Display of reckless flying along N Norfolk coast
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly - it wasn't me. I was beating up a beach in South Norfolk, yesterday!
The ILAFFT article that you refer to HWD, was in fact a Stampe. The author told me of his little transgression one day and a year or so later it appeared in Pilot. That chap now flies LHS for BA.
Stik
The ILAFFT article that you refer to HWD, was in fact a Stampe. The author told me of his little transgression one day and a year or so later it appeared in Pilot. That chap now flies LHS for BA.
Stik
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stampe, Tiger, all the same to us Spammers 
Thanks for the correction
Oh yes, I should also point out that he claims that he did stick to the 500' rule. Very important that I make that point! The moral of the story was that even 500' isn't enough sometimes.
Thanks for the correction Oh yes, I should also point out that he claims that he did stick to the 500' rule. Very important that I make that point! The moral of the story was that even 500' isn't enough sometimes.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Psyclic,
Not sure what you are trying to achieve.
I could have believed that you were genuinely concerned about what happened if it had not been tor the gloating with which you advertise this thread on the RH forum.
It seems though that your fellow helo drivers were equally underwhelmed with your attempt at shroud waving.
FD
Not sure what you are trying to achieve.
I could have believed that you were genuinely concerned about what happened if it had not been tor the gloating with which you advertise this thread on the RH forum.
It seems though that your fellow helo drivers were equally underwhelmed with your attempt at shroud waving.
FD
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn! If I'd known that my adoring public was all the way down in hillbilly land, I wouldn't have bothered the good people of Leith and Portobello.
And it's only private flying if you have to dip into your own pocket too.
And it's only private flying if you have to dip into your own pocket too.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steady on witchdoctor, just because they're married to their sisters*, that doesn't make them hill billies. Shortage of hills, for one thing.
*As the medical notes on the two headed babies at Wells Cottage Hospital say: "N for N"
*As the medical notes on the two headed babies at Wells Cottage Hospital say: "N for N"
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bemused again for it was but only a few weeks ago that numerous postees agreed that 'Mr Mystery Condor M40 200ft' should be reported by 'Mr Car Driver with 50,000hrs of ATPL On Board' if not reported to the CAA then write to the registered owner (as opposed to the pilot unknown) and explain the error of his ways!
So Extras = ok, Condor = not ok, 30ft Man = ok. Next one shall be damned!
Me? Go for the Wash when the ranges are shut and bomb the targets.
All meant in the best possible taste......
So Extras = ok, Condor = not ok, 30ft Man = ok. Next one shall be damned!
Me? Go for the Wash when the ranges are shut and bomb the targets.
All meant in the best possible taste......
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Psyclic
"Psyclic" your profile states you are an ATPL . An ATPL pilot was recently found to be "drunk in charge".......does this mean ALL ATPL pilots are drunks ????????????.........I think not. Not all GA pilots are bad. 
Guest
Posts: n/a
There were only two or three posters agreeing that it sounded like the M40 guy was flying dangerously. Myself included. I am an inexperienced pilot and I don't understand the need to resist Rule 5. In my opinion it serves a sound purpose and anybody who wilfully breaks the letter or spirit of it is, in my book, verging on recklessness. We all make mistakes occasionally though, but some accounts don't sound like mistakes!
I also don't understand the need to lambaste and deride people who post here feeling a little shocked and angry at what they have witnessed.
I also don't understand the need to lambaste and deride people who post here feeling a little shocked and angry at what they have witnessed.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps, when you're no longer 'an inexperienced pilot' you will understand; perhaps not. But at least you're less likely to say things like "anybody who wilfully breaks the letter or spirit of (Rule 5) is, in my book, verging on recklessness."
On the other hand, if you mean 'reckless' as in recklessly ignoring the risk that some busybody might report them to the CAA, then I agree with you.
As you say, of all the people who posted, only two or three thought the M40 pilot was flying dangerously. Doesn't that tell you anything?
On the other hand, if you mean 'reckless' as in recklessly ignoring the risk that some busybody might report them to the CAA, then I agree with you.
As you say, of all the people who posted, only two or three thought the M40 pilot was flying dangerously. Doesn't that tell you anything?
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Ireland we still land on the odd beach and to do that you have even got to fly below 30 ft
Just a point of information.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Flying Lawyer:
Sure, "reckless" has particular legal meanings, which some breaches of Rule 5 would go nowhere near qualifying for.
How about:
"anybody who thinks that Rule 5 applies to everybody else but them might just possibly be the same sort of plonker who thinks that speed limits apply to everybody else but them"
?
Perhaps, when you're no longer 'an inexperienced pilot' you will understand; perhaps not. But at least you're less likely to say things like "anybody who wilfully breaks the letter or spirit of (Rule 5) is, in my book, verging on recklessness."
How about:
"anybody who thinks that Rule 5 applies to everybody else but them might just possibly be the same sort of plonker who thinks that speed limits apply to everybody else but them"
?
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've wittnessed this sort of thing on many many occassions and we get fairly regular complaints along the same lines.
The trouble is, the beaches in our neck of the woods seem to cry out "come on, come and have a closer look!", unfortunately what they don't tell you is that if you do, there's an even chance that they'll bite yer bum without any further invitation.
The main reason nearly all the low flying by the military in Norfolk takes place either over land or over the sea, but not over the beaches is:
1 - Despite looking like miles of flat sandy beach, the majority of the surfaces are continuously undulating and far from firm, if your engine stops and you have to force land, the chances of doing so without causing signifcant damge to the aircraft or yourself are very remote. Additionally, King Canute doesn't have a franchise in these parts and the tides and currents can be particularly unforgiving if you land any distance from the high water mark.
2 - Birds. For reasons best known to themselves, these creatures also seem to enjoy the lower level altitudes of the beaches.
Last summer I saw a PA28 hit a small group of gulls when the pilot decided to carry out an impromptu flypast over the beach at low level. He killed three of them, dinted his aeroplane, and scared the crap out of himself, but he survived. I know who he was, he knows I know, nuff said.
I know that no amount of comments, well intended or otherwise will stop this particular activity, but it does seem a particularly stupid way to make complete prick of yourself.
The trouble is, the beaches in our neck of the woods seem to cry out "come on, come and have a closer look!", unfortunately what they don't tell you is that if you do, there's an even chance that they'll bite yer bum without any further invitation.
The main reason nearly all the low flying by the military in Norfolk takes place either over land or over the sea, but not over the beaches is:
1 - Despite looking like miles of flat sandy beach, the majority of the surfaces are continuously undulating and far from firm, if your engine stops and you have to force land, the chances of doing so without causing signifcant damge to the aircraft or yourself are very remote. Additionally, King Canute doesn't have a franchise in these parts and the tides and currents can be particularly unforgiving if you land any distance from the high water mark.
2 - Birds. For reasons best known to themselves, these creatures also seem to enjoy the lower level altitudes of the beaches.
Last summer I saw a PA28 hit a small group of gulls when the pilot decided to carry out an impromptu flypast over the beach at low level. He killed three of them, dinted his aeroplane, and scared the crap out of himself, but he survived. I know who he was, he knows I know, nuff said.
I know that no amount of comments, well intended or otherwise will stop this particular activity, but it does seem a particularly stupid way to make complete prick of yourself.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gertrude
I don't know.
I know many people who break the speed limit - eg most people seem to drive at about 80 mph on motorways - but I don't know anyone who breaks it while thinking everybody else should keep to it. They would, indeed, be plonkers as you say.
On the other hand, I suspect there are some pilots who occasionally break the 500' or 1500' rule themselves, but are terribly 'holier than thou' about others who do so.
The main thrust of my post was the point on which we agree: Breaking a Rule of the Air reg doesn't necessarily mean reckless (or dangerous) flying. It may, or it may not, depending upon the circumstances.
I don't know.
I know many people who break the speed limit - eg most people seem to drive at about 80 mph on motorways - but I don't know anyone who breaks it while thinking everybody else should keep to it. They would, indeed, be plonkers as you say.
On the other hand, I suspect there are some pilots who occasionally break the 500' or 1500' rule themselves, but are terribly 'holier than thou' about others who do so.
The main thrust of my post was the point on which we agree: Breaking a Rule of the Air reg doesn't necessarily mean reckless (or dangerous) flying. It may, or it may not, depending upon the circumstances.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as a point of clarification:
Rule five does not say you can not fly lower than 500ft, it states that you can not do so if it means being closer than 500ft from any person, vehicle etc.
FD
Rule five does not say you can not fly lower than 500ft, it states that you can not do so if it means being closer than 500ft from any person, vehicle etc.
FD
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I understand what Mr 30ft was doing; It was a heck of a long finals run to land! He came into view in the west, about half way along Scolt Head (2 miles away roughly) just above (about 30ft) and parallel to the beach. Simply hanging there waiting for the best place to touchdown along a very long natural runway, avoiding the temporary obstructions like people and kites.
That I suppose is ok.
That I suppose is ok.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I was always taught to cross the coast at 90 degrees (heading, not AOB) to minimise the risk of birdstrike. Some people earlier were slagging off police helos for flying low, well, our units night limits are higher than 200'. If you think he was dangerous, complain. It is your right.
On the safety side of things, I had a birdstrike yesterday at 500' / 120kts that hit the screen right in front of my face, very scary!! Why risk a multiple seagull or kite strike? After many many many other threads on this subject, it always comes down to the same thing. People are shouted down and told that they cant judge height. This I agree with after dealing with complaints in the past. However remember one thing: many will be wrong, but some will be right. If you are legit and not breaking rules.... fine. If you are illegal or dangerous, do not complain if you get punished. Just like people who slag off speed cameras, if you don't speed then you dont get caught.... simple.
Psyclic, if you are genuinely worried on safety, report it to the correct channels, not PPRUNE. You will only be shouted down here. If the pilots have not broken any rules, then they have nothing to fear.
On the safety side of things, I had a birdstrike yesterday at 500' / 120kts that hit the screen right in front of my face, very scary!! Why risk a multiple seagull or kite strike? After many many many other threads on this subject, it always comes down to the same thing. People are shouted down and told that they cant judge height. This I agree with after dealing with complaints in the past. However remember one thing: many will be wrong, but some will be right. If you are legit and not breaking rules.... fine. If you are illegal or dangerous, do not complain if you get punished. Just like people who slag off speed cameras, if you don't speed then you dont get caught.... simple.
Psyclic, if you are genuinely worried on safety, report it to the correct channels, not PPRUNE. You will only be shouted down here. If the pilots have not broken any rules, then they have nothing to fear.
Whirly I think the exemption to the 500' rule when taking off and landing only applies to licensed airfields and emergencies. We have to maintain the 500' from any person, stucture etc etc in the circuit at Rush Green which is going to be damned hard when they build a 5,000 unit housing estate under our downwind especially as we can't go higher as we'd bump into the 73's and 75's lobbing into Luton
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jayteeto,
Is true, unfortunately the same can not be said when it comes to complaints about low flying. There has been a pletora of cases where people have been at the receiving end of the CAA EB for alleged offences which were based on dodgy witness statements.
Unlike speed cameras eyewitnesses are not calibrated for faultless reporting, as you state yourself.
LnS,
Fortunately not. Otherwise you could never take off or land on an unlicensed field.
FD
speed cameras, if you don't speed then you dont get caught.... simple.
Unlike speed cameras eyewitnesses are not calibrated for faultless reporting, as you state yourself.
People [snipped] are told that they cant judge height. This I agree with after dealing with complaints in the past. However remember one thing: many will be wrong, but some will be right.
I think the exemption to the 500' rule when taking off and landing only applies to licensed airfields and emergencies
FD