Spitfire and Chinook near-miss
Somehow I do not get the feeling that the CAA is particularly adept in its role as a regulator. The post-Shoreham changes seem to be limited to making life difficult for professionals already engaged with the process whilst looking the other way when a genuinely rogue pilot crosses their path. I.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,598
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
Just realised the Spitfire in question is not the one I thought it was.
sadly if the situation was reversed and the Chinook pilot had been at fault action would have been taken against him by the service . Sadly some experienced people out there who the rules don't apply to.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this necessary? The CAA can prosecute without recourse to the Police/CPS. While they may not have had access to 'proper' evidence nor wish to deter the use of the Airprox process, the pattern of behaviour suggests it might have been called for in this case.
EAP
EAP
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,756
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
As I have always said, a lot of warbird owners are often put on pedestals quite wrongly as highly skilled individuals when often it is simply down to the depth of their wallet in being able to purchase and fly the warbirds and not the skills set they have.
Ironically, it was these extra post-Shoreham changes mentioned, that I believe was one of the main reasons cited by this pilot as being while he was calling time on public display flying.......
Once the regulator has grounds to suspect either gross negligence, a deliberate act or a deliberate effort to frustrate a safety investigation then the regulator should suspend any relevant licences and provide any & all non-privileged information to the police. From then on the regulator should be in a supporting role until the police / CPS / courts come to a conclusion. In my previous discussions with the CAA I expressed a preference for all such investigations to be handled by the NCA rather than an individual force. As aviation can cross boarders the NCA is best equipped to liaise with other national authorities. My sense from the CAA was that they were verging on clueless when it came to anything that looked like a formal or legal sanction. Indeed, they frequently make excuses on behalf of any miscreant even when the individual has made no effort to engage with an investigation. About the only exception to this is with alcohol where direct police enforcement has become the norm.
My overriding concern with the CAA is that they seem to have become detached from the 'aviation' bit. Any professional aviator would baulk at the thought of using a circuit joining clearance as permission to fly as low as you like, with any flightpath you like with zero regard to other airfield users. Yet in this case some members of the board thought that a civilian pilot attempting a military-style VRIAB could be absolved from knowing or understanding the limits. In no way is a 30ft high-speed beat-up of an airfield acceptable when you have been cleared to join the circuit. It is either a deliberate act or a yawning gap in professional ability and regulatory action is required. Yet I am left with doubts regarding the professional ability of the UKAB Secretariat itself:
UKAB Secretariat
The Chinook and Spitfire pilots shared an equal responsibility for collision avoidance and not to operate in such proximity to other aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
The Chinook and Spitfire pilots shared an equal responsibility for collision avoidance and not to operate in such proximity to other aircraft as to create a collision hazard.
There is a whiff of madness with both the CAA and UKAB when it comes to professional aviation standards.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a twunt .. who was possibly only spared further grief because of the effective lookout and prompt actions of a certain Chinook crew.
I've had an 'airmiss' (100' max seperation from 3 x FJ and very much a brown trousers moment) and they are NOT FUN!!! (No, it wasn't my fault!) so why do these cowboys do this kind of stuff?????? Arrogance? Stupidity? Thinking that the Rules don't apply to them? Answers on a VERY small postcard please
CS
I have said that I am off the display circuit but reserve the right to fly some guest appearances. I will keep my DA (CAA display Authority) current at least for 2019, so maybe will do a couple of gigs, so hard to go “cold Turkey”
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Oh, well, Red Flags for ATC next time he decides to do his own thing.
‘gigs’ and ‘cold turkey’ ... How embarrassing and faintly juvenile. CAA could look more closely at him, but it seems upthread that they’re not terribly effective!.
‘gigs’ and ‘cold turkey’ ... How embarrassing and faintly juvenile. CAA could look more closely at him, but it seems upthread that they’re not terribly effective!.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
From personal experience, the AIRPROX board is reluctant to rate incidents "A", where there is no solid radar evidence to corroborate a pilot report.
This incident reminds me of one I submitted some years ago. Another helicopter pilot who claimed to have seen us after being alerted to our presence by an A/G operator, for unknown reasons failed to fly in the direction and routing he had said he was actually flying and shortly afterwards flew directly over us (only just) from our 6 to 12 o'clock in a steep descent. I was hovering into wind at about 1200 feet. He missed us by possibly ten metres at most as he suddenly appeared from behind and above, with almost nil vertical separation. The tail of his aircraft almost passed through our rotor disc as he descended through our level on the same heading as us. Strangely, there is a common factor here - his transponder appears to have been switched off before we got close but came on without Mode C as he flew onwards at low level.
This pilot either did it deliberately (which is what he admitted in his report due to "late sighting") and therefore lied on the radio that he'd seen us and was then so incompetent he didn't realise how close we'd actually come to having a mid air collision.
It was as close as I ever want to get to another helicopter; it still makes me shiver to think about it (even though as "lsh" might recall, I've flown quite lot of pre-briefed very close formation in my time). However, the incident was formally classified merely as a "B" risk (i.e. safety not assured).
This incident reminds me of one I submitted some years ago. Another helicopter pilot who claimed to have seen us after being alerted to our presence by an A/G operator, for unknown reasons failed to fly in the direction and routing he had said he was actually flying and shortly afterwards flew directly over us (only just) from our 6 to 12 o'clock in a steep descent. I was hovering into wind at about 1200 feet. He missed us by possibly ten metres at most as he suddenly appeared from behind and above, with almost nil vertical separation. The tail of his aircraft almost passed through our rotor disc as he descended through our level on the same heading as us. Strangely, there is a common factor here - his transponder appears to have been switched off before we got close but came on without Mode C as he flew onwards at low level.
This pilot either did it deliberately (which is what he admitted in his report due to "late sighting") and therefore lied on the radio that he'd seen us and was then so incompetent he didn't realise how close we'd actually come to having a mid air collision.
It was as close as I ever want to get to another helicopter; it still makes me shiver to think about it (even though as "lsh" might recall, I've flown quite lot of pre-briefed very close formation in my time). However, the incident was formally classified merely as a "B" risk (i.e. safety not assured).
Last edited by ShyTorque; 22nd Nov 2018 at 19:26.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 61
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plus ca change!.
Ormond Haydon-Baillie was doing this ****e back in the '70s and Don Bullock in 1980.
It's about time the CAA tightened up the rules for Warbird pilots.
Ormond Haydon-Baillie was doing this ****e back in the '70s and Don Bullock in 1980.
It's about time the CAA tightened up the rules for Warbird pilots.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
A ‘warbird’ is, AIUI, still generally a private light aircraft.
Has anyone told these ‘heroes’ that WW2 finished in 1945? A bit of maturity and common-sense seems lacking.
Has anyone told these ‘heroes’ that WW2 finished in 1945? A bit of maturity and common-sense seems lacking.
I'm guessing that's some footage that will never see the light of day.