Burning plane crashes on marshes!!! Two survive!

[kevmusic]

Ok, that wasn't the actual headline in my local rag this evening but the story was the front page.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/aroundkent/news.asp?village=16030&article_id=404137

Yup, I actually had images of a fiery trail in the sky, an ensuing crash and a lucky escape for the 2 POB who dragged each other out of the wreckage. Then I read the article. Smoke in the cockpit and a safe forced landing.

The newspaper also carried a sub-article about local farmers complaining to the 'aviation authority' (sic) about low flyers; said authority saying it needed more evidence.

Nice to see yet another example of responsible, unemotional reporting. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Justiciar]

Farmers on the marshes say this isn't the first time a plane has crashed in the area, and low-flying aircraft are becoming a problem.


Yes, what exactly is the connection between the two parts of this statement.

[Sensible]

quite simply there is a direct connection! All aircraft that crash away from an airport are guilty of breaking the 500' rule :\

[vortexracer]

The c152 was on a trial flight from stapleford I believe. Rumor has it that if was for a woman who wanted to overcome her fear of flying! The instructor looks like he did a top job getting it down.:D We often did pfl's over st mary marsh and I never liked the look of landing there.

[kevmusic]

And that's exactly my point. The instructor pulls off a textbook forced landing, no injuries, miles away from any school playground, and it's front-page news! Aaaaaagh!!!!

The headline itself was laughably incompetent. It read:

Pilot crash
lands in marshes
- the absence of a hyphen actually had me thinking that something called a 'pilot crash' had the temerity to land in marshes. :rolleyes:

[rodthesod]

The 'burning' question is: 'did it overcome the lady's fear of flying?'

[Kolibear]

Flying isn't dangerous, no one should be frightened of flying.

Crashing - well, thats a completely different story.

[Dave Gittins]

Nobody seemsed to be making a fuss about the Princess Royal fleeing from a blazing helicopter yesterday and labelling her a nuisance.

I dunno ... one rule the hoi palloi in 152s another for yer Royals.

:}

[Justiciar]

All aircraft that crash away from an airport are guilty of breaking the 500' rule

Technically not correct as the 500' rule does not apply to landings and take offs in accordance with the normal operation of the aircraft :ugh:

[EvilKitty]

I mis-read that as crashing is not breaking the 500' rule as long as it is undertaken in accordance with normal operations... therefore crashing is a normal operation :uhoh::\:}

[Dave Gittins]

Being alowed to break the 500 foot rule if taking off and landing doesn't apply away fropm an airfield.

Otherwise why do we all make a point of breaking off PFLs at 600 feet AGL.

[Spitoon]

Being alowed to break the 500 foot rule if taking off and landing doesn't apply away fropm an airfield.

Otherwise why do we all make a point of breaking off PFLs at 600 feet AGL.The 500 ft rule does not apply away from an airfield if you are taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice. So, if you are taking off or landing in your garden (or anywhere else with the owner's permission), and you can comply with all the other low flying prohibitions, then you can fly below 500 ft (rule 6(a)(ii) refers).

A PFL is not a take off or a landing - that's why you should break off a PFL above 500 ft.

[vortexracer]

The 'burning' question is: 'did it overcome the lady's fear of flying?'

Not sure if the trainee overcame her fear but my wife who flew the plane earlier was not dissuaded about her training:)