PDA

View Full Version : Catching the third wire?


tony draper
1st Nov 2013, 19:02
When there aint one.:uhoh:
WATCH: Daredevil Pilot Lands Small Plane on Moving Ship | gCaptain ? Maritime & Offshore News (http://gcaptain.com/watch-daredevil-pilot-lands-small-plane-on-moving-ship/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29%28Fly%29%28 Fly)

Lon More
1st Nov 2013, 19:11
I'm surprised he managed to avoid being hit from behind by the bridge

tony draper
1st Nov 2013, 19:26
Of course it has been done before.:)
Emergency Landing on Cargo Ship by Sea Harrier - YouTube

Wholigan
1st Nov 2013, 19:42
Bl00dy good job he's got a sturdy undercarriage! :)

Flypro
1st Nov 2013, 20:13
Gosh, a carrier landing. Whatever next???

Do you know, I think this could lead to something.
Perhaps the military will take an interest??

skua
1st Nov 2013, 22:15
I wonder what the CAA have to say about it? Was the pilot BO'B?

BOAC
1st Nov 2013, 22:31
Jolly clever too, with the prop starting and stopping like that.

Blacksheep
1st Nov 2013, 23:23
It would be much more impressively daredevil to land on a stationary ship. ;)

Flypro
1st Nov 2013, 23:42
Strangely enough IMHO the best helicopter flight deck the RN ever had was RFA Reliant, a ship taken up from trade (STUFT) in the Falklands conflict era, looking very similar to matey's ship, but with an American 'Arapaho' steel gridded deck amidships and the RN crew quarters a selection of containers hanging below the midships flight deck and above a huge void that would normally be full of containers.

Being a midships steel gridded flight deck on a stabilised ship, the deck never moved an inch even in the worst sea conditions, with the added advantage that one could approach from either side (two landing sights).

What a pity we can't ever seem to learn from history:confused:

arcniz
2nd Nov 2013, 00:34
If fully familiar with the deep-stall behavior and then sufficiently inspired, one can land an aircraft, especially a compact one, on damn near anything. Survival is optional, however, according to complex rules that inevitably are written only after the fact.

farsouth
2nd Nov 2013, 04:47
The take-off looked like an accident waiting to happen, with the deck crew holding him back. If the release had been even less coordinated they could have ended up yawing him straight towards the edge.

sitigeltfel
2nd Nov 2013, 09:37
Jolly clever too, with the prop starting and stopping like that.

When the rubber band loses its tension the momentum of the prop keeps it spinning until the band rewinds in the opposite sense. Once re-tensioned the prop automatically reverses pitch and starts spinning the opposite way.

Cacophonix
2nd Nov 2013, 11:03
Reading this thread makes wonder about those rarefied heads that scrapped/sold our Harriers as the mighty UK fleet sails the seas without aircraft to bedeck its nakedness.

Caco

VP959
2nd Nov 2013, 12:00
Nice trick, but I suspect some of the spoilsports in one or other of the air space controlling bodies are going to get their knickers in a twist about it, especially as it's a UK registered microlight, and the CAA never seem to waste an opportunity to have a pop at microlights if they get a chance.

As the reg is clearly visible (so ownership can be traced in seconds on G-INFO), and as as this may not have been truly in international waters, one wonders whether Mr Eamonn Fogarty (the owner of the Foxbat microlight in question) might get a call from the CAA/EASA/DGAC or whoever controls this bit of airspace. It was certainly a breach of UK law as it applies to UK registered microlights and Permit to Fly aircraft I think. Breach of the 500ft rule for starters, as this wasn't a designated airstrip, plus a host of other safety-related stuff I'd imagine. Given the consequences of the aircraft crashing on the ship with an excess of fuel aboard (it apparently had long range tanks fitted) I'd be surprised if someone didn't have a stern word over it, fun and daring an exploit as it was.

tony draper
2nd Nov 2013, 13:49
I thought the film was took in the English Channel, that belongs to us dont it? I suppose we let the French have a couple of hundred feet of it round their coast so the can plodge and paddle in the water if they want.
:rolleyes:

BOAC
2nd Nov 2013, 14:42
VP959 - well, I enjoyed the pun, anyway!

3 questions:-

1) Does the ANO apply ONLY to UK airspace?
2) I assume there are parts of the 'Channel' which would qualify as 'International airpsace?
3) Is the airspace above international waters 'owned'?

dazdaz1
2nd Nov 2013, 15:58
The pilot looked a very young man and rather lithe. Was he fed while on the ship?

VP959
2nd Nov 2013, 16:24
VP959 - well, I enjoyed the pun, anyway!

3 questions:-

1) Does the ANO apply ONLY to UK airspace?
2) I assume there are parts of the 'Channel' which would qualify as 'International airpsace?
3) Is the airspace above international waters 'owned'?

I've flown the Channel in microlights and light aircraft and always assumed that it was covered by the microlight rules in the ANO from the UK side to the mid-point and then covered by whatever rules DGAC impose on microlights from the mid-point to the French side. Normal procedure for microlights is to keep talking to the UK (often Headcorn) right the way across, simply as experience has been that the French are often a bit "deaf" when it comes to answering calls from UK registered microlights. It seems rare for French ULMs (microlights) to use formal RT much, they have a sort of informal free-call ULM radio system on a Unicom type frequency at a lot of small French strips, where no-one on the ground ever answers a radio call, everyone in the air just listens to everyone else making calls as to their intentions (always in French, as a rule).

UK registered microlights can operate in French airspace only because of an agreement between the DGAC and CAA, as they aren't covered by EASA rules. As such it's a privilege to fly a UK microlight in French airspace, not a right, and that privilege could be withdrawn at any time by the DGAC if they wished.