are members. ;)

Tudor Owen

[Cusco]

If you've clocked his reg. and have his address, then write to him politely and with not so much invective as you have displayed on this list.

If you get a reply which you feel needs a response, put it on the mantelpiece for a week before you reply.

Then back off and be happy.

Safe flying

Cusco

[Timothy]

I think that maybe some people are being a little hard on BH.

After all, before he did anything, he turned to us, his peers, and asked our joint opinion as to the best course of action, has had a moderate consensus that, if he feels that he must do anything, he should talk to the guy quietly himself, and has agreed to go with that majority view and do what we jointly suggest.

So, give the man a break. He asked our advice, he should be allowed to do that without receiving personal attacks, and is taking it, which shows a deal of good sense and humility.

Timothy

[stiknruda]

BH (big hump?)

As others far more eloquent and far better qualified than myself (FL/Monocock/Cusco) have suggested similar responses to my initial post, I urge you to calm down and only worry about those things that you can influence.


Stik

edited to acknowledge a cross posting by Timothy - a nice chap but very pinko-liberal :)

[Timothy]

a nice chap but very pinko-liberalUnfortunately, to many people in the aviation world this seems to be an oxymoron :p

Timothy

[Tiger_ Moth]

I wouldn't get so wound up about this!
Whatever you do don't report him, that'd be ridiculous.

I agree however that it might be a bit dangerous encase a member of the public wasn't impressed so if you do anything maybe send him a letter telling him he's not helping GA.

[Big Hilly]

Flying Lawyer,

I would have no wish to be cross-examined by you – your reputation as a lawyer and as an advocate of GA in the UK goes before you and I bow to your far superior experience.

Timothy,

Thank you for your kind and reasoned words.

I have been advised to remove the email received from the character relating to the 'other matter' as SB are ‘onto it’.

The rest of the replies goes only to demonstrate the excellence and enormous diversity that we have here on PPRuNe. Thank you all for your comments.

BH

[Sensible]

Big Hilly,

Not related to Steve Moody by any chance are you?

[Whirlybird]

I can't quite believe this thread...

Big Hilly gets hot under the collar about low flying...

A few other people jump on the bandwagon in agreement...

Others get extremely annoyed at the mere suggestion that the chap should be reported...

Big Hilly accepts all comments entirely reasonably, but that's not enough - annoyance and even insults continue.

For Gawd's sake, guys, what's up with you all? Is it something in the stars at the moment or what? :confused:

Either the chap was illegally low flying, or he wasn't.
Either he should be reported, or he shouldn't.
Big Hilly may or may not be able to judge height; Flying Lawyer may or may not be able to prove that he can't.

There wasn't an accident, and nobody died; so far as we know nobody was even upset about it.

I can understand the different opinions, but not the sheer strength of feeling exhibited by so many. :confused:

[englishal]

so far as we know nobody was even upset about it
it made me bloody furious and my blood is still boiling

Let it lie..... the guy might have been too low, who's to know except the pilot. There may have been another reason, the safety of the flight for example. I know you're "Sure" he was too low and you're "sure" that he was just dossing around and not flying low for any other reason......but what is really the problem? I wouldn't like to be reported for low flying if indeed I really wasn't

I'd get p*ssed off with someone circling my house at 200', but along a motorway? The danger level is really not that great is it? ("what was that bump?...ooh, I think we've just got a Condor stuck in the grill"), I've seen low flying a/c, but so long as their actions weren't dangerous IMO I wouldn't dream of shopping them. If they were doing aero's over my house at 500' it'd be a different matter though.

You wouldn't believe the number of old biddies who used to complain about the "low flying" helo's when we had an RNAS near where I live. They even winge about the Red Arrows...

EA

[Maxflyer]

You wouldn't believe the number of old biddies who used to complain about the "low flying" helo's when we had an RNAS near where I live. They even winge about the Red Arrows...

The Red Arrows annoy me too! The ******s never fly over my house:(

[Kentish Lad]

Ooh, Big Hilly and The Flying Lawyer in court. THAT I would love to see!!!! I know who my money would be on and it wouldn't be the lawyer!

I think I'm one of the few people who actually knows who Big Hilly is. He's justifiably protective about his privacy but I will say this. If there's ANYONE on these forums who is qualified to judge the height of an aircraft from a moving car, then it's him. Years of flying fast jets for the military gives you experience far beyond the likes of Monocock and Sensible's PPL (A)'s!!!

The good grace with which he has taken the abuse and name calling on here (Sensible, if you'd like to have a go at calling him a 'Prick' to his face, I'm fairly sure I can arrange it) is a testament to his utter professionalism and dedication to aviation safety.

If this thread has done nothing else, it has shown several members of the pprune community in their true and rather unpleasant colours.

John

[bcfc]

Not related to Steve Moody by any chance are you?


And what was the point of that post Sensible? :mad:

Timothy had it spot on and it should be left at that.

[Capt. Manuvar]

I don't know what history you people have with each other but i must say i'm shocked by some of the responses.
If a pilot intentionally breaks the law without a valid reason then i believe he/she deserves any punishment they get. Rules are created for a reason. These cowboys don't do the image of GA any good. If i had been the one driving down the M40, this debate wouldn't have come up. i am aware that the CAA have an unnecessarily heavy handed approach to prosecution. in the end of the day it is up to the CAA to investigate, that what those exhorbitant fees we pay them are for. If this pilot was within his rights to fly at that height then i believe he would be cleared.
If some tabloid reporter had witnessed this incident, it would have been a different story.
By not reporting alleged ANO infingements, who are we protecting?
Capt. M

[shortstripper]

Capt. Manuvar

In some ways your aurgument has merit ... but mainly in a political way! It's a bit like the identity card debate, you know, the one that says ... "only those with something to hide would have reason to object to carrying a card":hmm:

There can be no end of legitimate reasons for low level flying such as described and without the facts we simply don't know if this pilot was an idiot or not. Ok, like you say ... just report them and let the CAA go about their business, but why? If he was legitimate why bring the CAA down on him causing no end of heartache when a simple letter and request for information may just allay your fears. If he fails to respond or has no good reason for his actions you can then decide to take it further if you see fit.

All

Do we really live in a society where we seem to enjoy getting others into trouble just because we "think" or worse "decide" they are acting out of turn?

If anything, as a pilot you are better placed to realise there "may" have been a reason for his/her "apparent" recklessness. Fear not ... there are enough who know b... all! about flying who may have reported him/her for you anyway!

SS

[Sensible]

Quote: "Tis a testament to his utter professionalism and dedication to aviation safety." I think more of a testament to the thought of if not the action of creating unnecesary mischief. I for one would not have given a second thought as to what "action" I could take to make this individuals life more difficult for him/her.

here are far too many self appointed “police” motivated to create trouble, distress and expense for others. Maybe the merits of taking action would be supported IF an individuals flying was either a hazard to other aircraft or property or causing a noise or safety hazard to other persons. It seems from what is reported that there was no more to this incident than somebody who may or may not have been flying at a lower altitude than they should have been. There has been no suggestion that they were at risk of collision or that they were frightening old ladies or horses. It is my view therefore that there is absolutely no reason for any action whatsoever to be taken against the pilot who may in any event been on approach to an airfield private or otherwise. Unless there is a strong case of reporting a pilot in the public interest then surely any action can only be judged as spiteful.

[Final 3 Greens]

BH

You need to decide what to do - the thing that concerns me is the apparent ease with which you were able to read the registration.

Flying Lawyer may be able to make you look like a fool in court, but that doesn't mean that you are wrong in your estimate - the two things are different.

What if this pilot repeats the act (if it was an act, not borne from necessity,which we do not know), gets it wrong and crashes on to a motorway, causing a major pile up?

If it were me, I would be tempted to pen a short letter to the registered address saying that you observed his/her 'emergency' stating the time and date adding that you were pleased that he/she was able to recover from the engine trouble or whatever caused the descent to low altitude and offer your sincere hope that this person never encounters such a hazardous situation again.

But of course, you must decide what to do.

[Khaosai]

Hi,
Bh initially aked what you would do about it. He gave himself three options, seemed to accept the advice from people posting, and no doubt has now decided on the correct course of action. Reckon the post should be tied up now, Rgds.

[Aussie Andy]

If you're concerned, just look up the rego on http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/aircraft_register/ginfo/search.asp and then call the guy to enquire what was happening. If you have the time...

[Flytest]

Hey boys

when a simple letter and request for information may just allay your fears.

What a load of crap. If the plod had the decency to write to me and ask why I happened to be doing 95 down the outside lane of the M40, I would lie my ar$e off if I thought they would accept that and let me off the hook.

Incidentally, on the road, the word of two people is enough to bring a case against a speeding driver.. It doesn't say they have to be armed with speed cameras.

If every incident of percieved bad airmanship goes unchecked, pretty soon we have complete disregard for the regs.

Maybe the guy in the Condor did have a good reason.. its worth checking. On pain of sounding cliched, the regs exist for a reason, and we pay the CAA handsomely to enforce them, so the decision as to any wrong doing should be theirs.. not a bunch of good old boys, with the pathetic "You can't prove anything" attitude.. How schoolboy.:mad:

[nosefirsteverytime]

All,

I'd go with the experience of FL on this one (apart from the offer to defend the accused), and as a neutral party I feel that Option 3 is the way to go, should you see fit.
If the owner wasn't flying, then he'll give a rollicking to the PIC at the time, and crisis over.
If it was him, and he had a good reason, then leave it.
If he feels uncomfortable and/or apologetic, then he's learned his
lesson.
If he's an obnoxious arrogant SOB who ges abusive with you (REMEMBER NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES DO YOU GET ABUSIVE WITH HIM!) let the CAA hounds loose!

I'm sure there's holes the size of barges in the above, but it's the best I can do from an unsullied, Joe Public Jury position.

Sensible,

It wasn't you was it? ;)

[Bronx]

Respect to Big Hilly for accepting the views of the sensible aviators and ignoring the silly Little Billy's who wanted him to go off to the feds.:ok:

But it brings up a wider topic. Should we report other pilots for breaking the rules?
I woul never report another pilot for something like that. Sure, something serious might mean you have no choice, but a bit of low flying that didn't do nobody any harm I wouldn't. Let the authorities do their own dirty work. There's no need to help them by getting other pilots in the sh1t.

Kentish Boy
Very touching post. It's good to see a bit of old-fashioned hero worship. Not much of it about these days.

[Flying Lawyer]

Finals3Greens
What is it that concerns you about BH being able to read the Reg?
What do you think it proves?
Kentish Lad
Estimates of height of aircraft from the ground are notoriouly unreliable, even when estimated by experienced pilots. It's fairly easy to see that an a/c is lower or higher than circuit height at a familiar airfield, but not when it's flying over unfamiliar terrain where we don't have a mental picture of where an aircraft should be. In this instance, it may well be that Big Hilly's estimate is accurate, but I'm still pleased he's decided not to get another aviator into trouble.
Flytest
I totally disagree with all your points. Just for info re one of them, the evidence of just one PC and what he says he saw on his speedo is enough provided there is evidence his speedo was working accurately at the relevant time.

[J.A.F.O.]

BH

I still don't know how you knew he was at 200ft.

Since I last looked at this thread several hundred thousand posts have appeared and I may have missed your answer, apologies in advance if I have.

So, now we all seem to have calmed down and talked this through like big girls and boys, how did you know he was at 200ft?

Not a trick question; not the start of me telling you that you should do one thing or another; I don't really care whether you forget all about it or tar and feather the chap before dragging him out of town behind a galloping steed; I just want to know.

Please.

[TonyR]

having seen first hand how the CAA would drag a person throught the Crown Court system and spend over £400,000 on heresay only to drop the charges after 2 years of preparation and 8 days in court, I would not report anyone to them.

I would drop the owner a nice polite note to inform him that he or whoever was using his aircraft seemed to be a bit low close to the motorway and that some "anti" might report him.

Dont give yourself a heart attack over it, in my experience if a person flys low continually he is a "temporary" problem and we will soon be reading about him in 1 of our mags.

[Big Hilly]

Blimey, what a lot of posts!

Sensible, I really don’t know what to say. I could make neither head nor tail of what the hell you were trying to say in your latest post. I’m not going to get into some sort of name-calling, handbag fight with you on here. My advice to you would have to be: go and get a few hours under your belt, then, when you’ve grown up a little and have something constructive & coherent to say, I’ll get back to you.

JAFO, Perhaps I should explain. There were four of us in the car. Each of us extremely experienced professional pilots and each of us said “WTF!!!!!!!!” As I said before, he was NO MORE than 200ft In reality, he was probably lower. Was he at 201ft? Maybe. Was he at 150ft? Maybe. Was he at 501ft? NO FU:mad:NG WAY!!!!!

You also have to ask what the hell was he was doing flying up the left hand lane of a motorway anyway (didn’t I read once something about a/c keeping to the RIGHT of such objects. . . .)? An emergency? Well if he flies above a motorway with a failing Donk, then he really does deserve to have the book thrown at him. I can think of no technical problem that would force him to do this – anyone have any ideas?????

Kentish Lad, What can I say – it looks like I’ve finally got myself a fan! :O Thank you for your kind words though!

Everyone else, Can I just make one thing clear? As Timothy said, I was asking YOUR advice on what to do!!!! And I will go with the majority verdict. I’ve got his details (or at least the details of the registered owner and hopefully he’ll know who was flying his aircraft at that time on a Saturday afternoon) and I’ll have a word. . . .

BH

[Heliport]

The original question has been fully answered and the advice offered may have saved a pilot from the attentions of the CAA which will please the majority and disappoint the minority.
That seems to be the end of the matter as far as Big Hilly and this particular pilot are concerned.

However, the responses have thrown up a clear divergence of views on rights and wrongs of one pilot reporting or shopping (depending on your point of view) another pilot to the CAA.

What do people think about that bigger issue?

Should we be additional 'policemen' for the CAA, as Flytest suggests?

Or should we mind our own business?

[Slow-Rider]

We don't have to be "policemen" but we do have a responsibilty to ensure that neither ourselves or our peers are dangerous. This should be done by whatever means possible, including approaching the CAA. I follow the rules why shouldn't everyone else?

One thing is certain, minding our own business is not conducive to flight safety!

[aiglon]

I have tried to resist posting on this topic but failed :}

I really do not want to get involved in the particular spat that seems to have wound up so many people but I would like to extend the debate slightly - only a little bit, honest.

Are the "majority" (I'll take the word of those posters who have made that claim, I really can't be bothered to check) suggesting that the pilot should not be reported simply because he is a fellow aviator or purely because BH cannot know why he was apparently flying so low?

If it is the former, then I am a little concerned. Firstly, it smacks of "them and us", not a good sign. Second, what kind of society will this create; where do we draw the line between defending "one of our own" and reporting "an offence". What would you do if you knew that a particular a/c owner/pilot was not bothering to have his aircraft properly serviced (apart from never accept an offer of a flight in it). How do we know he isn't perfectly capable of servicing it himself, in which case why get him into trouble? Mind you, he might just be an idiot.


Just a thought.

Aiglon

[Maxflyer]

Why was my post edited by the moderator? It was not insulting, merely explanatory. Where is the admin forum anyway?

[Timothy]

the evidence of just one PC and what he says he saw on his speedo is enough provided there is evidence his speedo was working accurately at the relevant time.Interestingly, I sat on a case today where we had the evidence of two officers and an undisputed LIDAR reading of 102mph, but the driver was found not guilty. Goes to show the value of a full trial where a full trial is needed!

Timothy

[TonyR]

aiglon;

I htink you will find that most of us who are suggesting "NOT REPORTING" are doing so because there is no clear evidence as to what height the aircraft was.

Yet we cannot be sure if the CAA would not jump on this pilot and put him or her through hell for a couple of years only to loose yet another silly case and waste another load of money.

[stiknruda]

In response to Aiglon's post, my mindset behind NOT reporting this alleged infringement of Rule 5 is purely because BH cannot know why he was apparently flying so low OR know exactly how high (or low) he was flying.

As no imminent danger or nusiance was caused on this occasion it seemed heavy-handed to involve a regulatory body who are not known for being even-handed.

The Condor pilot may have been exuberant, a particularly high risk emotion OR he may have been forced down to a lower than normal height by any variety of factors. It seems petulant and perhaps punitive to involve a third party without the full information set. If he was flying as described then it ceratinly was not the most stupendous display of airmanship but as we do not know whey he was doing it, we should not seek to convict him.

As for contacting the owner, personally I have far better things to do with my time than fight a one-man vendetta against anyone I believe to be infringing rules, especially when the infringement did not appear to cause anyone any harm. Life is certainly far to short at my advancing age to get all worked up about something that on the face of it seems quite unimportant. Could you imagine the ensuing chaos if we all tracked down other drivers who had cut us up, failed to give way, failed to stop, overtook in excess of the speed limit?

Without condoning someone flying along the wrong side of a motorway at half the legal minimum height: There appears to be a select few in aviation who always seem to know best, feel the need to share their greater experience, as a multi-thousand hour, ex fast-jet mate, wide-bodied training Captain and then attempt to police aviation to the detriment of the poor chap trying to enjoy his flying. Thankfully they are more than outnumbered by guys with equal qualification who only seem to involve themselves when absolutely essential.

I did watch the BBC1 two-parter that concluded last night about the paddy radiographer whose failure to involve himself resulted in a rape! The context will make sense to anyone who saw it and BH's position.

Big Hilly - do what you see fit, but don't allow yourself to become so agitated lest you end up the victim yourself.

Stik

[FNG]

Stik, you put that very well. I agree with you.

PS: on another thread, of a certain, ahem, celebrity, someone is asserting that we're all irresponsible and outrageous for condoning manifest wickedness on the grounds of fun. I thought that we were merely observing that we can't be sure why the pilot was flying as he was, (even assuming that he was as low as stated), but perhaps we should all turn ourselves in to the Feds for the dangerous nutters we are.

[Sensible]

Stiknruda, my sentiments exactly, only you put it far better than I ever could.

[Whirlybird]

I've been thinking about this a lot. If it were me, and I felt as certain about the height as Big Hilly does, I think I'd calm down, then write a polite letter to the aircraft owner. I'd mention that I didn't know who was flying, or the circumstances, but I felt it could...whatever I felt. I'd say I hoped he didn't mind my writing to him, etc. That way, I wouldn't upset anyone or get them into trouble with the CAA - perhaps wrongly - but it might cause the pilot to stop and think next time. It couldn't do any harm...and might do some good.

[pulse1]

Whirly,

The most sensible post on this thread IMO.

It is possible that the owner was not the pilot and that the owner would like to know that his aeroplane was being flown dangerously and illegally.

I would write in that vain. If the owner was the pilot, at least he will be made to think about his attitude to rules and safety. He will certainly be made aware that there are people on the ground who have the expertise to mount a good case against him and he might not be so lucky next time.

[Sensible]

Or how about just dropping the owner a note inviting him/her to view this thread!

[Flash0710]

Tried also to resist posting but BH's attitude just plain sucks.

I feel an up and coming thread will be from a crew member flying with this BH to be " What do i do about this chaps CRM?"

As a few have stated we face enough obsticles in GA from outsiders as it is but then to have our own pulling on a chain to ground us/cost us money time. Why?

I am just a low houred ppl so my experience in BH's eyes will count for little if nothing or will it?

Maybe it's all about differing attitudes or BH has been in it all to long and lost the passion. I still look up even if a PA28 is going over my head ( no matter what height ) envyous that im on the ground.

One thing is for sure there is no place for arrogance and BH in his superior position should not ponder petty low flying breaches in his crusade to kill I mean clean up GA perhaps instead use his wealth of experience in a more productive way.

Fly safe.........

F.

[R1200GS]

BH's attitude just plain sucks

I thought BH was asking for ADVICE? :confused:

Last year I reported somebody for driving erratically - well he was using BOTH sides of the road AND the pavement. He was subsequently convicted of drink-driving. Did I do the wrong thing? Should us motorists should stick together?

From FL's posts I guess it doesn't matter what the rights and wrongs of this incident are, it only matters what you can prove. My advice would be to write a polite letter to the owner, as Whirly suggested, and then forget all about it. :D

[Big Hilly]

Flash 0710,
BH's attitude just plain sucks. EH? :confused:

Pardon me for asking the advice of my fellow aviators!

Would you rather I went straight to the CAA then???? I was under the impression that I'd made it perfectly clear that I was going with the majority and have a 'gentle word' with him via a letter. . . :rolleyes:

BH

Edited due Alzheimer’s!

[ALEXA]

BH

I vote for the "polite word" - but I'd be ready to complain to the CAA if you get an arrogant response.

One point not made by many is that at 200 ft he would have been distracting everyone on the road - this really is dangerous.

It's very common for rubberneckers to have accidents when driving past an incident on the opposite carriageway. A low flying a/c probably poses an even greater risk.

To create a distraction risk by low flying over a motorway (if that is what he was doing) is really not acceptable behaviour.

On what you say, he needs to explain himself and (if there was no real excuse - I'm a low hours PPL so I won't offer an opinion on that) be big enough to acknowledge that he shouldn't have been where he was.

An appropriate level of contrition would be nice.

Alexa

[Slow-Rider]

BH

I think R1200GS was quoting Flash 0710 when he said that your attitude just plain sucks.

In any case what does suck is the childish attacks on someone with more experiance than alot of the people in this forum asking for our advice!

Enough said on that topic I would say. It would be interesting to see people address the wider issue of this thread highlighted by Heliport.

Regards SR

[Big Hilly]

Slow Rider,

I think R1200GS was quoting Flash 0710 when he said that your attitude just plain sucks. Thanks for pointing that out, have changed the post, Alzheimer’s must be setting in! ;)

BH

[Capt. Manuvar]

Heliport,
1. I think that it is up to the CAA to carry out invesigation PROPERLY. And it is up to pilots to report dangerous and illegal practices. Unfortunately the CAA's bad track record means that pilots cannot trusted to handles these incidents properly. It is not up to pilots to carry out their own investigations because they are not trained to do that kind of thing. I say leave it to the professionals (the CAA:ugh: )
2. I think every pilot has a duty to report illegal and dangerous practices. I amazes me that people can even think that flying over a M-way as 200' is not dangerous. While we loathe regulation, it is this same regulation that gives aviation its reputation for safety. If a pilot refuses to abide by the regs, then they should be ready to suffer the consequences.
3. Flying over the motorway at 200' is illegal, dangerous and gives GA a bad name, so it affects me in more way than one. By reporting this chap to the CAA i will still be 'minding my own business'.
Aviation Constable:} Captian manuvar

[Human Factor]

Having just read this thread for the first time, I'm surprised no-one has mentioned CHIRP. This is what it is there for:

CHIRP (http://www.chirp-admin.co.uk/chirp-main/default.htm)

[englishal]

My last word as I'm sure BH has now made up his / her mind....

I don't think an aircraft flying along a motorway at 200' is dangerous to traffic really....How often have you seen a military helicopter, police helicopter or air ambulance close to the ground? Where i live we often get the coastguard helo flying around at low level, and we don't suffer from many chaotic traffic pile ups as a result.

Anyway, this stunt may have been stupid, irresponsible, or completely innocent, no one but the pilot knows the circumstances. The pilot may or may not have been below 500', no one knows but the pilot. I wouldn't report him to the CAA, and I wouldn't write him a letter either, or else we'll all turn into a bunch of aviation vigilanties. If I witnessed the same stunt by the same aircraft on another date then maybe my mind would change. Otherwise I'd just let it lie......

Now, where did I put the keys to my condor....:D

Cheers
EA

[Big Hilly]

Heliport brings up an interesting point; Should we police ‘our own’ or not? The answer is I don’t know (partly why I asked for advice here in the first place).

As aiglon said – what would you do if you knew someone was not having their a/c properly maintained – have a quiet word? What if that didn’t work?

Is maybe the issue here really our ‘perception’ of what is right and wrong rather than what is ‘legally’ right or wrong?

Let me give you some examples (these are fictional so please allow me some latitude here):

Scenario 1.

You have a mate who flew low over a Motorway – Do you shop him?

You have a mate who regularly flies low over a Motorway, you’ve had a word but he continues to do it – Do you shop him?

You have a mate who flew low over a Motorway. Later that day, you hear that 10 people died in a pile up, witnesses blamed a low flying aircraft – Do you shop him?

Scenario 2.

You have a mate who one night drove home ‘over the limit’ – Do you shop him?

You have a mate who regularly drives over the limit – Do you shop him?

You have a mate who knocked a child over whilst over the limit – Do you Shop him?

Scenario 3.

You are at a mate’s house, he is out and you are surfing the net on his computer. Curiosity gets the better of you and you have a nose around in his files. On his hard drive, you find some hardcore porn – Do you shop him?

The images have a fairly unpleasant bondage theme – Do you shop him?

The images are of small children – Do you shop him?

You see, as I said above, is it perhaps not necessarily ‘The Law’ that we react to, but our own personal perception of what is ‘right and wrong’?

I’m happy to stand corrected, be flamed (I’m fairly used to that by now;) ) or whatever but It would be interesting to hear some thoughts. . .

BH

[WestWind1950]

I think the way Big Hilly is handling this is very sensible. He asked us for advice because he was unsure.... he got advice and got bashed... shame on you all!

Let's "hope" that the pilot in question is reading here.... and will think twice about his future actions, if he was indeed being a "rowdy".

Here's another question for you all:
you know a flying buddy isn't healthy, a stroke maybe, his house doc even told him he couldn't drive the car..... you know about it, you (and others!) see him getting in his plane and flying, even taking guests with him! It was his own private plane. But, he's a founding member of the club... he helps with the cash flow...
What would you do??

the above story was no tall tale but the truth! it happened in a former club of mine about 20 years ago! no one did anything.... and I carry a "guilty" conscience with me until this day! and I still don't know what I would do if approached with a similar situation again....
luckily the guy died a natural death before he crashed with a plane......

Westy

[englishal]

Its the level of danger or risk that dictates what you do.

Flying 200' is not in itself dangerous. Aircraft will fly fine at 200'. The drivers of the cars below are responsible for their own safety, I don't suddenly loose control if I see an aircraft 200' above me. It is possible that this could "contribute" to an accident but it didn't cause it....No still won't shop them.

A drunk driver is a danger, they are not in control of their vehicle. If my fictional mate arrived home pissed in his car, I wouldn't shop him, however if I was there when he was leaving the pub, I wouldn't let him drive. If I found out later that him driving pissed had killed someone AND I KNEW FOR A FACT that it was him, then yes I would shop him.

On the porn thing, to some extent its up to my fictional mate what he gets up to. If he likes hardcore porn (and don't we all;)) then as long as it doesn't harm anyone then ok fine whatever. Hardcore bondage, fine, its up to him, so long as its not harming anyone. However I would draw the line a kiddie stuff. For this he'd get a right good kicking, and have to explain exactly what it was doing there. Again IF I KNEW FOR A FACT that this was a sick guy, then I'd shop him.

You have to give people the benefit of the doubt though, in all the above cases the key thing which would dictate whether or not I shop someone is the level of risk posed, AND IF I KNEW FOR A FACT. In you case I don't see how you can claim to KNOW FOR A FACT that Condor Man was at 200'. You DONT KNOW FOR A FACT what the situation was...maybe he was looking for a landing site, maybe they had a problem, maybe they were just being irresponsible. The fact is YOU DONT KNOW. This is the reason why I'd exercise caution when acting as a self appointed policeman of the sky.

Damn, wasn't my last post was it....oh well

EA

[jbqc]

Even the police dont try to get a conviction for dangerious driving when there is an eye witness who has reported it.

So tell me again, What did you see?? Are you sure?? How old are you?? When did you last have an eyesight check?? Do you wear glasses?? What speed were you driving at?? Was the sun in your eyes?? Did you have to slow down to view the aircraft?? Were you alone?? How long ago was this?? What time again?? Did you know the aircraft type before you got it from G-info?? Do you have a current pilots medical?? When was the last one?? Would you be willing to try to guess the height of several different aircraft from your car if required??

DONT BOTHER REPORTING HIM

[Big Hilly]

jbqc,

So tell me again, What did you see?? Are you sure?? How old are you?? When did you last have an eyesight check?? Do you wear glasses?? What speed were you driving at?? Was the sun in your eyes?? Did you have to slow down to view the aircraft?? Were you alone?? How long ago was this?? What time again?? Did you know the aircraft type before you got it from G-info?? Do you have a current pilots medical?? When was the last one?? Would you be willing to try to guess the height of several different aircraft from your car if required?? Sorry, were those fictional questions or were they directed at me?

DONT BOTHER REPORTING HIM Oh for the love of God! I'll say this one last time!!! I AM NOT REPORTING HIM!!!

Actually, I've taken Sensible's idea (even though he called me nasty names ;)) and sent the registered owner a note pointing him in the direction of this thread. . . .

BH

[jbqc]

Its just you seem so sure he was at 200 feet. I have 32 years flying experience and 5,500 hours and I don't need specs and I am not sure if I could tell what height.

So what I am saying is you may have been wrong about the height

JB

[Big Hilly]

jbqc,

Perhaps you missed my post on page 4 Perhaps I should explain. There were four of us in the car. Each of us extremely experienced professional pilots and each of us said “WTF!!!!!!!!” As I said before, he was NO MORE than 200ft In reality, he was probably lower. Was he at 201ft? Maybe. Was he at 150ft? Maybe. Was he at 501ft? NO FUNG:mad:WAY!!!!!

In answer to your questions:

No, sun not in eyes. Didn't slow down. All have current class 1 medicals. I'd guess around 40,000'ish hours between us.

BH

[Flying Lawyer]

Please can we move on from the specific issue initially raised by Big Hilly. He asked for our opinions and has said in the clearest possible terms that he's been influenced by the majority view. That's now water well under the bridge.

There's potential for a good discussion of the general issue if we can let go of the particular facts of the initial question.

[Big Hilly]

Agreed, FL.

So, what's your 'take' on my scenarios?

BH

[Saab Dastard]

On the wider issue of how we discuss these incidents - perhaps asking for advice as BH has done - I think it is important not to allow our feelings to influence our choice of words too much.

For example, had BH not used the phraseit made me bloody furious and my blood is still boiling I believe that the responses would, in turn have been more moderate.

This is not a criticism - BH, you have every right to express how you felt - but simply an observation that your anger suggested that you might fall into the "I take great pleasure in being a pompous, self-righteous bastard" camp (your subsequent posts seem to suggest otherwise!), which is what many people seem to have reacted to.

SD

[Whirlybird]

Big Hilly,

Concerning your hypothetical scenarios, in virtually all those cases I think I'd talk to the person about it. After all, he/she is a mate. I would be concerned to try to get them to change their behaviour, which would make a lot more sense than either shopping them or turning a blind eye. If that didn't work, then I'd have to decide what to do next...but that would depend on their response to my concern...and I'm talking about concern, not confrontation.

IMHO. that sort of approach usually works best. Not that I always do it very well. When I tried to do something about a friend who was developing a serious drinking problem, she lost her temper and didn't speak to me for months. Mind you, she did stop drinking so much too. I think I've learned since then not to be too blunt...or maybe to be blunt, but gently.

[Big Hilly]

Whirly,

As always, an excellent post. BUT, what if the person in the scenarios was not a friend but someone whom you had never met? Would it change your response or would you still deal with it in the same way?

BH

[Timothy]

BH

Dare I add a little more to Saab's point without incurring your great wrath?

You did a similar thing on a previous thread where you made a very valid point, in a reasonably moderate way, under a very provocative title. Unfortunately many people concentrated more on the provocation than the point that was made.

I am not criticising, as Saab isn't, I think that we are both saying that you could make your very valid and valuable thoughts have more impact if you left out the eye-catching hyperbole.

Anyway...your call ;) :O

Timothy

[Flyin'Dutch']

I usually am pretty laid back about what people do, unless it endangers others.

I will report a burglary in progress, I would report dangerous driving and I would stop a mate from driving home over the limit.

I think I would have to apply the same principles to someone who was clearly doing something dangerous when flying, although I do accept that the current 'system' whereby the investigator is also the prosecutor is not ideal.

If someone did something which did seem 'less clever' and I was in the opportunity to have a chat about it then I would do so although it has to be said that there are a fair few people in aviation who's egos are a bit too big to accept any comments or criticism.

Contrary to what others have written on this thread before I find that those with more experience are usually the more perceptive variety of aviators.

As with most things in life, the longer you're around the more you can accept and admit that you don't know it all!

;)

FD

[Big Hilly]

Timothy,

Fair point indeed, my friend. But I thought I'd been fairly calm this time ‘round. . . . :D ;)

Either way, it's brought up some valuable points and has been extremely interesting.

BH

[TonyR]

BH

I think you were right to post the information and you were right not to report the pilot.

I remember years ago looking up to some of the "low flyers" and listening to their stories.

I managed to get by without flying too much with any of them and now quite a few are not around anymore.

It became a guessing game when we heard of a local aircraft crash as to which one of about 6 were involved. I am sure most areas have a few idiots.

I would like to think that posts on this forum helps young pilots to stay safe by taking the advice of those who have been around a while

TR

[High Wing Drifter]

I think you were right to post the information and you were right not to report the pilot...I remember years ago looking up to some of the "low flyers"...quite a few are not around anymore.
From your experience I think you should have come to the opposite conclusion.

[TonyR]

HWD

My post on page 4

"I would drop the owner a nice polite note to inform him that he or whoever was using his aircraft seemed to be a bit low close to the motorway and that some "anti" might report him".

I would try to do something about it but not involve the CAA

TR

[Whirlybird]

OK, concerning the hypothetical scenarios again, but with a stranger, not a friend...

I'd certainly do something about the drinking and driving. Maybe not once, but if he made a habit of it, I'd report him. Since nobody could do anything at that point because it's heresay, I might try to do something useful, like persuade his friends, wife, mother or anyone he might listen to, to stop him. If someone was killed I'd very definitely report him (or her), and be willing to stand up in court if necessary.

The hard core porn? I tend to think what people do in private is their own business, however distasteful. If it concerns kids, it's even more distasteful. But I don't know for certain that it leads to harming anyone. It may be against the law, but to me, that's not the point. I might mention it, so that he knew that I knew, but no more, unless it seemed that he might do more than just look at pictures...

Low level flying. I think our low level flying rules go over the top. I've been in the US, flying legally at 200-300 ft...in helicopters, don't know if f/w rules are the same there or not. It didn't do anyone any harm, it wasn't dangerous, and often that's the case here. If it was a one-off, I'd probably ignore it. If it happened regularly, I'd mention it to someone the guy/gal might be inclined to listen to...flying instructor, airfield manager, or whoever. If there was an accident? This gets complicated. To what extent are you responsible if an accident is caused by something you do, but which you didn't directly cause? If I walk naked down the hard shoulder and an accident occurs, was it my fault? If I have a super-expensive flashy car that everyone gawks at and the staring and lack of attention to driving causes an accident, is that my fault?

I think this last example demonstrates clearly the reason for the differing opinions on this thread. Low flying is not dangerous, in and of itself, all the time, by every pilot. It just happens to be against the law in the UK. And I personally would ALWAYS do something about things which are dangerous or could harm others, even if they're legal (mild neglect of animals falls into this category, and I've made enemies as a result in the past, and I don't care). I won't step in just because something is against the law; sometimes, IMHO, the law is an ass. Low flying is a borderline case; hence the rather (I hope uncharacteristically) woolly thinking in this post.

This is my thinking so far. But none of this is clear-cut black and white, as you know. If I manage to come to a clearer view, I'll let you know.

[SATCO Biggin]

Hi BH I have been following this thread with interest ;)

To report or not to report, that is the question, and probably one of the most tricky ones to answer as well!

For many years I was the holder of a 'red card'. That is a an 'Authorisation Card' issued by the CAA to inspect documents, enter aircraft, prevent flight etc for flight safety reasons (not financial). This 'card' expired a couple of years ago and I did not bother to renew it for one simple reason. It was always difficult to decide when to use it and when not to. In the end I never actually used it in anger at all. I much preferred the more gentlemanly alternative of have good natter off the record.

Authorised officers and officials have it easier than yourself in that they have the power to question the alleged offender and gather the facts before deciding a course of action. I normally found that after a damn good 'fact gathering session' I had actually got my point across to the offender and could drop the subject.

A quiet word to the register owner/operator would be my advice. Unfortunately if you get a less than responsive reply you are then left with a decision that has become more difficult. That is to either drop the subject and therefore feel you have failed in your task, or notify the authorities which lets face it, nobody really wants to do.

Good luck with whichever way you go....

SATCO Biggin

[Capt. Manuvar]

Whirlybird,
I beg to differ with your opinion. Low flying is very dangerous and the dangers are reduced when the pilot recieves adequate training. PPL(A) training includes low level nav but it isn't to train us to fly at low level but to give awareness of the potential dangers if we find ourselves stuck at L/L e.g in low cloud base. Like aerobatics, Low level flying is dangerous and should only be attempted by those trained to do so, e.g military pilots.
Low level flying is the main factor in the high level of noise complaints and traffic conflicts in general aviation.
I think it is disturbing that people think that they can break the law just because they think it is not dangerous.
I still believe that in that every pilot has a duty to report ANY practice that is deemed dangerous or potentially dangerous to the necessary authorities. It makes me laugh when people think that they are capable of carrying out their own investigations. I think the CAA have trained investigators and the necessary resources (in this case radar tapes could prove helpful) to carry out proper investigations. Despite their reputation, i would rather have the CAA carry out an investigation than some know-all PPL.
Aviation Rule No.1- You can break any rule in the interest of safety
Aviation Rule No.2- Legal doesn't mean safe, illegal doesn't mean unsafe
Aviation Rule No.3- Do not attempt anything you have not being PROPERLY trained to do e.g L/Level flying, aerobatics, fixing or flying aircraft, aviation investigation.
Capt. Manuvar

[Thread Bear]

All of this reminds me of people who move into a house near an airport and then complain about the noise.

[jayteeto]

Captain M, yours is the most sensible reply that I have read. In an old thread about a low flying ac near the lakes, a lot of people were very strong willed pushing the "chill pill". Your statement about being illegal but not unsafe is spot on. As an ex military helo instructor, teaching LLNav down to 50'/140 kts, I now COULD do it but DON'T do it because it is ILLEGAL!!!!! These people cause complaints and deserve everything they get. Flying Lawyer, defend away, I agree you can't judge height easily. But if they did do it, take the licence. Rant over.

[Flyin'Dutch']

JTT,

Although, due to the difference in how these matters get dealt with by the authorities the analogy is not 100% accurate, I would like to put it to you that following on that logic, you would take away everyone's driving licence if they were done for speeding?

Look forward to your reply.

FD

[WestWind1950]

@Capt. Manuvar
I, too, agree with all your posts.

If people would follow the rules that exist, we wouldn't need new ones! It may only take one or two isolated incidents to make the powers that be tighten the rules and make life for GA even more restrictive!!

Yes, it's very difficult to judge heights... but if the plane was so low that Big Hilly and his friends could read the registration from a moving vehicle, then it was too low!

and possibly some of the other motorists reported the incident...

Westy, a bit surprised at some of the postings... :ugh:

[stiknruda]

Capt M wrote:

Like aerobatics, Low level flying is dangerous

I'm sure he talks b@llocks, too.

Aerobatics are not inherently dangerous, low level flying is not inherently dangerous - both need far more preparation, currency and caution than straight and at FL45.

I don't low fly - but several times a week F15s and RAF jets scream over my strip at 250' - is it dangerous? No! Is it a bloody nuisance and does it frighten my livestock? Yes.

I flew three times this evening - once on my own aerobatting down to 500' whilst finalising my DA approval sequence. The other two trips were with pax - one a S&L "tour of the bay" at 1800', the other an intro to basic positive aerobatic maneouvers at 4000'+

None of the above was as dangerous as moving a particularly fractious bull or even a Saturday night out in Norwich's Riverside.

This thread is reverting to type - some folk want to be mini-airline captains driving their spamcans, others LEGALLY try and explore different facets of aviation.

Stik

[Monocock]

From a fellow farmer, well said Stik

Westy, your post was very self-critical!?

[WestWind1950]

@Monoccock

self critical? what's self critical about it? explain please....

Low flying may be fun, and in some cases may even be safe enough. But there's a time and place for everything and over a busy motorway is surely not the place! Over some obstacle free farmland, ok... but not over a motorway or anywhere which endangers others. It's as simple as that.

But the subject of this thread was/is whether or not to tattle to the authorities or not. I'm afraid there is no solution to that because each case most be individually considered..... they cannot be generalised.

Westy

[TC_LTN]

This threat has fascinated me because I am genuinely surprised at many people's perceptions/assumptions about the original incident.

If I was driving down the M40 and saw a very low flying Condor, my initial thoughts would be that the aircraft was in some sort of trouble. This is assuming that it wasn't operating out of an airfield or farm strip that I was aware of. Even, as BH describes, the aircraft continued along the motorway for a period of time, I would still be concerned for the welfare of the aircraft and the crew rather than thinking of any malicious intent. In my experience, very few people push the rules or break the rules in the way described just for the sake of it and I feel sure there is some perfectly reasonable explanation. I, for one, would be very keen to be reassured that the aircraft and crew are safe and well rather than discussing the rights and wrongs of reporting them.

Not trying to be self-righteous - maybe just a controller thing!

[jayteeto]

FlyinDutch, you are absolutely right... I didn't make the comparison with driving too fast, which is just as illegal. Mind you, I got a speeding ticket last year. First in 20 years accident free driving (ish). Now, I stick to the limits because I can't afford to lose my licence. So what do we do, possibly give an endorsment valid for a period of time which is in effect, "you have had your last chance and are on probation for X months"? That would probably work!!

[eyeinthesky]

Back to the hypothetical scenarios, and Whirly's thoughts in particular:

QUOTE
I'd certainly do something about the drinking and driving. Maybe not once, but if he made a habit of it, I'd report him. Since nobody could do anything at that point because it's heresay, I might try to do something useful, like persuade his friends, wife, mother or anyone he might listen to, to stop him. If someone was killed I'd very definitely report him (or her), and be willing to stand up in court if necessary.

The hard core porn? I tend to think what people do in private is their own business, however distasteful. If it concerns kids, it's even more distasteful. But I don't know for certain that it leads to harming anyone. It may be against the law, but to me, that's not the point. I might mention it, so that he knew that I knew, but no more, unless it seemed that he might do more than just look at pictures...

UNQUOTE

I think you have a duty to protect yourself and others. Drink driving is inherently dangerous, as others have pointed out. That one time that you see someone leave the pub and get in their car after downing 3 pints you might think 'not this once'. They mow down a pedestrian on the way home. How do you feel now? It is illegal and dangerous. If you don't want to report him/her, then take away his car keys or park your car in front of theirs. You are within your rights to perform a citizen's arrest, and I think it your duty to take action.

Child Pornography: It is illegal and there is plenty of evidence that 'what people do in private' is not just their own business. What about the people who take the pictures and the effect upon the children in them. Do you think that is acceptable? By viewing such things you are perpetuating this scum. There are also plenty of distressing stories of this kind of material leading to awful crimes. Watch the series 'Protecting the Children' on BBC2 at the moment and I'm sure your attitude will change.

With regard to BH's example: As far as we know nobody was harmed, and whilst the flight might have been illegal and ill-judged (subject to all the caveats already given wrt judging height etc), no actual harm was done.
A friendly letter saying that you had observed it and that you were concerned both for the safety of the pilot and the advisability of doing it should be enough to make the pilot sit up and take notice. You are performing your duty in protecting yourself and others from future danger, but you are not involving the great machine that is the CAA Investigation Dept.

[FNG]

I don't understand how or why Capt Manuvar and Westwind are so convinced that the pilot had no good reason for doing as he or she did. They seem to assume that it was just irresponsible fecklessness. It may have been, but none of us know.

As for dobbing in other pilots. I certainly don't think that we should adopt an attitude that we're all flyers together, so anything goes, and don't tell your mum, but, as pointed out by many others already, all depends upon the circumstances, which include any legitimate conclusions that one may draw as to the pilot's intentions and attitude.

When last I saw a single engined aircraft over central London, I questioned, to myself, the pilot's judgment, but there was no incident and I thought nothing further of it. If I had met the pilot, I would have asked him or her politely what they had been up to. If the response was an arrogant, I'm a sky god and the rules are for other people type response, I might have considered expressing my concerns to the regulator, but even if someone has done something wrong, I wouldn't necessarily condemn them, particularly if they've made a mistake. The CAA itself takes this attitude in respect of, for example, some accidental airspace busts.

Mind you, the last but one time I saw single engined aircraft over London it was bleedin outrageous. Nine of em, there were, flying too close together, pumping out a lot of smoke and generally behaving like hooligans. They even flew over the Queen's house, the cheeky ******s. That lot should be in the slammer for sure.

[ToryBoy]

Can I suggest that the expert height assessors go to the Flyer forum and visit the thread titled "That's me that is". This will give you the opportunity to see how you get on assessing the height of an over flying a/c.

The challenge is as follows......

The picture was taken from a car at 89 mph on the M11 sometime yesterday afternoon. The driver/photographer was using a Canon TX667 SLR with autofocus and the zoom factor lens was 24% engaged. Please do not forget to take into account that the glass sunroof was in fact closed so the glass refraction indices must be accounted for.

Perhaps certain entrants might like to make this competition more authentic by printing the picture and carrying out the challenge on their way home tonight. Further reality might be achieved by sticking the aforesaid picture to the inside of your sunshine roof to gain the accuracy that is required in this tough challenge.




Good luck chaps, it's a tricky one!!

I shall be travelling home on "B" roads this evening. :rolleyes:

[Final 3 Greens]

Toryboy

Sorry, invalid methodology.

[mad_jock]

Would a CHIRP report not do the rightful thing?

If the plane is a known low flyer the CAA will know about it and add another page in the file.

If they do decide to make an issue of it the worst thing to happen is that the guy/girl gets a good talking to. But they can't take them to court due to no wittnesses being available.

If its not the owner who's flying it I am sure they will rip strips off whoever was flying it when they get a letter through the door asking for details of the flight.

Just an idea.

personally I wouldn't bother writing to them. If they are that motivated to fly low over so many witnesses, if in fact they were low. You will just give them more qudos for doing it, someone noticing and not getting done for it.

Another reason i can think of is that they were lost, following a line feature until they came across something which they could fix on the chart then followed the motorway so as not to get lost again while planning the div. Clouds a bit low so they don't want to risk going into it, so motorway ground seems alot less dangerous than cloud and IMC. To be honest if a PPL walked up to me after a trip and explained the above reasoning for breaking the 500ft rule I certainly wouldn't bollock them for it because I would proberly do it myself.

In fact its a pretty standard nav technique following Motorways in the Vale of York on those lovely sunny days with 3k viz

MJ

[360BakTrak]

I'm amazed this thread is still going!!!! Aren't we all going round in circles now?! :confused:

[mad_jock]

Opps sorry I didn't read the whole thing after the bitching started

MJ

[Bronx]

Maybe not exactly going round in circles but the moral question is difficult enough in an aviation setting and it ain't helped by bringing in non-aviation scenarios.

Would I report someone for simple low flying? No. No ifs, no buts, No.
Would I report another pilot for doing somethin illegal while flying I didn't think was dangerous? No. Before the old women and nitpickers get going, I'm talkin about controlling the airplane or helo. Course I'd report a pilot for doing crimes using using an aircraft.
Would I report a pilot for doing something I thought was dangerous? Only as a last resort in extreme circumstances.
I've given my personal opinions and what I'd do privately. Some of us have jobs which put us under a duty to report things when we're working.

Those folk who think all low flying is dangerous need a reality check.
The guys who think because you can read a reg from the ground means its low flying should think about why reg markings have to be a minimum size. :rolleyes:

[Big Hilly]

. . . .it ain't helped by bringing in non-aviation scenarios. With respect, Bronx, I disagree.

We’ve more than covered the original issue. Flying Lawyer and others asked for a discussion regarding the ‘bigger picture’ here and the comparisons to non-aviation scenarios are possibly not quite so dichotomous as they allow us to gauge our own moral judgements with a slightly ‘clearer head’.

To those who said: “maybe he had an emergency”; Can I remind you that he was flying up the motorway for about 3 miles at this height before turning away from the road and disappearing off into the distance at the same height. Personally, I can’t think of an emergency that would precipitate this style of flying but, as always, I stand to be corrected by others’ suggestions. As yet, however, I can’t help noticing that any such suggestions have not been forthcoming. . . .

BH

[ToryBoy]

I wonder how the competition went tonight......

Didn't hear of any accidents on the motorway.

Maybe they realised their eyes should be on the road......:rolleyes:

[Big Hilly]

Competition???? Sorry, have been out of the country for a couple of days. Have I missed something?

BH

[ToryBoy]

Go back 8 posts Big Hilly. If you pass GO do not collect £200.

[Big Hilly]

Ah Ha! With you now.

But then again, that could be because I never go near the Flyer forum, I'm a PPRuNe man through and through.:D ;)

BH

[J.A.F.O.]

BH

Ever got part way through something and wished that you'd not started it?

In response to your own scenarios you say:

You see, as I said above, is it perhaps not necessarily ‘The Law’ that we react to, but our own personal perception of what is ‘right and wrong’?

I disagree in part, I think it is normally our perception of the amount of damage caused or harm done to others that colours our perception of right and wrong. At least in the case of many of the people who have posted above.

[Big Hilly]

JAFO, . . . I think it is normally our perception of the amount of damage caused or harm done to others that colours our perception of right and wrong. But, is that not precisely my point? I was not questioning the methods and personal processes that we go through to personally determine what is right and wrong, simply the fact that we arrear to respond to what we ‘perceive’ as being right or wrong (however we come to that conclusion) rather than what is legally right or wrong.

BH

[Blind lemon]

With '40,000 hours' between you I am suprised your blood has boiled over buy now as you must have seen plenty of stuff to get you well and truly riled in that time.

Why not give the bloke a break



Do try to keep up.
We moved on from that days ago.
Heliport

[shortstripper]

Three miles at below 500' then turned away from the road and flew off at the same height??? ............. :hmm: Sounds to me like a flying school type whos just bought into a farm strip ;) ... just about getting circuit height right, but darn it! ... just can't shake those bomber circuits!!! :E

SS

[J.A.F.O.]

BH - Erm...yeah...you're right. :E

[Final 3 Greens]

3 miles on base or final would put a bomber pilot out of an ATZ, never mind well away from a short strip.

[shortstripper]

Errrm .... sense of humour labotomy there F3G's? :hmm:

SS :ok:

[Dusty_B]

After 30 seconds or so reasoned thought, I decided at the begining of this thread that a valid "excuse" (though still illegal and breaking the law) would have been that the guy was unsure of his position.

I'm very surprised that no one else until ten posts or so ago mensioned this scenario. Especially whirly and the other helo mates.

The rules say stay on the right, he was on the left. HB, if you remember, how many road signs / junctions did you pass before he turned off? Did he turn at or close to a junction?

Either he was being a bit of a dick, or perhaps he'd had an electrical failure. No radio, no nav aids. Perhaps he'd relied on his wizzy moving map GPS, and didn't take a chart with him... or had simply forgotten the basics of navigation. I certainly hope it wasn't the later points!!!

[Final 3 Greens]

Errrm .... sense of humour labotomy there F3G's?
Oh dear Shortstripper, that was mean to be a joke was it? Sorry, but it read like another 'real aviator versus spam can driver' jibe. No doubt we can expect some humour about tailwheels and tri gear too? and how about a bit of GPS bashing whilst we're at it - no, Dusty B got there first with that one.

[shortstripper]

Oh dear ... sense of humour labotomy AND a chip on your shoulder! ... do lighten up old chap!

SS

[Flying Lawyer]

Big Hilly
I'm not sure what answering the three scenarios is intended to demonstrate, other than in most instances our reaction (and subsequent action, if any) is likely to be influenced by our views of the behaviour, its seriousness in our opinion etc.
But, since you ask -
Scenario 1
You have a mate who flew low over a Motorway – Do you shop him?
No.
You have a mate who regularly flies low over a Motorway, you’ve had a word but he continues to do it – Do you shop him?
No.
You have a mate who flew low over a Motorway. Later that day, you hear that 10 people died in a pile up, witnesses blamed a low flying aircraft – Do you shop him?
No.
Shop him for what? I can't see any offence, against either road traffic or aviation legislation. The presence of the aircraft is irrelevant. There are often fascinating attractions beside roads but, if we allow ourselves to be distracted by them, we're at fault. Many of us probably take this risk each time we drive past an airfield. ;)
Scenario 2
You have a mate who one night drove home ‘over the limit’ – Do you shop him?
No.
You have a mate who regularly drives over the limit – Do you shop him?
No. I'd express my disapproval in strong terms and point out the potential consequences of his behaviour. (I don't mean simply the risk of prosecution.)
You have a mate who knocked a child over whilst over the limit – Do you Shop him?
I'd try my best to persuade him to turn himself in but, if he refused, yes.
Scenario 3
You are at a mate’s house, he is out and you are surfing the net on his computer. Curiosity gets the better of you and you have a nose around in his files. On his hard drive, you find some hardcore porn – Do you shop him?
No. No offence.
The images have a fairly unpleasant bondage theme – Do you shop him?
No. No offence.
The images are of small children – Do you shop him?
It would depend upon the quantity and seriousness of the images. We'd certainly be having a long, serious conversation when he got home.

I entirely agree it isn't ‘The Law’ to which most of us react, but our own opinion of what is ‘right and wrong’ (in many instances, it will be a question of degree) and whether we want to be the cause of someone who's broken the law getting into trouble and possibly ending up in court.

----------------------------

Lawyers are always reluctant to say 'Never', but I can't conceive of any circumstances in which I would ever report a pilot simply for low flying.
Endangering? It would depend upon how dangerous I thought it was, not upon whether I thought others would regard it as dangerous, and certainly not upon whether I thought the CAA would claim it was dangerous. I've seen far too many cases where the CAA has alleged some flying was dangerous when it manifestly wasn't.
My approach would be different if the CAA wasn't so quick to prosecute. I don't think prosecuting pilots is an effective way of improving flight safety. An investigation to which all concerned can contribute without fear of being prosecuted and/or without running the risk of causing someone else to be prosecuted is much more effective.

I won't go on. Of all the opinions posted on this thread, Capt Manuvar's are the most helpful for summarising my views. They are the complete opposite of everything he's written.


Tudor

[360BakTrak]

Bl%%dy Hell!!! This thread is getting even more and more long winded and complicated!!!! I've been lost since about page 3!!! Good Luck Gents (and Ladies!):)

[High Wing Drifter]

Well just going by BH's original description:

The lowness was not the issue, it was dangerous. We know that because he said so. As non of us were there any further debate or argument on that matter is futile.

Not sure why "my mate" came into this. I understood from the original post that he didn't know him from Adam.

Given those factors is it right to shop him? Yes it is; it was illegal and dangerous. Would I actually have done so? Well I like to think that I try to do the right thing, but actually doing so would be a tough choice...probably why BH posed the question himself in the first place.

[Heliport]

High Wing DrifterThe lowness was not the issue, it was dangerous. We know that because he said so. :confused: BH expressed his opinion. An opininion is just that, not a fact. As non of us were there any further debate or argument on that matter is futile. That's why we moved on some time ago from discussing the specific incident to discussing the principle of reporting other pilots, the circs when we would or wouldn't.


Agree with you, 360BakTrak and others that the 'mate' aspect and other scenarios don't help anf make an already tricky subject more complicated.

Heliport

[Big Hilly]

The scenarios were designed entirely to demonstrate that we are all perfectly capable of interpreting the law to our own ends. Now, perhaps, ‘to our own ends’ is too strong a phrase, but certainly our own interpretation of the law and perception of what is right and wrong are the important issues. The ‘mate’ example was simply so that I could say, “OK, so you react like that if you knew him, now, what if you didn’t know him” which I did earlier on.

I had no idea what to do when I saw this incident, which was why I started this thread. Some say: “leave him alone”, some say, “report him”, I took the middle road and wrote to him pointing him in the direction of this thread. By now, he will have received my letter and he hasn’t replied via this thread, but that’s his prerogative. Will he think twice about doing it again, who knows? If I were in his shoes, would I think twice about doing it again, sure as hell I would! So has some good come out of this, again, who knows?

No one here has come up with any valid reasons as to why he was flying at the height he was and those that have made suggestions have always had caveats attached.

At the end of the day, we as aviators, whether we fly 747’s, GR1’s, Thrusters, 152’s or even them wretched fling-wing things ;) are in a rare and extremely privileged position. GA, in particular, is something that could so easily be taken away from us by the actions of just one person – one only has to look at the changes in, oh, I don’t know, gun laws in recent years to see that, and before people start shouting “that was different”, remember that the biggest question asked in these scenarios is “why do people need to do X” which, in our case will be: “why on earth do people need to fly light aircraft for fun”?

One of the best examples of moderation by our peers takes place here on PPRuNe. The moderators work overtime to give a fair and balanced view of all that takes place on these boards. Now, I’m not calling for ‘self-policing’ but perhaps we should take a leaf out of the ‘PPRuNe book’ and say to ourselves that if someone does something that we ‘perceive’ (and, remember, that we’ve already established that this is the important point here) to be a bit daft, we have a gentle go at ‘moderating’ his or her behaviour.

BH

[ToryBoy]

And if you compare your first post on this thread to that one, you will see that you were perhaps over-reacting at the start??????:ugh:

[Big Hilly]

Au Contraire, Tory Boy. It still makes me as cross now as I was back then. I needed guidance from my fellow PPRuNers on what I should do (Hence the original question) and I followed that guidance as we all perceive the CAA as being too ‘heavy handed’. But hey, we’ve been ‘round and ’round this particular circle already, and, if you don't mind, I’m not going to waste any more of my time going over old ground.

BH

[ToryBoy]

Good, that's what I was hoping.

[S-Works]

Jesus is this still going on? Can anybody actually remember the original question.

[Flying Lawyer]

BCFC

You asked earlier what sensible meant by this post - addressed to Big Hilly Not related to Steve Moody by any chance are you?As nobody's answered ....
I assume it was a reference to Steve Moody of the PFA.
Moody was the prat who caused all that trouble for the Extra pilots after the Kemble Rally last summer - kept reporting them to different departments of the CAA until he found someone to take his complaints seriously and investigate.

It was a very unkind comparison but it was made at an early stage in this debate and, in fairness to BH, he's since demonstrated he's not at all like Moody.


FL

[Final 3 Greens]

Dear Flying Lawyer
Moody was the prat who caused all that trouble for the Extra pilots after the Kemble Rally last summer - kept reporting them to different departments of the CAA until he found someone to take his complaints seriously and investigate.
Please inform me which laws Mr Moody broke?

[jbqc]

Quote "Please inform me which laws Mr Moody broke?"

The one that said

"HAVE A BLOODY BIT OF COMMON SENSE MR MOODY"

JB

[S-Works]

thats what a love about PPrune, the complete tangents we go off at!!

:O

[bcfc]

FL

The reason I asked Sensible about his post was not the reference to Steve Moody, but the relevance to BH's original (quite reasonable) question and the completely inappropriate and unwarranted insult, which I'm pleased to see has since been deleted.

I've always thought that if I had tricky aviation related moral predicament, I'd turn to this forum for opinion. Seeing the pasting BH has received, I think I'll seek counsel elsewhere.

[Flying Lawyer]

bcfc
Apologies for the misunderstanding. It didn't occur to me you couldn't see the relevance to the original post.

(BTW, I noticed the commonly used offensive word had been deleted. For my part, I'd consider being called that far less offensive than the comparison. :D )

[J.A.F.O.]

Flying Lawyer

More nos than expected in your reply to the scenarios but I guess that proves the point about us all reacting differently to these matters.

[flopter]

seriously Flopter

take your personal abuse elsewhere. Re reading the rules of PPRuNe would be my suggestion for your next assignment.

PPRuNe Radar

[Flying Lawyer]

J.A.F.O.

Which of my 'no' answers did you find surprising?
and
What are your answers to the same questions?
______________

Final 3 Greens
Apologies - I forgot to explain earlier that the fact witnesses could read the registration from the ground is irrelevant here.
Registration marks are required by law to be a specified size, unless the CAA has granted an exemption. eg Ex-mil a/c in mil markings. The size was calculated so that registrations can be read from the ground - by people with normal visual acuity - up to a specific height.
Anyone know the height?

I'm afraid I don't understand your most recent question.
Although I help with legal issues when I can, not all my posts are about law. :)
______________

PPRuNe Radar
Pleased you deleted flopter's post. BH couldn't have made it clearer that he decided against reporting the pilot.

[ratsarrse]

Anyone know the height?

No, but I'm dead curious now! I would have said 500', but your comment, 'witnesses could read the registration from the ground is irrelevant here' seems to rule that out...

[Heliport]

Not necessarily - 500' from the car would have been legal.

[J.A.F.O.]

Flying Lawyer

To be honest, I was surprised at your reluctance to report people where an offence had clearly been committed and there was a high degree of possible danger both to the hypothetical mate and everyone around him.

For the record:

Scenario 1

You have a mate who flew low over a Motorway – Do you shop him?
No. However, if he flew at such a height that could be seen as reckless then I would try to discourage him.

You have a mate who regularly flies low over a Motorway, you’ve had a word but he continues to do it – Do you shop him?
Possibly, that would depend on the severity of the particular case.

You have a mate who flew low over a Motorway. Later that day, you hear that 10 people died in a pile up, witnesses blamed a low flying aircraft – Do you shop him?
No.

Scenario 2

You have a mate who one night drove home ‘over the limit’ – Do you shop him?
Yes.

You have a mate who regularly drives over the limit – Do you shop him?
Yes.

You have a mate who knocked a child over whilst over the limit – Do you Shop him?
Yes.

Scenario 3

You are at a mate’s house, he is out and you are surfing the net on his computer. Curiosity gets the better of you and you have a nose around in his files. On his hard drive, you find some hardcore porn – Do you shop him?
No. No offence.

The images have a fairly unpleasant bondage theme – Do you shop him?
No. No offence.

The images are of small children – Do you shop him?
Yes.

[J.A.F.O.]

FL ... FL ... Is there anybody there?

[360BakTrak]

:uhoh:

[FJJP]

BH, on the 30th March you mentioned that you had dropped a note to the registered owner. Have you had the courtesy of a reply yet? And are you going to let us know what he said?

By the way, I think that was the right approach...

[Big Hilly]

Have been out of the country for the past week, so I'll be as quick as I can here and try to catch up further later:

FJJP,

Nope, not a dicky bird!

J.A.F.O.,

I suspect that FL can only be where most of the Legal Fraternity are at this time of year. . . . . Out on the Piste. . . . :D ;)

BH

[FNG]

The thread lives again...

The other day I saw some flash git on a paramotor spiralling above a village at approx 150 to 200 feet (judging height when looking at a person, not an airframe, is a bit easier, and there were tall yacht masts nearby to give some height reference). Paramotors are subject to the 500 foot rule, and in any event are not allowed to fly over built-up areas at all. After a bit of googling, I managed to get a message across via some responsible paramotor people, who are going to have a friendly word with the ace, and have invited me to have a free paramotor trip to boot*, so all ended happily.


*"Give that fixed-wing bloke the one with the, er, special engine..."

[J.A.F.O.]

And is FL still on the piste?

[Monocock]

FNG

If you ARE the one who ate all the pies can I politely suggest that you do not practice around yacht masts on your first attempt.:}