What would you do about this idiot?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SSE of smoki
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Bh initially aked what you would do about it. He gave himself three options, seemed to accept the advice from people posting, and no doubt has now decided on the correct course of action. Reckon the post should be tied up now, Rgds.
Bh initially aked what you would do about it. He gave himself three options, seemed to accept the advice from people posting, and no doubt has now decided on the correct course of action. Reckon the post should be tied up now, Rgds.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're concerned, just look up the rego on http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/aircraft_re...nfo/search.asp and then call the guy to enquire what was happening. If you have the time...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey boys
What a load of crap. If the plod had the decency to write to me and ask why I happened to be doing 95 down the outside lane of the M40, I would lie my ar$e off if I thought they would accept that and let me off the hook.
Incidentally, on the road, the word of two people is enough to bring a case against a speeding driver.. It doesn't say they have to be armed with speed cameras.
If every incident of percieved bad airmanship goes unchecked, pretty soon we have complete disregard for the regs.
Maybe the guy in the Condor did have a good reason.. its worth checking. On pain of sounding cliched, the regs exist for a reason, and we pay the CAA handsomely to enforce them, so the decision as to any wrong doing should be theirs.. not a bunch of good old boys, with the pathetic "You can't prove anything" attitude.. How schoolboy.
when a simple letter and request for information may just allay your fears.
Incidentally, on the road, the word of two people is enough to bring a case against a speeding driver.. It doesn't say they have to be armed with speed cameras.
If every incident of percieved bad airmanship goes unchecked, pretty soon we have complete disregard for the regs.
Maybe the guy in the Condor did have a good reason.. its worth checking. On pain of sounding cliched, the regs exist for a reason, and we pay the CAA handsomely to enforce them, so the decision as to any wrong doing should be theirs.. not a bunch of good old boys, with the pathetic "You can't prove anything" attitude.. How schoolboy.
PPRuNe Engineering Dept Apprentice
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Deep in the boglands of Western Ireland
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All,
I'd go with the experience of FL on this one (apart from the offer to defend the accused), and as a neutral party I feel that Option 3 is the way to go, should you see fit.
If the owner wasn't flying, then he'll give a rollicking to the PIC at the time, and crisis over.
If it was him, and he had a good reason, then leave it.
If he feels uncomfortable and/or apologetic, then he's learned his
lesson.
If he's an obnoxious arrogant SOB who ges abusive with you (REMEMBER NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES DO YOU GET ABUSIVE WITH HIM!) let the CAA hounds loose!
I'm sure there's holes the size of barges in the above, but it's the best I can do from an unsullied, Joe Public Jury position.
Sensible,
It wasn't you was it?
I'd go with the experience of FL on this one (apart from the offer to defend the accused), and as a neutral party I feel that Option 3 is the way to go, should you see fit.
If the owner wasn't flying, then he'll give a rollicking to the PIC at the time, and crisis over.
If it was him, and he had a good reason, then leave it.
If he feels uncomfortable and/or apologetic, then he's learned his
lesson.
If he's an obnoxious arrogant SOB who ges abusive with you (REMEMBER NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES DO YOU GET ABUSIVE WITH HIM!) let the CAA hounds loose!
I'm sure there's holes the size of barges in the above, but it's the best I can do from an unsullied, Joe Public Jury position.
Sensible,
It wasn't you was it?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respect to Big Hilly for accepting the views of the sensible aviators and ignoring the silly Little Billy's who wanted him to go off to the feds.
But it brings up a wider topic. Should we report other pilots for breaking the rules?
I woul never report another pilot for something like that. Sure, something serious might mean you have no choice, but a bit of low flying that didn't do nobody any harm I wouldn't. Let the authorities do their own dirty work. There's no need to help them by getting other pilots in the sh1t.
Kentish Boy
Very touching post. It's good to see a bit of old-fashioned hero worship. Not much of it about these days.
But it brings up a wider topic. Should we report other pilots for breaking the rules?
I woul never report another pilot for something like that. Sure, something serious might mean you have no choice, but a bit of low flying that didn't do nobody any harm I wouldn't. Let the authorities do their own dirty work. There's no need to help them by getting other pilots in the sh1t.
Kentish Boy
Very touching post. It's good to see a bit of old-fashioned hero worship. Not much of it about these days.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finals3Greens
What is it that concerns you about BH being able to read the Reg?
What do you think it proves?
Kentish Lad
Estimates of height of aircraft from the ground are notoriouly unreliable, even when estimated by experienced pilots. It's fairly easy to see that an a/c is lower or higher than circuit height at a familiar airfield, but not when it's flying over unfamiliar terrain where we don't have a mental picture of where an aircraft should be. In this instance, it may well be that Big Hilly's estimate is accurate, but I'm still pleased he's decided not to get another aviator into trouble.
Flytest
I totally disagree with all your points. Just for info re one of them, the evidence of just one PC and what he says he saw on his speedo is enough provided there is evidence his speedo was working accurately at the relevant time.
What is it that concerns you about BH being able to read the Reg?
What do you think it proves?
Kentish Lad
Estimates of height of aircraft from the ground are notoriouly unreliable, even when estimated by experienced pilots. It's fairly easy to see that an a/c is lower or higher than circuit height at a familiar airfield, but not when it's flying over unfamiliar terrain where we don't have a mental picture of where an aircraft should be. In this instance, it may well be that Big Hilly's estimate is accurate, but I'm still pleased he's decided not to get another aviator into trouble.
Flytest
I totally disagree with all your points. Just for info re one of them, the evidence of just one PC and what he says he saw on his speedo is enough provided there is evidence his speedo was working accurately at the relevant time.
BH
I still don't know how you knew he was at 200ft.
Since I last looked at this thread several hundred thousand posts have appeared and I may have missed your answer, apologies in advance if I have.
So, now we all seem to have calmed down and talked this through like big girls and boys, how did you know he was at 200ft?
Not a trick question; not the start of me telling you that you should do one thing or another; I don't really care whether you forget all about it or tar and feather the chap before dragging him out of town behind a galloping steed; I just want to know.
Please.
I still don't know how you knew he was at 200ft.
Since I last looked at this thread several hundred thousand posts have appeared and I may have missed your answer, apologies in advance if I have.
So, now we all seem to have calmed down and talked this through like big girls and boys, how did you know he was at 200ft?
Not a trick question; not the start of me telling you that you should do one thing or another; I don't really care whether you forget all about it or tar and feather the chap before dragging him out of town behind a galloping steed; I just want to know.
Please.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having seen first hand how the CAA would drag a person throught the Crown Court system and spend over £400,000 on heresay only to drop the charges after 2 years of preparation and 8 days in court, I would not report anyone to them.
I would drop the owner a nice polite note to inform him that he or whoever was using his aircraft seemed to be a bit low close to the motorway and that some "anti" might report him.
Dont give yourself a heart attack over it, in my experience if a person flys low continually he is a "temporary" problem and we will soon be reading about him in 1 of our mags.
I would drop the owner a nice polite note to inform him that he or whoever was using his aircraft seemed to be a bit low close to the motorway and that some "anti" might report him.
Dont give yourself a heart attack over it, in my experience if a person flys low continually he is a "temporary" problem and we will soon be reading about him in 1 of our mags.
Peoples' Champion!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey, what a lot of posts!
Sensible, I really don’t know what to say. I could make neither head nor tail of what the hell you were trying to say in your latest post. I’m not going to get into some sort of name-calling, handbag fight with you on here. My advice to you would have to be: go and get a few hours under your belt, then, when you’ve grown up a little and have something constructive & coherent to say, I’ll get back to you.
JAFO, Perhaps I should explain. There were four of us in the car. Each of us extremely experienced professional pilots and each of us said “WTF!!!!!!!!” As I said before, he was NO MORE than 200ft In reality, he was probably lower. Was he at 201ft? Maybe. Was he at 150ft? Maybe. Was he at 501ft? NO FUNG WAY!!!!!
You also have to ask what the hell was he was doing flying up the left hand lane of a motorway anyway (didn’t I read once something about a/c keeping to the RIGHT of such objects. . . .)? An emergency? Well if he flies above a motorway with a failing Donk, then he really does deserve to have the book thrown at him. I can think of no technical problem that would force him to do this – anyone have any ideas?????
Kentish Lad, What can I say – it looks like I’ve finally got myself a fan!
Thank you for your kind words though!
Everyone else, Can I just make one thing clear? As Timothy said, I was asking YOUR advice on what to do!!!! And I will go with the majority verdict. I’ve got his details (or at least the details of the registered owner and hopefully he’ll know who was flying his aircraft at that time on a Saturday afternoon) and I’ll have a word. . . .
BH
Sensible, I really don’t know what to say. I could make neither head nor tail of what the hell you were trying to say in your latest post. I’m not going to get into some sort of name-calling, handbag fight with you on here. My advice to you would have to be: go and get a few hours under your belt, then, when you’ve grown up a little and have something constructive & coherent to say, I’ll get back to you.
JAFO, Perhaps I should explain. There were four of us in the car. Each of us extremely experienced professional pilots and each of us said “WTF!!!!!!!!” As I said before, he was NO MORE than 200ft In reality, he was probably lower. Was he at 201ft? Maybe. Was he at 150ft? Maybe. Was he at 501ft? NO FU
NG WAY!!!!!You also have to ask what the hell was he was doing flying up the left hand lane of a motorway anyway (didn’t I read once something about a/c keeping to the RIGHT of such objects. . . .)? An emergency? Well if he flies above a motorway with a failing Donk, then he really does deserve to have the book thrown at him. I can think of no technical problem that would force him to do this – anyone have any ideas?????
Kentish Lad, What can I say – it looks like I’ve finally got myself a fan!
Thank you for your kind words though!Everyone else, Can I just make one thing clear? As Timothy said, I was asking YOUR advice on what to do!!!! And I will go with the majority verdict. I’ve got his details (or at least the details of the registered owner and hopefully he’ll know who was flying his aircraft at that time on a Saturday afternoon) and I’ll have a word. . . .
BH
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original question has been fully answered and the advice offered may have saved a pilot from the attentions of the CAA which will please the majority and disappoint the minority.
That seems to be the end of the matter as far as Big Hilly and this particular pilot are concerned.
However, the responses have thrown up a clear divergence of views on rights and wrongs of one pilot reporting or shopping (depending on your point of view) another pilot to the CAA.
What do people think about that bigger issue?
Should we be additional 'policemen' for the CAA, as Flytest suggests?
Or should we mind our own business?
That seems to be the end of the matter as far as Big Hilly and this particular pilot are concerned.
However, the responses have thrown up a clear divergence of views on rights and wrongs of one pilot reporting or shopping (depending on your point of view) another pilot to the CAA.
What do people think about that bigger issue?
Should we be additional 'policemen' for the CAA, as Flytest suggests?
Or should we mind our own business?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We don't have to be "policemen" but we do have a responsibilty to ensure that neither ourselves or our peers are dangerous. This should be done by whatever means possible, including approaching the CAA. I follow the rules why shouldn't everyone else?
One thing is certain, minding our own business is not conducive to flight safety!
One thing is certain, minding our own business is not conducive to flight safety!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have tried to resist posting on this topic but failed 
I really do not want to get involved in the particular spat that seems to have wound up so many people but I would like to extend the debate slightly - only a little bit, honest.
Are the "majority" (I'll take the word of those posters who have made that claim, I really can't be bothered to check) suggesting that the pilot should not be reported simply because he is a fellow aviator or purely because BH cannot know why he was apparently flying so low?
If it is the former, then I am a little concerned. Firstly, it smacks of "them and us", not a good sign. Second, what kind of society will this create; where do we draw the line between defending "one of our own" and reporting "an offence". What would you do if you knew that a particular a/c owner/pilot was not bothering to have his aircraft properly serviced (apart from never accept an offer of a flight in it). How do we know he isn't perfectly capable of servicing it himself, in which case why get him into trouble? Mind you, he might just be an idiot.
Just a thought.
Aiglon
I really do not want to get involved in the particular spat that seems to have wound up so many people but I would like to extend the debate slightly - only a little bit, honest.
Are the "majority" (I'll take the word of those posters who have made that claim, I really can't be bothered to check) suggesting that the pilot should not be reported simply because he is a fellow aviator or purely because BH cannot know why he was apparently flying so low?
If it is the former, then I am a little concerned. Firstly, it smacks of "them and us", not a good sign. Second, what kind of society will this create; where do we draw the line between defending "one of our own" and reporting "an offence". What would you do if you knew that a particular a/c owner/pilot was not bothering to have his aircraft properly serviced (apart from never accept an offer of a flight in it). How do we know he isn't perfectly capable of servicing it himself, in which case why get him into trouble? Mind you, he might just be an idiot.
Just a thought.
Aiglon
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the evidence of just one PC and what he says he saw on his speedo is enough provided there is evidence his speedo was working accurately at the relevant time.
Timothy
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aiglon;
I htink you will find that most of us who are suggesting "NOT REPORTING" are doing so because there is no clear evidence as to what height the aircraft was.
Yet we cannot be sure if the CAA would not jump on this pilot and put him or her through hell for a couple of years only to loose yet another silly case and waste another load of money.
I htink you will find that most of us who are suggesting "NOT REPORTING" are doing so because there is no clear evidence as to what height the aircraft was.
Yet we cannot be sure if the CAA would not jump on this pilot and put him or her through hell for a couple of years only to loose yet another silly case and waste another load of money.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aiglon asks...
In response to Aiglon's post, my mindset behind NOT reporting this alleged infringement of Rule 5 is purely because BH cannot know why he was apparently flying so low OR know exactly how high (or low) he was flying.
As no imminent danger or nusiance was caused on this occasion it seemed heavy-handed to involve a regulatory body who are not known for being even-handed.
The Condor pilot may have been exuberant, a particularly high risk emotion OR he may have been forced down to a lower than normal height by any variety of factors. It seems petulant and perhaps punitive to involve a third party without the full information set. If he was flying as described then it ceratinly was not the most stupendous display of airmanship but as we do not know whey he was doing it, we should not seek to convict him.
As for contacting the owner, personally I have far better things to do with my time than fight a one-man vendetta against anyone I believe to be infringing rules, especially when the infringement did not appear to cause anyone any harm. Life is certainly far to short at my advancing age to get all worked up about something that on the face of it seems quite unimportant. Could you imagine the ensuing chaos if we all tracked down other drivers who had cut us up, failed to give way, failed to stop, overtook in excess of the speed limit?
Without condoning someone flying along the wrong side of a motorway at half the legal minimum height: There appears to be a select few in aviation who always seem to know best, feel the need to share their greater experience, as a multi-thousand hour, ex fast-jet mate, wide-bodied training Captain and then attempt to police aviation to the detriment of the poor chap trying to enjoy his flying. Thankfully they are more than outnumbered by guys with equal qualification who only seem to involve themselves when absolutely essential.
I did watch the BBC1 two-parter that concluded last night about the paddy radiographer whose failure to involve himself resulted in a rape! The context will make sense to anyone who saw it and BH's position.
Big Hilly - do what you see fit, but don't allow yourself to become so agitated lest you end up the victim yourself.
Stik
As no imminent danger or nusiance was caused on this occasion it seemed heavy-handed to involve a regulatory body who are not known for being even-handed.
The Condor pilot may have been exuberant, a particularly high risk emotion OR he may have been forced down to a lower than normal height by any variety of factors. It seems petulant and perhaps punitive to involve a third party without the full information set. If he was flying as described then it ceratinly was not the most stupendous display of airmanship but as we do not know whey he was doing it, we should not seek to convict him.
As for contacting the owner, personally I have far better things to do with my time than fight a one-man vendetta against anyone I believe to be infringing rules, especially when the infringement did not appear to cause anyone any harm. Life is certainly far to short at my advancing age to get all worked up about something that on the face of it seems quite unimportant. Could you imagine the ensuing chaos if we all tracked down other drivers who had cut us up, failed to give way, failed to stop, overtook in excess of the speed limit?
Without condoning someone flying along the wrong side of a motorway at half the legal minimum height: There appears to be a select few in aviation who always seem to know best, feel the need to share their greater experience, as a multi-thousand hour, ex fast-jet mate, wide-bodied training Captain and then attempt to police aviation to the detriment of the poor chap trying to enjoy his flying. Thankfully they are more than outnumbered by guys with equal qualification who only seem to involve themselves when absolutely essential.
I did watch the BBC1 two-parter that concluded last night about the paddy radiographer whose failure to involve himself resulted in a rape! The context will make sense to anyone who saw it and BH's position.
Big Hilly - do what you see fit, but don't allow yourself to become so agitated lest you end up the victim yourself.
Stik
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stik, you put that very well. I agree with you.
PS: on another thread, of a certain, ahem, celebrity, someone is asserting that we're all irresponsible and outrageous for condoning manifest wickedness on the grounds of fun. I thought that we were merely observing that we can't be sure why the pilot was flying as he was, (even assuming that he was as low as stated), but perhaps we should all turn ourselves in to the Feds for the dangerous nutters we are.
PS: on another thread, of a certain, ahem, celebrity, someone is asserting that we're all irresponsible and outrageous for condoning manifest wickedness on the grounds of fun. I thought that we were merely observing that we can't be sure why the pilot was flying as he was, (even assuming that he was as low as stated), but perhaps we should all turn ourselves in to the Feds for the dangerous nutters we are.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been thinking about this a lot. If it were me, and I felt as certain about the height as Big Hilly does, I think I'd calm down, then write a polite letter to the aircraft owner. I'd mention that I didn't know who was flying, or the circumstances, but I felt it could...whatever I felt. I'd say I hoped he didn't mind my writing to him, etc. That way, I wouldn't upset anyone or get them into trouble with the CAA - perhaps wrongly - but it might cause the pilot to stop and think next time. It couldn't do any harm...and might do some good.
Whirly,
The most sensible post on this thread IMO.
It is possible that the owner was not the pilot and that the owner would like to know that his aeroplane was being flown dangerously and illegally.
I would write in that vain. If the owner was the pilot, at least he will be made to think about his attitude to rules and safety. He will certainly be made aware that there are people on the ground who have the expertise to mount a good case against him and he might not be so lucky next time.
The most sensible post on this thread IMO.
It is possible that the owner was not the pilot and that the owner would like to know that his aeroplane was being flown dangerously and illegally.
I would write in that vain. If the owner was the pilot, at least he will be made to think about his attitude to rules and safety. He will certainly be made aware that there are people on the ground who have the expertise to mount a good case against him and he might not be so lucky next time.