Display of reckless flying along N Norfolk coast

[psyclic]

You private flyers really know how to annoy the public!

Midday 16 May. A couple of 'planes flew along the N. Norfolk coastline. One about 300ft agl over the sand dunes, the other about 30ft between the high water mark and the sea. Very close to the 70 to 80 people on the beach. Registation marks on both a/craft easily readable.

Mr 30ft waving regally like the Queen as he passed by. Just then he saw large green kite being flown just ahead of him and above him, at about 100ft.

He took evasive action climbing hard right over the sand dunes.

No one was impressed.

[Chilli Monster]

Why not do something about it then. If you're that sure of the facts and were a material witness then make the call. If it's true we can all do without idiots like that.

Out of interest - were they group 'A' fixed wings or microlights?

[Monocock]

You private flyers really know how to annoy the public!

That's right. One noisy car goes past your house and I suppose you could say "you car drivers really know how to annoy the public".

Get a friggin' life you generalising fool. Do you not realise that........One about 300ft agl over the sand dunes the other about 30ft between the high water mark and the sea Mr 30ft at about 100ft.

Rather a lot of approximations there I should say.

Are you qualified to accuse in this manner? If not I should get yourself a damn good lawyer for what might come your way if you are out of your league!!

Great day for flying today though!!!!:ok:

[psyclic]

Mr 300ft, overhead,Cessna-like. Mr 30ft; a bit like an ag plane, Piper Pawnee?

[DB6]

Sounds like great fun to me :E . I for one like seeing planes flying past. If they weren't endangering anyone (and I don't mean in theory after a long sequence of outlandish coincidences) then what's the problem? I'd have enjoyed it.

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

Got to agree with Mono here, get a life or a pair of binoculars!!

Why are you posting on a flying thread if you start your post with "You private flyers really know how to annoy the public!"

:confused: :{ :mad:

[FNG]

Welcome to the Private Flying Forum, psyclic. We are all very glad to be collectively branded as irresponsible gits on the basis of the alleged misbehaviour of two pilots. As Chilli Monster observes, if you are sure of the heights and have the registrations, call the CAA. Otherwise, what is your point?

Oh, by the way, Captain Troll, did you get your ATPL in a Lucky Bag without ever holding a PPL or other licence? I only ask because you can't tell whether an aircraft is a Cessna (admittedly a very rare and exotic aircraft) at 300 feet.

PS: I know the North Norfolk coast well, and was flying there over the weekend until this morning. I often see people flying along quite low but well clear of the beaches. People in yachts wave at them.

[TonyR]

In Ireland we still land on the odd beach and to do that you have even got to fly below 30 ft

But thank God we dont have too many off duty ATPLs, just mostly nice people who are interested to see an aircraft close up.

Great flying weather today over here but I did not make the beach, perhaps next weekend

psyclic, i'll check the tide tables let you know in advance if you want to watch.

Tony

[ToryBoy]

Sir

Having read your initial post and observed the replies that followed, I believe you might be out of your depth in this matter. Sir FNG is not one to mince his words and upon analysis, your thread starter appears to be somewhat lacking in factual reference and accuracy.

Please back up your original post with proof of altitutudes and times and I would be happy to assist you in your quest for the goolies of an individual who was doing bugger all wrong today.

Thanks

TB:E

[tacpot]

Ok, so psyclic's comments tar us all with the same brush, but you have to wonder at the fact that there are still private pilots out there that haven't sussed that not everyone like aeroplanes!

Even if it is legal to fly like this, does it make sense? Does this present private aviation in a good light or a poor one? What if the avoiding action for the kite had caused the aircraft to stall, crash and kill someone?

I think the point is that flying down the coast is nice, if done nicely.

[Power Up]

FNG
In all fairness, Psyclic was just saying what he saw - admittedley the generalisation was unfair - and judging by his username I guess he flys helicopters - so a cessna like - to me most small high wing monoplanes look like a cessna.
Also in this instance, they appear to not have been 'clear of the beach.'

Psyclic
I must also agree with the general response, that if they were at fault, and you have sufficient evidence to prove so, then please make the call, as we all could do without such cowboys.

Such incidents are a shame, because it can at times leave large black marks on a great industry

Just my thoughts - open to a slating:ouch:

[psyclic]

I didn't need binoculars, it was all so close, that's what surprised me. And caused a bit of a knee jerk in the interests of FS.

Apologies to those irritated by my heading; I wanted to get the attention of those involved.

I'm sure a kite line wouldn't have damaged a prop much, just that these days large kites often tend to be attached to riders.

Mr. 30 ft may have been doing rollers along Scolt Head with no people there, so he was low, but the Overy beach had people on it. Sliding left over the sea as he came over the gap would have been safer.

First went down the bank to Overy beach in '54 Never seen any flying incident down there like what happened today until......today.

[Heliport]

It never ceases to amaze me how quick some PPLs are to suggest other PPLs should be reported to the CAA for some alleged breach of the Regs. :rolleyes:

[psyclic]

Ok. So now I'm up early worrying I've upset the private flyers who are more clever with words and typing than me!

My thread title was sweeping (for which I apologise again) but so was the action of Mr 30ft; He tarred PA for everyone down there on the beach who saw him joust with the kite.

I agree; o/head height judgement is difficult. But Mr 30ft was horizontal from me (I was standing on a sand dune)

Rather stupidly, I realize now, I thought some of you might know Mr 30ft and have a word with him. After all he could have queered the pitch for everyone.

[ALTSEL]

psyclic have a sense of fun. I note you are a Police helicopter pilot ex mil I assume. You get more than enough low flying.

Scolt Head and the the Burnam Staith are indeed my favourite places in Norfolk and at times I have seen aeroplanes there but normally offshore and away from people walking the beach, equally I have seen a/c land on the sands nr Holkham, done sensibly its ok, these hero's at the weekend may have stepped over the line.

You seem as annoyed as I get when on weekend nights our local police chopper keeps people awake hovering over the town at 200ft with a huge spotlight. I am sure you guys are having as much fun as those chaps you mentioned! :cool:

[Flying Lawyer]

Ah ....... glorious memories of flying a Stearman along Padre Island Texas, not far from Harlingen, years ago. Open cockpit, nothing on the clock but the maker's name etc - actual height about 30', less in parts. Oops! Some walkers. Are they shaking their fists? No, just waving. Utter bliss. :)
And just as much fun doing the same thing in a Harvard a few days later. ;)

[FNG]

On a recent thread about alleged low flying, the consensus that emerged was that a polite note to the registered owner was preferable to either a CAA report or an internet "why oh why" rant. You have the registrations, so why not use G-INFO to contact the owner and express your concern, pilot to pilot?

Recently I saw a paramotor up to no good above Burnham Overy (which he is not allowed over, as its a congested area, and certainly not at 200 feet ). I managed via a friendly paramotor instructor to get a polite message to the ace (and an offer of a free go on a paramotor to boot)

I sail at Burnham Overy Staithe and occasionally fly along Scolt Head and Blakeney Point. There are some regular local aircraft to be seen near the beaches, including a lovely Puss Moth, and sometimes microlights land on the empty streches of beach. Helicopters sometimes put down in the field near the boathouse. Harriers practise bomb runs. Everyone has fun. If, as you say, these two were being demonstrably silly, then maybe they need a quiet word.


PS: as for one of us maybe knowing who it was, when I see crystal clear aircraft descriptions such as "er...maybe a Cessna, or something," and "some sort of ag plane", I naturally exclaim "Oh, yes, that must be dangerous Colin and his mate reckless Ralph. Tut, tut, those boys, eh?"


PPS; Talking of safe and professional low flying (as practised, of course, by police helos) , I was interested to watch a banner tower get airborne and hook up his banner from Burnham airstrip on Saturday evening: very skillful stuff.

[ALTSEL]

Great to see all you real Norfolk Aviators at the tail wheel fly-in at Burnham strip on the weekend 18/19/20 June. No police helicopeters allowed!

note:I also saw the paraglider(chute with a fan thing) at the Staithe that same day, the engine cut out and the gentleman alighted in a heap in the beer garden behind the " Hero" pub - fantastic stuff!

[High Wing Drifter]

Does anybody remember the I Learned About Flying From That article in Pilot about...18 months ago? Sorry not much help is that.

A chap in a Tiger Moth having a great day out. Happened to be over a large reservoir. Noticed a small collection of people up by the dam who were waving heartily. He descended and did a fly by. He quoted how exhilarated he was by the enthusiastic waving of the folk on the ground. So he did another low fly-by. With a wave, a turn and climb he set course for home.

A few days later the letter arrived from the CAA. Summonsed to an interview to explain the allegation of low flying. Turns out the guys on the ground were a bunch of bird watchers absolutely incensed at the fact that their day out had been ruined.

Oh yes, I should also point out that he claims that he did stick to the 500' rule. Very important that I make that point! The moral of the story was that even 500' isn't enough sometimes.

[FNG]

Now we're really in trouble! He's dobbed us in to the rotorheads!

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1344369#post1344369

[stiknruda]

Firstly - it wasn't me. I was beating up a beach in South Norfolk, yesterday!:)

The ILAFFT article that you refer to HWD, was in fact a Stampe. The author told me of his little transgression one day and a year or so later it appeared in Pilot. That chap now flies LHS for BA.:eek:


Stik

[High Wing Drifter]

Stampe, Tiger, all the same to us Spammers :O Thanks for the correction :)

Oh yes, I should also point out that he claims that he did stick to the 500' rule. Very important that I make that point! The moral of the story was that even 500' isn't enough sometimes.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Psyclic,

Not sure what you are trying to achieve.

I could have believed that you were genuinely concerned about what happened if it had not been tor the gloating with which you advertise this thread on the RH forum.

It seems though that your fellow helo drivers were equally underwhelmed with your attempt at shroud waving.

FD

[Boing_737]

Isn't this why Norfolk was designed flat...?:E

[witchdoctor]

Damn! If I'd known that my adoring public was all the way down in hillbilly land, I wouldn't have bothered the good people of Leith and Portobello.

And it's only private flying if you have to dip into your own pocket too.;)

[FNG]

Steady on witchdoctor, just because they're married to their sisters*, that doesn't make them hill billies. Shortage of hills, for one thing.


*As the medical notes on the two headed babies at Wells Cottage Hospital say: "N for N"

[smarthawke]

Bemused again for it was but only a few weeks ago that numerous postees agreed that 'Mr Mystery Condor M40 200ft' should be reported by 'Mr Car Driver with 50,000hrs of ATPL On Board' if not reported to the CAA then write to the registered owner (as opposed to the pilot unknown) and explain the error of his ways!

So Extras = ok, Condor = not ok, 30ft Man = ok. Next one shall be damned!

Me? Go for the Wash when the ranges are shut and bomb the targets.

All meant in the best possible taste......

[--o-o-0-o-o--]

"Psyclic" your profile states you are an ATPL . An ATPL pilot was recently found to be "drunk in charge".......does this mean ALL ATPL pilots are drunks ????????????.........I think not. Not all GA pilots are bad. :rolleyes:

[High Wing Drifter]

There were only two or three posters agreeing that it sounded like the M40 guy was flying dangerously. Myself included. I am an inexperienced pilot and I don't understand the need to resist Rule 5. In my opinion it serves a sound purpose and anybody who wilfully breaks the letter or spirit of it is, in my book, verging on recklessness. We all make mistakes occasionally though, but some accounts don't sound like mistakes!

I also don't understand the need to lambaste and deride people who post here feeling a little shocked and angry at what they have witnessed.

[Flying Lawyer]

Perhaps, when you're no longer 'an inexperienced pilot' you will understand; perhaps not. But at least you're less likely to say things like "anybody who wilfully breaks the letter or spirit of (Rule 5) is, in my book, verging on recklessness."
On the other hand, if you mean 'reckless' as in recklessly ignoring the risk that some busybody might report them to the CAA, then I agree with you.

As you say, of all the people who posted, only two or three thought the M40 pilot was flying dangerously. Doesn't that tell you anything?

[Whirlybird]

In Ireland we still land on the odd beach and to do that you have even got to fly below 30 ft

The 500 ft rule does not apply when taking off and landing.

Just a point of information.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Flying Lawyer:Perhaps, when you're no longer 'an inexperienced pilot' you will understand; perhaps not. But at least you're less likely to say things like "anybody who wilfully breaks the letter or spirit of (Rule 5) is, in my book, verging on recklessness." Sure, "reckless" has particular legal meanings, which some breaches of Rule 5 would go nowhere near qualifying for.

How about:

"anybody who thinks that Rule 5 applies to everybody else but them might just possibly be the same sort of plonker who thinks that speed limits apply to everybody else but them"

?

[niknak]

I've wittnessed this sort of thing on many many occassions and we get fairly regular complaints along the same lines.

The trouble is, the beaches in our neck of the woods seem to cry out "come on, come and have a closer look!", unfortunately what they don't tell you is that if you do, there's an even chance that they'll bite yer bum without any further invitation.

The main reason nearly all the low flying by the military in Norfolk takes place either over land or over the sea, but not over the beaches is:

1 - Despite looking like miles of flat sandy beach, the majority of the surfaces are continuously undulating and far from firm, if your engine stops and you have to force land, the chances of doing so without causing signifcant damge to the aircraft or yourself are very remote. Additionally, King Canute doesn't have a franchise in these parts and the tides and currents can be particularly unforgiving if you land any distance from the high water mark.

2 - Birds. For reasons best known to themselves, these creatures also seem to enjoy the lower level altitudes of the beaches.
Last summer I saw a PA28 hit a small group of gulls when the pilot decided to carry out an impromptu flypast over the beach at low level. He killed three of them, dinted his aeroplane, and scared the crap out of himself, but he survived. I know who he was, he knows I know, nuff said.

I know that no amount of comments, well intended or otherwise will stop this particular activity, but it does seem a particularly stupid way to make complete prick of yourself.

[Flying Lawyer]

Gertrude
I don't know.
I know many people who break the speed limit - eg most people seem to drive at about 80 mph on motorways - but I don't know anyone who breaks it while thinking everybody else should keep to it. They would, indeed, be plonkers as you say.
On the other hand, I suspect there are some pilots who occasionally break the 500' or 1500' rule themselves, but are terribly 'holier than thou' about others who do so.

The main thrust of my post was the point on which we agree: Breaking a Rule of the Air reg doesn't necessarily mean reckless (or dangerous) flying. It may, or it may not, depending upon the circumstances.

[Flyin'Dutch']

And as a point of clarification:

Rule five does not say you can not fly lower than 500ft, it states that you can not do so if it means being closer than 500ft from any person, vehicle etc.

FD

[psyclic]

Now I understand what Mr 30ft was doing; It was a heck of a long finals run to land! He came into view in the west, about half way along Scolt Head (2 miles away roughly) just above (about 30ft) and parallel to the beach. Simply hanging there waiting for the best place to touchdown along a very long natural runway, avoiding the temporary obstructions like people and kites.

That I suppose is ok.

[Heliport]

http://www.jkairys.com/common/images/su26a.jpg

I suppose it's one way of making it more difficult for the complainers to get your reg.

;)

Heliport

[jayteeto]

I was always taught to cross the coast at 90 degrees (heading, not AOB) to minimise the risk of birdstrike. Some people earlier were slagging off police helos for flying low, well, our units night limits are higher than 200'. If you think he was dangerous, complain. It is your right.
On the safety side of things, I had a birdstrike yesterday at 500' / 120kts that hit the screen right in front of my face, very scary!! Why risk a multiple seagull or kite strike? After many many many other threads on this subject, it always comes down to the same thing. People are shouted down and told that they cant judge height. This I agree with after dealing with complaints in the past. However remember one thing: many will be wrong, but some will be right. If you are legit and not breaking rules.... fine. If you are illegal or dangerous, do not complain if you get punished. Just like people who slag off speed cameras, if you don't speed then you dont get caught.... simple.

Psyclic, if you are genuinely worried on safety, report it to the correct channels, not PPRUNE. You will only be shouted down here. If the pilots have not broken any rules, then they have nothing to fear.

[LowNSlow]

Whirly I think the exemption to the 500' rule when taking off and landing only applies to licensed airfields and emergencies. We have to maintain the 500' from any person, stucture etc etc in the circuit at Rush Green which is going to be damned hard when they build a 5,000 unit housing estate under our downwind especially as we can't go higher as we'd bump into the 73's and 75's lobbing into Luton

[Flyin'Dutch']

Jayteeto,

speed cameras, if you don't speed then you dont get caught.... simple.

Is true, unfortunately the same can not be said when it comes to complaints about low flying. There has been a pletora of cases where people have been at the receiving end of the CAA EB for alleged offences which were based on dodgy witness statements.

Unlike speed cameras eyewitnesses are not calibrated for faultless reporting, as you state yourself.

People [snipped] are told that they cant judge height. This I agree with after dealing with complaints in the past. However remember one thing: many will be wrong, but some will be right.

LnS,

I think the exemption to the 500' rule when taking off and landing only applies to licensed airfields and emergencies

Fortunately not. Otherwise you could never take off or land on an unlicensed field.

FD

[FNG]

The 500 foot rule (which, as correctly pointed out above, is about distance from people, boats, vehicles and structures , not about height) does not apply to an aircraft taking off or landing "in accordance with normal aviation practice" . So far as I am aware, (but Flying Lawyer knows lots more about this than me or, I dare say, any of the rest of us) no one has ever found out precisely what "normal aviation practice" is, but landing at an airfield, licensed or otherwise, would usually count as pretty normal. Landing on the roof of your mum's house might not.

[formationfoto]

I am unhappy to say that this transgression (if it was such) was not me as I was stuck at GVFWE all weekend. On another weekend, however, i could well have been at the same height as this observer (30ft) and flying perfectly legally along the North Norfolk coast (done it many times). Reduces safety margins but not illegal if 500ft away from persons... etc.

I do hate not being the subject of criticism so if you tell me when you will next be observing I will try and ensure that I do something enjoyable but legal but which you can claim is irresponsible (if that gives you something else to get on your high horse about!)

[montys ex teaboy]

Clocking aircraft heights is a very inexact science. Are you able to provide proof that the mentioned A/C were at 300ft and 30ft? If you could provide a photograph of the a/c with e.g. a tree in the background you may have some evidence, after verification of location.

Would like to point out however, that in a past life my job was low flying. Did it for 12 years. Unless one is current and experienced in the art of low flying, don't do it. You will come to grief. Yes it can be a lot of fun but it can only be carried out, with any degree of safety, after proper training and hours and hours of practice.

[left_hand_drive]

I was also flying along the North Norfolk coast on Sunday, at a few mins before midday - I remember that because the controller err'd over his good afterrrrr/morning. Whilst bimbling around at 3000' I heard a fair amount of traffic reporting their intentions to hit the coastline and there was one chap who reported doing some "low level at 300 feet". I thought I must have mis-heard so didn't pay too much attention, neither did Norwich Approach.. they were just advising him of other traffic at the time.

Does this fit in with your timings?

lhd

[montys ex teaboy]

Oh I forgot, there are always exceptions (aces) to the rule.

Having to feel the need to "put on an act" is normally a good indicator of inexperience. Short man or small p***s sydrome springs to mind.

It's all been done before, the graveyards are testimony to that.

[LowNSlow]

Our problem with the 500' rule is on our downwind leg. This has to be to the East due to the proximity to Luton's 26 threshold (6 mils away) which caps us at 1,000' on the Luton QNH. The hill under the downwind leg is going to get covered in housing (currently empty fields) which will be approx 400-500 agl depending on the QNH. The approach and takeoff zones are not an issue as one suggestion has been to have a "teardrop" shaped area at each end for use when practicing circuits or joining overhead. From this I gather that approaches and takeoffs are "normal aviation practice" but circuits aren't.....

[Flyin'Dutch']

From this I gather that approaches and takeoffs are "normal aviation practice" but circuits aren't.....
Sorry?

I would have thought that it would not be difficult to defend that a circuit is 'normal aviation practice'

FL?

FD

[FNG]

I agree, Dutch.

By the way, slightly diverging from thread, but note in particular BEagle's points in this discussion from the Instructors' forum.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122275&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

Edit: duff link amended, should work now.

[psyclic]

Interesting feedback about Sundays beach flying. Thank you for your comments.

When a pilot fails a trip he is not usually reported to the CAA. Generally, everyone in the coffee bar discusses him.

Mr 30ft was on Exercise 19*. He failed on airmanship; the beach wasn’t deserted and he nearly wound up wearing a kite. DNCO. He knows it and now we all know it.

* Exercise 19: "a bit of a beach bimble."

[jayteeto]

Psyclic, that is correct. My answer was one of frustration in this forum. If anyone accuses dangerous or foolish flying, they are attacked into submission by the same people every time. It always comes to the same conclusion, that people cannot judge height. Whilst that is correct, some of us can actually recognise foolish/dangerous acts, but are told time after time that we are wrong. It gets personal at times and you usually just give up as it is like bashing your head against a wall. My comment on reporting people is one borne of a refusal of some people to accept that anyone can actually do any wrong. My personal view would be for a forum like this to educate people on how some things, although strictly legal, can annoy, upset or hack off people

[LowNSlow]

FlyinDutch I would have thought that a circuit would be defensible at an airstrip which has planning permission to be an airstrip, has been an airstrip for 20 odd years and has neighbours who LIKE it being an airstrip. However, it seems that the CAA don't think this way. When the houses are built, our circuit dies. Period. End of story.

The fact that building 5,000 houses right under the approach to Luton's busy and getting busier 26 is a complete nonsense is lost on Two Jags who is pushing the scheme.

[FNG]

jayteeto, I disagree. People become irritated because threads of this kind tend to start, not with a calm post along the lines of "I have some concerns about this", but instead open with all guns blazing: "this guy is a tosser!", sometimes accompanied, as was this one , by "and you are all tossers as well". The author is usually Captain Nigel, or similar, on his day off (in this case it is PC Nigel of the Bigglesworth Squad) . Requests for specifics are not invariably met (although Big Hilly did give chapter and verse in his recent motorway flying thread, and moderated his anger after a shouty start).

In addition, people may be naturally sceptical of the motives of someone who, on an anonymous forum, castigates a pilot or pilots. Plenty of people here, myself included, have suggested that psyclic contact the aircraft owners, which he can easily do as he knows the aircraft registrations. None of us is condoning unsafe or illegal flying.


[break]

LownSlow

For reasons we discussed a month or so past, the circuit problem derives from the 1500 foot rule, not the 500 foot rule. I hope that Rush Green survives.

[Crashondeck]

It seems to me that these types of threads polarise those that post here. Private pilots think this sort of thing is heroic, where as professional pilots / ATCOs view these low flyers as complete tossers.

Maybe it is because a professional pilot will loose his/her job if they are caught doing this, or if something goes wrong and end up on the beach, they will be made to look a complete tw*t. A complete unemployed tw*t. Whereas a private pilot would shrug it off, it would become a good story for the bar, even it means a different aero club bar.

I do not doubt the height reports. psyclic should know what 30 feet looks like and if it wasn’t 30 ft, then may be it was 40 or 20’, it matters not. The fact that Mr 30 feet had to avoid a kite is evidence enough.

As had already been said, low flying requires skill and currency and part of that skill is to know when and where to do this. Up a beach is not a place for low flying - birds, kites, boats not to mention plenty of cameras to record the incident. Not only that, sea spray plays havoc with aluminium and sand will do your prop and flying surfaces no good.

In short, pulling a stunt like this shows utter ignorance and that, in the professional world, is a deadly sin.

[FNG]

Check the profiles of some who have posted views in opposition to psyclic's and you will see that some are ATPLS. Also, the assumption that all private pilots admire reckless low level stupidity is almost as offensive a generalisation as that which began this thread. Most of us value our licences and our lack of criminal records. Even as a mere amateur (and therefore, by definition, dangerous and irresponsible) pilot, I might be disciplined by my professional body if convicted of a flying offence.

[LowNSlow]

I agree with FNG on the 'all tarred with the same brush' aspect of psyclic's post and his with to see RG survive!
I have done some low flying (along the surf, for height judgement, on a winter's day in Wales when there really was nobody about) with an experienced chap in the RHS for example. It is fun and as other posters have pointed out, it is neither reckless or illegall if done within your skill levels and in the right place.

[Flying Lawyer]

I agree opinions tend to polarise in discussions such as this, but I don't think the division is between professionals and private pilots; nor is it generally as extreme as between those who think low fliers are "heroic" and those who view them as "complete tossers."
There are several divisions of opinion, and varying degrees of disagreement between the poles.
eg
Between those who think low flying is harmless fun and those who view it very seriously (for a variety of reasons);
Between those who think any breach of Rule 5 is necessarily reckless/dangerous or irresponsible and those who pause to think before making daft sweeping statements;
between those who think it's nobody's business but the pilots' if they're prepared to risk being reported and those who think it is our business as aviators and that we should do something about it.
Of those in the 'something should be done' category, opinions are divided between those who favour contacting the pilot in a friendly and helpful 'aviator-to-aviator' manner, and those who urge the witness to report him to the CAA.
Finally, there's a division between those who think "If the pilots have not broken any rules, then they have nothing to fear" and those who know that is utter nonsense.

BTW Crashondeck, re my earlier description of flying low in a Stearman and Harvard:
I'm not sure if I fall into your "complete tosser" category.
Padre Island is the longest undeveloped barrier island in the world, stretching for more than 100 miles along the Texas Gulf Coast. The section over which I flew was uninhabited and virtually deserted. From memory, there were about 5-6 walkers in about 20 miles. Please accept I kept a good lookout for people and other aircraft.
Illegal?
I flew much closer than 500' to one pair who appeared from behind a sand-dune and waved as I flew along the beach. It was obvious they were friendly but, even if it hadn't been, the risk of them complaining was extremely remote - Americans don't seem to regard a passing aeroplane or helicopter in the same 'outraged' way as many Brits. Furthermore, even if they did, I was optimistic the FAA would take a reasonable view. The FAA places great emphasis on flight safety and is very quick to prosecute where there was danger, but not relatively minor infringements where there was none.


Tudor Owen

[Big Hilly]

It’s a tricky one.

One the one hand when you see something that you perceive to bring GA into disrepute, you get cross (I think "blood boiling" rings a bell ;) ). On the other, you have to ask yourself how strongly you feel about it and does it really matter? There is no doubt that the general consensus is to have a ‘quiet word’ and so, if you got his reg, and you’re CERTAIN that he was in the wrong then do so via G-INFO.

BH

[pilotwolf]

Not going to get involved in discussion as haven't time to defend my views! ;)

But have any other rotary pilots here flown the LAX beach transition? ATC always give as "...at or below 150'!

Fun - yes especially in summer!!!!

Dangerous - well yes probably - in an R22 you are going to end up in the sea if you are at 100knts and 50'!
Done it once at 25', (beach empty - late evening), and was frightened by just how close the ground seems!

Irresponsible? Maybe - could have done it at 70 knots and 150' but then that's not having fun whilst following ATC instructions!!

PW

[Flying Lawyer]

pilotwolf
Yes, I've done it a few times in R22s and a JetRanger.
It's great fun, and not entirely without risk, even when maximising safety.

Just in case you pop back to the discussion:
The helipad is on top of a multi-storey car park higher than 25' -
At what height did you fly over all the buildings between the pad and the beach?
Where would you go if the engine stopped while you were skimming the roofs?
The airport must be about 100' amsl - did you descend to 25' after clearing the buildings?
There's banking between the airport and the beach, From 25', how much of the beach do you see before you're on top of it?
Is the extra fun worth the extra risk?

You can fly down the coast all the way from LAX to San Diego. It's a wonderful trip, with some deserted parts where you can fly low legally and safely if you wish. The big difference is you have a clear view of the beach way into the distance which enables you to continuously plan where you're going to go if it suddenly goes quiet.
You're a braver man than me if you fly the LAX beach transition as low as possible rather than as high as possible. ATC give the clearance, but the clearance assumes good airmanship - and the controller isn't the one who dies or is seriously injured if something goes wrong.

NB: My comments/questions are directed at safety, not legality.

Here's a pic of LAX for anyone unfamiliar with it. The helipad is on the building in the top left corner of the group of buildings surrounding the Tower. The 'Beach Transition' is directly from the pad to the beach.

Aerial photo (http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/LA%20Airport.jpg)
It should expand to full screen size if you click on the picture.

[tonyhalsall]

Charcter Flaw

There is an unfortunate trait to many a Brits character which manifests itself as outrage when seeing other people enjoying themselves.

Typically, uniquely and unfortunately British -
How many times have you heard:

'They shouldn't be doing that' egged on by friend
'report them, go on....'

Flying along beaches, speeding power boats, garden parties, motor cyclists........... (need I go?)

A popular character in the microlight world was 'visited' today by the CAA 'enforcers,' he was seemingly reported for allegedly flying at 50 foot above a caravan park by a fellow PPL. No further action after a brief interview, but what kind of W****r and fellow PPL (to boot) takes such a negative course of action?

Bad news in my opinion and such people need to get out a bit more, practise smiling and get a life.

Tony

[TonyR]

Those of us who visit Weston (Dublin) from the Welsh coast will often be given an "Up the Liffy" routing at "Not above 1500 ft"

Right through the centre of Dublin.

By flying below 1500ft you are not going to be able to glide away from the city in any light a/c.

I was flying in Canada last summer, right through the centre of Toronto at less than 1500 ft (lower than the CN tower)

Should a pilot take such a route??

Should ATC know better?

Which is worse, a deserted beach (apart from a few jobsworths) or a busy city centre with the blessing of ATC.

Tony

[Big Hilly]

By flying below 1500ft you are not going to be able to glide away from the city in any light a/c.

Should a pilot take such a route??

Should ATC know better? Alas TonyR, the onus is very much on the PIC to adhere to the alight clear rule. In theory you should refuse the clearance and find another route. Down here in London, this issue has been highlighted by the CAA with regards to the transit of London City Zone via the Lee Valley. Here (Page 19): (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_gasil2002_03.pdf)

Single-engined aircraft have been seen flying over the built up area of greater London, in the area of the London City Control Zone. While the map shows areas which appear to have no major buildings (for example along the valley of the river Lee, to the west of the aerodrome), this is still regarded by the courts as being a ‘congested area of a town, city or settlement’ for the purposes of Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996. Pilots have been prosecuted and penalised for flying over that area at a height below that which would allow the aircraft to alight clear of the area and without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of a failure of a power unit, as required by Rule 5(1)(a)(i).

An air traffic controller may give a pilot clearance to fly on a special VFR flight through a control zone. Such a clearance entitles a pilot to disregard Rule 5(1)(a)(ii) (so that he may fly below 1500 feet where so instructed by ATC) but not Rule 5(1)(a)(i) (the alight clear requirement). It remains the pilot’s responsibility to be able to comply at all times with Rule 5(1)(a)(i) regardless of whether or not he has been issued with a special VFR clearance.
Best wishes,

BH

[TonyR]

That is my point

[Big Hilly]

Ah, with you now! :ok:

BH

[englishal]

Who cares if someone was flying low. Low flying does not automatically = danger / death / recklessness / carnage though you would have thought it would by listening to some on here.

If it does, then I'd better report the "Cowboy" police chopper pilots, the "reckless" coastguard pilots (who like to pose along the beach looking for totty....I know they do it), and not to mention the "dangerous" navy pilots which seem to buzz my house several times a day (and like to doss around, like hovering over a large inaccessable cliff, and cementing a traffic cone onto the top ;) )

These are all professional pilots.
In short, pulling a stunt like this shows utter ignorance and that, in the professional world, is a deadly sin.

EA;)

[Flying Lawyer]

Presumably the Liffey clearance mentioned by TonyR assumes pilots of s/e aircraft will ditch in the River Liffey, as per s/e helicopters flying the heli routes over London.

The quote from the GASIL raises an interesting point."While the map shows areas which appear to have no major buildings (for example along the valley of the river Lee, to the west of the aerodrome), this is still regarded by the courts as being a ‘congested area of a town, city or settlement’ for the purposes of Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996. Despite what the CAA implies in the passage quoted from the GASIL, I don't know if the issue has ever been decided conclusively by a court, or at least by a court decision which binds others. I've never needed to research the point. "Pilots have been prosecuted and penalised" is ambiguous. Firstly, it doesn't say if they rolled over and pleaded guilty or fought the case and were convicted. Secondly, Rule 5 prosecutions are heard by Magistrates whose decisions aren't binding on any other court, not even other magistrates courts.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3):
(a) an aircraft other than a helicopter shall not fly over any congested area of a city, town or settlement below:
(i) such height as would enable the aircraft to alight clear of the area and without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit ....; The 'area' means the congested area of a city, town or settlement. I wouldn't advise anyone who flew down the Lea Valley to plead guilty flying over a congested area contrary to a Rule 5(1)(a)(i).

Going back to the Liffey clearance ......
S/e engine helicoptes are allowed to fly along the Thames through central London and are expected to ditch in the river in the event of an engine failure.
Should s/e fixed-wings be allowed to use the Thames?
A few months ago I represented a pilot who flew West along the Thames as far as Charing Cross before being instructed to leave the zone to the North. After some discussion, the client (a solicitor) decided to pleaded Guilty. We weren't well-placed to run a 'test case' for several reasons I won't go into, but it would have been fun arguing that London is two congested areas separated by a wide river rather than one congested area! :)

[Warped Factor]

TonyR,

Should ATC know better?

Well, in the UK we (ATC) currently don't police the skies and we don't have any particular desire to do so.

If a pilot calls for an air traffic control clearance then an air traffic control clearance will be offered subject to prevailing traffic conditions.

It is down to the pilot to decide whether or not the clearance offered is acceptable to them for whatever reason. If it's not then an alternative should be requested until a suitable clearance is received.

WF.

[dublinpilot]

With regard to the Liffey route over Dublin, remeber that the glide clear rule is a UK requirement, not an Irish one.

The equilivant rule in Ireland is that you must be able to make a "safe landing" in the event of an engine failure. Whether ditching in the river would be considered a safe landing would seem an arguable point.

Also bear in mind that particularly in the city centre, there can be very little space between some of the bridges, which could make things a bit more tricky if the engine went at an inopportune moment, and you weren't taking advantage of all of your 1500ft clearance.

[TonyR]

WF

I still think that ATC should not continaully give clearance where it is controary to the ANO.

In the Dublin case the 1500ft rule still applies and ATC are aware but still offer it to pilots.

The liverpool VFR route is almost as bad.

Yes ATC should know better, I know better but I have a lot of experience, there are those young pilots who think ATC is GOD and do what they are told, perhaps they should know better, but some don't and rely on the voice in the box for guidence.

Tony

[pilotwolf]

FL..

Didn't do it after departing LAX - only been there once in R22 and stayed at 150' that time. All other times have been transitions and I guess like all the low flying supporters say its FUN - usually go through about 50' asl...

Agree with what you say and I wouldnt do it putting anyone else on the beach or aircraft in danger...

And I m certainly not brave!

PW

[jayteeto]

tonyhalsal.... as I said last post, call people enough rude names and they will just give up trying to reason. Well argued fella... No-one has mentioned some of the more serious pitfalls. Low flying ac scare horses and riders get damaged. That is one of the reasons why the military severely restrict the amount of low flying nowadays. Aviation is usually safe, but it can bite your bum at the most inopportune moments. Unfortunately I have carried too many coffins from accidents in the last 15 years. You see, THIS changes your attitude to the dangers. The number of times I have watched families torn apart has slowly taught me why the rules are there. It isn't to spoil your fun, I LOVE to low fly, it is to help preserve Mrs Jayteetos little cherub a little longer. Enjoy your flying, it is a gift from above, but please dont accuse people like me of being a tosser because I believe in something through bitter experience.

[Flyin'Dutch']

I also read somewhere (I thought it was in the same bit of CAA guidance that was quoted before but not sure) that for F/W the Thames and any parks in London should not be seen to be suitable places to comply with the glide clear rule.

Can anyone else remember seeing that?

FD

[Big Hilly]

Flyin'Dutch', I haven't seen it written down anywhere but I too have heard it and suspect that the CAA would bring it out of the hat were it required. ;)

Flying Lawyers river hypothesis is an interesting one but I suspect that it wouldn’t hold water (if you’ll pardon the appalling pun). You see, (and I’m no Legal Boff so I’ll bow to FLs superior knowledge) I think that again, the Campaign Against Aviation would argue that the Thames is, infact, a Congested Area; full of bridges, flood barriers, river buses, sightseeing vessels, commercial traffic etc etc and whilst a whirlygig could land quite safely on the Thames (‘cos we all know that when their donk stops they can just go down in a straight line ;) ) a fixed wing a/c (being a far more refined method of travel :D ) needs a bit of a stretch to ease itself into and that could involve bumping into a boat full of Japanese tourists or two. . . . .

Best wishes,

BH

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Low flying ac scare horses Yes, I realised as I was approaching 500' just where it was the instructor had told me to do a PFL ... just above a horse farm. The owners, upon enquiry, said that their particular horses aren't bothered by light aircraft at 500', but I think I'll pick somewhere else for PFLs in future anyway.

[Flying Lawyer]

FD
That's my understanding too. Can't remember where I read it.

Article 129 of the ANO states that: 'Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes.
I suppose it would be argued that parks come under 'recreational' and the river under both 'commercial' and 'recreational'.

Big Hilly
That is the CAA stance and, FWIW, I think it's correct.
However, if someone rejected my opinion and was determined to fight the case ........... the argument would be fun. :D

Any views on the Lea Valley?

[drauk]

What I don't get about the "down the Lea Valley in a single" debate is how, as a pilot, I'm supposed to know that I shouldn't do it. Until I've flown it, how can I judge if I can land clear? I've got some reasons to think it is fine:

As the GASIL quote says, the maps don't show it as built up.

I did my biennial flight with an instructor the other day and after some instrument approaches at Southend he suggested we get a zone transit and fly precisely that Lea Valley route.

I've brought it up on PPRuNe before and someone (AlanM I think, if memory serves; an ATCer at Thames) is happy to issue the clearance.

So if I don't read the GASIL (or PPRuNe, which obviously I do), how am I to know? How good a defence might that make I wonder?

[niknak]

The majority of replies on this thread seem to advocate low flying simply because "I've done it before and nothing has happened as a consequence".
Frankly, it makes those who replied in such a vein look both unprofessional and stupid.
None of the above seem to take into account of "what happens if....", i.e. your engine fails, you hit birds, you get tangled up with a kite - very common on the Norfolk beaches.

It reminds me of the Michael Schummacer quote "Anyone can drive fast, it's knowing how to stop safely that counts".

To be honest, I think the majority of you would become just another statistic when it comes down to it, so why push your luck? :rolleyes:

[LowNSlow]

jayteeto there is a paddock to the right of and another underneath the climbout area of our Southerly runway. The horses in there (and they aren't always the same horses) never seem bothered by the Tiger Moths and noisy open exhaust Austers that buzz around them. In fact, they rarely even raise their heads to see what's going on. From my horse riding days, the horses were more bothered by cyclists whizzing up from behind them and startling them becasuse they hadn't heard them coming. Motor bikes, and I mean noisy 2-stroke offraoders here, didn't phase them at all.

I understand your feelings regarding lowflying because it is based on hard experience. Funeral attendance is a far better example to use as a deterrent to inexperienced pilots with a "watch this then" attitude, than scaring horses. :)

[FNG]

niknak says: "The majority of replies on this thread seem to advocate low flying because...".

Have we been reading the same thread? Some of the contributors have pointed out that low flying is not in every case dangerous or illegal. The majority are not saying "low flying? wheeeeeee!" but do appear to be opposed to knee-jerk generalisations on the subject which are based on a feeling of outrage.

As for London Parks and the Lee Valley etc, I agree with Flying Lawyer that the Thames and the parks appear to form part of the congested area, on the basis that they are substantially used for recreation and (in the case of the river) for commerce. The Lee Valley lakes themselves might (and I say might) possibly be different (I am unsure how much, if any, recreational boating takes places on the lakes), but the surrounding areas are mainly residential and built-up. There might (again, I say might) be a risk that, even if the lakes themselves are acceptable for the purpose of the alight clear rule, the pilot of a landplane ditching in the lakes, who could have taken a longer route over land, could be criticised for endangering the aircraft. (To avoid further thread diversion, I do not think that the same criticism could be levelled at a pilot making a short sea crossing on a flightplan, with life jackets etc).

I do not think that a pilot could say "I couldn't tell if I could land clear until I tried". I think that we are supposed to make the judgment before flying over the congested area.

As for the maps not showing the area as built up, I hope that will come in handy the next time I crash into Stokenchurch Mast.

[TonyR]

niknak,

You have a point and I for one would not advocate "low flying" every time we fly. I too have attended funerals of those caught out by taking chances.

But it is the attitude of some pilots running to "tell teacher" that makes me mad.

Yesterday I flew to the Isle of Man (Ronaldsway) from Belfast, a lovely day, good forecast, the cloud base at EGNS was Bk1800 before I left Belfast, but when I arrived (25 minutes later) there was cloud over the airfield at 500ft.

I know the area well and was happy to continue visually and ATC offered me a (low level) RH down wind for 26,(they had other traffic in the left hand circuit and a Nimrod close by flying over the sea at below 1000 ft) this takes me close to rising ground but I could see the airfield so I was happy, I was however flying at less than 200 ft above ground and just scraping the bottom of the cloud on part of the downwind leg.

This can be very intimidating for anyone who has never flown "low" but IMOP was quite safe, I could have changed to IFR and went to the hold and waited until they could fit me in for an ILS.

I remember an old instructor of mine flying with me over the "Sperrin Mountains" in N Ireland, we were flying down valleys and he suggested we have a look at the map and see if we can get back to base by following the rivers and not above 1000 feet, most of the ground around was over 2000 ft, we managed to remain below 700 feet. The instructor did this with me on several occasions and commented "this could save your life one day".

He also would make me fly around the airfield fence at about 50 ft, following the line of the fence and turning at very low level (he was a bit mad, EX RAF). most people will say that was irresponsible, but that was the way he flew and as I did not know any better I learned from it.

The aircraft will fly at 100 ft just as it will at 2000 ft, I think most pilots should experience some "low flying" (under the right supervision)

Tony

[formationfoto]

I'm sorry I really do have to put in a word for the amateur pilot here. We are talking about recreational flying. It is a sport. Sport by definition is going to reduce safety factors over slumbering in an arm chair.

We all approach this recreation or sport in different ways. What matters is the extent to which any action is putting others in danger to an unacceptable level. Those of us who fly single engined aircraft where there are people below us are increasing the danger level for those innocent parties. Those of us who carry out aerobatics or formation flying are increasing the chances of something going wrong. Generally we train for it and keep doing it to maintain currency to reduce the danger (and indeed sometimes sharpen us up to deal better with other dangers). Is low flying dangerous?. It depends on how you define it. The law defines it for the purposes of the ANO and possible legal action. Whilst this might be related to danger it does not define the increased danger level (just as making it illegal for a Cessna 150 to fly close to Sizewell nuclear plant does not give an indocation of the level of additional safety risk this creates).

Flying at 50 feet is less safe than at 5,000 ft (all other things being equal). Flying at 501ft is less safe than at 5,000 ft. Where does low flying become irresponsible?. I am currently working up my display authority which will allow me to fly down to 100ft with the full support of the CAA (in certain circumstances during displays or display practice). Flying over open water I have flown at lower heights but have had a heightened understanding of the safety erosion I have created. Why should I bother doing this? Why should I bother flying in close formation, why should I bother doing aerobatics?. It is a sport we participate in not pretending to be mini airliners.

What does the argument that a commercial pilot might be sacekd if he flew so low tells us about this case?. Nothing.

A 737 bound for Palma formating on a 737 bound for Dublin or doing a loop might also raise the interests of the pilots employer. It doesnt make these activities wrong or illegal in a Tiger Moth or Chipmunk.

Now 30ft over a packed beach with nowhere to go if the engine quits is both illegal and unsafe. 30ft over a beach with one person on it within 500ft is illegal - it might or might not be unsafe.

I don't know the precise circumstances of this occurence. I don't know the skill level or state of practice of the pilot so I wont judge.

Ignorant condemnation and extension of blame and criticism to others is a fact of life in forums. Sometimes, however, sensible debate breaks out.

Me I shall seek to continue to enjoy the sport I have spent more money on than I have on my house and will continue to improve my skill level to be able to do more things which generate more enjoyment and excitement.

[FNG]

There have been many well reasoned entries on this thread, contributed by Flying Lawyer and by others, but I would like particularly to compliment TonyR and formationfoto on the quality of their last two contributions. I would welcome similarly reasoned responses from psyclic and others on his side of the debate.

[dublinpilot]

OK FNG,

As someone who wouldn't support the 30ft over beaches flying, let me put a non safety argument to you. Please don’t take this argument as in any way against you personally. I tend to agree with most of what you post here! ;)

You mentioned earlier in this thread that your professional body might discipline you if you were successfully prosecuted for low flying. I too belong to a professional body which might take similar action. (I'm an accountant). However, I can also be disciplined without ever breaking the letter of any law or rules, if I'm seen to bring my profession into disrepute. I'm sure you're in the same situation.

This is not because our professional bodies enjoy disciplining their members, but rather because our fellow members can, undeservedly, suffer because of our actions. This can be true, even if we haven't broken any rule.

While flying might not be covered by a professional members body, I think we each should consider the implications of what we do on our fellow pilots.

Supposing a fellow pilot sees what he thinks is a deserted beach, and decides to fly down it at 100ft. Behind a sand dunne there is a group of people having a bbq. Our pilot sees the group in time, and continues to fly at 100ft, but moves horizontally away, so that he remains at 500ft from the people. Lets assume that the pilot is highly skilled, so that this situation is neither illegal, nor dangerous (I know some might argue it is dangerous, but lets assume it's not.) The pilot has a very enjoyable few minutes, and flies off thinking "I'm legal & safe. Everything is fine."

Now there happens to be a small local strip nearby, which isn't shown on the VFR chart. This strip has some nimby neighbours, who are constantly complaining about noise, and complaining to the local council to have it closed. They claim that these little planes are just the rich boys toys, and that they are noisy and dangerous. They don't want them flying over or anywhere near their homes.

Some of these nimbys happen to be at that bbq on the beach and take a pic of the aircraft flying at 100ft over the beach They send these pics to the local town council to show how dangerous and reckless these pilots are. The pilot will never be called in front of the town council to explain that this was legal and safe. And it may very well lead to the council placing further restrictions on the local airfield.

The one pilot who flew low, but legally and safely, enjoyed his 60 second of exhilaration, and went away satisfied, but he ruined a lifetime of flying for the other pilots who can no longer operate from that strip, or are now restricted on their movements. That pilot could well be on this thread giving out about anyone who complains about low flying, and on another complaining about over pricing at larger strips.

Suppose an hour later another aircraft did the same thing, when that bbq was still going on, and they got a photo of that aircraft too? How would that affect things?

Suppose that rather than the nimbys at the beach party, that it was a local councillor and a few of his friends, which would also include other councillors. How would they look at the next complaint about that local airfield?

Flying is seen by much of the public as a rich mans hobby. They don't see the need to let little planes fly over their homes and make noise. Whenever we go flying, we should always think about how our actions affect our fellow pilots, and our sport in general. I don't believe that low flying can do anything but harm to our hobby, and will just lead to further restrictions on our flying.

I have deliberately kept away from the legal/illegal issue as the standard answer to the "it's illegal" accusation is "you can't judge height". I’ve also kept away from the it's safe/unsafe argument, as the standard response to that is "I’m a display/test pilot and am perfectly safe". However briefly on these I'd say, if someone can accurately read your registration unaided, then you are too close, and also that even display and test pilots die in aviation accidents.

dp

[FNG]

Those are fair and sensible points, Dublinpilot, and well put. We should consider how our flying may affect the reputation of our sport and its continued enjoyment by others. This was the point I made to the paramotor chap I mentioned on an earlier page of this thread, whose flying, in my opinion, could have engendered fear and hostility amongst non aviators.

In the example you give, the pilot's flight planning might include, via Lockyear's, taking account of local strips and their problems. Even if not intending to operate from a strip, a call to the owner might prompt advice as to particular local sensitivities, and as to hazards (local wind patterns, obstacles etc).

PS: When I fly along the North Norfolk coast, I tend not to go below 500 feet. That's my personal choice based on my assesssment of my skills and of the safety and nuisance implications. I will not go that low if the nearby military stations are active.

[dublinpilot]

True, but my point about the airfield not being shown on the vfr chart was that the pilot flying along the beach, may not have been from the area, and may not have know about the strip as it wasn't on his chart.

[FNG]

Perhaps, from the social responsibility point of view, the pilot's self briefing might include looking up off-map strips in sources such as Lockyear's before he sets off, particularly if he plans to fly low level. I don't wish to dampen spontaneity in flying, but we all know that even a purely fun flight needs an element of planning. Someone seeing an unfamiliar bit of beach and deciding on the spur of the moment to give it a good stonking could arguably be criticised anyway for not acquainting himself with local factors (eg bird colonies).

PS: Dub, there's no chance of me taking your balanced and polite arguments as being in any way ad hominem . Anyway, I owe you a pint for your helpful pointers about flying in the auld country.

[Flyin'Dutch']

dp,

I can see where you are coming from but there can still be room in this society to operate within the law and that we don't have to chasticise ourselves just because we may well be perceived to be doing a 'rich man's hobby'?

You may however be surprised that a lot of complaints are made by people who fly themselves rather than 'the general public'

It is with interest that I noted that the most fervent supportors of the line 'string them up these alleged low flyers' seem to be helo drivers (always dangerous to generalise).

I am all for prudence and against annoying folks wherever possible, however it is not always just that those with the biggest mouth/vociferity/ability in time/money and opportunity to put pen to paper should just be slavishly served for fear that otherwise 'things may get worse'

FD

Talking about which it is my opinion that the 'public at large' would be served a lot if we over here in the UK were allowed to fit (or in some cases on imported machines leave fitted) silencing kits to our puddle jumpers.

[dublinpilot]

FNG

:ok: I look forward to it ;)

FD

I agree. Silencers are the way to go. I also think there is a lot that the piloting community can do to help themselves as far as public image goes, but that's one for another thread ;)

If someone really wants to fly low down, why not go 2 or 3 miles out to sea where there is noone around to see, complain or endanger, and do all the low flying they want? Obviosuly they should have the necessary survival gear.

[TonyR]

dp,

You should get out of that there City and come and fly with us up in them there hills where there are not as many NIMBYS.

On another aspect of low flying, I do (and have done for a few years) some "Banner towing" in Portugal in the summer. two complete idiots stand and hold a 16' pole each about 20' apart with a loop of rope for me to pick up. I have a grab hook on a 12' wire hanging from the aircraft, I'm flying at 25 ft at 60 knots with this hook wizzing past their faces.

And this IS legal

Tony

[FNG]

I watched a very skillful chap pick up a banner from a farmstrip the other day (in North Norfolk , as it happens, a mile or so from the scene of the dastardly crimes witnessed by Inspector Psyclic). Very interesting to see it done: Low approach, hook the thing, then max angle climb away as the banner peels off the ground.

As Tony says, it's all legal: banner towers are exempt from the 500 foot rule when picking up and dropping their banners. The one I watched had his poles stuck in the ground, so no need for nutters to hold on to them.

[treadigraph]

Interesting debate - I've been treated to some spectacular and legal low flying off the Florida coast and around San Diego/North Island NAS, and although I enjoy looking down on Mother Earth from above, getting down amongst the weeds (or the sea spray) is also fun! :ok:

However, as Banner Towing and Alight Clear have been mentioned, I'd be interested in opinions about this...

A few months ago a Cessna 172 orbited three or four times over the centre of Croydon one weekday morning whilst towing a large banner. Croydon is without doubt a built up area! I estimated his height at certainly less than 1000ft, possibly less than 500ft at times. I work on the 16th floor of a 20-storey office block (Centre Tower, approx 200ft AGL) and he disappeared behind a building of similar height (the "Threepenny Bit" building) at one point, probably less than a quarter of a mile beyond it. At that point I'd say he was certainly less than 500ft.

Whether or not he was within 500ft of the larger structures in Croydon is debatable (I couldn't quite read the side reg, poor eyesight and optically poor windows, plus the angle on the underwing) but I would suppose that the 1500 rule applies to him as well as anybody else. I am certain that, had the donk stopped, he had very little chance of alighting clear for much of each orbit, plus I have no doubt that he would have dropped the banner immediately with potentially disasterous consequences for any poor sod. Banner was one of those large poster style efforts, rather than made up of letters.

Not mixing it, just curious!

[englishal]

I would suppose that the 1500 rule applies to him as well as anybody else
Yep, additionally he has to be at a height where he can alight clear, even in the event that the banner cannot be dropped.

[Crashondeck]

OK. I admit I am guilty as charged - I made a sweeping generalisation. I did not set out to offend those pilots who observe good airmanship and are sensible enough to prepare themselves for the unexpected.

However, I make no apology for offending those pilots who view their licence as a God given right to strap on a plane/helcopter and fly without an appreciation of what they are doing and what risks they expose themselves and others to.

Unfortunately there seems to be a significant proportion of General Aviation who seem to be either completely ignorant of good airmanship or choose to ignore it. We have all seen them/heard them or read about them on our travels. We all (PPL, CPL, ATPL) operate in a very regulated environment and most pride themselves on their good airmanship and respect flying as a privilage. It is very frustrating when someone takes it upon themselves to make such a public demonstration of bad airmanship, thereby deriding the effort and professionalism that most pilots put into their flying.

Flying Lawyer,

I am not against low flying at all - that would make me a hypocrite. But as I eluded to in my earlier post, there is a time and a place for this sort of thing. There is a big difference between quiet US beaches and a crowded East Anglian beach. I reserve the “Tosser Label” for those that dogde kites over crouded beaches and fly under bridges in Scottish Lochs.

Englishal,

I don’t know what your evidence for those stories are (cone planting and totty hunters), but I have heard them too. It would not surprise me if they are true. But are they really flying dangerously (or for that matter illegally)? A twin engined police/coastguard/navy helicopter is very different from a small SE fixed wing.

COD

[englishal]

I don’t know what your evidence for those stories are (cone planting and totty hunters), but I have heard them too. It would not surprise me if they are true. But are they really flying dangerously (or for that matter illegally)? A twin engined police/coastguard/navy helicopter is very different from a small SE fixed wing.
Cause I used to know people in the Coastguard and the Navy ;) And no, I don't think they were flying dangerously either.

EA:D

[High Wing Drifter]

FL,

Between those who think any breach of Rule 5 is necessarily reckless/dangerous or irresponsible and those who pause to think before making daft sweeping statements;
I think you're guilty of one or two sweepers yourself. I remain to be convinced just why anybody would want bust R5. I don't see where the option of flexibility exists.

[Flyin'Dutch']

HWD,

Not sure if anyone is advocating breaching rule 5.

Flying below 500ft does not automatically mean that rule 5 is broken.

I get the impression that a lot of folk think it is.

FD

[Flying Lawyer]

OK, I'll bite! :D

Which 'sweepers' do you have in mind?

[TonyR]

Crashondeck
However, I make no apology for offending those pilots who view their licence as a God given right to strap on a plane/helcopter and fly without an appreciation of what they are doing and what risks they expose themselves and others to.

I think this whole "low flying thing is blown out of all proportion, I fly more than most, I fly from farm strips and international airports, I banner tow, I glider tow, I chuck out skydivers, I sometimes even go upside-down.

I just cant remember the last time I saw someone fly really low. (except the Nimrod yesterday, below me when I was at 500 ft)

I cant even remember the last time I read a report of an accident being caused by "low flying"

Now I also drive more than most and every week I see hundreds of nutters flying low on the roads.

Pilots on the whole are responsible people.

The "shoot the low flyers" line taken by many on this thread seems to come from the so called "Pro Pilots".

I come across this from time to time. are they jealous of those who have fun and don't have to do it for a living, or what??

Some of you should go out and have some "fun flying", you might even remember why you ever wanted to fly.

Tony

[Big Hilly]

TonyR,

Blimey mate, had we had a few shandies when we posted that little lot???? :D ;)

BH

For those amongst us who have had a sense of humour lobotomy, I think that TonyR is a great bloke and that was a JOKE!

[FNG]

Big Hilly, isn't it a shame that we can't just rely on the effective use of language to convey humour? The inability of some people here to recognise a joke when it hits them with a wet fish never fails to surprise me. I don't like resorting to smileys, or to (that was a joke) in brackets but, sheesh, some of the people here seem to have had irony bypasses at birth (and I don't just mean the Americans). More shandies here, and one for Big Hilly!

[TonyR]

BH

Remember those with FAA licences are probibly colour blind and will think you are another grumpy ATPL

[Heliport]

TonyR may not have posted in his usual style but, has he got a point?

Is there any evidence that low flying (legally or illegally) is a significant cause accidents?

Anyone know?

[jayteeto]

Heliport, no it doesn't cause accidents. It probably lowers the chance of a mid air. Aircraft at 250'-500' have more chance of encountering a military jet, but below that is clear (ish). What does increase is you chances of birdstrike. You also reduce any margins of safety in cases of technical failure. Joe Public also gets excited the first few times, then annoyed at the noise thereafter.
I fly single/multi helicopters and single/multi aeroplanes. My flying is tempered to what I strap on to my bum... In a single, I virtually always make sure I have somewhere to PFL. This was battered into me (literally) in the military. I am not a stuffy old git as some suggest of the professionals here. I LOVE flying and I still LOVE low flying. What we are saying is that there is a time and a place. I question the motives of flying ultra low down a crowded beach....... Just who are they doing this for.... themselves or their 'audience'.
PS We do not totty spot on our unit, even though we are based next to a huge beach, with a nudist section. I would like to do it, but I don't. Signed... Victorian Dad.

[Southern Cross]

Well said TonyR.

[Big Hilly]

TonyR, Remember those with FAA licences are probibly colour blind and will think you are another grumpy ATPL THAT made me laugh out loud! :ok:

Best wishes,

BH

[Crashondeck]

TonyR



The "shoot the low flyers" line taken by many on this thread seems to come from the so called "Pro Pilots".



I am not shooting the low flyers down, I am shooting at those who have no concept of good airmanship. There is no problem with low flying if you are within the law, properly trained and properly prepared. It is great fun, but it is also hard work.

And I do get plenty of flying. And most of it is fun. But all of it is taken very seriously.

COD

[High Wing Drifter]

FL,

Its not worth it mate. Let's just either agree that R5 is a good thing or agree to disagree. I guess my orig post was a little blunt. No I don't think all errant pilots should be horse-whipped. My assumption is that R5 communicates "Kill yourself by all means, but not other people." I am whining about references by some that suggest that R5 is overkill and can be ignored every now and then.

[montys ex teaboy]

TonyR

Here is an example, to help illustrate my point.

If the reports are true, this incident could have been catastrophic, both to the crew and to third parties. All so needless, don't you think?

http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=131012

[Flyin'Dutch']

This is what you find when you go along the link:
Lear Jet Hits Power Lines
In the Adelaide Advertiser this morning, an article about a "Lear Jet" hitting power lines near Leigh Creek yesterday while filming. Article said $100,000 damage to the aircraft.
I also heard 5km of line bought down.

Anyone know any more.

Certifs

Met,

This machine most likely would have been flown by professional folks who, one would assume for a mission like this would have done an appropriate pre-flight brief.

Not sure what your point is with this one.

Should nobody ever fly low? So no medevac out of unimproved strips, crop or oilspraying? Or low flying should only be done by amateurs?

FD

[montys ex teaboy]

Point I am trying to make, and not making a very good job of it, it seems.

Was the A/C involved in crop spraying? Doubt it very much.

Was the A/C involved in oil dispursant spraying? Doubt it.

Was the said A/C involved in a medivac from an unimproved strip? Doubt it.

Involved in filming maybe? If so why so low?

[witchdoctor]

Perhaps somebody would be good enough to clarify a point of doubt here with regard to low flying. Many posters have alluded to maintaining a 500' separation laterally from persons, structures etc yet my understanding of the regs (and as I don't have a copy handy I'm asking here) is that you must maintain a 500' vertical separation from such objects within a 600m radius of the a/c.

If my understanding is correct, then it's no wonder there are complaints. 500' and 600m are significantly different. Anyone able to clarify?

[englishal]

Its 500' "slant range" from any persons, structures, blah blah. So you could be at 50' AGL, 497.49' horizontally and still remain 500' away.

The 600m comes from the 1500' rule.

EA

Often when I see an aircraft flying around I try to guage the height......and so do many other people no doubt. But I wonder how many people try and guage horizontal distance? If an aircraft is at 500' horizontal distance from a person, at 350' AGL, it is still 610' away, but no doubt looks like they are "low flying"...

[TonyR]

So you search the www. for a low flying accident and find one on the other side of the world!

???????

[Flyin'Dutch']

Just noticed that psyclic has removed his thread (referring to this one) from the RH forum.

FD

[High Wing Drifter]

Probably due to lack of interest. They don't seem as neurotic as us :O

[LowNSlow]

As an aside, at most airshows at Old Warden they have an aeroplane fly along the runway centreline and people pay a quid to enter a "guess the height of the Cub" draw. Bearing in mind that the crowd contains a large number of pilots not many people come close to getting the height right. I'm usually at least 100' out :rolleyes:

[jayteeto]

Have to find a report from the other side of the world???
Guess the height competition????
YOU JUST DON'T LISTEN!!!!!
The low flying is only part of it! Bad/Poor/Questionable.... Use which ever word you like. AIRMANSHIP is the word. Just as doing aeros over a city or pushing the weather limits a tiny bit (is it 1750m vis or 1801m??) The actions are debatable, and our way of putting this across is to quote a rule. If there was no Rule 5, I would still question the actions of kite dodging. This 'you cant judge height' argument would not matter then. You obviously do not want to listen and that is your divine right, I can live with that. But please, a flying accident on the other side of the world is still a flying accident. Because it is foreign, does that mean we cant learn from it..............
I now officially give up and will not post again as my forehead needs a rest from bashing the wall.....

[witchdoctor]

Thanks English Al.

Knew I'd come across it somewhere.

[TonyR]

I now officially give up and will not post again as my forehead needs a rest from bashing the wall.....

Keep taking the pills and I'm sure you head will recover.

I think we are listening but as I said before "low flying" has been blown out of proportation.

Tony

[High Wing Drifter]

Maybe Tony. But no one should be in the business of trying to kill a debate dead with insinuations that other simply don't understand or indeed in some cases, but not in your case, invectives that some of us will never get it.

Those who have alternative views are not fools. The problem with the subject matter is that those who do it don't see the issue and those that don't, don't because they have weighted the risks differently.

[TonyR]

Sorry, I did not mean to try to kill the debate dead or to be so flippant with jayteeto.

I do see it as an issue and I would not encourage anyone to fly low just for fun, but I don't think it is as widespread as some people make out.

I am certainly not taking anyone for a fool, I am not on any side here, I think there are times when some people may find themselves having to fly closer to the ground than they would really want to, if they have never done any "low flying" under supervision then it will be very difficult and will add considerable pressure to the pilot.

Tony

[tonyhalsall]

Hello Fellow Aviators,

I wonder:

If this were a 'private driving' forum would there be a polarisation of opinions between people who stick religiously to speed limits and suggest that everyone alse should be 'reported' for breaking the speed limit? Would we find perhaps that this group of people would be predominantly holders of an 'Advanced Driving License' thereby in their minds giving them a right to hold higher moral ground?

This has got nothing to do with 'low flying' , the '500 foot rule' or any other law that our lords and masters dictate as a way of protecting ourselves from committing ourselves from an untimely death.

It's about people who believe they are a cut above the ordinary and thus feel they have a god given right to pontificate to the minions about what is right and what is wrong.

To fly along a coast dodging kites is clearly wrong from a common sense point of view, but is it in any way justifiable to report a brother for this? Flying along at 500 feet or even 1000 feet can be just as dangerous and foolhardy depending on the circumstances.

This thread would appear to me to be more about attitude than the legality of low flying and my namesake Tony R seems (IMHO) to be just about bang on.

Tony H

[jayteeto]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... no I lied, I need to post.....
tonyhalsal, we very nearly agree you know. Having a professional licence doesn't give you the right to hold the moral high ground. There are plenty of private pilots who are far more professional than the professionals themselves. We agree that the 500' rule is irrelevant in this situation and that some situations are best avoided. We agree it is attitude on the line here. Where we waver, is that only the 'advanced drivers' are wrong. Yes, we could probably chill a bit, but some of the more outspoken privateers c/should do the same.
Reporting? In 20 years I have NEVER done it and would only do it in the most extreme circumstances. I would guess that reports are rare. (I could be wrong). But, I WOULD report someone who was deliberately reckless and there was NO DOUBT that he was being so.
Your post is really close to bringing both sides together, believe it or not, even us old grumpy barstewards love our flying.
PS. My head feels a bit better now......

[TonyR]

Ok I admit it, I have flown really low,

I found some old photos of when I were a lad (well a 20 something), In 1979 when living in Israel I was in a chopper doing some very low flying,

The shoreline of the Dead Sea, on the border of Israel and Jordan, is the lowest land area on Earth. The altitude of the Dead Sea shoreline is approximately 1,300 feet below sea level.

QNH 1000, QFE 1043

Picks to follow (when I remember how do do it again)

Tony