What happened to the thread on aerobatics and VRPs

[Fuji Abound]

Where has it gone or am I going mad.

Maybe thread starters can close and remove threads - just wondered whether I dreamt it?

[dublinpilot]

No Fuji, you didn't dream it! It was real!

I suspect either BRL has pulled it because it was getting a bit too personal, or the topic started deleted it.

[scubawasp]

I deleted it, but if you are joining at West Reigate for Redhill, please keep an extra good lookout for people doing aeros

[Fuji Abound]

Why did you delete it out of interest?

[scubawasp]

It was starting to develop into you're a moron, no you are thread

[tacpot]

I thought you might have found who the pilot was, from the vitriol!

[scubawasp]

Possibly, nice word though, vitriol. I had to look that one up!

Alright then, can anyone explain why I was wrong and in fact it is safe to do aeros near a VRP, not telling anyone what your doing (local to the West) with terrain at 700ft and the TMA at 2500ft?

[Monocock]

Mulberry bush

Cold and frosty morning

[MikeJeff]

Excellent.. delete everyone's disagreement and start again.. are you Tony Blair? :O

[scubawasp]

As I recall MikeJeff, you where the only one to come right out and disagree

[MikeJeff]

actually - I didn't disagree. I quesitoned the logic and motive of the posting.. which I've done and won't bother with again.

[tacpot]

With the right experience, I might be a reasonable to do aerobatics in a 1800ft slot between ground and lower limit of controlled airspace, but I think the pilot would have to be VERY good for this.

What I think is unreasonable is to do it so close to the VRP. People can bleat on that "It's a Visual Reference Point, not a Visual Reporting Point", but I think you've got to assume that many pilots are going to route very close to or through the overhead of a VRP (They are chosen for their ease of visual identification). Hanging around there is not a good idea (especially by your seatstraps!)

A look at the map shows that the VRP sits in a slot between the two CTRs that is just 5-6 nm wide. Anyone trying to navigate through the slot is going to stick the centreline to give them the maximum clearance from the controlled airspace. This also puts them within a couple of nm of the VRP.

The map shows that there are better areas for aeros within a short transit time. I think this was laziness on the part of the Pilot concerned. But I don't like to think that the sort of Pilot who can do aeros reliably in a 1800" vertical slot is also the sort of Pilot who would be lazy about horizontal separation. :(

[Miserlou]

VRPs are a risk in themselves causing aircraft which don't need to be so close together to be so. As I said in the other thread there has been a collision with one aircraft departing west into a low sun and another inbound to the VRP from the east.

Aerobatting aircraft are much easier to see than constant flight path aircraft due to the constantly changing light patterns, reflections and relative movement.

Risk is rather a personal thing. Some people would question the logic of aerobatting an aircraft without wearing a parachute. Altitude only buys you time if you find yourself out of control. In the case of structural failure without a parachute it makes no difference how high you are. (Unless you're as lucky and capable as Neil Williams.)

Restricting the manouvres to 'easy' or 'low risk' would be wise at low level.

A slow biplane such as a Tiger or Stampe can operate quite safely throughout their manouvre range at 2-2500'.

[ShyTorque]

Perhaps this is the same pilot I encountered a while back who obviously thinks it's similarly clever to fly aerobatics over the BNN VOR (not above 2400 ft, of course).

Aerobatics are reasonably safe at that height but over a VOR or near at a VRP (or any other choke point) just isn't big or clever, however skilled the aeros.

[Fuji Abound]

See - you should not have pulled it :D

Glad it came back.

[scubawasp]

So am I now, incidently the VRPs around Redhill are expected to be routed over (by ATC).

[QDMQDMQDM]

Unless you're as lucky and capable as Neil Williams

Not that lucky in the end! He hit a mountain in a Heinkel 111 CASA thingy on the way back from Spain, didn't he?

QDM

[Miserlou]

Neil was very lucky that when he suffered a structural failure he had heard of a similar failure and that the failure he suffered could be coped with by similar action.

Similar, in that the other incident was a bottom mainspar bolt failure and the application of positive g brought the wing back into place; Neil's Zlin had a failure at the top spar bolt requiring negative g to put back into place.

He was also very lucky that the top bolt held the strain!

Neil was very lucky that when he suffered a structural failure he had heard of a similar failure and that the failure he suffered could be coped with by similar action.

Similar, in that the other incident was a bottom mainspar bolt failure and the application of positive g brought the wing back into place; Neil\'s Zlin had a failure at the top spar bolt requiring negative g to put back into place.

He was also very lucky that the top bolt held the strain!

This has nothing to do with the accident which claimed his life.