CAA Gone Bonkers
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJJP is on the right track. If the CAA turned the application down there is a good reason for it, as I said earlier the CAA are usually very helpful.
We can speculate as much as we like, unless you know what was put on the application maps and what the request was regarding the flying you cannot make a valid judgement which is what the CAA have done.
We've had requests to fly down high streets, up rivers, under bridges so on and so on. These we have filtered out before even sending off to the CAA however a civilian appying directly to the CAA might not be aware of the restrictions that pilots have to fly\display under.
This leads to an intresting point, did the aircraft operator apply for the permission or was it the civilian organiser?
We can speculate as much as we like, unless you know what was put on the application maps and what the request was regarding the flying you cannot make a valid judgement which is what the CAA have done.
We've had requests to fly down high streets, up rivers, under bridges so on and so on. These we have filtered out before even sending off to the CAA however a civilian appying directly to the CAA might not be aware of the restrictions that pilots have to fly\display under.
This leads to an intresting point, did the aircraft operator apply for the permission or was it the civilian organiser?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like everyone here is in the same boat.
No-one has seen the application and no-one has seen the reason given by the CAA for the refusal, so no-one is in a position to judge whether the reason is good/bad, valid/silly.
Some speculate one way and some speculate the other.
Without speculation, PPRuNe would have half as many threads and threads would be half as long.
No-one has seen the application and no-one has seen the reason given by the CAA for the refusal, so no-one is in a position to judge whether the reason is good/bad, valid/silly.
Some speculate one way and some speculate the other.
Without speculation, PPRuNe would have half as many threads and threads would be half as long.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuffer
Yes, I do have some opinions …..
Mr Leach didn’t sound “like a spoilt child” to me. Going to the Press is unlikely to achieve anything, but I can understand why the organisers tried that route.
Teddy-throwing exercise? Hmmm ….. ”Can't be bothered to write anymore in reply to those who clearly don't know the Rules of the Air, or Permit to Fly conditions!” Some might think that sounds ever so slightly like teddy-throwing.
”Permit to Fly (Spitfire) = No flight over congested areas, at all, at any height......” – Incorrect, as already pointed out.
” The CAA are only doing what the law says” – The law allows exceptions to the general rule.
”I actually think that the whole 'permit over congested area' thing is pants, but it's the law at the moment.” – Just as it's the law that a Permit a/c can fly with 4 POB max, even if it's a 5-seater. (The logic of that restriction has always eluded me.)
BTW, the CAA decides what the law should be. The ANO, Rules of the Air Regulations and all other aviation Regs are written by the CAA and then formally made law by Parliament without any debate/consideration of whether they are necessary or reasonable.
I think aviation in the UK is over-regulated but, from a self-interest perspective, it helps pay for my flying so I suppose I shouldn't complain.
Given that we don't knows all the facts, I find it odd that some on one side of the discussion criticise those on the other for making assumptions whilst doing just that themselves.
I have no opinion upon whether the refusal was reasonable or unreasonable. I haven’t seen the application or the refusal letter and I don’t know the Bedworth area.
Proplover
Good heavens. 
We can't have that sort of thing.
It's far too dangerous!
The Master in action
Circa 16-17 years ago - flown at about 200 kts if I remember correctly.
Yes, I do have some opinions …..
Mr Leach didn’t sound “like a spoilt child” to me. Going to the Press is unlikely to achieve anything, but I can understand why the organisers tried that route.
Teddy-throwing exercise? Hmmm ….. ”Can't be bothered to write anymore in reply to those who clearly don't know the Rules of the Air, or Permit to Fly conditions!” Some might think that sounds ever so slightly like teddy-throwing.
”Permit to Fly (Spitfire) = No flight over congested areas, at all, at any height......” – Incorrect, as already pointed out.
” The CAA are only doing what the law says” – The law allows exceptions to the general rule.
”I actually think that the whole 'permit over congested area' thing is pants, but it's the law at the moment.” – Just as it's the law that a Permit a/c can fly with 4 POB max, even if it's a 5-seater. (The logic of that restriction has always eluded me.)
BTW, the CAA decides what the law should be. The ANO, Rules of the Air Regulations and all other aviation Regs are written by the CAA and then formally made law by Parliament without any debate/consideration of whether they are necessary or reasonable.
I think aviation in the UK is over-regulated but, from a self-interest perspective, it helps pay for my flying so I suppose I shouldn't complain.
Given that we don't knows all the facts, I find it odd that some on one side of the discussion criticise those on the other for making assumptions whilst doing just that themselves.
I have no opinion upon whether the refusal was reasonable or unreasonable. I haven’t seen the application or the refusal letter and I don’t know the Bedworth area.
Proplover
"requests to fly ... up rivers, under bridges so on and so on ....... "
We can't have that sort of thing.
It's far too dangerous!
The Master in action
Circa 16-17 years ago - flown at about 200 kts if I remember correctly.
It might of-course be reasonably argued that flying under a bridge like that only really endangers the pilot and aircraft and nobody else.
Mind you, I've always wanted to fly under a bridge, how would one ever get permission do you think? Or should one try what Okay, we all know who it was, but nobody will say so did a few years ago and just turn up with your registration letters removed and fly under all the London Bridges at dawn with nobody but most of fleet street's photographic corps knowing anything about it.
G
Mind you, I've always wanted to fly under a bridge, how would one ever get permission do you think? Or should one try what Okay, we all know who it was, but nobody will say so did a few years ago and just turn up with your registration letters removed and fly under all the London Bridges at dawn with nobody but most of fleet street's photographic corps knowing anything about it.
G
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,713
Received 346 Likes
on
191 Posts
It might of-course be reasonably argued that flying under a bridge like that only really endangers the pilot and aircraft and nobody else.
There was a case in the War of a P-40 clipping an arched bridge over the A33 (?) near Winchester during a misjudged fly-through - fortunately although he lost a portion of wingtip, he survived to take a rocket from his CO. Dunno how the bridge fared though!
About twenty years ago - stop me if I've told you this before - we were leaving the Ashton Court Balloon Fiesta after the early morning mass-departure, and decided to walk across the Clifton Suspension Bridge.
One of the balloons drifted down the Avon gorge, under the bridge and then used the burner to climb above the bridge level where the (light) wind happened to be going in the opposite direction.
So he flew back over the Bridge, dropped back down into the downstream airflow and drifted underneath again... As far as I can recall he did this several times.
My feeling is that if you pit a couple of tonnes of aluminium sheet held together with rivets agaist a couple of hundred tonnes of stone held together with portland cement, whilst the bridge may show a few scars, ultimately it's probably going to win.
G
G
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
It might also be reasonably argued (and I would) that "flying under a bridge like that" doesn't necessarily endanger either pilot or aircraft. It depends upon various circumstances - including who's flying.
'Like that' in the instance in the picture = proper planning (CAA approved) + the great Ray Hanna flying.
I'm not 100% sure after so many years, but I'm almost certain the road bridge was closed during the flight as a precaution. G-KEST might remember - he worked for the CAA at the time and issued the dispensation.
The possibility of a pilot having a heart attack (for example) at a critical moment obviously can't be excluded but, if the powers that be got too hung up about that, we wouldn't be allowed to fly solo.
It might also be reasonably argued (and I would) that "flying under a bridge like that" doesn't necessarily endanger either pilot or aircraft. It depends upon various circumstances - including who's flying.
'Like that' in the instance in the picture = proper planning (CAA approved) + the great Ray Hanna flying.
I'm not 100% sure after so many years, but I'm almost certain the road bridge was closed during the flight as a precaution. G-KEST might remember - he worked for the CAA at the time and issued the dispensation.
The possibility of a pilot having a heart attack (for example) at a critical moment obviously can't be excluded but, if the powers that be got too hung up about that, we wouldn't be allowed to fly solo.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Flying Lawyer some of the requests bl**dy well are dangerous.
I dont think your example of a 1 off film event which took weeks of planning, prior visits etc etc (which they got paid for) is compareable with someone asking you to fly under a bridge in the middle of a town as part of a "display". You may think its all very exiting - we didnt, furthermore we didnt think the CAA would either.
Another example was for us to carry out an attack on a mock battlefield, not to bad execpt the "battlefield" was a field in the middle of a large industrial area and they wanted us to fly in below the height of the buildings so we could "pop" up into view exiting over a large housing estate. How dangerous do you classify that one as then? (No, didnt do that one either).
At the end of the day most town & county show organisers have no idea what is possible for pilots to be able to do (both physically and legally). We just politely ask them is there some other way of doing the display, if not we decline.
I still take the view that there was something in the request that was not acceptable but unless a copy of the documents is released then we will be guessing for a long time.
I dont think your example of a 1 off film event which took weeks of planning, prior visits etc etc (which they got paid for) is compareable with someone asking you to fly under a bridge in the middle of a town as part of a "display". You may think its all very exiting - we didnt, furthermore we didnt think the CAA would either.
Another example was for us to carry out an attack on a mock battlefield, not to bad execpt the "battlefield" was a field in the middle of a large industrial area and they wanted us to fly in below the height of the buildings so we could "pop" up into view exiting over a large housing estate. How dangerous do you classify that one as then? (No, didnt do that one either).
At the end of the day most town & county show organisers have no idea what is possible for pilots to be able to do (both physically and legally). We just politely ask them is there some other way of doing the display, if not we decline.
I still take the view that there was something in the request that was not acceptable but unless a copy of the documents is released then we will be guessing for a long time.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
proplover
”Actually Flying Lawyer some of the requests bl**dy well are dangerous.”
Thank you for telling me, but I do have a little experience of the nature of some requests and the practicalities (or otherwise) from the years when I was actively involved in the warbird world.
I didn’t suggest anything was comparable but, if you can’t see why I found posting that picture irresistible in light of your comment about rivers and bridges, then I don’t think I’d be able to explain it to you because we obviously don't have the same sense of humour.
”You may think its all very exiting.”
Oh, I do - very exciting indeed. Not necessarily feasible of course, but very exciting nonetheless.
And I suspect I’m not the only pilot to whom the idea of flying under a bridge appeals – it has to me ever since I learned to fly Chipmunks over 30 years ago – and I suspect many (I include myself) have more than a sneaking admiration for Major Christopher Draper DFC who was prosecuted in 1930 for flying under a number of London bridges.
That doesn't mean I'd do it or encourage anyone else to do so, nor does it mean I think the CAA would or should grant all applications regardless of pilot and circumstances.
But exciting? Certainly. Just between us two, over the years I've flown the most amazingly exciting sorties, as skilled as anything you've ever seen by the best pilots around. Then the alarm goes and I have to get up and go to court.
”Actually Flying Lawyer some of the requests bl**dy well are dangerous.”
Thank you for telling me, but I do have a little experience of the nature of some requests and the practicalities (or otherwise) from the years when I was actively involved in the warbird world.
I didn’t suggest anything was comparable but, if you can’t see why I found posting that picture irresistible in light of your comment about rivers and bridges, then I don’t think I’d be able to explain it to you because we obviously don't have the same sense of humour.
”You may think its all very exiting.”
Oh, I do - very exciting indeed. Not necessarily feasible of course, but very exciting nonetheless.
And I suspect I’m not the only pilot to whom the idea of flying under a bridge appeals – it has to me ever since I learned to fly Chipmunks over 30 years ago – and I suspect many (I include myself) have more than a sneaking admiration for Major Christopher Draper DFC who was prosecuted in 1930 for flying under a number of London bridges.
That doesn't mean I'd do it or encourage anyone else to do so, nor does it mean I think the CAA would or should grant all applications regardless of pilot and circumstances.
But exciting? Certainly. Just between us two, over the years I've flown the most amazingly exciting sorties, as skilled as anything you've ever seen by the best pilots around. Then the alarm goes and I have to get up and go to court.
It might also be reasonably argued (and I would) that "flying under a bridge like that" doesn't necessarily endanger either pilot or aircraft. It depends upon various circumstances - including who's flying.
'Like that' in the instance in the picture = proper planning (CAA approved) + the great Ray Hanna flying.
I'm not 100% sure after so many years, but I'm almost certain the road bridge was closed during the flight as a precaution. G-KEST might remember - he worked for the CAA at the time and issued the dispensation.
The possibility of a pilot having a heart attack (for example) at a critical moment obviously can't be excluded but, if the powers that be got too hung up about that, we wouldn't be allowed to fly solo
'Like that' in the instance in the picture = proper planning (CAA approved) + the great Ray Hanna flying.
I'm not 100% sure after so many years, but I'm almost certain the road bridge was closed during the flight as a precaution. G-KEST might remember - he worked for the CAA at the time and issued the dispensation.
The possibility of a pilot having a heart attack (for example) at a critical moment obviously can't be excluded but, if the powers that be got too hung up about that, we wouldn't be allowed to fly solo
Without a doubt, getting in and doing a carefully conducted ground run endangers the aircraft and pilot. To some extent.
Equally taking an aeroplane up for a few circuits on a perfect flying day will also do so.
Basically anything you do endangers the pilot and passenger, to some extent. And I'd defend the right of that pilot to endanger his own life, and that of an aircraft he owns (or at-least is duly authorised to fly) to to any extent he or she is trained and experienced enough to make a rational judgement about.
The issue surely should only ever in such cases be one of (having established that the pilot is capable of making sufficiently informed decisions about their own actions and safety) judging, quantifying and accepting the level of third party risk. Broadly speaking, that sounds like the approach taken by G-KEST in authorising the "piece of cake" underflight, and rightly so in my opinion.
G
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
I didn't appreciate your proposition was that all flying carries some degree of danger to pilot and aircraft. I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed with that. I don't doubt the same applies to ground runs and, for that matter, driving to the airfield. However, you referred specifically to "flying under a bridge like that" so I responded, I hope not unreasonably, to flying under a bridge like that.
I don't think anyone has suggested G-KEST's approach to the bridge application was anything other than entirely reasonable and correct.
Just in case I've missed something, I can confirm that it was. I was active with the OFMC in those days and involved in the application from the operator's side.
I didn't appreciate your proposition was that all flying carries some degree of danger to pilot and aircraft. I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed with that. I don't doubt the same applies to ground runs and, for that matter, driving to the airfield. However, you referred specifically to "flying under a bridge like that" so I responded, I hope not unreasonably, to flying under a bridge like that.
I don't think anyone has suggested G-KEST's approach to the bridge application was anything other than entirely reasonable and correct.
Just in case I've missed something, I can confirm that it was. I was active with the OFMC in those days and involved in the application from the operator's side.
