CAA Gone Bonkers
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,643
Received 300 Likes
on
168 Posts
this is a multimap image of the area.
It's hardly congested.
I've had various WWII aircraft overfly my house in connection with activties at the old Croydon Airport, which is a considerably more built up area. Also had Alan Wade performing unlimited aeros in an Extra over a nearby park some years ago.
A straight and level flyby at a reasonable level (500 feet?) would seem OK to me. So what is the problem CAA?
It's hardly congested.
I've had various WWII aircraft overfly my house in connection with activties at the old Croydon Airport, which is a considerably more built up area. Also had Alan Wade performing unlimited aeros in an Extra over a nearby park some years ago.
A straight and level flyby at a reasonable level (500 feet?) would seem OK to me. So what is the problem CAA?
Hang on,
That shows the centre of a town about 2 x 4miles in size, so a 500ft flypast, combined with a 10:1 glide ratio (this is an inspired guess, I've never flown a Spit) there is a substantial period where a failure of the single (and elderly) engine will give virtually no potential to avoid a crash into buildings, most likely houses.
A north-south flypast half a mile to the west of that site would be safe so long as there were appropriate turns to avoid Coventry and Nuneaton, so would a direct east-west overflight at, say, 1200ft (providing rule 5 compliance, although requiring a dispensation from the PtF conditions). But, if they are as you suggest asking for a 500ft overflight of the centre of the town, then I'm afraid that my sympathies are with the CAA for their primary stance, if not for their apparent inability to suggest an acceptable alternative.
I have absolute sympathy with the purpose and spirit of both memorial services, and any chance to display a Spitfire. But not at such a blatant risk to public safety. Surely the people getting all heated, should simply be negotiating and acceptable way to arrange an appropriate, but safe form of flypast rather than demanding the right to low-overfly a large connurbation in an elderly single-engined aeroplane - however historic.
Plus I see from the link that the primary aircraft is a C-47 doing a poppy-drop, which is CofA/multi and thus presents no similar problems.
G
That shows the centre of a town about 2 x 4miles in size, so a 500ft flypast, combined with a 10:1 glide ratio (this is an inspired guess, I've never flown a Spit) there is a substantial period where a failure of the single (and elderly) engine will give virtually no potential to avoid a crash into buildings, most likely houses.
A north-south flypast half a mile to the west of that site would be safe so long as there were appropriate turns to avoid Coventry and Nuneaton, so would a direct east-west overflight at, say, 1200ft (providing rule 5 compliance, although requiring a dispensation from the PtF conditions). But, if they are as you suggest asking for a 500ft overflight of the centre of the town, then I'm afraid that my sympathies are with the CAA for their primary stance, if not for their apparent inability to suggest an acceptable alternative.
I have absolute sympathy with the purpose and spirit of both memorial services, and any chance to display a Spitfire. But not at such a blatant risk to public safety. Surely the people getting all heated, should simply be negotiating and acceptable way to arrange an appropriate, but safe form of flypast rather than demanding the right to low-overfly a large connurbation in an elderly single-engined aeroplane - however historic.
Plus I see from the link that the primary aircraft is a C-47 doing a poppy-drop, which is CofA/multi and thus presents no similar problems.
G
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No to 500 feet
I have to agree that 500 feet would not be appropriate if that was asked for in the application.
The idea of 1200 feet would be fine with me if I were in the Chair.
The fields (east and west) within a mile of the two churches at the DZ could be considered - though the overhead power cables runinng N-S in the East are factors, whilst the western fields look clear.
I don't think anybody is "demanding" the right to overfly.
TG
The idea of 1200 feet would be fine with me if I were in the Chair.
The fields (east and west) within a mile of the two churches at the DZ could be considered - though the overhead power cables runinng N-S in the East are factors, whilst the western fields look clear.
I don't think anybody is "demanding" the right to overfly.
TG
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Slough
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, its lucky that the CAA was not in charge in WW2, because if they were then we would all be wearing jack boots and doing a funny walk.
Genghis -But not at such a blatant risk to public safety.
I don't think so, these aircraft are maintained to the highest standard, the pilots know exactly what they are doing, there is no Blatant Risk at all, there is risk as with everything in life, even stepping out of the front door, but Blatant, no.
Get Ray Hanna to do it at 50 feet and b@ll@cks to the CAA
Genghis -But not at such a blatant risk to public safety.
I don't think so, these aircraft are maintained to the highest standard, the pilots know exactly what they are doing, there is no Blatant Risk at all, there is risk as with everything in life, even stepping out of the front door, but Blatant, no.
Get Ray Hanna to do it at 50 feet and b@ll@cks to the CAA
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,643
Received 300 Likes
on
168 Posts
The centre of the town as shown by the ring on the map which is where the parade appears to be around about a mile wide (east to west) according to the scale on the map; my point was that to the east and west of the town appears to be open country.
500' was purely a guess on my part, I've no idea what the application specified.
Thinking about it (a bit more than I did earlier!) 1200' would in any case be a better height as it would give more people the chance to see the aircraft without buildings getting in the way. And you can still hear that lovely growl!
I don't have CAA chart of the area, but presumably Birmingham Airport a few miles to the South West might be a consideration?
Cheers
Treadders
500' was purely a guess on my part, I've no idea what the application specified.
Thinking about it (a bit more than I did earlier!) 1200' would in any case be a better height as it would give more people the chance to see the aircraft without buildings getting in the way. And you can still hear that lovely growl!
I don't have CAA chart of the area, but presumably Birmingham Airport a few miles to the South West might be a consideration?
Cheers
Treadders
I've got the CAA chart in front of me, Bedworth is (just) under the Birmingham CTA, but only above 2,000ft - quite high enough not to be an issue one would hope. The ILS path into Coventry also runs not far south of the area, but not close enough I'd judge to interfere with a sensibly planned flypast.
I may be mistaken, but it reads to me that somebody put in a rather optimistic low/overhead flypast proposal and CAA simply rejected it (probably expecting them to then think about it and come back with something more sensible). Somebody, somewhere perhaps needs to put operator and authority together with a chinagraph pencil and a chart, and work out something acceptable to all parties.
Of course, it's completely impossible that the operator was double-booked and made up a probable excuse to get them off the hook?
G
I may be mistaken, but it reads to me that somebody put in a rather optimistic low/overhead flypast proposal and CAA simply rejected it (probably expecting them to then think about it and come back with something more sensible). Somebody, somewhere perhaps needs to put operator and authority together with a chinagraph pencil and a chart, and work out something acceptable to all parties.
Of course, it's completely impossible that the operator was double-booked and made up a probable excuse to get them off the hook?
G
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ...back of the drag curve
Age: 61
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some fantastic theories here....Has anyone actually asked the CAA their side of the story and why they refused the request? But then why let that get in the way of a good story in the press..
I may be mishtaken, but nobody seems to have considered the fact that these aircraft are operated on a Permit to Fly, and legally cannot fly over a 'congested area' at any height.
Surely the great Flying Lawyer himself will have an opinion?
I may be mishtaken, but nobody seems to have considered the fact that these aircraft are operated on a Permit to Fly, and legally cannot fly over a 'congested area' at any height.
Surely the great Flying Lawyer himself will have an opinion?
Not at any height, except...
(1) With special dispensation from CAA, or
(2) When taking off or landing at a government or licenced aerodrome in accordance with normal aviation practice.
I assumed that all the experts posting their opinions above had already taken that into account. Presumably one of them has also seen the wording of CAA's refusal? - perhaps they could post it?
G
(1) With special dispensation from CAA, or
(2) When taking off or landing at a government or licenced aerodrome in accordance with normal aviation practice.
I assumed that all the experts posting their opinions above had already taken that into account. Presumably one of them has also seen the wording of CAA's refusal? - perhaps they could post it?
G
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Chuffer'
I refer the Rt Hon Gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago.
Let's hope the issue is resolved and the Spitfires fly, in fairly close company with the Dak.
Thanks G the Eng for the time you put in on this one.
TG
PS: I certainly don't have any first-hand info from the CAA or the Spitfire chaps, nor indeed the applicant.
I just saw the newpaper article here and want to know the technical reasons for the refusal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All civil registered Spitfires operate on the basis of a permit to fly and not a CofA.
No permit aircraft is permitted to overfly any congested area.
The previous flypasts at that site were poppy drops by a DC3 operated by Air Atlantique, an AOC company on a transport category CofA.
All civil registered Spitfires operate on the basis of a permit to fly and not a CofA.
No permit aircraft is permitted to overfly any congested area.
The previous flypasts at that site were poppy drops by a DC3 operated by Air Atlantique, an AOC company on a transport category CofA.
Thanks G the Eng for the time you put in on this one.
TG
PS: I certainly don't have any first-hand info from the CAA or the Spitfire chaps, nor indeed the applicant.
I just saw the newpaper article here and want to know the technical reasons for the refusal.
Awesome but Affordable
I understand that the previous Spitfire flypast was granted in 2003 but over an area East of Bedworth and clear of congested areas. Writing to an MP will only get a reply from the CAA to the effect that they are only complying with the law.
I think this thread has run its course.
Hope the poppy drop goes off well and the weather is kind.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
I think this thread has run its course.
Hope the poppy drop goes off well and the weather is kind.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't give up
Having taken account of the Law which is apparently written in Tablets of Stone, and Gold Plated.
can none of us here direct the organisers (who need help) to a Group who run a Spitfire that lies outside the CAA's grasp of the PtF class? They will pay the going rate.
The organisers have said Spitfires have done this fly-past in previous years, and this is the first time it's been refused.
I know we have been saying there's more to this than meets the eye, but surely we cannot just throw in the towel?
Don't give up....... please.
TG
All civil registered Spitfires operate on the basis of a permit to fly and not a CofA.
No permit aircraft is permitted to overfly any congested area.
No permit aircraft is permitted to overfly any congested area.
The organisers have said Spitfires have done this fly-past in previous years, and this is the first time it's been refused.
I know we have been saying there's more to this than meets the eye, but surely we cannot just throw in the towel?
Don't give up....... please.
TG
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ
MJ
Looks like it's outside of the published BBMF Display Dates/Operational Programme.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/displaydates.html
We shall see though.
TG
Looks like it's outside of the published BBMF Display Dates/Operational Programme.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/displaydates.html
We shall see though.
TG
Awesome but Affordable
I looked at the BBMF fleet today in their hangar at Coningsby and all their aircraft, apart from the Chipmunk and possibly the Dakota plus one Spitfire XIX, are in pieces for winter maintenance.
There are no civil registered Spitfires in the UK flying on a CofA as opposed to a PtoF.
With respect, this thread is flogging a dead horse. There are far more important matters such as the revised CAA charging scheme which has just been published and which still includes swingeing cost increases impacting on GA plus the Parliamentary Transport Select Committee inquiry into the CAA where submissions must be in by 14 November.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
There are no civil registered Spitfires in the UK flying on a CofA as opposed to a PtoF.
With respect, this thread is flogging a dead horse. There are far more important matters such as the revised CAA charging scheme which has just been published and which still includes swingeing cost increases impacting on GA plus the Parliamentary Transport Select Committee inquiry into the CAA where submissions must be in by 14 November.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
Guest
Posts: n/a
How many single engined warbirds went to London City on a Saturday recently?
Were any of those on a permit?
Did the Bedworth organisers ask said CAA for advise on how to propose an application first or did they just fire one orf?
Will Epping Forrest be saved?
Sir George Cayley
Were any of those on a permit?
Did the Bedworth organisers ask said CAA for advise on how to propose an application first or did they just fire one orf?
Will Epping Forrest be saved?
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have received the following from the organisers at Bedworth.
Not telling us something we don't already know of course, but why have the CAA given the exemption before? Why are they baulking at the request now?
I received a further note from Bedworth which states that in the past they "have had both a Spitfire and a Messerschmit do a flypast."
Thank you for your support Re Spitfire refusal to fly at Bedworth Armistice Day.
I have been in touch with our chairman Mr Gil Leach and he as given me the following. All the spitfires flying were built by Supermarine, and as that factory does not exist any more, they are on a permit to fly category and by law are not allowed to fly over built up area's, to do so you need permission to fly from the CAA which they will not grant.
Hoping you can get pprune to help.
Cheers,
Alf Perry.
P.S. Gil Leach telephone No 02476 311821
I have been in touch with our chairman Mr Gil Leach and he as given me the following. All the spitfires flying were built by Supermarine, and as that factory does not exist any more, they are on a permit to fly category and by law are not allowed to fly over built up area's, to do so you need permission to fly from the CAA which they will not grant.
Hoping you can get pprune to help.
Cheers,
Alf Perry.
P.S. Gil Leach telephone No 02476 311821
I received a further note from Bedworth which states that in the past they "have had both a Spitfire and a Messerschmit do a flypast."
Last edited by CamelPilot; 2nd Nov 2005 at 22:20.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have experiance of both applying for CAA exemptions and being in the back of a Spit, in general the CAA have always been helpfull re display lines, heights, speeds etc. If they are not happy with something I have allways had a phone call and usually possible alternatives are discussed - I too believe that there must of been some immovable object regarding this application.
Spits do glide, not very well however the drag of say a stopped 4 blade prop has to be felt to understand why the CAA are VERY cautious over the "land clear" of congested areas with such aircraft. Even aircraft based and maintained at Duxford have problems and remember Duxford do not maintain Merlins - they can go clunk at any time - have had experiance of that - it is not a nice feeling watching your friend deal with such a problem. Imagine the headlines at Nuneaton - "65 year old plane in death plunge - just misses school and women pushing pram". Never say it can't happen.
re the BBMF over London, I have a vague memory of one pilot telling me that they were told at the 1st sign of any "problems" they were to ditch in the Thames as its the ONLY place to go, effectivily a death sentrance to the pilot, on no account try to put down in a park, road etc, the belief being that the £costs for death\damage and resulting publicity would be horrendus. Dont forget even the BBMF planes come down, not often but it would only take the one.
No more guess work, but it would be intresting to see what was applied for and what the ultimate reason for refusal was.
Spits do glide, not very well however the drag of say a stopped 4 blade prop has to be felt to understand why the CAA are VERY cautious over the "land clear" of congested areas with such aircraft. Even aircraft based and maintained at Duxford have problems and remember Duxford do not maintain Merlins - they can go clunk at any time - have had experiance of that - it is not a nice feeling watching your friend deal with such a problem. Imagine the headlines at Nuneaton - "65 year old plane in death plunge - just misses school and women pushing pram". Never say it can't happen.
re the BBMF over London, I have a vague memory of one pilot telling me that they were told at the 1st sign of any "problems" they were to ditch in the Thames as its the ONLY place to go, effectivily a death sentrance to the pilot, on no account try to put down in a park, road etc, the belief being that the £costs for death\damage and resulting publicity would be horrendus. Dont forget even the BBMF planes come down, not often but it would only take the one.
No more guess work, but it would be intresting to see what was applied for and what the ultimate reason for refusal was.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of you will not be aware that at least one of the CAA officials responsible for vintage aircraft and pilot authorisations is himself a frequent flier of old jets and pistons. His knowledge of the classic ac world, including all the failure implications, ensures that all flying is conducted with public safety at the forefront of any considerations.
Although disappointed, I am content that this was a right and sound decision. Letting fly at the media and local MP is a complete waste of time and is based on a platform of ignorance of the implications of failures that could lead to death or injury of innocent people on the ground.
Although disappointed, I am content that this was a right and sound decision. Letting fly at the media and local MP is a complete waste of time and is based on a platform of ignorance of the implications of failures that could lead to death or injury of innocent people on the ground.
Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Cs of A only relate to aircraft certificated to an original civilian spec and therefore having a Type Certificate (and are therefore supported by the manufacturer or current holder of the Type Certificate). This would prevent the Spit from operating under a C of A but aircraft such as the C-45, which originated as a Beech D18S, would qualify for a C of A in at least Private Category. Same applies, I believe, to the Tiger Moth (for example).
Last edited by Bus429; 7th Nov 2005 at 06:45.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJJP
"I am content that this was a right and sound decision."
Good for you.
Just out of interest, can you tell us the basis of the 'right and sound decision'?
Or is your contentment based simply on a hunch?
"I am content that this was a right and sound decision."
Good for you.
Just out of interest, can you tell us the basis of the 'right and sound decision'?
Or is your contentment based simply on a hunch?