Ullswater Lake Maule pilot not guilty

[heliusac]

Has this been done already?
Video: Plane hits Ullswater - Cumbria Crack: News for Penrith, Appleby, Eden Valley, Keswick, Workington, Whitehaven, Maryport, Barrow, Kendal, Carlisle, Lake District & Cumbria24 (http://www.cumbriacrack.com/2015/04/13/video-plane-hits-ullswater/)
Was the sensational headline and it sparked a major SAR operation. However this video shows it was actually just doing a bit of water skiing style touch and go's!

Have seen big wheel bush planes land on streams etc but not sure why anyone would want to do that in the middle of a deep cold lake? Incredibly reckless but great skills and as the registration is now all over the internet this pilot is going to have some serious explaining to do to the CAA I think.

Or maybe they had special permission to do this but the rescue teams and emergency services may see it differently!

[Crash one]

Don't for Gods sake let anyone have a bit of fun.

[FleetFlyer]

Crikey Heliusac, if you think a bit of harmless water skiing is reckless then you'll do your nut when you find out what the RAF get up to in those valleys!

[heliusac]

Yeah, yeah people.

Crikey Heliusac, if you think a bit of harmless water skiing is reckless then you'll do your nut when you find out what the RAF get up to in those valleys! Blah, blah, blah, RAF, blah, blah, blah. They don't do touch an go's in a fixed wing on Ullswater. I know all about what the RAF do in those valleys cheers and doing touch and goes in a wheeled fixed wing in the middle of a cold deep lake is well reckless.
Don't get me wrong I am impressed by their skills and all up for a bit of airborne fun but I am struggling to see what the point really was? Demonstrating skill, demonstrating the aircraft's capability or showing off? As a former member of the Ullswater lake rescue team that has attended some truly unpleasant incidents on the lake I can tell you that a flipped plane and a dive search for remains is not as much fun as you might think.

That said the main point I am making is that through the misconception of the public this was reported as a crash and set in motion a needless SAR operation that cost a lot of man hours and money. So someone somewhere forgot to notify the authorities what their intention were on that day or as I stated in my OP maybe they had permission (highly unlikely) and it didn't get passed on.

[west lakes]

Given that folk that have sea planes that can land safely on water cannot under any circumstances (except for special occasions on Windermere) get permission to land on any of the Lakes in this part of the world.
It is likely that this was no approved by anyone!

[heliusac]

The point as I would see it was training for future landings on small beaches, gravel bars etc. this is were you initially land on the water and run up to your short hard landing area using the water to provide a breaking action, a perfectly normal manoeuvre.

Don't buy that. You just wouldn't do that in the middle of a deep cold lake. Landing in the last part of a stream before dry land or a small beach is a normal manouvre but that has zero to do with what they were doing there.

Won't do light aviation in the Lakes any good at all that.

[anderow]

It's clear he was doing a forced landing but managed to recover the plane in time and take off again :hmm:

[piperboy84]

Don't get me wrong I am impressed by their skills and all up for a bit of airborne fun but I am struggling to see what the point really was?

Perhaps he had been out beach hopping where its best to land on the wet sand and couldnt be arsed washing the salt water off the gear and belly when he got home so decided to automate the process.

[west lakes]

It's clear he was doing a forced landing but managed to recover the plane in time and take off again :hmm:

Listening to the voices on the video, this was the 2nd time round, so he must have not been happy with the first attempt;)

[er340790]

Don't buy that. You just wouldn't do that in the middle of a deep cold lake.

YES, WE DO!!!! :E

Generally better on-floats though... ;)

ASES

[India Four Two]

Two observations:

1. It's a good job piperboy84 is in California playing with his other Maule or I would be suspicious. ;)

2. It's better in formation:

VWovoK4Ja_8

[N-Jacko]

I don't wish to be accused of Jesuitical nit-picking (any more than I would speculate as to what, if anything, goes though the mind of the average Maule driver), but the 1978 Byelaws for the control of power driven vessels on Lake Ullswater apply to aircraft other than flying boats only to the extent that they are "designed to manoeuvre on water".

As for Paragraph 137 of the ANO, I am far from convinced that any activity with a 100% safety record could be portrayed beyond reasonable doubt as being difficult, let alone dangerous.

Fly safely,
Jacko.

[heliusac]

YES, WE DO!!!! :E
Seriously? You do touch and go's in a wheeled fixed wing in the middle of a deep cold lake? Doesn't sound like there is much future in that.

2. It's better in formation:

That's The Harvard Flying Lions Aerobatic Team and it's not The lake District.

Still, when all said and done that aircraft looks well nice, I think it's an Aviat Husky and would be ideal for my local farm strip! Maybe the owner will lend me it while they are re-doing their license after the court case.:ok:

[Big Pistons Forever]

A totally dumb thing to do.

What a great epitaph. I killed myself when I lost control water skiing my land plane :rolleyes:

[west lakes]

N registered as well

[India Four Two]

heliusac,

That Husky is a Maule. ;)

Apparently "water skiing" is not difficult if you are above aquaplaning speed.

Two things that surprise me about this stunt. One, the water is a bit rough, compared to the Harvard video. Two, trying it on a lake that has a speed limit is inviting prosecution. A loch in Scotland would have been a better bet.

[9 lives]

I am guilty more than once of accepting a needless risk in a plane. So is this pilot. I've been working on smartening up as I get old - I want to be older, and insurable.

I see a very disproportionate risk to benefit in this kind of flying. If you're going to fly in a very risky way, at least have a good benefit to balance the risk.

And... it sets a poor example, and image for our industry. It make the public wary and suspicious of our responsibility, and lures fools into attempting it. I recall a silly fellow tried it in an English river a few years back, not putting any though into the fact that this is characteristically impossible in a tricycle aircraft.

If you're going to do this where you can't be seen, then you're probably too far from the help you may suddenly need very badly!

[N-Jacko]

Totally agree about the N reg. thing. It looks as if this "non-dom" Maule doesn't pay CAA taxes, so it clearly has no more right to occupy English airspace than any other alien-registered airplane. :ugh:

Seriously though, can someone with relevant experience explain which of the laws of physics has been repealed in the vicinity of Lake Ullswater so as to make flight in low ground effect anything but rock stable?

As for Ullswater's speed limit, it has been specifically framed so as not to apply to land- and ski-planes. That said, if the Lake District National Park Authority were to ask politely I'm sure that the pilot in question would be willing to avail himself of their hospitality even more sparingly than heretofore.

Fly safely,
Peter.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Seriously though, can someone with relevant experience explain which of the laws of physics has been repealed in the vicinity of Lake Ullswater so as to make flight in low ground effect anything but rock stable?

.

What does flying in ground effect have to do with the stability, or rather lack thereof, involved in the act of riding on hydroplaning tyres ?

I know of one pilot who was killed doing this stupid stunt :ugh:

[N-Jacko]

It may seem a "stupid stunt" to you on the basis of your personal experience, but it's a very safe, stable and essential part of a bushplane's flight envelope on the basis of mine.

Incidentally, small ripples and wavelets are no problem, but squally conditions are best avoided. Small tires would steepen part of the lift/drag curve appreciably, perhaps uncontrollably. Glassy lakes demand a degree of care, especially after lifting off the water.

I'd be interested to read the official report on the accident to which you refer.

[150 Driver]

Wasn't there a thread on a Robin that ended up on a riverbed doing this, the pilot ended up dead on a mountainside in a separate incident.

The guy ( it will be a guy) is a certifiable moron. Hope the CAA throw the book at him.

I don't much care what the RAF do, they are seasoned pros who need extreme flying skills. This chap obviously has no respect for his family or anyone to care about him, no respect for the aircraft, no respect for the environment and no respect for the taxpayer who bears the SAR costs.

[Big Pistons Forever]

It may seem a "stupid stunt" to you on the basis of your personal experience, but it's a very safe, stable and essential part of a bushplane's flight envelope on the basis of mine.



Yes but bushplanes do it for a reason, that is a controlled touchdown in the shallow water just short of a gravel bar to set up the short landing. it is not a rookie move but in the hands of a very experienced pilot it is a reasonable risk for the benefit obtained.

That kind of flying has nothing to to with the "look at me I am such a SKYGOD" showboating in the middle of the lake, for no operational reason, that this thread is referring to.

I'd be interested to read the official report on the accident to which you refer.

The story was related to me by an experienced pilot I know and trust so it is admittedly second hand. Basically the guy got sideways, dipped a wing which caught the water and he ended up drowned in the upside down airplane. He was not wearing the fitted shoulder harness, so it was likely that he was knocked out during the upset and then drowned while unconscious.

[9 lives]

but it's a very safe, stable and essential part of a bushplane's flight envelope on the basis of mine.

I don't think that "very safe, stable" describes hydroplaning wheel planes down the middle of a lake. "Essential" sure doesn't. The only essential running down the middle of a lake without stopping, is water pickups for waterbombing, and that Maule was not doing that! He was out goofing around. Not that some of us haven't goofed around, but we sure should not be celebrating it.

Serious, responsible bush pilots avoid factors and operations which have risk with no benefit. Bush pilots typically operate in the middle of nowhere, so any small risk becomes big, just because no help is close by. Running lakes on wheels is a stunt, not bushflying.

[fastjet45]

N-Jacko
As for Ullswater's speed limit, it has been specifically framed so as not to apply to land- and ski-planes.


Are you saying that the 10mph speed limit does not apply to aircraft ? if yes is that for all the lakes in the area i.e. Windermere, Coniston etc were is this stated, when I inquired about landing on a lake I was told no for exactly this reason the speed limit was 10 mph introduced approx. 5 years ago by the nimby's.

[Flyingmac]

I know of one pilot who was killed doing this stupid stunt :ugh:


How do feel about aerobatics?

[surely not]

Leaving aside any thoughts as to whether this is really stupid or incredibly cool, there seems to be an assumption by posters that this pilot is inexperienced at this sort of flying. How do we know this? Is it not possible that this is a very experienced Bush pilot visiting UK and that he is well used to doing this sort of thing?

[Flyingmac]

To the Maule pilot. Any chance of a spare seat? :O


To the rest of you. I asked first.:=

[Proteus9]

I again don't see why people are getting worked up over this. It's a tailwheel aircraft with big tyres designed for off airport work. It happens frequently in the us.

I don't get how being a deep cold lake makes any difference to practice. I'd imagine if things went wrong you could do as much damage in a few feet of water.

Flying comes down to risk assesment and personal acceptance. People fly in clouds, do aerobatics, fly vintage aircraft, do stalls, all of which adds a level of risk to flying slap bang in the centre of the envelope.

In the event of a need for a forced landing I'd much rather be in with someone with lots of experience off airfield than a person who has lever left tarmac.

ZnvL7cGxZLU#t

[heliusac]

That Husky is a Maule. ;)Still want one!

I again don't see why people are getting worked up over this.Read again:Emergency services, including police, Whitehaven Coastguard, Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service, ambulance service, mountain rescue teams, RAF and an air ambulance were called to the sceneThe CAA imposed a no fly zoneAny idea how much all that will have cost? Committing all those teams, especially the Air Ambulance, which could have been saving lives elsewhere is criminal.
I don't get how being a deep cold lake makes any difference to practice.Yes you do.

[Bob Bevan]

I don't want to sound like a killjoy but if things had gone badly wrong I wonder if the pilot would have expected his insurance policy to cover the claim?

There is a general insurance principle that an insured person should act at all times in the same way as if they were not insured. This is reflected in aircraft policies in a 'General Condition' which effectively says you should do all you can reasonably do to protect the insured item from loss. I'm not saying that a claim arising from this type of flying would definitely be refused but it does potentially raise a doubt!

Given what he was up to, the pilot would also do well to look at another condition which states the policy "shall not be construed as a policy of marine insurance." :)

[gasax]

On a slow news day all sorts of stuff appears.

It would seem the emergency services suffer from the same syndrome, even though the aircraft is shown flying away they 'swing in action'.

Perish the thought that any intelligence is ever needed from them.

As to the pilot, well ok he did it, but he did it in a pretty dumb place, where it was almost certain to cause some upset, even presuming he knew what he was doing.

Scores on the doors? emergency services 2/10, pilot 1/10.

[charliegolf]

I'm not saying that a claim arising from this type of flying would definitely be refused but it does potentially raise a doubt!

When the insurer finds out the pilot did it at least twice, any doubt will evaporate.

CG

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

How do feel about aerobatics?

That only pilots who are aerobatically capable and experienced fully understand how an aeroplane flies, and why it sometimes stops flying. In other words, an aerobatic pilot is a safer pilot.

[Proteus9]

Any idea how much all that will have cost? Committing all those teams, especially the Air Ambulance, which could have been saving lives elsewhere is criminal. The point is that all that cost was nedlessly raised, it should never have gone that far. If you were to land on a private field and someone telephoned in the same line "I've just seen an aircraft crash" and with no further questioning they scrabmled everything would you deem it your own fault and criminal? It's pretty clear from all available accounts that effectively a touch and go was made and the aircraft was seen flying on. I do not call that a crash and do not think it warrants calling the police. The speed limit concern is an issue for the naitonal park warden. Water at speed is pretty hard, and this person obviously seems to know what they're doing and may have very extensive experience.

[Proteus9]

Yes you do. No I don't, the important interaction here is on the surface and boundary layer of the water. Whether the depth is a couple of feet or miles makes no difference at all to the flight characteristics

[9 lives]

How do feel about aerobatics?

I feel that aerobatics can be conducted in accordance with the aircraft manufacturer's procedures. Hydroplaning across the water on wheels very certainly cannot. Though, yes, I agree, aerobatics can be made to be as risky, or more so than the hydroplaning, when it's done very close to the ground.

the important interaction here is on the surface and boundary layer of the water. Whether the depth is a couple of feet or miles makes no difference at all to the flight characteristics

Yes, the plane's tires do not know how deep the water under is, they are interacting with the first couple of inches of the water only. BUT, how deep the lake is, and a number of other factors can hugely affect where the water is! The water is incompressible, but it moves. A boat wake, swell, or floating object could catastrophically upset the slim balance on which the aircraft is hydroplaning. In very shallow water, wakes, swells, and submerged objects are easily visible during the area inspection. And, if you do flip the plane, it's not going to sink, and trap you into an egress situation.

Was the pilot wearing personal floatation suitable for the body of water? I'm thinking it was pretty cold there - immersion suit? - I fly with one at times.

Had the pilot received competent training in underwater egress?

Aviation Egress Training Systems (http://dunkyou.com/videos.html)

I, and another dissenting poster here, have taken this course. It's a wake up call for being in these situations at all - let alone putting yourself there for little benefit!

Someone mentions flying across the channel on here, where there is a statistically small risk that you'll have to do a planned ditching into unwelcoming water, and posters will discuss lifejackets, immersion suits, and rafts. Yet someone deliberately flirts with sudden ditching, and posters defend it, without ever asking if the pilot was prepared.

And, it's just a bad example and public display - it temps others into the foolish behaviour:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/432521-pilot-mistakes-river-derwent-landing-strip.html

Or lure them into wanting to try it,

Any chance of a spare seat?

[Flyingmac]

I knew the pilot who put the Robin into the Derwent. He was a pleasant guy but sadly his demise didn't come as a big surprise to many of us.


To tar the Maule pilot with the same brush is a huge leap of assumption.:=

[9 lives]

leap of assumption

I make no assumptions about the Maule pilot. I saw a video of an aircraft doing something un-necessary, which is high risk. Some posts have been made, which downplay those risks, those posts are deceptive. I have reason to believe the Maule pilot is quite skilled. It's the display of judgement which concerns me.

I've known some pretty skilled pilots who were "bit" by something that their judgement did not anticipate nor prepare for....

[Proteus9]

Someone mentions flying across the channel on here, where there is a statistically small risk that you'll have to do a planned ditching into unwelcoming water, and posters will discuss lifejackets, immersion suits, and rafts. Yet someone deliberately flirts with sudden ditching, and posters defend it, without ever asking if the pilot was prepared. Discussion is useful but I wouldn't want to specifically tell other people what they must do, everyone should be able to make their own decisions on what risks they are comfortable with as pilots. The pilot may well have been kitted up in full gear for ditching. I'm not defending his choice of clothing I'm making the point that what was being done there is practiced frequently abroad, he looks to have large bushwheels on which give a large footprint and may be vasty experienced in this. It looks like the 500ft rule was obvserved with a good margin and other than personal risk no one else was in danger.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The tragic 'Derwent incident' (I won't say 'accident') was way different to the Ullswater event. Please don't use it to castigate the 'Ullswater' pilot.

[irish seaplane]

Love to try it but I don't have the testicular fortitude. I'm told you need to stand on the brakes to make it work.

[cockney steve]

There have been incidents where a member of the public have seen amodel aircraft disappear from view, they have phoned the Police or emergency services to report an aircraft crash......yep! it's a quiet day, so they all rush out on a full scale attendance, but nobody makes a basic enquiry to establish wether there was, indeed, an aircraft transiting the area.
Same with hoax fire calls and false intruder alerts (Hatton Gardens excepted :E) I believe it's called "jumping the gun" and appears to have happened on this occasion....If they hadn't done their practice response on this occasion, they would have just repacked their kit a half-hour earlier.
To suggest this response to a false -alarm has cost a fortune, is disingenuous.

I bags second trip, Flyingmac.

[9 lives]

The tragic 'Derwent incident' (I won't say 'accident') was way different to the Ullswater event. Please don't use it to castigate the 'Ullswater' pilot.

Okay.... When the next pilot tries it, because they saw the video, and it does not go well, can we castigate the Ullswater pilot then?

[gasax]

A year or so ago I was involved in a accident at the strip. A passer-by phoned the emergency services and then came across. Hearing this the pilot also phoned the emergency services and very patiently explained that yes he was the pilot and yes there were no injuries and no the emergency service were not required.

4 fire engines, 2 police cars and one ambulance turned up in the next 40 odd minutes - some having got lost on the way.

whilst having the emergency services available is a very good thing I cannot help but think we possible have either an over provision or a severe lack of common sense.

Castigating anyone because the emergency services were called out is on the basis of this experience is completely unjustified.

As for blaming the Ullswater pilot for someone else trying it, that too would be unjustified - that would be evolution punishing the stupid, otherwise known as the Darwin award competition!

[Flying Lawyer]

This thread is very funny.
Some of the comments are so pompous and predictable.


An earlier thread about the water-skiing Harvards : http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/212917-pictures-aircraft-water-skiing-genuine-not.html

The discussion was 9 years ago, when they were not well-known outside South Africa, but it's still worth reading for the varying responses at the time.
Most posts were made before the truth was revealed.
Some posters still had doubts even after it was revealed. :)

---

Okay.... When the next pilot tries it, because they saw the video, and it does not go well, can we castigate the Ullswater pilot then?
Certainly not.
That would be absurd.

I don't subscribe to the view that everyone should be prevented from doing something risky (which the Ullswater incident may/may not have been - I don't know enough about the pilot or the circumstances to form an opinion) in case someone else tries to emulate and things go wrong.

And, in general, provided no-one else is put at risk I wouldn't prohibit adults from risking their own lives.
There's a grey area re informed risk, but that's a separate and more complex issue.
eg Years ago, I carried a passenger during displays and was a passenger during displays but that has been prohibited for a long time.

[heliusac]

To suggest this response to a false -alarm has cost a fortune, is disingenuous.
For the air ambulance alone Every call-out the life-saving service makes, costs on average £2,500
Add to that all the other publicly funded or charity/donation based services and the RAF to boot with a no fly zone. Even for a false alarm, this incident would have cost several thousand, that is a fortune for something that didn't happen.

[9 lives]

I like to think of PPRuNe as a place to converse with pilots of a professional attitude. Sure, there are dumb and risky thinks to be done in planes, and in 39 years of flying, I've done quite a few of them. Happily (luckily) I've never hurt anyone, nor done damage to the point where insurance was claimed.

I reported myself to Transport Canada once, for very public low flying, when I had buzzed a very busy public beach at 50 feet. I knew that someone was going to report me, so I may as well get there first. When I explained to TC why I did this, I got a smile and a "don't worry about it". I had drawn attention to three drowning kids, who were rescued. I guess that TC figured that the risk I had flown was worth the reward.

The public at large can understand planes flying over, circling, taking off and landing. Otherwise, the public will think it is unusual, and perhaps worthy of report - how nice that they care to bother!

In 25 years as a volunteer firefighter, I have flown one of my planes on average once a month to search an emergency call. Most of the time, I am happy to confirm that we don't need a surface response, as the emergency does not exist. A surface response will be a minimum $1000 cost, usually much more. That is totally a local tax cost.

I think it would be nice if we "professional" attitude pilots would be publicly seen to not encourage cowboy flying (at least when the reward is very small) - but that's just me, perhaps....

[FleetFlyer]

Right, that's it, I've been persuaded by the compelling points of view on here. I've decided to ditch my vintage taildragger for a Cessna 152 that I'll only fly from paved runways, and I'll ditch the sports car for a Volvo and only drive to the airfield at the speed limit minus 30%. I'll certainly no longer do any flying below 2000' let alone below 500'. I hadn't realised my selfish attitude had the potential to get so many emergency services people out for a drive in the country.

Come on guys, get real. If you're not harming someone else and you're no proven to be incompetent, then just live and let live. I grew up on the edge of Barton Fell, about half a mile from where this took place and watched people daily go into the hills in a T shirt and trainers only to be retrieved by a big yellow chopper. Some of those people might have actually been locals with plenty of knowledge about what they were doing and the helicopter wasn't for them, just the same as this water skier may well have been an experienced bush pilot who had done this many times before. Judge those in question on their results, not their decision to do something that you yourself would choose not to do.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Right, that's it, I've been persuaded by the compelling points of view on here. I've decided to ditch my vintage taildragger for a Cessna 152 that I'll only fly from paved runways, and I'll ditch the sports car for a Volvo and only drive to the airfield at the speed limit minus 30%. I'll certainly no longer do any flying below 2000' let alone below 500'. I hadn't realised my selfish attitude had the potential to get so many emergency services people out for a drive in the country.

.

Really, that is the best argument you can come up with :rolleyes:

Come on guys, get real. If you're not harming someone else and you're no proven to be incompetent, then just live and let live

The problem is that he is harming some else, namely every other GA pilot out there. With camera phones everywhere, it is inevitable your stunting will show up on youtube. It will then get picked up on the slow news day ticker and all of the MIMBY's and the private airplane haters will raise a fuss and the noose strangling GA will close another fraction.

So I am sorry you feel aggrieved that your privilege to do something stupid in an aircraft is being questioned, but actions have consequences and the consequences with these kinds of activities are never good.....

[Katamarino]

The blame for pointless emergency services call out here sits squarely with the moron who called them after the airplane had flown off perfectly happily.

[Flying Lawyer]

Step TurnI like to think of PPRuNe as a place to converse with pilots of a professional attitude.

You are right to do so.
However, it's important, at least IMHO, to acknowledge that one's own attitude does not necessarily precisely coincide with that of others who have an equally professional attitude.
Or, put another way, it's a mistake to assume that people who don't share your views do not have a professional attitude.


Katamarino
& fastjet45 (Ok lets all go and hide in your front room ...)

I agree.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Okay.... When the next pilot tries it, because they saw the video, and it does not go well, can we castigate the Ullswater pilot then?

No. Of course not. You seem to be blind to my point.

As I said, the 'Derwent' tragedy bears no relation to anyone waterskiing an aeroplane. There's 'an elephant in the room' about 'Derwent' that neither the AAIB or anyone on here has actually put into words. You don't have to be Einstein to work it out, though.

Anyone doing what the Ullswater pilot did is more likely to have been inspired by the 'waterskiing Harvards' video where the pilots were acting sensibly....

[west lakes]

Regarding the call-out
The emergency services (especially up here) often tell folk that they would rather suffer from a good intentioned unneeded call-out than one too late or a false one.
(Better safe than sorry, don't you think)

So like it or not, the caller will not come to any criticism for doing what the emergency services ask us all to do!

As regards Ullswater it is owned and managed by the National Trust, so the two landings will have been totally without the land (water) owners permission.
As the reg can be seen from the video I would not be surprised that the owners get a serious letter.

The only Lake that has ever had permission to land was Windermere, especially during WW2 as they built Sunderlands there. the last flying one (at that time) landed in 1990

The other water that has seen landings is, apparently Wastwater which a local has landed on as a friend of his owns land on the shore, which means he can give permission over riding the NT (who ain't happy about it)

To carry on with the realities of life up here.

Mobile phones to report the incident, forget them, there is no signal as there are very few masts, the planners see to that!

So the reporter could have seen part of it and had to drive to the nearest accessible land line to report it.

SAR response
Helicopter, Prestwick, Valley or the NE of the country, at least 60+ miles
Ambulance, Penrith 15 miles along, in the main, twisty country roads
Fire, fully manned Penrith (see above) or Patterdale, part time so they have to turn out from their normal jobs
Mountain Rescue (who also do water rescue) all volunteers that get called from home, jobs etc.

Oh and Air Ambulance under 10 mins flying time, but it isn't amphibious

So go on, tell me had you been on that aircraft.
What would you prefer?
No call out, but if it was a real incident a longer delay waiting for assistance.
Or a good meaning call-out that had it been for real would have got resources there that bit quicker

[gasax]

Did you watch the video west lake? The aircraft flew away.......

[west lakes]

Did you watch the video west lake? The aircraft flew away.....Yep that's how I know it was the second time the pilot had done it and it is N reg!!

But knowing the roads in that area (do you?) the person who reported it may have only got a glimpse of an aircraft getting low over the water or even the point where the wheels were on the water and decided to call 999 without waiting or watching it.

The incident took place at the North end of Ullswater near Pooley Bridge, at the beginning of the video the end of the Steamer Pier can be seen, to the right of this is a road with intermittent views of the lake up to the pier. So it is quite possible a vehicle heading north may have only seen part of what occurred and drove into Pooley Bridge to report it.

Where the aircraft touched is not visible from the village or any other premises

You did read this sentence didn't you, especially the second bit?

So the reporter could have seen part of it and had to drive to the nearest accessible land line to report it.

[Proteus9]

West Lakes, some of what you say is incorrect, Telphone signal at the north end of ullswater is actually pretty reasonable particularly as it's near penrith and quite flat. Secondaly NT certainly does not own all of the lake. I believe there have also been occasional float plane flights from Ullswater pre speed limit days.

[west lakes]

Secondaly NT certainly does not own all of the lake.

Ah OK my checking did not show that

[west lakes]

What would the "serious letter' say?Good question, I never said the NT makes any sense, they just think they do!

But ask yourself this, if you owned land or water or even a private field and someone used it to do a touch and go without your permission.
Would you just shrug it off or would you inform them of their "error"?

[Cusco]

SSD:
The tragic 'Derwent incident' (I won't say 'accident') was way different to the Ullswater event. Please don't use it to castigate the 'Ullswater' pilot.

The cynics amongst us might say different and that there were striking similarities:

Hence the presence of a friend with video camera on the banks of the Derwent at the very spot and when it all went t*ts up the hastily cobbled excuse of engine failure leading to a decision that ditching in the water was a safer option than landing in the flat fields surrounding the accident site.....

Cusco.

[Katamarino]

I know very little about trains.

If I saw a train approaching a bend at what seemed like too high a speed, I might be concerned.

Knowing the limitations of my train-based knowledge, however, I probably wouldn't run off and call 999 reporting a derailment. I would wait a few moments in case it actually made it around the bend just fine.

I think the same concept applies here.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Cusco. The elephant in the room....

That (and as a result, the outcome) is what makes the tragedy and the non-event totally incomparable.

[PA28181]

Most dictionary's define a "landing" re flying, as Landing is the last part of a flight, where a flying animal, aircraft, or spacecraft returns to the ground

Ground also refers to water in other dictionary's. A "T&G" is also a "landing" As both of these normally require the aircraft to cease flying albeit still moving, I presume that full or near full power would be needed with balloon tyres in the oggin to keep flying, so neither should be called a landing.

Possibly trespass occured? but not a criminal offence (unless covered by some act like railways) Assuming no breach of the ANO occured ie 500' closer etc,, Then whats the problem, skillful flying but a bit daft as anything there, like floating detritis could have made it more than a prank.

[9 lives]

That (and as a result, the outcome) is what makes the tragedy and the non-event totally incomparable.

Ah, the end justifies the means rationale...

I was thinking to myself, as we took off today, from an unattended grass strip, did Ullswater pilot "book out" to a water landing in a wheel plane? That must have raised eyebrows! But then, the emergency services would have been able to determine that the water landings were intended, and emergency response was not required:p

The combined age of the two taildraggers I guest flew today was 155 years. Yes, I know that an example of one of the types has been "waterskiied" (in South Africa), But I cannot imagine suggesting to my host that those would be a good thing to try "just for fun" - in any type! I want to honour the great opportunity afforded me, by demonstrating my professional attitude toward flying!

I was once flying a club 172, on business for the club. They had sent an instructor with me for the flight. He asked me if I would demonstrate a roll for him. Quite put aback by the request, I said "no". I'm quite able to safely roll a 172, but it was correct that I didn't, right?

[Jetblu]

Judging by some of the responses here, perhaps I am also considered to be reckless. :confused:

It was early eighties at a east Essex flying club when the water skiing conversation came up by a very experienced flying instructor whom was renowned for smoking as soon as he jumped in the aircraft.

The said instructor was sitting at the bar drinking a coffee with a few of us around him. He had a small Corgi model aircraft in his hands as he was demonstrating the pitch attitude on the bar surface of how to touch the water.
He then asked us......what do you think would happen? I recall him receiving many answers. Even my answer was that as soon as the wheels touched the game would be over. He kept shaking his head disagreeing. When we had all finished answering he took the last sip from his coffee and said who's up for it. As I said, this guy was very good and experienced. I immediately jumped up me me me. We went out in a 152 and headed out towards the Clacton.
Approaching the Blackwater he said I have control. In a descending cruise we levelled off at about 3 - 4ft above the water. The sense of speed was amazing in the old girl. Suddenly, the main wheels touched the water as I felt the contact and saw water spray. He explained that touching the water at
80MPH was no different to touching tarmac.

We came back 30 mins later and I told the others what I had just witnessed.
I think a few of the them also went out and did the same with him at a later date knowing that I had come back to tell the tale.

Happy days. :)

[9 lives]

Judging by some of the responses here, perhaps I am also considered to be reckless. :confused:

By my responses, I would be considered somewhat reckless in this regard. I've never said that I have not waterskiied a plane, I would just be very uneasy doing it without a very compelling reason - I just could not explain it to the owner of the plane if something went wrong. For the two planes I own, the owner I would be attempting to explain to would have suddenly become the insurance company. I would never be lent the planes I am, nor insured if people thought I was doing this with planes without a stellar reason.

One winter dusk, a not yet a pilot friend called me in a panic, asking if I had heard that we would be getting 90 to 110km winds over night and the next day. Yes, I had, and my plane was safely away. He told me that three other friend's planes were not, all just sitting on the ice of the frozen lake. The local area of the lake was irregularly flooded in 6" of water (which is why the planes had been left for a while, to wait that out). For the next 5 hours, I taught myself to waterski 180/185's - at night, to get them off the ice, and off a local airport for tiedown. Very reckless of me, I know, but the winds did come, and the planes would have been wrecked, left where they had been. This to me was a risk vs benefit, which was justified - it was not fun, it was scary. The owners all thanked me...

I think a few of the them also went out and did the same with him at a later date knowing that I had come back to tell the tale.

On the razor's edge of things going really badly - Lucky it was a 152, as earlier 150's have a nosewheel which sticks further down. It's a sad commentary on pilots, that some cannot simply appreciate the freedom to fly within limitations and good judgement, for its own pleasure, and instead have to go doing really dumb things in planes :ugh:

[PA28181]

It's a sad commentary on pilots, that some cannot simply appreciate the freedom to fly within limitations and good judgement, for its own pleasure, and instead have to go doing really dumb things in planes

Well, same could be said about driving cars fast, skiing off piste, hang gliding, bungy jumping, base jumping, it's about the adrenalin rush that comes with taking calculated risks. You cannot be "your brothers keeper" all the time.

[150 Driver]

Reading some of these posts, maybe Frank Spencer was wrong. Maybe it isn't exclusive that there are old pilots and there are bold pilots.

[Crash one]

It's becoming a pretty miserable state of affairs that no one is allowed to deviate from the straight and narrow line of utter compliance, risk free, don't for gods sake be different way of life. Perhaps if the observer had been a little more observant rather than run off half cocked.
It seems people can see danger in every corner these days and then have need to advise everyone else to avoid it.
I miss the days when we were allowed to think for ourselves, or perhaps it is the technology that puts everything we do into the public world wide view.
What a piece of nonsense.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Ah, the end justifies the means rationale...

Step turn; I suggest you go back to what I posted and read what I wrote. Without blinkers.

[Proteus9]

did Ullswater pilot "book out" to a water landing in a wheel plane? Do you always book out to exactly where you're going? One of the simple joys of strip flying can be taking and just dropping in to friend's fields without having a set plan in mind.

[Flyingmac]

I once landed in a friends stubble field, at his invitation. Some well meaning soul saw me disappear behind some trees and called 999. The response was impressive.:\


The number of calls that turn out to be gliders landing out should be sufficient grounds to ban the sport.

[sapperkenno]

I wonder what anybody watching the event live must have thought?! Must have been harrowing thinking of that, as they drove back home on those winding Lake District A roads, at the national speed limit, passing cars going the opposite way at 120mph closing speed and only a couple of feet apart. That's hardly dangerous though is it?! Doesn't raise any eyebrows.

And people will get pulled behind boats to water ski at 30-40mph, but you don't see anyone getting pulled behind a vehicle on a road at the same speeds as a common pastime do you?

I don't see what all the fuss is about! Probably just a bit of jealousy that it wasn't them doing it, as they don't own a nice Maule or have any skill.

The bloke is only risking himself and his airplane, and obviously doesn't have a problem with it, so why should anyone else?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

This 'ban anyone from having fun', 'stick with the heard and don't be a free-thinker' attitude seems to be growing in UK. It's one of the reasons for the decline in GA 'Fun Flying', and probably why GA today seems more a training ground for the airline industry than folk seeking 3-dimensional freedom. The fun seekers have gone elsewhere - probably to microlights.

At one time 'fun flying' attracted individuals.... characters, if you like. Many unconventional, but all interesting and few of them 'don't do anything unusual' flat-earthers. They weren't cowboys, but skilled careful pilots who knew what they were about.

Seems not to be the case now.

And of course if you do do anything 'unusual' (as we did frequently in the 70s, 80s, and 90s) there's countless bozos out there with a camera smarter than they are who'll record it, complete with inane remarks, and stick it on youTube.

[Jetblu]

I've heard about a few people flying through Tower Bridge on the eve of their
medical expiry but I wonder if anyone has actually gone skiing under it. :)

[thing]

I've heard about a few people flying through Tower Bridge

If you're really old like me you'll remember Al Pollock doing it in a Hunter...

[Heliport]

fastjet45apparently someone had reported a helicopter crashing by the road side and reported it to 999

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/255777-helicopter-pilot-saves-fixed-wing-pilot-unbelievable-sequel-now-updated.html

[Jetblu]

Thing

I had not heard about the Hunter fly-by as well.

The flying club bar stories that I have heard was that a Piper Commanche
and a Beech Bonanza had done the honoury deeds.

[Flying Lawyer]

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/388510-flying-through-tower-bridge.html. (Hunter)


JetbluI've heard about a few people flying through Tower Bridge ....

Major Christopher Draper - a pilot whom I would have regarded it as a privilege to represent FOC - but I was under two at the time.

Images from his autobiography - originally posted by Wunper

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d107/wunper/Draper.jpg


http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d107/wunper/Draper_Auster_bridges.jpg


http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d107/wunper/Draper_Summons.jpg


Result: Conditional Discharge & 10 guineas costs.

A very sensible decision by the Stipendiary Magistrate Mr Frank Milton who, by the time I appeared before him as a very young barrister about 20 years later, was Sir Frank Milton, Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate. Tough when required and merciful when appropriate; a good combination.


Press reports: Images originally posted by Warmtoast


http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/MajorDraper-15Bridges-3.jpg ..........http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/MajorDraper-Obitury1979.jpg


This small picture is a scan of a postcard showing him flying a Puss Moth under Tower Bridge in September 1931.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/MadMajor_TowerBridge.jpg

The writing on the picture says 'C. Draper 30th September 1931'.
Written on the back is 'Given to E. T. Cherry on 17th June 1933 by Major C. Draper (Himself)'.


There doesn't seem to be much room for 'characters' in our modern, obsessively risk averse, world.

Opinions clearly differ about whether that is good or bad.

[Jetblu]

Flying Lawyer

Many thanks for posting that very interesting information. I had not done any specific searches.

One could say flying through the bridge was reckless. Bridges were not designed to be flown through, were they.

Clearly, the way to go is by skiing under the bridge for which it was designed
to take traffic, innit. ;)

And I also noted your comments about FOC representation. :)

[Maoraigh1]

Later, when someone allowed the Major to rent an aircraft, he disappeared. After the search had given up, he was found in Belgium. The trusting FBO had to pay the cost of bringing the aircraft back.

[heliusac]

Even if I had this pilots mentality, knowing how much big surface debris there can be on Ullswater and how massively active the military low flying has been recently, I definitely would not be hanging around where they were.

So we appear to have a 50/50 stalemate:
50% of us are killjoys and 50% are cowboys!

I think the long term outcome for me is that I really want to go fly a Maule with big tyres on:ok:

[piperboy84]

I think the long term outcome for me is that I really want to go fly a Maule with big tyres on

Heli, Next time your up in the Perth & Angus area give me a shout.



http://www.scottishaeroclub.org.uk/photo.php?photo_id=397&full

[englishal]

The pilot may be skillful etc., but it is a really dumb thing to do if it wasn't for a stunt (filming etc.,) with various permissions and waivers / risk assessments in place. One slight miscalculation and they/he/her are suddenly upside down, under water, in the middle of a freezing lake, at best needing the assistance of the emergency services. But even if they have done it 100 times they open themselves up to prosecution.

Being N registered, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some enforcement action came from this. I could see a prosecution based upon:

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Especially if a passenger was carried then this would be an open and shut case in court. They often apply this to low flying type of incidents too and penalties can include certificate suspension or revocation. I am sure that in this case it would be a complete revocation if a pax was being carried.

Of course they might have been suffering from cab ice and were intending to put the aeroplane down in the lake, but then the engine picked up and the climbed out. On the climb out they had the problem again and so decided to put the plane back down in the lake, only for the engine to pick up again.... ;)

[ETOPS]

Is the picture of the Scottish Maule posted above by piperboy84 the selfsame aircraft in the Ullswater video? And if so is it him flying it ?

[PA28181]

Not unless it has had a very quick paint job.....

[abgd]

I have utterly no intention of doing this, but I do wonder how difficult/dangerous it is.

1) on a taildragger the wheels are ahead of the CoG so lift from the water will increase the pitch of the aircraft creating a stable state.

2) the wheels are below the CoG of the aircraft, so drag will tend to pitch the aircraft down (unstable)

3) to some extent ground effect will help stop the aircraft sinking lower.

Presumably effect 1) predominates at the speeds they fly at, and if you hit the water softly enough there'll be a 'cushion' you have to break through before the water goes high enough (perhaps above the axles) before effect 2) predominates.

So how 'thick' would that imaginary cushion be? How much of a margin would there be between skimming over the surface and going 'kerplunk'? Without knowing that, I have no idea whether these pilots are being reckless or not.

[Jetblu]

Probably the best way of describing it is in the same way as it was described/demonstrated to me:

Soft ground - the aircraft will sink easier the slower that you taxi.
Going through isolated known soft patches one keeps the speed up to stop getting stuck.

Aquaplaning - throwing a stone across a pond. The faster the stone is travelling -it will not sink.

Aircraft tyres are no different. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVGHQ1pYXsHo&ei=klw2VcyoK8XLPbHVgXg&usg=AFQjCNEwYobGSTF4xDtid9adsKcFI2MVGg&bvm=bv.91071109,d.ZWU

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Keep the speed up the tyres will 'plane across the surface. But I suspect the other factor is a very delicate hand on the elevator to prevent the wheels being forced down into the water, yet kept in contact with it.

I've obviously never done this, but I'd imagine it's a bit like a 'wheeler' landing but done VERY carefully!

[Jetblu]

Shaggy, whilst the manoeuvre of skiing across the water looks precarious, it's
not that hard or skilful really. It just takes the balls to do it for the first time.

In a slow 80 knot cruise, if you touch the water harder than you anticipated
you will simply bounce back up in the air in much the same way as touching tarmac. It's really as simple as that.

[Pilot DAR]

It has been pointed out how straight forward the waterskiing is - and it is. But as a roll is straight forward too, both have a horrible outcome if they go wrong.

Would a touch and go of a floatplane on a runway be more or less safe than a touch and go of the wheelplane on the water? Is there a better reason for doing one?

[abgd]

Is there a better reason for doing one?

Boats have less trouble with Customs&Excise restrictions than aircraft, so you could water-ski across the FIR boundary and claim that you were a boat and therefore exempt from GAR forms.

[N-Jacko]

50% of us are killjoys and 50% are cowboys!

I think the long term outcome for me is that I really want to go fly a Maule with big tyres on:ok:+1 :suspect:

Seriously, there's been a lot of twaddle on this topic from folk who (if they have read and understood "Stick and Rudder") are much too well-informed to believe what they write. I think it's unfair to categorise such people as killjoys.

Landing with big tyres on water is as much part of a Maule's flight envelope as spinning a C150. Once one has thought about it one really doesn't need to keep head any further out of backside than when turning from base to final.

In case you want to try but can't find an experienced person to demonstrate, the following "how to suck eggs" advice should get you started:

1. Speed is survival - air-speed and gound-speed (or water speed on a river). When landing we are conditioned to pull the throttle. BAD MOVE!

2. Steer with rudder, not ailerons. For a Maule driver this advice is superfluous, because our "ailerons" are just wee trim tabs. :)

3. Avoid much of a crosswind, tailwind or windy/gusty conditions.

4. Add some aft C of G if you're going to run up onto a gravel bar or beach.

5. Climb straight ahead after take-off, especially on glassy water: https://vimeo.com/123221495

6. Avoid carb ice.

7. Observe local byelaws...

PM if you wish.

Enjoy your machine - and fly safely,
Peter.
Maule MX-7-180

[9 lives]

N-Jacko has told us that waterskiing a Maule is akin to spinning a 150. I can point to the section in the POH for a 150 which describes how it is approved to be spun and the procedure. I've not seen the "waterskiing" procedure in the Maule POH.....

His home grown procedure seems to over look a few important details, which a float endoresed pilot would have been trained:

Survey the waterway for submerged or floating objects,

Wear sutiable life saving appearal, which depending upon temperature, might be more than just a life jacket,

Complete underwater egress training. 'Ever swim inside an inverted plane? It is suddenly very different inside, than the plane you thought you knew....

Assure that you meet the requirements for flight beyond gliding distance to shore,

Have a plan for engine failure at an inopportune time,

Have a suitably endorsed pilot's license (it does appear to be a deliberate water landing),

And, assure that the aircraft is insured for the intended operation - if you expect the insurer to pay for the plane. When I had to repeatedly fly my 150 out of gliding distance, I specifically insured it for that - so everyone had agreed in advance!

N-Jacko, I know that it is possible to waterski a Maule, is it possible to spin, loop and roll it? What about fly it overweight?

[heliusac]

Heli, Next time your up in the Perth & Angus area give me a shout.



http://www.scottishaeroclub.org.uk/photo.php?photo_id=397&full Extreme jealousy is the main thing I take away from that photo.

[N-Jacko]

is it possible to spin, loop and roll it?Prohibited. RTFM.

What about fly it overweight? Sure. Subject to AC 21-4B and/or FAR 91.323.

If you have any more questions of that nature, please ask someone else.

[Dan_Brown]

As a pilot with over 30 years experience I resisted the temptation to "water ski", although I had plenty of opportunities to indulge. Many of my colleagues did indulge. Part of my experience was 10 years ag flying (all aspects) and almost the same period bush flying. When you grow up, after seeing better pilots than ones self get the chop just doing the job, you think better of it.

There are two people in aviation. One is a person who tries to stay out of trouble. The other is a person who looks for trouble. Look for trouble long enough, you'll find it.

The above behavior is a sign of inexperience and or SPS. (small penis syndrome) It is not worth the risk and gives aviators a bad name.

[9 lives]

Prohibited. RTFM

This is why in the last 30 years, we have evolved Flight Manuals an order of magnitude thicker, as airframe manufacturers reacted to stupid accidents by starting to list all the things you should not attempt, and prohibiting them.

Happily, their doing so has kept the insurance premiums low for responsible pilots, as the insurers can deny claims based upon flight manual prohibitions. Thus, I can think of a flight manual for a tail dragger which would prohibit waterskiing it by it's wording - though not that of Maule, I suppose...

I was taken for my first flight in a Harvard last week, and an Oshkosh "grand champion" one at that. After ten minutes of getting used to it, I was invited to roll, then loop it. I did a few times. As I flew it back toward the airport, and lowered the wheels, I thought to myself of someone wanting to waterski such a piece of history - can they not simply be happy with their opportunity to fly it at all? Or, to fly anything at all??

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Step, I doubt you be thinking that if had 2,000 Harvard hours, rather than <1.

[Pace]

There are two people in aviation. One is a person who tries to stay out of trouble. The other is a person who looks for trouble. Look for trouble long enough, you'll find it.

The above behavior is a sign of inexperience and or SPS. (small penis syndrome) It is not worth the risk and gives aviators a bad name.

Dan

Okay I take your point but sometimes we need a bit of colour in aviation instead of this over regulated disapproving society we have now.

While not approving of these antics maybe part of me likes the pushing boundaries in human nature and so admire those that push the boundaries (some have big DKs)

I saw a video of a guy who landed on top of a mountain covered in snow. Engine off he was pushed down a slope and accelerated till he had takeoff speed and then glided without engine power all the way to a landing at an airfield in the valley!

i also read of some pilot flying under all the bridges in London decades back! Every time I look at Tower bridge I get an urge :ok:

We need colour in this grey world

http://boingboing.net/2013/12/13/video-base-jumping-disaster.html

Maybe this guy suffers with little W syndrome ))


Pace

[Flyingmac]

So long as it's not hi-vis yellow:cool:

[thing]

On a wider front I think that one of the problems with everyday life these days is that everything is on film if it's in a public place. No matter what you do you can bet your life that someone will have it on YT within the hour if it's at all interesting. Or interesting to them. Imagine 50 years ago flying through or under every one of London's bridges. Unless someone was there completely by chance with a camera then that event would have been seen, that's all, just seen by the particular people who were looking in that direction.

Al Pollock ripped a Hunter through London Bridge on April 1st 1968. Not one photo, not one 'whoosh' of a sound recording. If that happened today it would have been photographed/videoed from a squillion different angles, probably in slo mo and infra red just to widen your choice.

[9 lives]

The obvious "visibilty" for this type of hot dogging is the tipping point for me. It is possible that this dare devil was awesomely prepared, and hugely experienced with this type of flying, viewers have no way of knowing. So the context is poor, and copycat wannabe's may be tempted into copying what they see with no understanding of what great knowledge, experience and precautions may have been applied.

The result could, and many timeshas been needless risk and destruction, which just makes our pastime look bad to the public, and costs us more in the long run...

[Crash one]

Step turn, I don't go for that, "not in front of the children" attitude. What about air shows? You don't see scores of pilots killing themselves after watching low level aeros.

[9 lives]

You don't see scores of pilots killing themselves after watching low level aeros.

Not scores, but a few. A friend killed himself doing what he had seen me do dozens of times - just with less skill. I should have never been doing it at all, but much less in sight of anyone. After helping to lift my dead friend out of the wreck, I never did that, nor a number of other pointless, risky things I used to do, again...

Perhaps with low level aeros, the wannabe pilot has a real sense of real danger - and avoids. Other goofing around maybe does not present the reality of the associated danger so clearly.

Like speeding around a blind curve, one day it's going to get you - do you feel lucky today! Pilots with a true mentoring spirit, should not, in my opinion, seem to condone such things...

It's okay to waterski a land plane, I wanna come = It's okay to speed around the blind corner, I wanna come - the way I see it. Neither presents a favourable mentoring spirit here....

If a pilot gets caught scud running, they'll take flak here - "fly within your limits, and the legal minimums". How [why] is waterskiing any different to that, in the way we mentor it here?

[Above The Clouds]

So has this naughty person been caught yet :p

[Dan_Brown]

step

Good post indeed.

Yes, we are all probably guilty of such misdemeanors until we wake up or grow up. There is nothing to be gained from this pointless behavior, only added risk. Experience teaches us this, some of us a least. It's all be done before by someone, so why do it? My advice is don't.

Airshow flying, is carried out by approved professionals and the last thing I would want to do, is screw up in front of a lot of people. I'm not that good to even consider it. Stick to the rules as they are your guardian angel.

Test flying, is carried out by highly qualified pilots, with the technical knowledge to allow them to look for trouble. This can only be done with any degree of safety after hours of planning etc.

"aviation is a highly developed science. Don't pioneer"

[Pilot DAR]

Test flying, is carried out by highly qualified pilots, with the technical knowledge to allow them to look for trouble. This can only be done with any degree of safety after hours of planning etc.

And the very last thing a test pilot is going to do is horse around in an aircraft, incurring lots of risk for nothing more than showing off or a bit of excitement. It's a VERY career limiting attitude toward safety and professionalism!

Every test flight I do has a "risk/benefit analysis" portion of the flight test plan. Waterskiing a wheel plane would not even come close. When the analysis comes up with "high risk" and no reward - there will be no test flight of that.

Interestingly, I was speaking with a former US Army test pilot not too long ago. He described to me formal testing of several taildragger types on snowskis, waterskiing on water as a part of an evaluation. They did not continue this evaluation, for the poor risk to benefit. Hint there!

[Pace]

Step Turn

I posted that I did not approve of what he has done but I do admire certain people who push the boundaries in themselves!
Everest was first climbed with limited equipment by someone who pushed his own boundaries.
We see crazy people who will climb cliffs with no ropes. The stunt man who threw his parachute out of an aircraft then dived out caught up with it and then put it on and pulled the rip chord. Even in the pioneering days of aviation test pilots stepped into the unknown and untested, the high parachute jump, breaking the sound barrier etc
Pilots like Chuck Yeager or the pioneering astronauts who had to push the limits into the unknown.

There is a saying " If you never push the boundaries you will never find what lies beyond " That goes for any pioneering whether its medicine or personal endeavour.

Sadly some who push those boundaries end up in the grave yard but somehow you have to admire their bravado, their colour their human spirit which can achieve so much.

We now live in a grey society and over regulated society where everyone knows everything about anyone. i marvelled at my I phone 6 which could read my fingerprint meaning I did not have to enter a code to access my phone until someone pointed out that now Apple have my digital fingerprint in their data bank somewhere.

As I said I don't approve of what this guy did but in someways its two fingers to the grey big brother world we have created and maybe a tiny rebellious side in me admires that

We all have to answer and pay for our actions and no doubt the CAA and FAA will be asking him to explain himself and probably pay in a court of law. I will add that we do not know whether he was an an inexperienced idiot who got away with it or someone experienced in the art of water skimming! I am not talking about this particular event but about the spirit in some people which makes them do this! channelled in the right way they can achieve a lot

[Crash one]

If it wasn't for people prepared to take the leap into the unknowns we wouldn't be flying today, as for the blind bend, we would stil be doing that looking up the ass of an ox.
Step Turn.
You mentioned flying along a beach at 50 ft to attract attention to kids drowning.
Just suppose you tried that along Brighton beach UK. One, the public would crucify you, two, they would be too busy looking through cameras to see the kids, three, you would be blamed for them drowning by diverting the attention of their, probably pissed, parents. You were very lucky.

[englishal]

Okay I take your point but sometimes we need a bit of colour in aviation instead of this over regulated disapproving society we have now.
Colour is the that YouTube guy who lands high Highlander on top of mountains, does dead stick take offs, lands on river beaches etc. and I love watching his vids...But that is all within the aeroplanes (and pilots') capabilities.

Landing a land plane on water for fun is plain dumb if you ask me for many reasons. If you want to land on water, do a sea plane rating. It is bags of fun - probably some of the most fun flying I have ever done - and it is done safely.

[Pace]

Englishal

Do you have a link to that dead stick landing as cannot find it on u tube.

I didn't say I approved of what he did only that I admired the spirit and added that if that spirit was channelled in the right way he could achieve a lot!

We have to answer and pay for our actions and I am sure he (I presume its a HE)
Will be answering to the CAA and FAA as it will have cost a lot with search parties etc. He will also no doubt end up in court, but i think you are missing my point or I am not clear in making it :ok:

in My 20s I came from a car racing background and we did some incredibly crazy stuff. Looking back over 30 years of flying there are plenty of (legal) nasty experiences where I was very lucky some of my friends (7) were not so lucky and were killed in aviation accidents!!

Pace

[India Four Two]

Quote:
If you have any more questions of that nature, please ask someone else.

N-Jacko,
I know Step Turn and I can assure you that his questions were purely rhetorical. Of all the pilots I know, he is the least likely to have neglected to read and understand the manual of any aircraft he has flown.

[Flyingmac]

I get the impression he could quote 'The Manual' from memory.:bored:

[9 lives]

I get the impression he could quote 'The Manual' from memory

:) See new thread.....

[coldair]

Pace,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeQP-H_31JQ


coldair

Edit, another one with his wife,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhIKZl3mtlI

He seems to know his plane pretty well, so pehhaps not too crazy, just having fun. He has quite a few other vids on the above site.

[Pace]

Coldair

One crazy guy that outcrop of rocks was very close to his takeoff point and with 35 degrees I hope he did some accurate calculations and not just a wing and a prayer roll ( again don't approve of it but still crazy

Pace

[India Four Two]

Pace,

I think the calculation went along the lines of "The slope gets steeper, so eventually she'll fly."

You should watch the other videos by this guy. Very impressive.

[coldair]

Back on topic,

the same pilot.

A little bit of water skiing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fKcjf0qz9Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fKcjf0qz9Y)


This guy knows how to fly and handle his aeroplane.

I'll never be up to his level of competence but I admire him for his skill and knowledge & handling of his aircraft.


Would I like to fly with him ? Certainly, any time but I'm too much of a coward to water ski of land on little hills :-)

I'd take my hat off to him if I had one !

Perhaps the Ullswater pilot was as equally skilled and wanted a bit of fun.


coldair

[India Four Two]

This guy knows how to fly and handle his aeroplane.

Yes, it's Steve Henry, the same pilot who did the dead-stick takeoff video. ;)

[piperboy84]

Perhaps the Ullswater pilot was as equally skilled and wanted a bit of fun

Or even more skilled, the US waterskiing vid looks like a few feet of water at most, The Ullswater guy was "all in" when it comes to depths and temps.

[ShyTorque]

Judging by the wheel tracks, the dead stick takeoff was practiced quite a few times prior to the video.....

But isn't this what hang glider pilots do every takeoff?

What's more, I watched a James Bond film where 007 did a dead stick takeoff in a helicopter from the back of another aircraft. Now that that was impressive....

[Stanwell]

ShyTorque,
I'm not sure how one would "practice" dead-stick take-offs from a spot like that.
(EDIT: Perhaps by "practice" you mean take-off with engine running?).

Hang-glider pilots do indeed practice take-offs - but generally from low sandhills and the like.

The James Bond stunt aircraft was a gyrocopter, ISTR. (I'm open to correction on that one).

[9 lives]

Assuming it's the owner of the Maule

Thanks NorthSouth, I have no information associated with this event, other than what I read here....

I have noticed in my flying career that there are pilots with unusually good hands and feet skills, whose sense of judgement, caution, and/or regulatory compliance is sometimes not in sync with their basic flying skills, and sense of adventure or daring.

During my wreck recovery days, I met some of these pilots, though a few had been removed before I got there....

[9 lives]

Oh I dunno... I've eaten many a fine omelet with no egg shell in it whatever.... Careful cook....

[SpannerInTheWerks]

6 dead this year so far in what appear to be weather related accidents caused, possibly, by a lack of judgment and/or over confidence in their abilities and yet this 'clown' seems to be achieving cult hero in the eyes of some with comments such as:

I'll never be up to his level of competence but I admire him for his skill and knowledge & handling of his aircraft.

There is a time and a place to 'push boundaries' and this is not an example of one of them.

Doesn't send out the right message and is an affront to flying training in the UK.

I give up.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

What are you giving up, spanner? Tilting at windmills?

[SpannerInTheWerks]

A belief that anyone has any common sense anymore.

[Above The Clouds]

Spanner
Doesn't send out the right message and is an affront to flying training in the UK.

How on earth do you connect flying training in the UK and this incident, the aircraft is N reg for a start, talk about jumping to conclusions.

[Stanwell]

I thought that those aspiring to membership of the Curmudgeon Club
were supposed to end their posts with "Harrumph!".

[Crash one]

What on earth has this to do with flight training?

[9 lives]

What on earth has this to do with flight training?

Training, particularly initial training, is a great opportunity to impart an attitude of responsible pilot behavior.

Oh yeah, Harrumph... ('cause I'm still alive to say it...)

[Pace]

6 dead this year so far in what appear to be weather related accidents caused, possibly, by a lack of judgment and/or over confidence in their abilities

I cannot see what that has to do with solid handling skills which would allow a pilot like this to perform such a stunt. Whether using those skills on such a stunt is advisable is another matter but he obviously has good handling skills.

Many of the IMC related accidents are due to a lack of handling skills and an over reliance on modern pilot aids, autopilots and advanced navigation aids which just maybe coaxing pilots into weather they are not really up to flying without those aids. Hence I would say the very opposite to that argument

Pace

[Flying Lawyer]

Step Turn ….. I thought to myself of someone wanting to waterski such a piece of history - can they not simply be happy with their opportunity to fly it at all? Or, to fly anything at all??I am certain they derive enormous enjoyment from their flying. They are all professional pilots who choose to display in their free time.
I fully understand your enjoyment of your first flight in a Harvard but, is it possible (as SSD suggested) that if you had more hours in the type that you might be tempted to try something more ambitious than simply flying it?
If an aircraft or type is very rare, some people argue that there is a moral obligation not to risk losing it but, ultimately, that decision is for the owner(s) to make. (Some aviation enthusiasts even believe that historic aircraft should only do fly-pasts at displays, not aeros. :rolleyes: )

I shared this 'piece of history' with a couple of friends for about four years -
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Aviation/Harvard_FT391_800.jpg

Even if I'd had the opportunity to waterski it I would not have done so because I don't have sufficient skill (or courage), but I respect the right of others to do what they wish with their aircraft. (I would have been concerned if one of the friends had wanted to try water-skiing our Harvard, but would have had no concerns if the other had wanted to do it.)

Copy-cat
I learnt to fly a Harvard (actually SNJ-5 Texan) from a farm strip near Harlingen Texas many years ago, and my instructor was an experienced crop-duster. (I was required to check out in a Stearman first – wonderful aircraft.) I was lost in admiration for his precision and handling skills. Did I ever try to emulate his low level manoeuvres ? No. I didn't (and still don't) have his phenomenal ability. However, if I had tried and things ended badly, there would be no-one to blame but me. I'd be horrified at the thought that someone might criticise him for demonstrating the manoeuvres. I accept full responsibility for my own actions.
I used to display the Harvard with pilots whose experience and expertise far exceeded my own. (They flew the more exotic WW2 fighters.) The same principles applied.
If I had exceeded my own limitations it would have been no-one's fault but my own.

Risk v Benefit
Does pure enjoyment count as benefit?
A friend and I ferried his single across the Atlantic (in the days before GPS).
Risk: Realistically, even with a dry-suit, life-jacket and dinghy the chance of surviving an engine failure in the middle of the North Atlantic is close to zero.
Benefit: None - apart from the opportunity of a lifetime (for me) and, if successful, a sense of achievement and the happy memories of having done it.
Irresponsible? Unprofessional approach to flying?

It's okay to waterski a land plane, I wanna come = It's okay to speed around the blind corner, I wanna come - the way I see it. I had the privilege of meeting Scully Levin, leader of the water-skiing Harvards, at a dinner I helped organise in Cape Town in 2009: Link here (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/265662-alex-henshaw-rip-2.html#post4789504)
When I next visit South Africa I certainly intend to take up his kind invitation to fly with him and, if the flight includes some water-skiing, so much the better.
No, I don't speed around blind corners.

In our modern, risk averse, over regulated, nanny-state world, I have more than a passing admiration for people who push the boundaries and are prepared to take risks - provided, of course, that they risk only their own lives and/or that of a voluntary informed passenger. Probably my rebellious streak which I've had to keep in check.
In a world of ubiquitous phone cameras, the old adage of 'Do it once and don't go back' is sometimes even more important than it used to be. ;)

Dan_Brown
There are two people in aviation. One is a person who tries to stay out of trouble. The other is a person who looks for trouble. Look for trouble long enough, you'll find it.
The above behavior is a sign of inexperience and or SPS. (small penis syndrome) It is not worth the risk and gives aviators a bad name.
Scully Levin is not inexperienced. He's been flying for 45 years and has more than 27,000 hours. He was Head of Training when he retired from SAA aged 60 and now flies for a smaller airline. In 30+ years of display flying (solo and formation) he has flown more than 2000 displays – and still counting.
SPS? He is one of the most highly respected pilots in South Africa and has been honoured for his enormous contribution to aviation there. He doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. He displays because he enjoys it.

-------

Ra_khhzuFlE

He'd be fired these days.

[Pace]

In our modern, risk averse, over regulated, nanny-state world, I have more than a passing admiration for people who push the boundaries and are prepared to take risks

FL

I totally agree with you on that sentiment! What happened to the pioneering days? first man on the moon creation of Concorde beautiful aircraft designs like the Vulcan bomber have gone to be replaced by the era of the computer where everyone knows everything about everyone oh well another congestion charge just dropped through the door because I was held in traffic exiting the congestion zone in London at 0703 three minutes after it came into force :ugh:
So something inside me gives a little smile when someone gives two fingers to that nanny state :ok: and the holier than thou disapproving attitude instilled in so many minds nowadays

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Even if I'd had the opportunity to waterski it I would not have done so because I don't have sufficient skill (or courage)

Flying light aircraft, privately, in the UK is not about 'courage'. In common with aviation in general it should be about common sense, adhering to aviation law, maintaining flight safety and setting a good example to those around you - NOT just what you fancy doing!

Great remark from a 'lawyer' - NOT!

In our modern, risk averse, over regulated, nanny-state world, I have more than a passing admiration for people who push the boundaries and are prepared to take risks - provided, of course, that they risk only their own lives and/or that of a voluntary informed passenger. Probably my rebellious streak which I've had to keep in check. In a world of ubiquitous phone cameras, the old adage of 'Do it once and don't go back' is sometimes even more important than it used to be.

Scenario for the Flying 'Lawyer':

My client apologises your Honour for his reckless driving, although it was at night on an empty motorway, and appreciates he attained speeds in excess of 140 mph, but he didn't hurt anyone - and, to be honest, in this risk averse, over regulated, nanny-state world, I have more than a passing admiration for people who push the boundaries and are prepared to take risks - provided, of course, that they risk only their own lives and/or that of a voluntary informed passenger.

As I said I give up!

[Flying Lawyer]

SpannerInTheWerks Great remark from a 'lawyer' - NOT! I am not, and have never claimed to be, a 'saint' in any aspect of life. (I claim to be honest but admit to 'social' exceptions when answering honestly would hurt or offend.)
Contrary to popular belief, lawyers are human beings.
Some even post on aviation forums.

Scenario for the Flying 'Lawyer':
Fine and disqualification in any court, unless the speeding was in very exceptional circumstances.
Lawyers' personal opinions are wholly irrelevant.
You haven't said what was "reckless" about the defendant's driving in your scenario so I can't comment upon that aspect.

As I said I give up!I'm not sure what you are giving up but, whatever it is, that's your free choice.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I could almost buy the argument of people choosing to use the freedom to fly as the see fit to go do some unorthodox flying if they did it in a place and way that they would not be observed. The reality is the majority of these stunts , including this one, seem to be deliberately performed in a way that ensures the " hero" pilot gets an audience.

At this point the "freedom to fly as you see fit" point looses its power. The actions of one pilot now begin to affect every pilot. It feeds the narrative that private pilots are reckless, rich fools, and the drip, drip, drip, of anti GA measures gathers steam.

I owned 2 float planes and paid dearly for insurance. Part of the reason was the number of private float plane owners that did stupid things with their own airplane. My enthusiasm for risk taking float plane pilots got pretty low every spring when I had to write the big cheque...........

[Flying Lawyer]

Big Pistons Forever

Just for the avoidance of any misunderstanding - my thoughts in theory and my actions in practice when flying are not the same.
I have always done my utmost to fly safely and legally.


And just out of curiosity -
Do you/did you fly air tankers out of Kamloops?

[9 lives]

my thoughts in theory and my actions in practice when flying are not the same.

What I think about flying safely, and what I do to fly safely, are the same. What I post about flying will convey my approach to safety, without ambiguity - how could I not?

When I have to take a risk, I acknowledge that, and mitigate as much as possible toward safety.

[Flying Lawyer]

Step Turn
What I think about flying safely, and what I do to fly safely, are the same. What I post about flying will convey my approach to safety, without ambiguity - how could I not?Since what you think and what you do are the same, the issue doesn't arise.


The idea of flying through Tower Bridge appeals to me. (A competent and current pilot could fly a light aircraft through it entirely safely.)
The idea appeals to me - in theory.
Would I do it?
No, because I'd be breaking the law.
Would I think badly of someone who did?
No, provided it was carefully planned and executed safely.
Do I think they should be punished?
Of course; 'criminal' laws are enforced by sanctions.

A very good friend of mine did this (at about 200 kts):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/PieceofCakePE.jpg

It was carefully planned and executed safely.
Would I like to do it?
Yes - in theory.
Would I do it?
No. It was a 'piece of cake' for him but I don't have the skill.


When I have to take a risk, I acknowledge that, and mitigate as much as possible toward safety.So do I.
However, I suspect we might differ about what 'have to take a risk' means.
I have a cautious approach to flying; that is my choice. However, I certainly wouldn't argue that no-one should take a risk of any sort unless it has to be taken. In my view it depends upon the nature and degree of the risk and the circumstances. (Including whether anyone else is put at risk.)

(Edit)

Just as a BTW ....

Flying in breach of aviation rules/laws does not necessarily mean flying unsafely,
any more than breaking the speed limit is necessarily dangerous.
Both depend upon the particular law and the circumstances.

[tecman]

Well, one reason for occasionally entertaining the opinions of others comes from the maturity of recognizing that life is an ambiguous business, and that intelligent people will sometimes differ in their priorities and resulting judgements. Furthermore, one person may consciously choose to tweak their priorities according to their choice of activity. For example, I've known airline pilots who choose to push the boundaries of their private flying in ways which carry a much higher level of risk than they could ever consider in commercial flying.

While I may not undertake any particularly risky flying, it's very important to me that the law allows that competent individuals can reach different judgements, based on their own reasonably-held priorities. Clearly, there need to be boundaries but it's entirely possible to have a civil society which is not totally permission based.

(I see that FL's post expressing a similar view, more eloquently, has crossed with this one).

As far as PPRuNe goes, I enjoy reading the more thought-provoking posts more than the column-metres of rigid flying fundamentalism or the eternal (and periodically re-cycled) bouts of nostalgia.

[9 lives]

I recognize that a large factor in my unwillingness to accept public displays of horsing around in aircraft is probably that I have already flown the better part of a lifetime, including doing some silly things. I do accept that for me, I don't need to do them again, yet these may be same things which other pilots are very eager to experience.

I can see that a pilot would want to land on water - it's a wonderful experience! Get the training, and use a seaplane! A pilot might want to fly aerobatics, take the training, and use an aerobatic plane. And on and on with all the things you can do in the sky. They make an aircraft suited to it, and training is available - I stand for using the right tool... So to me, using a wheelplane to land in the water, is kinda like using pliers on a seized bolt - get the correct wrench! The pliers might work, but it also might end up much worse. A good workman knows the right tool for a job, and uses it.

Now I know pilots occasionally "go off" and "do things" in planes. I've sure done some dumb things in the wrong plane, which no one saw. You're not going to read about them here! For me, they are history.

Instead I think about the impression we are leaving in the more impressionable minds of very new pilots, about what the very experienced pilots, they might like to hold as peers one day, think about horsing around in planes. If the wise old owl pilots and nanny state pilots are saying "oh sure, that's all kinds of fun" in remarking about daring do horsing around in planes. We ingrain a culture of "the rules and limitations are meant for someone else, I can do what I want".

Yes, you can break air regs and fly safely - 'been there, done that. But that needs to be the rare exception, rather than the rule. That's where we draw the new pilot reg breaker along side as a peer, and say "yup, every now and again, when you've boxed yourself in, you may have to...... but keep it to a minimum, and be really careful". It's not: "who cares about the regs, they're dumb anyway...."!

The air regulations are MINE, I am a citizen. They are a regulatory tool in my society - they serve MY needs as a citizen (even if they are inconvenient to me as a pilot). If I'm not willing to follow them, I either seek and obtain an exemption - which I have done in the past, or I don't fly.

So if there were ever a time I were edging a regulation, you sure would not be reading about it here - much less would I want it celebrated here. I would be hoping that if it were ever found out, my peers would say: "yeah, sometimes you 'gotta", in stead of: "Oh, not again!

If I'm flying my plane, I'll be flying as though your kids are aboard. If I'm flying your plane, I'll fly it as though you were aboard. But, if nothing else, PPRuNe will not be a venue where I will allow my flying to be seen as a "watch me do something that I really know I should not do".

All that said, my feelings about this, and my sense of peer mentoring on PPRuNe, don't have to prevail, or be persuasive, they are just mine, and I can post here as anyone else can....

[Jetblu]

So I take that you coming out with me to barrel roll the C310 as a no. ;)

[9 lives]

Thanks Jetblu, I will appreciatively decline your thoughtful offer. With a couple hundred hours flying 303's, 310s and 340s, I can appreciate their pleasing handling, though I've never had one upside down.

I had occasion years ago to have to check fly a club 172. Per club rules, they sent an instructor along to check me out. Late in the flight, he asked if I would show him a roll. He seemed genuinely disappointed that I would not. He learned a lesson in my self restraint. I'm confident that I would have SSD's complete support when I say that a 172 is a yucky plane to roll, but I'm just guessing....

[Flying Lawyer]

I have no urge to roll a 172 - either in theory or in practice. :)

[Jetblu]

A 172

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9nODIECB78



A 310

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXvTQJC-rQQ


A 340

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swGxwf90piM


Even a Citation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwUFPPy5qnI



I think we can put the theory side to bed. :)



Step - you can be my wingman any day ;)

[SpannerInTheWerks]

I once flew a Dash 8 under the Golden Gate Bridge - so I appreciate the photograph of the Spitfire!


Contrary to popular belief, lawyers are human beings.

... but do lawyers believe that?!

[Flying Lawyer]

Most of us do. :)

Some people would say lawyers and professional pilots share at least one personality trait. ;)
(Perhaps true of some individuals in both professions.)



Please tell us more about flying the Dash 8 under the Golden Gate Bridge.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I've looped a 737 around Runcorn bridge and landed on Liverpool's 27 off the loop.

Most entertaining, MS flight sim!

[Pace]

I don't want to go into much detail but I did a renewal with a CAA / FAA examiner in a twin!
Having impressed the guy with a pretty good test and locked onto the ILS for the final time to land!
He took the controls,stated I had never done this before and barrel rolled the twin on the ILS coming out still on the localiser and glide
Pretty impressive

Pace

[Heliport]

Take that as you will


Since we don't know the cause(s) of the crash it would be unwise to infer anything from it.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Most of us do.

Some people would say lawyers and professional pilots share at least one personality trait.
(Perhaps true of some individuals in both professions.)



Please tell us more about flying the Dash 8 under the Golden Gate Bridge.

LOL :)

Sorry to say it was in the sim - in Paris in 2001, I think!!! :O

[India Four Two]

Talking of bridges, this looks like more of a challenge than the Golden Gate:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/070a2099a5a06e5539fbcde82e60fb5a_zpsqkpdsoua.jpg

A non-pilot friend of mine recently flew Concorde through Tower Bridge and sent me the evidence. :ok:

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Very good! :ok:

Yes, the Golden Gate was a piece of cake, followed by a stall turn, then return to land ... happy days!

[ETOPS]

You may remember the video of a Maule practicing water landings on tundra tyres and the somewhat hysterical reaction by the public and police...

Scots pilot who sparked plane crash alert over Lake District by skimming aircraft on Ullswater walks free from court - Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-pilot-who-sparked-plane-7555470#0E8CAbyXDs1J8iaZ.97)

Not guilty and costs awarded against the CAA......

[9 lives]

Perhaps good representation...

Perhaps his actions were found to be in that grey zone of not prosecutable, but in my opinion, still not entirely wise when it alarms the public either. When we as fire fighters do water training which may attract public attention, and perhaps well intended emergency calls, we notify local emergency dispatch and the police before we do it. It is fair that the public be confused with a wheel plane doing water touch and goes!

[piperboy84]

Well done, he must have taken a celebration flight today, I heard him on the radio heading North while I was heading South, nice to hear a fellow Mauler dodged the bullet.

[Planemike]

but in my opinion, still not entirely wise when it alarms the public either. !


If he has not broken the law, he is innocent. What the public thinks is neither here nor there.........

[Jan Olieslagers]

There's more to wisdom than innocence ...

Well done, though, on the pilot for having correctly judged what he could do - both technically and legally.

[Jetblu]

I do remember this previous thread and locking horns with one or two.

So common sense did prevail after all. Thank God for that. I see no 'grey area' whatsoever. I saw a 'water area' where the pilot operated within the Air Navigation Order and the 500' rule.

Too many numpties walking about in sandals and eating ice creams reporting these things, which was a clearly a non event from the video. These numpties need to get themselves down to the Fire Station and play with the Firemen who I'm sure will amuse them on their tenders.

Best wishes to the pilot and Counsel.

[Stanwell]

Good to hear.
I do remember, though, my old man once counselling me with the words...
"Son, do what you like .. 'cept don't frighten the women or the horses."
Mind you, that was back in the days when most people did at least have a bit of a grip on reality.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Perhaps the CAA should be prosecuted (or somehow publicly reprimanded) for bringing such a ridiculous charge when it was pretty clear the Maule pilot was unlikely to have broken any laws.

[Legalapproach]

Perhaps good representation...

You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment

[flybymike]

His lawyer was evidently Francis Urquhart.

[megan]

God forbid the lentil munchers saw this lot in action. The RAF would have been called out to shoot them down.

PeeAI1wTMiA

[India Four Two]

I am absolutely delighted that the CAA lost and doubly so that they had to pay all costs. Perhaps this will encourage them to get on with their proper jobs rather than pursuing what they view as an "easy victory".


The technique of hydro-planing was recommended by the manufacturers of the Maule.

Really? PB84, any comment?

flybymike, you beat me to it! Legalapproach is probably known to his friends as FU. ;)

[N-Jacko]

You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment

But I could, and I will.

I would like publicly to thank my Counsel whose well-informed and careful cross-questioning of a CAA aerodrome inspector resulted in the trial being stopped after less than two hours of its scheduled three days.

[Flyingmac]

Result. :D:D:D

[Capt Kremmen]

I fully expect that this case will result in the CAA having a much better sense of proportion.

I'll repeat this opinion on April 1st.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Nearly laughed my head off, dear Captain!

[The Ancient Geek]

I would like publicly to thank my Counsel whose well-informed and careful cross-questioning of a CAA aerodrome inspector resulted in the trial being stopped after less than two hours of its scheduled three days.

Well done that man, but I suspect that you are now a marked man and they have their beady eye on you. Time to be a good boy for a few years.

[N-Jacko]

Well done that man, but I suspect that you are now a marked man and they have their beady eye on you. Time to be a good boy for a few years.

I think it may be rather the reverse; the CAA General Counsel has just squandered about £70,000 of aviation consumers' hard-earned cash on three hopeless and improper charges; she will surely be on her best behaviour until she has furnished a report to her Board of Directors.

Incidentally, a recent FOI request revealed that the office of the General Counsel has obtained convictions in barely one in four contested cases since April 2011. More holidaymakers' money down the drain...

[N-Jacko]

On a more serious note, can we stop calling him a "Maule pilot". I mean, it's fair enough to describe any one of his landings as a "crash", but there's no call to mock his aeroplane...

Jacko

[abgd]

It strikes me that a transcript of such a decisive cross-examination could be quite entertaining. Is there one available?

[UV]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek View Post
Well done that man, but I suspect that you are now a marked man and they have their beady eye on you. Time to be a good boy for a few years.

I think it may be rather the reverse;

Mmm... they would never admit it but they don't forget....The Ancient Geek has it!

[N-Jacko]

Mmm... they would never admit it but they don't forget....The Ancient Geek has it!
I certainly hope that they won't forget - at least not as quickly as the General Counsel seems to have buried her Chief Executive's Red Tape Challenge and GA Policy Framework promises to give GA participants ownership of our personal risks.

[The Ancient Geek]

There is, however, an important safety lesson here - people see what they expect to see and miss what is really there. This has led to many accidents, some fatal. Look again and check twice, don't let your brain deceive you.

[N-Jacko]

As a Yorkshire solicitor has written: "it is very rare for defence costs to be awarded in criminal cases these days, so it says a lot about the merits of the case against you that they were awarded in this instance."

At very least, the CAA General Counsel and her staff will have to be on their best behaviour for six years.

[Wageslave]

One can only wonder at the irresponsibility of the onlookers who watched an aeroplane flying away intact from a non event and called 999 to report a crash. It is they who should be prosecuted.
How stupid can the public be?

[Genghis the Engineer]

A good outcome.

Pilots in charge of their own aeroplanes should be making their own safety decisions and especially when there are no passengers or people underneath, should not be being second guessed in a court of law.

I would be interested, if anybody is in a position to comment, on the legal basis on which the court decision was reached?

G

[ShyTorque]

I do wonder about some decisions made in the enforcement branch of the CAA.

As a chief pilot of a helicopter operation I was asked to respond to a quite threatening letter from them following accusations by a local resident of multiple, daily breaches of the "Low flying" rules, by all of our pilots, myself included, when flying in and out of our base.

I pointed out that we were limited by a number of factors when taking off and landing at our base, but our operations complied with all of the low flying regulations. Even though, as a police operation, we were actually exempt from them.

I seemed to be having to tell the CAA what their own rules were. They should already have known that the 500 foot rule doesn't apply to aircraft taking off or landing and because our newly commissioned (and CAA approved) base wasn't in a congested area, the 1,000 foot rule was never a factor.

[9 lives]

I really do recognize that I have a differing viewpoint to others here. My viewpoint includes looking at such an event from "other" sides, for better or worse...

One can only wonder at the irresponsibility of the onlookers who watched an aeroplane flying away intact from a non event and called 999 to report a crash. It is they who should be prosecuted.
How stupid can the public be?

Perhaps the onlooker was startled by an event very unfamiliar to them, and played up by the hype of the media in other aviation events - maybe their 999 call was placed and received before the pilot applied power, and went around. Up until that point, it could have looked like an impending accident to most citizens.

In my 25 years as a firefighter, I have had a number of occasions to interview a 911 (=999) caller, and every time they thought they were doing the better thing, in good conscience, to help a stranger. Is there a line at which that good will should stop? Shall we teach the public at large all the unusual things a plane can do, which should not worry them? Our fire department has spent tens of thousands seeking out non events, called in with good will, ans sometimes, it has been a person actually doing something which alarmed an uninformed citizen.

Though heavy CAA prosecution is heavy handed in this event, I still find some form of official "gee, we'd rather that you don't do that please" reasonable. Now the CAA goes off feeling a bit unsuccessful, but still believing that they represented the larger public interest, and who's to say they are not? If you ask a broad cross section of society if wheel plane touch and goes on public bodies of water are desirable, I bet the median answer would be negative - we pilots are the minority! In the mean time, the CAA has made a note to self that perhaps a new regulation about this is needed - that won't help us!

Decades ago, I stopped buzzing people, running the prop full fine when it did not need to be, doing aerobatics within sight of communities, and landing in places where the public could see, and could reasonably think I should not be landing. I choose this as a part of my effort on behalf of those pilots yet to come, so I was not a cause for more regulation, nor disdain for general aviation. I want to continue to earn either acceptance, or at least tolerance, of non fliers - who greatly out number me. They have the power to regulate, and I would have to apply great effort to resist.

So sorry we don't agree here, but my desire to be often harmonious with the public is not wrong either.

And... I've paid a silly amount for hotel internet, while I await an important email, so I may as well use it for something in the mean time! :hmm:

[Flying Lawyer]

I would be interested, if anybody is in a position to comment, on the legal basis on which the court decision was reached?
From the press report: The pilot faced two charges of being reckless and negligent in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft and any person on board.

(It is actually 'or or any person in an aircraft.')


The offence of endangering may be committed either recklessly or negligently, the former being more serious than the latter.
Both forms of the offence require the Prosecution to prove endangering.
The Defence argued that there was no endangering.

From the report: The District Judge (Magistrates Court) dismissed the case, saying: “I am not satisfied that there is any evidence that this aircraft was in any danger.”




Well done barrister Stephen Spence. :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Well done indeed and thanks for the expansion FL.

G

[Flying Lawyer]

Step TurnThough heavy CAA prosecution is heavy handed in this eventI'm puzzled by your use of "heavy handed".
That term would be appropriate, and is commonly used, when someone has committed an offence but prosecuting them for it is harsh - OTT in colloquial language. Or where there are two (or more) offences for which someone could be prosecuted and the prosecution choose the most serious.
The circumstances here were very different.

The judge considered the prosecution's allegation and the expert evidence they adduced in support of their allegation - more accurately, what was left of it after it had been probed/tested under cross-examination - and concluded there was no evidence that the pilot had endangered the aircraft.

That exercise should have been undertaken by the CAA before they elected to prosecute. ie A critical analysis by the prosecution of its own evidence and arguments.
Perhaps more appropriate descriptions might be ill-founded, ill-conceived or misguided.
Now the CAA goes off feeling a bit unsuccessfulA bit?
Unless I have misunderstood (I invited correction if I have), this wasn't a case where the judge heard evidence from both sides and ultimately found in favour of the defence.
He stopped the case at the conclusion of the prosecution evidence because they failed to show, even on their account, that an offence had been committed. In colloquial language, he stopped the case at half-time.

[piperboy84]

You gotta hand it to Peter for putting his money where his mouth is, he probably could have accepted a slap on the wrist at the beginning, but stuck to his guns because he believed he was right with all the financial risk that entailed including paying his lawyer and CAA costs if it had went against him. Takes balls to take on "the man" and win.

Again well done Peter, you've done us all a favour.

[flybymike]

I must admit that I'm still curious as to how it was possible to persuade a judge that flying an aeroplane with its wheels (rather than floats) dipped in the water, can be done without endangering an aircraft or its occupants.
A well publicised event, by a now deceased pilot, resulting in an upturned aircraft in a river some years ago, may have fuelled the CAA's reasoning in the matter, although I understand that the "official" circumstances surrounding the latter case were not "clear" and presumably in any event not admissible in evidence.

[Flying Lawyer]

I must admit that I'm still curious as to how it was possible to persuade a judge that flying an aeroplane with its wheels (rather than floats) dipped in the water, can be done without endangering an aircraft or its occupants.



How much do you know about hydro-planing aka aquaplaning in an aircraft? NB. Know, not think.
(Water-skiing was originally called aquaplaning.)
Or about doing so intentionally in this aircraft type when equipped with wide low-inflated tyres?
Or what the aircraft manufacturer (Maule) says about doing so?





NB: It was not for the defence to persuade the judge that the flying did not constitute endangering but for the prosecution to persuade him that it did.
Innocent unless proved guilty.

[9 lives]

and concluded there was no evidence that the pilot had endangered the aircraft.

I know I'm on the unpopular side of this topic (but someone often is..., this time - me), and I have no special knowledge of the judicial proceedings, nor detailed legal aspects, so I'm trying to not speak of what I do not understand... but...

How much do you know about hydro-planing aka aquaplaning in an aircraft? NB. Know, not think.
(Water-skiing was originally called aquaplaning.)
Or about doing so intentionally in this aircraft type when equipped with wide low-inflated tyres? (I acknowledge this was not directed to me, but I'll take it anyway).

As I have previously discussed, I have done this in a 180 and 185 - at night, to save them from certain hull loss. A risk which worked, but a risk none the less.

More to the point, twice this year, I have responded as a fire fighter - more specifically, an ice rescue specialist, to rescue snow mobiliers who had chosen to operate their snowmobiles across known unsafe ice, or indeed open water deliberately. I personally pulled a very cold an wet fellow out of icy water, and walked him a few hundred yards to dry ground, and a warm ambulance. Cost to society for that.

the pilot had endangered the aircraft I care little for the aircraft, nor the snowmobile, other than they'll have to clean up their mess after the sinking - including pollution from escaped liquids. It's the person, danger to themselves, and possibly rescuers. We're not supposed to leave them to drown or freeze - society frowns on that. Shoreline property owners hate bodies washing up on shore - and that does happen on our lake every few years! It grosses out the kids on the beach. So, we spend a fortune and big risk to recover bodies. I have personally axe chopped a hole thorough 6" thick ice to pull out a body. Failed snowmobiling. Had he worn a floating suit, he would have survived.

I have no idea in this event, but I suspect it is possible that the aircraft was not equipped as a vessel, and the pilot not prepared for emergency water entry. (I am prepared to eat my words, if it turns out that all marine emergency equipment was carried, in order, and accessible). "Dangerous operation of an aircraft" is heavy handed - I know that it can be done safely - I've done it. But, the pilot elected to become a marine operator, did he assure compliance with those safety based requirements?

Many PPRuNe posts present recoil in horror with the notion that aerobactics might be flown without the pilot wearing a parachute and having training with it. Fine. Was this pilot wearing a life jacket or immersion suit if cold water? Had they received underwater egress training? (I do, and have). Maybe not? Where's the standard PPRuNe horror now?

Yeah, prosecution was heavy handed, and if 70,000 in lawyers, wasteful. But that waste, does not in my eyes, swing the whole thing around to the pilot being a hero right off either. Did the pilot assure that his actions were executed safely, and with consideration of society's norms? I remain unconvinced, and am not yet celebrating the pilot's flying decisions.

[Flying Lawyer]

Step Turn

I acknowledge this was not directed to me,

Correct. It wasn't.

but I'll take it anyway.
How predictable.
Regaling us with your anecdotes obviously gives you a great deal of pleasure, whether you are prepared to admit it or not.

am not yet celebrating the pilot's flying decisions.
I have yet to see you celebrating the acquittal of any pilot prosecuted by a regulator.

[9 lives]

Regaling us with your anecdotes obviously gives you a great deal of pleasure, whether you are prepared to admit it or not

Very true!

My participation here is entirely voluntary. It's only perceivable reward is my pleasure - why else would I bother?

It gives me pleasure to think that what I write might influence the decision making of impressionable pilots, and inspire them to consider flying with greater safety. I am eternally indebted to those pilots who have impressed me with mature piloting, and have, in doing so, most certainly saved my life!

I do know that some pilots are beyond impression - so be it!

I regale with anecdotes to assure that readers may know my first hand point of view in some cases - sort of the intended opposite of the "armchair" perspective some are accused of. Decide for yourself if it is relevant, I'm just stating what I know....

[N-Jacko]

I know that it can be done safely - I've done it..

From your previous account I doubt that. I doubt, for instance, that you had calculated and taken steps to optimise the aircraft's minimum hydroplaning speed or even its reserve buoyancy (if any). I'm not even sure that you had optimised the aircraft's centre of mass (within the permitted envelope) for the purpose of hydroplaning. If you did, fair play to you.

If not, I'm not criticising, but I submit that these are simple actions/precautions which only take a couple of minutes and yet contribute greatly to the safety of the procedure.

[flybymike]

How much do you know about hydro-planing aka aquaplaning in an aircraft? NB. Know, not think.
(Water-skiing was originally called aquaplaning.)
Or about doing so intentionally in this aircraft type when equipped with wide low-inflated tyres?
Or what the aircraft manufacturer (Maule) says about doing so?


I know absolutely zero about hydro planing and/or Aqua planing.

That is precisely why I said (quite genuinely) that I was curious. Please don't assume that my curiosity implies that I disagree with the judgment. It merely implies that I'm curious.

[Flying Lawyer]

Mike


Understood. :ok:
I thought that might be the case - my questions were also genuine.
I have never done it but I know it can be done safely - as demonstrated by the Ullswater pilot.

I have an long-standing invitation to ride with the leader of the South African Harvard team but have not yet had an opportunity to take up his very kind offer.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/T6_team_crop1.jpg

I co-owned a Harvard for some years but was never tempted to try.
Partly because I don't think I had sufficient skill, certainly not the confidence. :)



Step Turn

Everyone here participates for pleasure.

The fact remains that you have yet to celebrate the acquittal of a fellow pilot prosecuted by a regulator.

Yeah, prosecution was heavy handed
I can only assume that 'heavy handed' means something different in Canada.
I have already explained what it means here.

FL

[ShyTorque]

My participation here is entirely voluntary. It's only perceivable reward is my pleasure - why else would I bother?

Shame. The rest of us get paid. :rolleyes:

[Pace]

Every time we step into an aircraft there is risk and to a great extent flying if you want to live is about risk management
We have a thread running in flying over water in a SEP.Some are not happy to do that others will ferry across the North Atlantic in mid winter!
It's about the level of risk you are prepared to take
A lot of aviation laws sit in a grey area as it is difficult without admittance to prove something!
An example is a pilot who flies below minima on an ILS if he says he was visual with the approach lights at 200 feet and the airport were reporting 100 feet overcast no one can prove there wasn't a hole in that cloud
Not so with RVR minima which can be proven
A lot of CAA prosecutions will be on a weak basis
I am torn as the free spirit pioneering side of me loves to see anti mummy state gestures by pilots and I am very pleased with the outcome of this case with a caveat!
Like in all risk management the pilot has to know his or her limits and fly within those limits and to do this stunt by an experienced pilot is great as are all stunts where pilots push the limits
I saw an amazing video where a pilot rolled his aircraft down a steep mountain slope engine off
Achieving flying speed he rotated and glided all the way to a landing strip in the valley all without engine
Great I admired his skills and courage
The danger is pilots emulating that who don't have the skills and there are far too many accidents with pilots flying out of their limits
But well done with this one ))

Pace

[bingofuel]

I think there is an acceptance among the public, or those outwith an area of expertise to sometimes assume that because something initially appears 'wrong' or possibly reckless or dangerous then that is how they perceive it.

However, once the incident is examined in detail and knowledgable persons have explained that what at face value appears reckless is actually not, then people may change their view.

I will admit, initially I would have considered the incident reckless behaviour, but having read the comments on here accept that it was not.

Whether it was wise is not relevant to the prosecution.

[N-Jacko]

The procedure is pretty well documented by now (see for instance the articles and links at Glenswinton airfield data sheet (http://www.glenswinton.co.uk)), and in principle it's no more difficult than any other landing.

At this stage I don't want to say more about the trial, other than to thank my Counsel and others who gave help and advice and to underline how rare it is these days for English courts to award costs against a prosecutor.

I have written to CAA Chief Executive Andrew Haines to ask how he proposes to pay for this fiasco without penalising holidaymakers and private pilots. A more suitable source of funds might the board's or the General Counsel's bonus and benefits pot.

Of longer-term concern is whether Mr Haines's assurances in the context of the GA Red Tape Challenge and GA Policy Framework can be taken at face value. To my mind there was a conflict between this prosecution and his assurance that GA participants are to be allowed ownership of our personal risks. He has promised me that he will provide clarification on this issue.

Kind regards to all,
Peter.

[9 lives]

To my mind there was a conflict between this prosecution and his assurance that GA participants are to be allowed ownership of our personal risks. He has promised me that he will provide clarification on this issue.

That does sound fair, believing that those taking the person risks, would inform themselves, and minimize risk and inconvenience to non participants.

[ShyTorque]

Firstly, I'm glad to hear that common sense prevailed at the trial.

Unfortunately, the general public tend to be very poor at understanding aviation. A few years ago I landed a helicopter on a field, private property, with the full permission of the landowner (a totally routine flight for us, we do so almost every working day).

Ten minutes later there were four police cars and an ambulance in attendance. Someone had seen us land and wrongly assumed because we weren't at an airport we shouldn't have been landing and called 999.

Two questions from the police woman:

1. "Is this your vehicle, sir?
(She then added, with a nice smile and a wink: "I've always wanted to say that to a helicopter pilot!").

Answer: "Well sort of, it belongs to my employer".

2. "Have you crashed, sir?"

Answer: "No, I always land like that!"

(Landing away from airfields? It's what helicopters are for, dear.... )

[flybymike]

The fact remains that you have yet to celebrate the acquittal of a fellow pilot prosecuted by a regulator.

Shortly to become, regulator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner if they get their way.

(FL Don't reserve a space for me in a Harvard ;))

[Heliport]

ShyTorque


Very funny story. :ok:

(I didn't see it when you posted it in March.)

[dublinpilot]

2. "Have you crashed, sir?"

Answer: "No, I always land like that!"

I love it! :D