SKY news 1

[Tonka Toy]

May I use this forum to dish out some brownie points to Sky News 1 for the proffessional calm and considered manner he has conducted himself around the NAPOLI in Lyme Bay giving the fixed wing coastguard assets the time and space they needed to do what they had to do and not once get awkward about it. It is not easy and this was highlighted by the injury of one coastguard crew member over the weekend.

An example to all the other numpties that brought discredit to themselves and risk to other aircraft. :ok:

[Hughes500]

By chance would the other heli you are talking of be a single piston ?

[AlanM]

SkyNews1: "Miles Better than the rest!"

I will second the above: Always on the money when in the London Zones (when he listens, eh mate!!!!!!) :)

[Tonka Toy]

No not JUST that little single! But very telling in the disparity of the quality of airmanship!!! But just to reiterate, splendid effort and support from sky. Thanks!:ok:

[JimBall]

The airspace reaction to this incident has varied tremndously. Sunday was a TDA 6nm rad to 3000ft. However CGA agreed access and fired up their UHF freq to help. This was all co-ordinated through Kinloss (who at the time were the ECA on the NOTAM.)

(As an aside :the confusion started early - Kinloss were adamant that the TDA topped at 6000ft. But the NOTAMS never suggested anything like this.)

It worked for late Sun morning, But come Sun pm this access was denied and all were supposed to stay clear. You haven't been time specific with your allegation.

Come Mon the TDA was replaced before midday with a RA(T) - and trimmed to 2000ft and 2nm rad valid to next Monday.

And just now it's been expanded out to 3nm again and extended to next Wed.

Is your allegation that a "numpty" flying something broke the airspace without permission and caused a coastguard to be injured ?

If you're going to make subjective posts without publishing your evidence, please be careful. There are careers out there.

HUGHES 500: and your agenda is ? Tonka didn't specify type of aircraft - let alone how many engines it possessed.

[Satcop]

The pilot of Sky News 1 has been taught from the beginning that it is easier to work with ATC etc than against them. Now that he is safely back at base I will make him aware of the comments.

[Tonka Toy]

The TRA has changed without much thought or explanation on a regular basis. 6 miles and 3000' over the weekend apparently worked well. Sky News 1 obviously seemed to manage.

With a major incident like this the TRA goes in place for the protection of the vessel and those aircraft working with it. They invariably are CG or SAR assets. The priority is the vessel and the safety of those dealing with it. Nothing else. Especially in such a location with difficult operating conditions.

That it was allowed to turn into the farce that it became is not acceptable. Plymouth Mil should have been the controlling unit with consideration for Exeter. Their priority and they did try was the protection of the primary CG asset, the surveillance aircraft. Not the news, the police when needed and and CG / SAR Rotary assets. That some should seek to argue with them on the radio is not acceptable.

Yet still people felt their purpose (or lack of) was more important, thereby compromising response to a major incident.

It was NOT an allegation that a 'numpty' caused injury. The injury resulted from the weather conditions at the time. It is referred to, as when such potential risks are having to be run, people still show a lack of consideration (unlike Sky news 1) for the well being of individuals (in this case CG crews) trying to do their job.

Hughes500 probably has no axe to grind as perhaps unknown to he / she there was more than one single piston type causing problems. I believe the one he refers to was 'legal' but a nuissance. Unfortunately,to impinge upon a Lyme Bay DA didn't help their prospects.

Unfortunatley these posts are objective, not subjective and are being followed up. It is worth noting that this incident started last Thursday a long way away and yet on every day until Tuesday a CG asset was compromised and for no excusable reason.

But the essence of this post was to say thanks to SKY NEWS 1. He at least will have earn't himself favourable consideration next time around.:ok:

[JimBall]

Tonka, I am with you on all aspects of safety - as is I am certain any pilot working around such a scene. It's worth remembering that there are companies whose crews do this on a regular basis in all corners of the UK. They cope with TRAs (or RA(T)s as they are now called) and TDAs on a regular basis and in much more restricted airspace than Lyme Bay.

For the first time, you have referred to a farce. Well, on Sunday I heard the CGA on VHF give clearance for a news helicopter to go inside the TDA. There had been no argument - and it wasn't Sky1. Come Sunday pm, that same unit denied permission - and there was no arguing.

The confusion cannot have been helped by what appears to have been a case of inter-agency malfunction. Kinloss thought they were in charge and the TDA was 6000ft. CGA became the ECA and the NOTAM actually stated 3000ft. Can't these agencies communicate ?

Why would Plymouth Mil want to add more confusion by stepping in on a Sunday to be ECA ? Does everyone understand the difference between a TDA and an RA(T) ?

If as you state some of the pilot's are to be investigated, I'm certain all will become clear.

You appear to regard the news media as worthless. I would suggest that if it weren't for some of the images collected over the weekend, the profile of the CGA / SAR assets might not be quite so high. It is vital that these people are seen at work doing there excellent jobs. Those taxpayers and politicians need to know how valuable these assets are. It would be great if you could get on with all of them!

I understand anyway that SAR has got itself a new little revenue stream selling pics from onboard cams to the media - so maybe the frost will clear.

[Tonka Toy]

Sorry, JB, can you say which CGA it was that gave that permission and to which helicopter with a rough time. It could well have been the BBC asset as they were the designated pool source for imagery.

Plymouth were not about on the Sunday, I mentioned them in the context that they would have been best placed to handle during the week days when they were open again.

Communication clearly fell appart and I would suggest that Plymouth and the CGA took a wise step back on Monday am as the situation degenerated in much the same way as it had on the beach. I believe the CGA went and held at Berry Head for an hour whilst things calmed down.

An explanation of 'Temporarys' would I think be handy. It was pointed out that the CGA come the Monday were having problems with their ground CG acting as an ATC and quoting various TRF's - what are they!? :ugh:

3000' and 6 miles apparently worked well. The CGA should have had the last word on who came in and out and when they weren't there the local ATC observing the incident requirements from the MCA.

Any thoughts?

[JimBall]

Yes - it was the BBC helicopter which (on Sunday) was the one you have roundly described as a nuisance! The pilot had talked with Kinloss and the CGA before lift and got access on the VHF freq around midday.

I believe this machine came back for more on Sun pm - but stayed outside the TDA - and on Monday it was back working for ITN.

Can't be certain because I was beachcombing.

Can I offer you a special edition BMW bike? Lovely granular paint effect and all metal parts come ready-distressed for that classic aged look.

[Tonka Toy]

Sorry JB, as to the 'worthless' bit I was not implying that at all. I have not seen any footage of CGA / SAR assets working but that footage I have seen is commendable stuff, a credit to the Sky and Beeb crews and helpful. I am not even sure that people within the CG itself are sure what assets they have out there.

Still, we rest assured that some can make up for the actions of others.

[Tonka Toy]

It wasn't the beeb, Monday pm is the day specifically that said item apparently became a problem. But no where near as big a problem as a certain other piston. Once around the world no doubt! Thanks but my mother would disown me if I went near a bike!! You know things are bad when CGA has to get tasked to public order incidents.:rolleyes:

[MBJ]

Just to clarify, the BBC have a dedicated Twin-Squirrel, which was in the area. They also use an R44 from time to time, which works for whoever wants aerials, hence BBC one day ITN the next (see earlier post)

Delighted to see CG comments about Sky News. It reflects well on the professional news-gatherers!

[plus expenses]

Surely there must be some mistake - isn't the ship is beached beyond auto distance for a non floated single?

No don't tell me, its not an AOC job as only crew on board so just 'aerial works'. We can therefore (legally if not morally!) throw all safety considerations out the window.... at least until there is an accident then the whole industry can be hit with another raft of regulations.:D

My apologies if it is within autorotation distance to those concerned. I hate to miss the chance for a rant!

[Brilliant Stuff]

Surely there must be some mistake - isn't the ship is beached beyond auto distance for a non floated single?

No don't tell me, its not an AOC job as only crew on board so just 'aerial works'. We can therefore (legally if not morally!) throw all safety considerations out the window.... at least until there is an accident then the whole industry can be hit with another raft of regulations.:D

My apologies if it is within autorotation distance to those concerned. I hate to miss the chance for a rant!

I am told it is classed as aerial work.But look on the positive side if anything were to happen there are lots of CG assets on hand to come to the rescue.

[Creaser]

Surely there must be some mistake - isn't the ship is beached beyond auto distance for a non floated single?

No don't tell me, its not an AOC job as only crew on board so just 'aerial works'...

Apparently ITV aired a story of the beached boat from a reporter in front seat of R44.

The viewer commented it looked quite low and were unable to tell where land was. Viewer wasn't sure if life jackets were being worn.
Anyone else see it and can fill in the gaps?


Creaser

[plus expenses]

So it would have to be public transport as the heli is for hire not owned by ITN. The reporter could never be classed as required crew. The aircraft therefore must of had floats on the aircraft as well as lifejackets, liferaft and survival suits at this time of year.

I should throw my AOC certificate in the water in Dorset and let it join the rest of the worthless rubbish floating around there.

[verticalhold]

Plus Expenses;

There have been claims from the operator of this aircraft that they were able do fly into dark whilst filming the whale in London last year. There is no way the reporter can be considered as aircraft crew.

Maybe its time the CAA had a good look at the film this aircraft generates and decided whether it is all legal or not,

Nice to see congrats to Miles. Bloody good bloke.

[AlanM]

Diamond geezer, some would say!
(when he is not trying to get into Osterley, the ******!)
:)

[verticalhold]

And a very woorying liking for reptiles:yuk: :yuk:

[JimBall]

Before you all incur the wrath of Mr Smith, who is getting mightily pissed-off with the comments in this forum because they all seem to be associated with a company in Redhill against which he has a current legal action, you might want to swallow your plegm.

There have been claims from the operator of this aircraft that they were able do fly into dark whilst filming the whale in London last year. There is no way the reporter can be considered as aircraft crew.Yes - it did fly in the dark. Legal. And there never was a reporter onboard.

The reporter could never be classed as required crew. The aircraft therefore must of had floats on the aircraft as well as lifejackets, liferaft and survival suits at this time of year.
Of course a reporter isn't crew. But passengers can be carried under Aerial Work. Operating above a TRA to 2000ft within one mile of the shore with the R44 glide ratio means that the aircraft can easily make land. Why would you want to burden your flight safety with heavy unnecessary equipment. This wreck does not qualify as offshore.


It might be a good idea if, during the next tea break at Redhill, you all sit down and read the rules of Aerial Work. Not as they apply to an AOC operator - because every flight conducted by an AOC holder has to be PT unless all onboard are employed by that AOC holder. Read the rules as they apply to GA.

For Lawd's Sake, if you have an issue with what they are doing, ring him up. Not hard to find! Don't post inaccurate ramblings here. You're making an industry look like a kids' playground.

[plus expenses]

Um, 'fraid I'm not Redhill. Thank you for your kind advice Jim - next time I'm in Redhill I'll make time for a cup of tea with the operators there and find out they make of it all.

[dunnarunna]

Sorry Jim, it must have been someone else's Robinson that I saw on the telly appearing stationary at not very many feet with the coast clearly visible a long way off. Oh, and the reporter on his presenter cam describing the scene whilst 'hovering over the sea'.

[puntosaurus]

Of course a reporter isn't crew. But passengers can be carried under Aerial Work. Operating above a TRA to 2000ft within one mile of the shore with the R44 glide ratio means that the aircraft can easily make land. Why would you want to burden your flight safety with heavy unnecessary equipment. This wreck does not qualify as offshore.

Go on, help us out, how can that be ? Here's the CAA's summary of the meaning of public transport (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summary_of_public_transport.pdf)

[rattle]

Never trust a CAA document that ends on "page 8 of 7".....