Attn BBMF DC3 Capt.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen the posts so far, I would agree that the subject has been done to death. I too saw the display, the whole day was absolutely marvelous and I would agree that the DC3 was spectacliar to quote the vernacular. He did a 'spirited' display and was good, the other chaps were excellent and further away ! I guess my view is that if the chap concerned gets a heads up then that is what was probably intended - espescially if you read the initial post carefully and understand the usual disclaimer at the bottom. I guess Fast Erect was either envious, appreciative, tiddly or all three.
At the end of the day, the show was good, no one was hurt and there were a load of people who had a fantastic day out.
At the end of the day, the show was good, no one was hurt and there were a load of people who had a fantastic day out.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whist the individuals chastisement should indeed cease, the subject of display safety is very relevant at this time of the year. As someone who came extremely close to having a mid-air in front of an International audience of half a million people there are lessons for display pilots and controllers that never date. The incident was one where the previous display over ran his allotted time and both he and we were going for the same line, he belly on to us as he turned in. Fortunately my co-pilot, not previously renown for look-out, caught a glimpse of him and we yelled on the display frequency. At the subsequent inquest, the display controller took his eyes off him to watch our run in, he got carried away with completing his display ignoring the time factor and we were totally concentrating on the run in line. Plenty of food for thought.
Fast Erect.
Yes, we are talking about the same display. I did not comment on where the aircraft flew, I voiced an opinion on a comment about its height. That's all.
Have you written your letter to the display organiser yet? I'm sure they can't wait to hear from you.
Yes, we are talking about the same display. I did not comment on where the aircraft flew, I voiced an opinion on a comment about its height. That's all.
Have you written your letter to the display organiser yet? I'm sure they can't wait to hear from you.
The REAL truth
I've spoken to the Dak crew involved:
1. The venue, Netherthorpe, asked for a FLYPAST and if you read GASOs you will see that crowd-line does not come into it.
2. If you read GASOs further you will see that the minumum height for flypasts is 250'MSD.
3. "Dog and Pony" events like that at Netherthorpe often publish display and crowd-lines when requesting flypasts from military aircraft which really do not apply. If they published and broadcast that the Dak was displaying then they are wrong as all it was authorised to do was a couple of flypasts and then depart.
4. The DISPLAY sequence as authorised by the AOC involves a 100' fly-through, followed by 300' 360 degree turn then a slow and configured fly-through and then a final 100' fly-through in the opposite direction to the arrival - There are to be no changes to this. Is this waht you saw? - Ivery much doubt it!
So for my not-so-learned friend who started this thread, you may have been mislead by the commentator at Netherthorpe, you may have seen what you thought was a display (But was actually a perfectly legal flypast) and you ARE wholy incorrect.
LJ
1. The venue, Netherthorpe, asked for a FLYPAST and if you read GASOs you will see that crowd-line does not come into it.
2. If you read GASOs further you will see that the minumum height for flypasts is 250'MSD.
3. "Dog and Pony" events like that at Netherthorpe often publish display and crowd-lines when requesting flypasts from military aircraft which really do not apply. If they published and broadcast that the Dak was displaying then they are wrong as all it was authorised to do was a couple of flypasts and then depart.
4. The DISPLAY sequence as authorised by the AOC involves a 100' fly-through, followed by 300' 360 degree turn then a slow and configured fly-through and then a final 100' fly-through in the opposite direction to the arrival - There are to be no changes to this. Is this waht you saw? - Ivery much doubt it!
So for my not-so-learned friend who started this thread, you may have been mislead by the commentator at Netherthorpe, you may have seen what you thought was a display (But was actually a perfectly legal flypast) and you ARE wholy incorrect.
LJ
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flypast or not, do you really think it is safe and sensible to fly a large aeroplane DIRECTLY over an assembled crowd?
I think not.
Also, the profile you describe certainly did not happen on the day.
I think not.
Also, the profile you describe certainly did not happen on the day.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear! I thought we were going to let this sad, tatty thread die. Instead there seems to be a hard core of mean-spirited sanctimonious contributors determined to prove that only they are right about something that most of us could not give a big rat's arse about.
Next time you are doing 90 on a Motorway in light traffic and good conditions remember that you are breaking a safety law whilst not being unsafe.
But then find youself at 70, three car lengths behind the one in front, and remember that whilst you are obeying the law you are being patently unsafe.
So safety is context relevant.
Large aeroplane? The Dak? Hardly, Twin Peaks! Compare and contrast the AUM of the C47 and a modern combat aircraft.
And then let's knock this one on the head and talk about something else.
Next time you are doing 90 on a Motorway in light traffic and good conditions remember that you are breaking a safety law whilst not being unsafe.
But then find youself at 70, three car lengths behind the one in front, and remember that whilst you are obeying the law you are being patently unsafe.
So safety is context relevant.
Large aeroplane? The Dak? Hardly, Twin Peaks! Compare and contrast the AUM of the C47 and a modern combat aircraft.
And then let's knock this one on the head and talk about something else.
There appears to be some disecrepancy between reports concerning this 'event'. If a 'flypast' turned into an anauthorised and unapproved display - note that I say 'IF' - then there are certainly legitimate grounds for concern.
However, there are more appropriate ways of expressing that concern than in a public forum.
Remember Ramstein? The UK has some pretty strict air display rules - as a result there hasn't been a member of the public killed since the crash of John Derry's DH110 at Farnborough in the early 1950s. Impromptu unauthorised displays by the unapproved will inevitably attract severe repercussions - and quite rightly so. There have been some pretty serious allegations made on this thread - if you have a genuine complaint, perhaps using the correct reporting chain would be a better way to ensure that it is investigated?
However, there are more appropriate ways of expressing that concern than in a public forum.
Remember Ramstein? The UK has some pretty strict air display rules - as a result there hasn't been a member of the public killed since the crash of John Derry's DH110 at Farnborough in the early 1950s. Impromptu unauthorised displays by the unapproved will inevitably attract severe repercussions - and quite rightly so. There have been some pretty serious allegations made on this thread - if you have a genuine complaint, perhaps using the correct reporting chain would be a better way to ensure that it is investigated?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Geriatrica, UK
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're going to keep this thread going let's get it right, BEagle.
So you don't count the RAE driver(s?) killed when the Breguet Atlantique went into their rest room in the Black Sheds at Farnborough in, I think, 1968?
That was as bad a piece of display flying discipline as most of us will ever have seen; and I saw it head-on from the Officers' Mess garden.
It is fantasy to imagine that if a breach of rules or authorisation did take place at Netherthorpe it has not already been addressed by the proper authorities.
Discussing it on PPRuNe will not have changed the course of history any more than the Chinook saga has been affected. (Although we all fervently hope that action off the PPRuNe stage will be successful in that case.)
So you don't count the RAE driver(s?) killed when the Breguet Atlantique went into their rest room in the Black Sheds at Farnborough in, I think, 1968?
That was as bad a piece of display flying discipline as most of us will ever have seen; and I saw it head-on from the Officers' Mess garden.
It is fantasy to imagine that if a breach of rules or authorisation did take place at Netherthorpe it has not already been addressed by the proper authorities.
Discussing it on PPRuNe will not have changed the course of history any more than the Chinook saga has been affected. (Although we all fervently hope that action off the PPRuNe stage will be successful in that case.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have been closely monitoring this thread from two perspectives. One as a past display pilot and the other as a moderator. I have to say that in the latter capacity, and taking into account the current feelings, that this thread is being battered by a fair bit of nonsense and I am, therefore, closing it.
If there is some very sound reason to open it again, please feel free to contact me and I will review it.
PPRuNe Pop
Moderator
[email protected]
If there is some very sound reason to open it again, please feel free to contact me and I will review it.
PPRuNe Pop
Moderator
[email protected]
