RAF veteran defies health and safety to take to the skies
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
elfin' safety.
Well done indeed.
But what actual 'health and safety rules' were involved?
Was it perchance the Spitfire - Seating of Veterans (Amendment) Order?
Or could the museum just have said that the aircraft didnt have a seat?
But what actual 'health and safety rules' were involved?
Was it perchance the Spitfire - Seating of Veterans (Amendment) Order?
Or could the museum just have said that the aircraft didnt have a seat?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precisely.
1. The Spitfire in the museum did not have a seat, therefore there was nowhere for him to sit.
2. It was museum staff who told him he couldn't get in the cockpit... precisely because there was no seat.
3. There were no H&S rules, rulings, orders, or personnel involved whatsoever.
4. The original news reports of the incident were blatantly false, with H&S being falsely implicated for the sole purpose of the reporter/paper wanting to advance an agenda and sell more papers!
5. People who either don't know the facts or don't give a $h!t about the facts keep repeating the newspaper's lies.
1. The Spitfire in the museum did not have a seat, therefore there was nowhere for him to sit.
2. It was museum staff who told him he couldn't get in the cockpit... precisely because there was no seat.
3. There were no H&S rules, rulings, orders, or personnel involved whatsoever.
4. The original news reports of the incident were blatantly false, with H&S being falsely implicated for the sole purpose of the reporter/paper wanting to advance an agenda and sell more papers!
5. People who either don't know the facts or don't give a $h!t about the facts keep repeating the newspaper's lies.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 24th Aug 2012 at 05:13.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 82
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last year, I was trying to get a 92 year old, ex PRU Spitfire pilot a ride in a converted 2 seater Spitfire. The Company got in touch with the CAA & were told that only current License holders were permitted to fly as passenger in that aircraft.
This Gentleman used to fly unarmed from Cornwall right down the occupied French coast, all the way to the Spanish Border photographing Harbours & Submarine Pens, also from Cornwall to Peenemunde on the Baltic (refueling in Norfolk). He has been chased out to sea by a couple of ME109's & his Spitfire was hit by flack over Brest.
Bless him, he has probably done more hours on type than all the current Spitfire License holders put together !!
This Gentleman used to fly unarmed from Cornwall right down the occupied French coast, all the way to the Spanish Border photographing Harbours & Submarine Pens, also from Cornwall to Peenemunde on the Baltic (refueling in Norfolk). He has been chased out to sea by a couple of ME109's & his Spitfire was hit by flack over Brest.
Bless him, he has probably done more hours on type than all the current Spitfire License holders put together !!
With respect, VIProds, your story doesn't ring true. Why should a PASSENGER have to be a current licence holder (and I assume you mean a PPL)?
Is he expected to be able to fly the aircraft? Or is it felt that only a PPL would not panic in such an aircraft? Or is the airworthiness of the aircraft so in doubt that only PPL holders can risk their lives?
Any of those answers are ludicrous and I don't believe for a second that it was the official position of the CAA .
Is he expected to be able to fly the aircraft? Or is it felt that only a PPL would not panic in such an aircraft? Or is the airworthiness of the aircraft so in doubt that only PPL holders can risk their lives?
Any of those answers are ludicrous and I don't believe for a second that it was the official position of the CAA .
Perhaps, big fella, because the aircraft is certified for type training (private ops) but not passenger flying in exchange for money (commercial ops). While seemingly ridiculous, I can imagine that this is the official line.
You need a warbird (limited/restricted) category, like the one that allows passenger-carrying warbird commercial ops in Aus.
You need a warbird (limited/restricted) category, like the one that allows passenger-carrying warbird commercial ops in Aus.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a question of flying for hire & reward, if money changes hands then the company has to have an AOC or be a training organization. That is simply UK law.
The Spitfire flys on a permit to fly and not a C of A so can't fly passengers under an AOC so it follows that the only way to pay to fly the aircraft would be if you were training on it.
To stop people getting around the AOC law the CAA regulate that you have to hold a pilots licence to take the training, this is not unreasonable after all if you have a licence then you are much better placed to know the risks of flying old aircraft than the man on the Clapham omnibus.
While not myself agreeing with the law I can see it has some measure of public protection about it.
The Spitfire flys on a permit to fly and not a C of A so can't fly passengers under an AOC so it follows that the only way to pay to fly the aircraft would be if you were training on it.
To stop people getting around the AOC law the CAA regulate that you have to hold a pilots licence to take the training, this is not unreasonable after all if you have a licence then you are much better placed to know the risks of flying old aircraft than the man on the Clapham omnibus.
While not myself agreeing with the law I can see it has some measure of public protection about it.
No seat.....chunk in a five gallon bucket....problem sorted!
I bump into Geoffrey Wellum from time when he brings his car along to the carwash at the garage where I work. Last year I saw him when he had not long previously flown in the Boultbee Spitfire at Oxford. Like your man in post 1, he said he was amazed how quickly it all came back to him and he thoroughly enjoyed the experience.
No problems with health and safety for him, but then, he was only 90 at the time!
No problems with health and safety for him, but then, he was only 90 at the time!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Veterans who attend Project Propeller manage to get into and out of small aircraft at least one type of which I find awkward. Perhaps some of you ladies and gentlemen here would like to help with next year's PP Day. the date and location have not yet been decided but please do have a look at the website and some of the photos. Help will be needed on the ground as well as to fly a veteran or two. It is a wonderful day and a great privilege to be able to attend and help. So, come on, you are always remarking how things should be done to help veterans so why not do a bit yourselves? See you there - I hope!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 82
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA
I also, could not understand the rational behind the descision & thought that I might be getting the brush off by the Company. Thanks to A and C & Trojan1981 for their explanation, it now seems a lot more logical.
The PRU Gentleman has had a couple of flights in light aircraft recently & has taken over control on both occasions. Like the other veterans, he was amazed how quickly it all came back.
The PRU Gentleman has had a couple of flights in light aircraft recently & has taken over control on both occasions. Like the other veterans, he was amazed how quickly it all came back.
Happy to be corrected but, as far as I am aware you dont need a licence to fly as a passenger in an aircraft not covered by an AOC provided you are not paying for it, or if you are paying for it; it is on an equal cost share basis with the pilot in command. The following is taken from a CAA document:-
There are some exceptions to this requirement.
For example, an AOC is not required for:
• Some flights conducted to raise money for charities
• Some flights where the costs are shared between the pilot and up to three passengers
• Some flights where the passengers are joint owners of the aircraft.
It is important to note that the contributions can include methods of payment other than money, e.g. free advertising or payment in kind. If you are unsure if your flight is deemed to be public transport, please contact the CAA via the address below
There's absolutely no reason why anybody can't fly in the back of a 2 seat Spitfire provided the aircraft is insured for the carriage of passengers, and the PAX is not paying more than a cost share its not a Public Transport Flight.
Nige
There are some exceptions to this requirement.
For example, an AOC is not required for:
• Some flights conducted to raise money for charities
• Some flights where the costs are shared between the pilot and up to three passengers
• Some flights where the passengers are joint owners of the aircraft.
It is important to note that the contributions can include methods of payment other than money, e.g. free advertising or payment in kind. If you are unsure if your flight is deemed to be public transport, please contact the CAA via the address below
There's absolutely no reason why anybody can't fly in the back of a 2 seat Spitfire provided the aircraft is insured for the carriage of passengers, and the PAX is not paying more than a cost share its not a Public Transport Flight.
Nige
There's absolutely no reason why anybody can't fly in the back of a 2 seat Spitfire provided the aircraft is insured for the carriage of passengers, and the PAX is not paying more than a cost share its not a Public Transport Flight.
In my case I'm going to have to lose a lot of spare pounds avoirdupois and gain a lot more spare pounds sterling if I'm ever to take to the skies in the back of a Spitfire.
Not too hopeful on both counts, I fear
The original news reports of the incident were blatantly false, with H&S being falsely implicated for the sole purpose of the reporter/paper wanting to advance an agenda and sell more papers!
