unwanted aerobatics

[WorkingHard]

I have no problem with anyone doing anything legal in any aeroplane but I would welcome views on the following. I live in a small community and most know I own and fly an aeroplane. Every Saturday and Sunday an aircraft from the not too far away RAF station flying club positions overhead or nearly so and carries our aeros until fuel needs to be replenished. An hour later repeat performance - ad nauseum! Now there are 2 real problems, 1) I sometimes get the ire of my neighbours (cos it might be me!) and 2) we get no bloody respite all weekend. An approach to the club president has met with "we dont do anything illegal so you have no complaint".
Question is therefore - any suggestions anyone? Dont want to stop them but would like some weekends without the constant up and down drone of aeros. BTW they carefully avoid the overhead of RAF *****. One wonders why.

[topcat450]

The RAF station itself will probably have a public affairs rep, or local community rep who's job it is to fend off all the moans re: low level flying etc. Perhaps a word with them might prove more fruitful.

[tmmorris]

Workinghard - please check your PMs. I can probably help.

Tim

[bar shaker]

I've had the same (live between Chelmsford and Hanningfield) although not for a while.

Its a shame when some tosser ruins it all for the rest of us.

I don't want people to stop doing aeros, but just for them to consider doing them in different areas each time, so as to spread the nuisance more thinly.

[Pierre Argh]

Noise complaints are taken seriously, and even if the activity is not illegal a complaint, correctly targeted (as advised above), will be acted upon... it might not result in a total cessation of aerobatics, but at least pilots should be briefed to take "sensative" spots into consideration... this is (by the sound of it) a flying club after all, who's activities sound like they're becoming detremental to the "reputation" of the station... and no CO is going to be happy with that?

[Flash0710]

Who cares?

You are getting a free display moaning about a fellow pilot in the public domain.

I reckon he can fly and you are jealous:suspect:

positions overhead or nearly so and carries our aeros until fuel needs to be replenished. An hour later repeat performance

Again a free display for you have a BBQ or something get your mates round.:ok:



we get no bloody respite all weekend. An approach to the club president has met with "we dont do anything illegal so you have no complaint".

Hmm.... see above;)

Please dont moan we have to travel a long way to see fun flying now we are over regulated and nannyed beyond all belief.

Just fly and enjoy it and enjoy others doing it.

one last

BTW they carefully avoid the overhead of RAF *****. One wonders why.

Who cares?:rolleyes:

Happy trails

F.:E

And where do you live where its cavok every weekend?:E

[dublinpilot]

now we are over regulated and nannyed beyond all belief.

And as long as some pilots insist on :mad:-off the general public on a consistant basis, it will just get more and more regulated.

dp

[Flash0710]

Quite rite Dub but....

I also am the only gay in my villiage and they love me flying over i have taken a lot of them up and they all seem to share my enthusiam.

Fair point may be here that the said chap should vary his arena but to slate and not have the good old fahioned "quiet word" is not really the done thing.

We all learn far more that way or do you all know better and it all.?

Rgds

F.

[egbt]

I see this happening every suitable Saturday during the winter (when I am in the area). It seems always to be in the MATZ stub of a base flying mainly Helicopters, gives them some protection I guess but probably does not impress the locals.

[tmmorris]

If that's the base I think it is, it's unlikely to be the flying club a/c - they have only one (T67C) which is aerobatically capable, and they wouldn't be allowed to do aeros in the MATZ.

Far more likely to be the UAS/AEF Grob 115 Tutors.

Tim

[Fuji Abound]

Flas - kidding aside I don’t understand the club presidents attitude. It is not a question of whether what they are doing is legal, but whether it is good neighbourly.

I have about half a dozen spots I use for aeros. They are all a bit different and that is part of the fun. Line features are very useful when you are learning which is why I use these particular locations among other reasons. The reason I have half a dozen spots is so as to avoid causing too much nuisance. Which of the spots I go to really doesn’t make any difference to me. In fact it is a good thing to use different line features and mentally a different box in which to operate.

The simple truth is, rightly or wrongly, if you pursue a minority sport and are hell bent on upsetting the majority the one thing you be certain of is that eventually your freedom will be curtailed in some way so why should they spoil it for the rest of us?

The writer I think did try and have a quite word with the President - sadly the response was not quite what he expected!

[WorkingHard]

Thanks to all who reponded, especially tmmorris. I will in due course post any "results" here. Mr Flash are you for real or just joking?

[Flash0710]

Fuji,

I echo everything you say consideration keep it all over green things whilst also making sure there are no horses there and everyone is happy.

Nimbys do enough to schtop us please not our own though....

Rgds

F.

Working dont call me mr it makes me sound old but i'm real baby.....

:E

[wbryce]

Try living under the approach path to a busy airport!

No complaints from me though! :D

[Windy Militant]

Have to agree with Workinghard. I've a share in an aircraft which is based at a private strip near the Wiltshire Gloucestershire border. After many years of struggling with the council and a few voiciferous Nimbys the airfield has developed a good relationship with most of the locals through noise abatement and holding an annual Charity Fly In to get the locals involved.
There is still one die hard complainer who lives about a mile from the turn onto finals on the Northerly runway.
A while ago a group of us were talking to the owner of the field outside the club house when we noticed an Aircraft doing Aeros to the South of the field. The Owners moblie phone rang and as he took it from his pocket he said I know who this will be. True enough it was the head Nimby. The Owner politly explained that it wasn't one of our aircraft and suggested that they phone control at ******
Said aircraft was from the nearby airfield mentioned and despite numerous requests insisted on overflying this location.
As our airfield is due a periodic planning review of the number of movements allowed annually this pratt's selfishness may cause us a lot of grief :mad:

[egbt]

tmmorris

Probably a good guess and yes it looks like a Grob

[cosworth211]

I do my aerobatics over one area all the time, thorney island in West Sussex.

This location has been chosen as it is reknown for aerobatic traffic, so other pilots are especially vigilant, and in the event of an emergency (ie engine failure) there is a disused runway directly below to make an emergency landing on.

Maybe safety issues are the reason the traffic is using airspace directly above your head??

Maybe there is controlled airspace in surrounding areas at the height the pilot requires as a safety margin for aerobatics?

Have you checked your map to see if any of the above could be relevant?

My mum and dad have the same thing going on over their house which is based in a small village, they go and sit in the garden with a cup of tea and enjoy watching it! :ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

.....we are over regulated and nannyed beyond all belief. I don't share Flash's approach because, like it or not, not everyone shares our love of aviation and we can minimise problems by allowing for that unfortunate fact of life.
However, I certainly agree with him that aviation in the UK is over-regulated and that we are nannied far too much, not only in aviation, but in every aspect of our lives.

None of what follows applies in this instance but, in general, it's a sad fact that many of those who make life difficult for aviators are other aviators - many of the complaints the CAA receives come from other pilots.
(Windy M: All that trouble caused by that idiot Steve Moody re aeros at the PFA rally a couple of years ago is a classic of the genre. The CAA took action because, and only because, he kept on complaining until they did.)

The speed and enthusiasm with which some contributors to these forums suggest that pilots who might have breached a regulation should be reported to the CAA never ceases to amaze me.

[rustle]

Flying Lawyer in the Lydd Diversion thread you seemed to be suggesting that the waiving of diversion landing fees was a good thing because it might make a difference:...However, I do think the problem of loss of life through 'pressing on' is sufficiently serious that anything which draws more attention to the number of people who lose their lives by doing so when they should have landed, is worth trying.
But in this thread you are saying that every aspect of our lives is over-regulated and we are being "nannied far too much"...
However, I certainly agree with him that aviation in the UK is over-regulated and that we are nannied far too much, not only in aviation, but in every aspect of our lives. which appears to contradict that view.

I don't think we can have it both ways. ;)

[bar shaker]

Rustle

Have you got a point or have you got the wrong thread?

Over regulated? Yes.

Poke sticks into the lions cage, when the door is open? No.

[topcat450]

Whilst FL definately is far better an arguer of his arguements than I, I do not see a contradiction here.

I did write out a long winded argument but to be honest, I reckon it would've made little difference. If you think prevention of loss of life and OTT nannying are the same thing, then I doubt I would convince you otherwise. :rolleyes:

Anyway, wary of thread drift... Good luck with your quest :ok: Whilst what they're doing might not be illegal, when the next wave of RAF cuts comes into effect they might inadvertantly be pi$$ing off the next council planner who will have a very large say if converting to a civil 'drome is feasable or not, and then their fun & games will be seriously curtailed. As I said, a word with the CO will probably bring about a surprisingly helpful response.

[Flying Lawyer]

Rustle

There's no contradiction IMHO.
The waiver scheme is voluntary, not yet another regulation.

I'm in favour of drawing attention to risks/dangers - and especially where there's evidence of people losing their lives by taking a particular risk.

[rustle]

It wasn't the (over) regulatory aspect I was referring to.

I guess it is subjective as to what is "nannying", but some of the tenuous arguments in the diversions thread seemed to me a bit "nannyish", and I have often thought that people seem to want it both ways:

If they make a mistake with the weather or their planning they want someone there to bail them out (for free, if you please); but if they want to do aeros overhead someplace whenever and as often as they damn well please it's considered "nannying" if people object on safety (or any other) grounds. The argument being that "there's too much nannying, people should be able to make their own decisions: they're trained pilots after all."

Happy to agree to differ on what constitutes nannying :)



bar shaker, I do have a point and this is the thread to make it in as I was answering a post in this thread.

topcat450, I'm sure we can all come up with headline statements that read like "The Sun" prevention of loss of life and OTT nannying are the same thingbut that isn't what I said, nor is it what I meant.

[Windy Militant]

Flying Lawyer,
In this case the individual concerned is not part of the aviation fraternity, but does have a fair amount of influence locally.

With regards to the Kemble incident I was in the air park at the time and was overflown during this incident. I was not the only one to feel uncomfortable by this, the weight shift pilot taxiing in nearby who got the full benefit of the prop wash was definitely not happy. Personally my opinion is that the pilots should have shown a little more consideration. Subsequent events also did not reflect well on all concerned.

[Flying Lawyer]

Windy Militant

I can't comment upon whether the pilots in the Kemble incident showed a lack of consideration because I wasn't there and have heard conflicting opinions expressed by people who were.
I mentioned Steve Moody's behaviour only as the worst example I've encountered of someone in aviation trying to cause trouble for another aviator.

I appreciate ego was at stake on that particular occasion and, when we allow our ego to influence our actions, the result is rarely attractive. :)

[MLS-12D]

The speed and enthusiasm with which some contributors to these forums suggest that pilots who might have breached a regulation should be reported to the CAA never ceases to amaze me.Indeed. :(

[smith]

If the pilot had done his HASELL checks he should not be directly above you.

[stiknruda]

Smith, old chap - care to expand on your premise, please?

Thanks

Stik

[eharding]

Smith, old chap - care to expand on your premise, please?

Ah the extended HASELL (L)ocation - clear of (A)ctive Airfields, (B)uilt-up Areas, (C)loud, (D)anger Areas and (S)mith?;)

[Send Clowns]

Mmmmm, I would suggest, rustle, that a free diversion consists of assistance requested; nannying in this instance consists of "safer" behaviour forced upon a pilot who might be willing to accept risk to himself to enjoy a flying. As my quotation marks suggest nannying may also not improve safety, which encouraging diversion in the case of unexpected problems I would suggest does.

[Windy Militant]

Having gone a bit of track here, I'll try to drag things back to the initial posting.

I think the initial premise was that unwanted aerobatics are a bit like having the local pizza delivery boy buzzing up and down your street on his moped for hours at a time with an expansion box with a copper pipe in it for extra annoying zing. I've been in this situation where the neigbours were getting right shirty with me because I had a bike and their young un was teething and every time they got her off to sleep along comes the crazy frog and off she goes again. Eventually I got hold of the pillock involved and persuaded him that if he wanted to consumate his relationship with the lass at the end of the row
he'd better lose the spanny box!

Now consider Rodney Reason who has never really thought about aeroplanes not even when he gets on board one to go on holiday. When someone starts aerobating above his house he doesn't think ooh! how daring and skillful he just thinks what's that bl*ody noise or ooh! sh*t that aeroplanes about to crash on my house!!
So if the individuals involved were to move around a bit, OK so there's a slighty longer transit to your start point but at least you're reducing the annoyance factor for the folks on the ground.

As for HASELL checks is there something that covers being able to see up the Pilots left Nostril! A whole new meaning to Bogies at 12 O'Clock High. ;)

[WorkingHard]

WM - eloquently put. thanks for bringing this back to the question I posed. I am amazed at some of the reponses to what I thought was a question in the interests of everyone - how wrong can one be. The "sod the neighbours" attitude is just unbelievable.