So if the aircraft was flying at 'window height', was the fuselage half-buried in the ground?
|
Just had Formby on the phone !
Not happy ! |
I bet MONICA, that works next to the PIPERACK at the aforementioned VILLAGE INN BOOZER would have a tale or 2 to recall....
|
I was going to post a picture of the Tower Bridge Hunter incident, but the only ones I can find appear to be Photoshop jobs; maybe there are no real ones. |
A friend who was an RAF Hunter Pilot noted his denial of having done a bit of low flying arrived upon the rocks of reality when the person complaining correctly reported the serial number of a wing store for his aircraft.
If true...she must have had some very good eyes and an excellent memory. Knowing the old Sod....my money is on the Lady's account. |
Originally Posted by pasta
(Post 11230193)
I was going to post a picture of the Tower Bridge Hunter incident, but the only ones I can find appear to be Photoshop jobs; maybe there are no real ones.
Flt. Lt. Alan Richard Pollock the pilot of the Hunter that flew through Tower Bridge in April 1968 wrote an article " Why I Flew my Hunter Through Tower Bridge - 5th April 1968" for "Flypast" magazine. His article can be seen here: https://www.jeversteamlaundry.org/4sqnper004.htm |
Hmmm.
I also recall handing a low-flying complaint at Boscombe (probably in the late 90s)… The complainant declared that an Andover had flown so low that she could read the serial number under the wing. However, it couldn’t have been ours, because we didn’t have one registered 909SX. |
Context, the height of the window
|
Or, as ICAO succinctly puts it, "The difference between an accident and a serious incident lies only in the result".
|
Originally Posted by ExV238
(Post 11231988)
Hmmm.
I also recall handing a low-flying complaint at Boscombe (probably in the late 90s)… The complainant declared that an Andover had flown so low that she could read the serial number under the wing. However, it couldn’t have been ours, because we didn’t have one registered 909SX. |
Originally Posted by KiloB
(Post 11232062)
So not only was he low flying, he was inverted!
|
Originally Posted by ExV238
(Post 11231988)
Hmmm.
I also recall handing a low-flying complaint at Boscombe (probably in the late 90s)… The complainant declared that an Andover had flown so low that she could read the serial number under the wing. However, it couldn’t have been ours, because we didn’t have one registered 909SX. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5a172f5d46.jpg |
excellent … 😎
|
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 11232116)
excellent … 😎
|
When I lived in Malmesbury, many years ago when Lightnings, F4s and Buccaneers were the established RAF FW fleet, and Tornadoes were relatively new in service, I was walking along Abbey Row ( https://goo.gl/maps/WhxagTdu3akDrZH97 for reference ) and saw a Buccaneer heading westwards using the valley. Below me. Well below window height!
|
nonsence, #32, an invalid contribution. The wheels are down!
Anyone from the ancient Valley Hawk era, who met an ‘experimental’ HS 748 in mid Wales - at (very) low level? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:57. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.