2013/14 compensation payments arising out of low flying.
The complaints culture is all a bit annoying but for anyone thinking of moving on to airline flying, it gets worse. An orbit over a friends BBQ at 2000' in a 757 was enough to trigger a low flying complaint which cost the pilot his job.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Fox3, when they were building Bough Bridge power station which was on the main low level route, they were upset by the Vulcans thundering passed at a similar height, and avoid was put in place.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shot one:
'Gets worse'? 
Without knowing the details, getting sacked for doing seems fair - regardless of any complaint being submitted.
The complaints culture is all a bit annoying but for anyone thinking of moving on to airline flying, it gets worse. An orbit over a friends BBQ at 2000' in a 757 was enough to trigger a low flying complaint which cost the pilot his job.
Without knowing the details, getting sacked for doing seems fair - regardless of any complaint being submitted.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Did not play out as you describe"? I agree with your account, Ken; in what way does it contradict what I said?
"Getting sacked for doing seems fair" ? He cost his company two minutes worth of fuel so they were entitled to take some action. But does your zero tolerance apply to every jolly and flyby in the military world too? If not why not?
"Getting sacked for doing seems fair" ? He cost his company two minutes worth of fuel so they were entitled to take some action. But does your zero tolerance apply to every jolly and flyby in the military world too? If not why not?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't suggest zero tolerance - you did. That aside, I imagine there's a bit of a difference between an airliner orbiting at 2000 feet and a fighter beating up an airfield (where, presumably, it has business being anyway). I wouldn't mind a fighter pilot beating up a hangar; after all, it's what they do. We want fighter pilots who have a dab of flair.. within limits.
However, I wouldn't want to fly somewhere in the hands of someone who thinks he can throw an airliner about at 2000 feet in much the same way that I wouldn't mind a few minutes going sideways on ice or gravel with a rally pro but wouldn't fancy being driven into town by a bendy bus driver who fantasises about chucking it around a roundabout on its mirrors at 50 mph.
It's not so much what he did or what skilful flying that he's capable of; rather, what (deep down) his cavalier attitude towards regulation and his employer are like. I might like him as a bloke and I might want to have a beer with him because he's not vanilla in a magnolia world. But would I put him in a position of trust where lives are at stake and I am responsible for them? Probably not.
However, I wouldn't want to fly somewhere in the hands of someone who thinks he can throw an airliner about at 2000 feet in much the same way that I wouldn't mind a few minutes going sideways on ice or gravel with a rally pro but wouldn't fancy being driven into town by a bendy bus driver who fantasises about chucking it around a roundabout on its mirrors at 50 mph.
It's not so much what he did or what skilful flying that he's capable of; rather, what (deep down) his cavalier attitude towards regulation and his employer are like. I might like him as a bloke and I might want to have a beer with him because he's not vanilla in a magnolia world. But would I put him in a position of trust where lives are at stake and I am responsible for them? Probably not.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're talking generalities you're of course entitled to your opinion but when describing an actual event you can't accuse an individual of "throwing around" an airliner when there was never any suggestion that he did so. That said, I agree he shouldn't have done what he did. Whether the subsequent action was proportionate we could discuss till the cows came home. He certainly wasn't guilty of illegal low flying which was the original complaint against him.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're talking generalities you're of course entitled to your opinion.
Anyone describing people who've had their pensions wiped out as "experiencing fluctuating values" could only work in the financial services industry!
MG said - "I've also blown out the back window of a brigadier's Mondeo."
I did get a snog from a WRAF in an MT Corsa once but I think you've trumped me there!
....I know, I'll get my coat....
I did get a snog from a WRAF in an MT Corsa once but I think you've trumped me there!
....I know, I'll get my coat....
"Did not play out as you describe"? I agree with your account, Ken; in what way does it contradict what I said?
For Al R, it's worth noting that there were no passengers on board, and there was no suggestion of the aircraft being "thrown around".
As to proportionality, you are right, it could be argued for ever.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's worth debating the merits of a policy of making payouts with a low burden of proof. I fully understand why this is done; the insurance industry often do it even when they have strong suspicions over a claim simply because contesting it would cost more than paying out. The trouble is, does this generate more claims from chancers chasing the scent of easy money?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S1,
Insurance companies certainly don't do it as much or as often as you'd imagine. The money that is redeemed to chancers still has to come from somewhere, and that 'somewhere' is by raising the premiums for everyone else. Insurers don't like to cross subsidise their policy holders because it makes them uncompetitive.
The only saving grace is that a rising tide raises all boats - they all have to engage in it and insurance is cheaper than it has ever been - to those who are squeeky clean in terms of risk. Some moron wiped me out on the A14 nearly 6 months ago. The oversight from the guilty b*$tard's insurer into my injuries and even my adherence to my rehab and physio has been scrupulous.
Insurance companies certainly don't do it as much or as often as you'd imagine. The money that is redeemed to chancers still has to come from somewhere, and that 'somewhere' is by raising the premiums for everyone else. Insurers don't like to cross subsidise their policy holders because it makes them uncompetitive.
The only saving grace is that a rising tide raises all boats - they all have to engage in it and insurance is cheaper than it has ever been - to those who are squeeky clean in terms of risk. Some moron wiped me out on the A14 nearly 6 months ago. The oversight from the guilty b*$tard's insurer into my injuries and even my adherence to my rehab and physio has been scrupulous.
