Swooping RAF Pilot Fined
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck to him say I. Hope that his colleagues helped to pay his fine. Nice to know there are still a few spirited aviators out there who refuse to be stifled by this country's suffocating obsession with tedious rules, health & safety and political correctness. It's forty years since Allan Pollock's brilliant Hunter flight over (through?) London and Tower Bridge. Shame it was only a Tutor that turned a few heads this time but he gets my admiration.
It won't be too long before military flights are herded into a corridor over the North Sea with a base height of 2,000 feet. Or maybe the RAF's aircraft should be kept on the ground - they'd be much less of a threat to the population there. But wait... what if one should taxy through a fence and run unchecked through the local villages? Let's just keep them in the hangars with the undercarriage removed. Bet that will still be too much for our sad and sorry country.
It won't be too long before military flights are herded into a corridor over the North Sea with a base height of 2,000 feet. Or maybe the RAF's aircraft should be kept on the ground - they'd be much less of a threat to the population there. But wait... what if one should taxy through a fence and run unchecked through the local villages? Let's just keep them in the hangars with the undercarriage removed. Bet that will still be too much for our sad and sorry country.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope that his colleagues helped to pay his fine
Nice to know there are still a few spirited aviators out there who refuse to be stifled by this country's suffocating obsession with tedious rules, health & safety and political correctness
Ever heard of Murphy's law ? At what point in that flight, in relation to the said law, do you think the engine would have been most likely to quit ?
Should the aircraft's engine had failed (and having done EFATO's in a Bulldog from about 400 ft, the options can be few and far between) it may well be a different story. In fact, most "tedious rules" stem from instances where accidents have happened.
Never mind the £1500 fine. How many squares on the Pigz Board is that worth ?!?!?!
Last edited by FFP; 19th Apr 2008 at 16:39.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: planet earth
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But most importantly, I don’t think you fully realise just how highly we regard service pilots. We know they are ‘selected’ as was pointed out earlier in this thread. We know they are head and shoulders above ordinary civilian pilots.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London Village
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAAAGH. Make it stop. Has anyone on this thread never done anything,aviation related, that they have then subsequently regreted? Chin up Rodders, don't let 'em grind you down
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: An airfield cunningly close the Thames
Age: 46
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One small point that has ben missed - the length of time this has taken to run to it's conclusion...if it even has!
From what the rumour mill has been churning out, I understood Rodders was ticked off by the RAF, but then the CAA then wanted another pound of his (ample spare) flesh, hence the court martial.
Surely if you break a rule, you should get a slap on the wrist, a fine, whatever, and then get back to doing the thing that RAF pilots are the best in the world at. And what we're paid for. Not have it dragged around for many months and costing the taxpayer more dosh. As several have mentioned, no-one died, or was injured and there were no (illegal) drugs involved. Get over it!
Beer in the tap at the Lion's Den from me, next time you're down Rodders! GWF!
From what the rumour mill has been churning out, I understood Rodders was ticked off by the RAF, but then the CAA then wanted another pound of his (ample spare) flesh, hence the court martial.
Surely if you break a rule, you should get a slap on the wrist, a fine, whatever, and then get back to doing the thing that RAF pilots are the best in the world at. And what we're paid for. Not have it dragged around for many months and costing the taxpayer more dosh. As several have mentioned, no-one died, or was injured and there were no (illegal) drugs involved. Get over it!
Beer in the tap at the Lion's Den from me, next time you're down Rodders! GWF!
Pilot Officer PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I am just getting old, but I don't understand the attitude that this was a jolly thing to do and lets all buy him a beer and slap him on the back next time we see him?? It was stupid and there was no good reason to do it
... as for doing in in a Funbus, well, he was a co-pilot and MOST captains just would not let that happen.
Tonks
... as for doing in in a Funbus, well, he was a co-pilot and MOST captains just would not let that happen.
Tonks
And Tonks, my sources tell me that there was more to this than a simple mistake......
TMAC, I also learn from those who know.
TMAC, I also learn from those who know.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by snapper1
The organised assembly of more than 1,000 people was an international sporting event attended by many thousands of people – no NOTAM needed – you can see that many clearly enough from a lot higher than 1,000ft
Imagine a hazy but still VMC Saturday morning out of Cambridge many, many years ago. My ex African bush pilot FI tests my power failure landings North of the Field. Pick the biggest, levelest field you can see, says he, and down we go to a rather big field to the East. Vital actions taken and pretend R/T (sorry, RTF) calls made and, stable on the approach, I point out the sparkly lights in our 10 o' clockish. Its the sun reflecting off some greenhouses says he and we descend further. Very soon the sparkly lights resolve into a car park full of very shiny car windscreens in the Newmarket Racecourse car park. " I have control" says he and we lift away as quietly as possible. How many people are gathered on the deck for an un-NOTAMed event isn't always that bloody obvious! Thanks Graham H****r for a very memorable lesson.
OK, this was different as he seems to have deliberately gone for a closer deko at a sporting event. The point I would make, though, is don't assume how obvious it is how many bodies are present beneath you for a single Event.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
Perhaps the lecturer and you were both right, up to a point.
Unfortunately, straightforward answers are not a feature of the ANO, which is widely regarded by aviation lawyers as an appallingly drafted and unnecessarily complicated document.
It's become worse with additions/revisions over the years, and is one of the exceptions to the move in recent decades towards making modern legislation more easily comprehensible. In common with most aviation legislation, it's drafted in-house by the CAA, and passed through Parliament without any debate as per parliamentary rules for 'secondary legislation'.
(The underlining below is mine)
Article 152: Application of Order to the Crown and visiting forces, etc.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this article, the provisions of this Order shall apply to or in relation to aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed in the service of Her Majesty as they apply to or in relation to other aircraft.
Seems simple enough; unless specifically excluded, the ANO does apply to or in relation to aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed in the service of HM.
However, the ANO is rarely simple and finding an answer usually requires cross-referring to other Articles, sections, sub-sections, sub-sub-sections etc etc.
So what does "Subject to the provisions of this article" mean?
(2) .....
(3) .....
(4) .....
(5) Save as otherwise provided by paragraph (6), article 80(5) and (12), article 81(3), article 95(1)(a) and article 131, nothing in this Order shall apply to or in relation to any military aircraft.
Checking those cross-references, we find -
Article 80(5) and (12) (Flying Displays)
Article 81(3) (Fatigue of Crew etc)
Article 95(1)(a) (one sub-sub-section of the Rules of the Air)
(1) Without prejudice to any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of State may make regulations (in this article called the "Rules of the Air") prescribing —
(a) the manner in which aircraft may move or fly including in particular provision for requiring aircraft to give way to military aircraft;
Article 131 (Noise and vibration on aerodromes)
Now back to Article 152 -
"Any military aircraft" seems simple enough.
But, it’s not ‘any’ military aircraft because -
(6) Where a military aircraft is flown by a civilian pilot and is not commanded by a person who is acting in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces or as a member of a visiting force or international headquarters, the following provisions of this Order shall apply on the occasion of that flight, that is to say, articles 73, 74, 75 and 96 and in addition article 95 (so far as applicable) shall apply unless the aircraft is flown in compliance with Military Flying Regulations (Joint Service Publication 550) or Flying Orders to Contractors (Aviation Publication 67) issued by the Secretary of State.
And ‘military aircraft’ is defined in -
Article 155:
‘Military aircraft' means the naval, military or air force aircraft of any country and —
(a) any aircraft being constructed for the naval, military or air force of any country under a contract entered into by the Secretary of State; and
(b) any aircraft in respect of which there is in force a certificate issued by the Secretary of State that the aircraft is to be treated for the purposes of this Order as a military aircraft;
Does the above provide the full answer?
No, because it's now necessary to go back to -
Article 95: Rules of the Air
(3) It shall be lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary —
(a) .....
(b) .....
(c) for complying with Military Flying Regulations (Joint Service Publication 550) or Flying Orders to Contractors (Aviation Publication 67) issued by the Secretary of State in relation to an aircraft of which the commander is acting as such in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces.
Perhaps it's fair to say:
I welcome correction if I'm wrong. The above is from a very quick look at the ANO; I haven't researched the military provisions thoroughly, either now or previously.
snapper1
It's a mistake to assume people with whom you disagree "are missing some important points"; they may simply hold a different view from you. Although I share your respect for military pilots and your hope that the Grob pilot's 'indiscretion' is soon forgotten, I disagree with the main thrust of your post. Like you, I'm only a civvy and I would have been perfectly content if the matter had been dealt with by a 'Hats on' visit to the Station Commander.
I see no benefit to the RAF (or anyone else, except the press) in the publicity - and some of the ridiculous headlines - which the Court Martial inevitably generated; quite the contrary.
FL
In other words, you have to obey the ANO except where JSP318 specifically permits non-compliance.
The lecturer .......... suggested that the ANO "doesn't apply to military aircraft"....
The lecturer .......... suggested that the ANO "doesn't apply to military aircraft"....
Unfortunately, straightforward answers are not a feature of the ANO, which is widely regarded by aviation lawyers as an appallingly drafted and unnecessarily complicated document.
It's become worse with additions/revisions over the years, and is one of the exceptions to the move in recent decades towards making modern legislation more easily comprehensible. In common with most aviation legislation, it's drafted in-house by the CAA, and passed through Parliament without any debate as per parliamentary rules for 'secondary legislation'.
(The underlining below is mine)
Article 152: Application of Order to the Crown and visiting forces, etc.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this article, the provisions of this Order shall apply to or in relation to aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed in the service of Her Majesty as they apply to or in relation to other aircraft.
Seems simple enough; unless specifically excluded, the ANO does apply to or in relation to aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed in the service of HM.
However, the ANO is rarely simple and finding an answer usually requires cross-referring to other Articles, sections, sub-sections, sub-sub-sections etc etc.
So what does "Subject to the provisions of this article" mean?
(2) .....
(3) .....
(4) .....
(5) Save as otherwise provided by paragraph (6), article 80(5) and (12), article 81(3), article 95(1)(a) and article 131, nothing in this Order shall apply to or in relation to any military aircraft.
Checking those cross-references, we find -
Article 80(5) and (12) (Flying Displays)
Article 81(3) (Fatigue of Crew etc)
Article 95(1)(a) (one sub-sub-section of the Rules of the Air)
(1) Without prejudice to any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of State may make regulations (in this article called the "Rules of the Air") prescribing —
(a) the manner in which aircraft may move or fly including in particular provision for requiring aircraft to give way to military aircraft;
Article 131 (Noise and vibration on aerodromes)
Now back to Article 152 -
"Any military aircraft" seems simple enough.
But, it’s not ‘any’ military aircraft because -
(6) Where a military aircraft is flown by a civilian pilot and is not commanded by a person who is acting in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces or as a member of a visiting force or international headquarters, the following provisions of this Order shall apply on the occasion of that flight, that is to say, articles 73, 74, 75 and 96 and in addition article 95 (so far as applicable) shall apply unless the aircraft is flown in compliance with Military Flying Regulations (Joint Service Publication 550) or Flying Orders to Contractors (Aviation Publication 67) issued by the Secretary of State.
And ‘military aircraft’ is defined in -
Article 155:
‘Military aircraft' means the naval, military or air force aircraft of any country and —
(a) any aircraft being constructed for the naval, military or air force of any country under a contract entered into by the Secretary of State; and
(b) any aircraft in respect of which there is in force a certificate issued by the Secretary of State that the aircraft is to be treated for the purposes of this Order as a military aircraft;
Does the above provide the full answer?
No, because it's now necessary to go back to -
Article 95: Rules of the Air
(3) It shall be lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary —
(a) .....
(b) .....
(c) for complying with Military Flying Regulations (Joint Service Publication 550) or Flying Orders to Contractors (Aviation Publication 67) issued by the Secretary of State in relation to an aircraft of which the commander is acting as such in the course of his duty as a member of any of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces.
Perhaps it's fair to say:
- the ANO does not generally apply to military aircraft (ie with some exceptions)
- the Rules of the Air do apply except to the extent necessary for complying with Military Flying Regulations or Flying Orders to Contractors.
I welcome correction if I'm wrong. The above is from a very quick look at the ANO; I haven't researched the military provisions thoroughly, either now or previously.
snapper1
It's a mistake to assume people with whom you disagree "are missing some important points"; they may simply hold a different view from you. Although I share your respect for military pilots and your hope that the Grob pilot's 'indiscretion' is soon forgotten, I disagree with the main thrust of your post. Like you, I'm only a civvy and I would have been perfectly content if the matter had been dealt with by a 'Hats on' visit to the Station Commander.
I see no benefit to the RAF (or anyone else, except the press) in the publicity - and some of the ridiculous headlines - which the Court Martial inevitably generated; quite the contrary.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 20th Apr 2008 at 23:11.
Thanks, FL!
One general point - if an acknowledged expert in the field finds the ANO an appallingly drafted and unnecessarily complicated document, what hope is there for the man in the street? Or cockpit??
The Sir Humphrey-speak 'shall not unless save as otherwise provided' language of a bygone era is of no help to anyone. I really cannot understand why it cannot be written in language as simple as, for example, the Highway Code.
(By the way - see you in a few weeks at the Dinner!)
One general point - if an acknowledged expert in the field finds the ANO an appallingly drafted and unnecessarily complicated document, what hope is there for the man in the street? Or cockpit??
The Sir Humphrey-speak 'shall not unless save as otherwise provided' language of a bygone era is of no help to anyone. I really cannot understand why it cannot be written in language as simple as, for example, the Highway Code.
(By the way - see you in a few weeks at the Dinner!)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer,
It seems that I expressed myself badly.
The only point I really wanted to make was this. Service pilots are held in very high regard by the general public. If they do something like this it shouldn't be a surprise if they are dealt with more harshly than a civilian pilot would be.
It seems that I expressed myself badly.
The only point I really wanted to make was this. Service pilots are held in very high regard by the general public. If they do something like this it shouldn't be a surprise if they are dealt with more harshly than a civilian pilot would be.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 49
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent timing
Maybe they could fly past at the next Calcutta Cup match.... above 1000ft of course
However (can of worms time) how would the Blue Angels et al be treated as they are not
Are they (and other foreign military aircraft) bound by the ANO, JSPs or some other legal documetation?
However (can of worms time) how would the Blue Angels et al be treated as they are not
...aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed in the service of Her Majesty....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His flight profile was not authorised as briefed and signed for - therefore he broke the rules
I'm sure he's big enough and daft enough to know what he was doing
Seems to me most of the posters defending him are those who break the speed limit and whine when they get fined - hoping their pathetic excuse " I weren't really going too fast me 'lud" - will get them off!
Service pilots might have every reason to consider themselves a cut above the rest - therefore, they must lead by example to the aviation world
I support derring do - Nelson and telescope etc - but not when you illegaly make a pratt of yourself in living colour in front of the nation - So, expect to take a hit as a deterrent to those coming behind you
Now, had he landed on his girlfriends croquet lawn - all would be forgiven
I'm sure he's big enough and daft enough to know what he was doing
Seems to me most of the posters defending him are those who break the speed limit and whine when they get fined - hoping their pathetic excuse " I weren't really going too fast me 'lud" - will get them off!
Service pilots might have every reason to consider themselves a cut above the rest - therefore, they must lead by example to the aviation world
I support derring do - Nelson and telescope etc - but not when you illegaly make a pratt of yourself in living colour in front of the nation - So, expect to take a hit as a deterrent to those coming behind you
Now, had he landed on his girlfriends croquet lawn - all would be forgiven
Now, I'm sure we all agree that we love Jeremy Clarkson and all the hard work that he's done for the enviroment but also the armed forces....
Now, according to the God that he is...rodders is '' the best of the best'' and '' 400 feet is like a thousand miles''
Argument over.
Pub??
Now, according to the God that he is...rodders is '' the best of the best'' and '' 400 feet is like a thousand miles''
Argument over.
Pub??