Display of reckless flying along N Norfolk coast
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 500 foot rule (which, as correctly pointed out above, is about distance from people, boats, vehicles and structures , not about height) does not apply to an aircraft taking off or landing "in accordance with normal aviation practice" . So far as I am aware, (but Flying Lawyer knows lots more about this than me or, I dare say, any of the rest of us) no one has ever found out precisely what "normal aviation practice" is, but landing at an airfield, licensed or otherwise, would usually count as pretty normal. Landing on the roof of your mum's house might not.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am unhappy to say that this transgression (if it was such) was not me as I was stuck at GVFWE all weekend. On another weekend, however, i could well have been at the same height as this observer (30ft) and flying perfectly legally along the North Norfolk coast (done it many times). Reduces safety margins but not illegal if 500ft away from persons... etc.
I do hate not being the subject of criticism so if you tell me when you will next be observing I will try and ensure that I do something enjoyable but legal but which you can claim is irresponsible (if that gives you something else to get on your high horse about!)
I do hate not being the subject of criticism so if you tell me when you will next be observing I will try and ensure that I do something enjoyable but legal but which you can claim is irresponsible (if that gives you something else to get on your high horse about!)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Matruh, Egypt and Belize.
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clocking aircraft heights is a very inexact science. Are you able to provide proof that the mentioned A/C were at 300ft and 30ft? If you could provide a photograph of the a/c with e.g. a tree in the background you may have some evidence, after verification of location.
Would like to point out however, that in a past life my job was low flying. Did it for 12 years. Unless one is current and experienced in the art of low flying, don't do it. You will come to grief. Yes it can be a lot of fun but it can only be carried out, with any degree of safety, after proper training and hours and hours of practice.
Would like to point out however, that in a past life my job was low flying. Did it for 12 years. Unless one is current and experienced in the art of low flying, don't do it. You will come to grief. Yes it can be a lot of fun but it can only be carried out, with any degree of safety, after proper training and hours and hours of practice.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South East England
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was also flying along the North Norfolk coast on Sunday, at a few mins before midday - I remember that because the controller err'd over his good afterrrrr/morning. Whilst bimbling around at 3000' I heard a fair amount of traffic reporting their intentions to hit the coastline and there was one chap who reported doing some "low level at 300 feet". I thought I must have mis-heard so didn't pay too much attention, neither did Norwich Approach.. they were just advising him of other traffic at the time.
Does this fit in with your timings?
lhd
Does this fit in with your timings?
lhd
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Matruh, Egypt and Belize.
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I forgot, there are always exceptions (aces) to the rule.
Having to feel the need to "put on an act" is normally a good indicator of inexperience. Short man or small p***s sydrome springs to mind.
It's all been done before, the graveyards are testimony to that.
Having to feel the need to "put on an act" is normally a good indicator of inexperience. Short man or small p***s sydrome springs to mind.
It's all been done before, the graveyards are testimony to that.
Our problem with the 500' rule is on our downwind leg. This has to be to the East due to the proximity to Luton's 26 threshold (6 mils away) which caps us at 1,000' on the Luton QNH. The hill under the downwind leg is going to get covered in housing (currently empty fields) which will be approx 400-500 agl depending on the QNH. The approach and takeoff zones are not an issue as one suggestion has been to have a "teardrop" shaped area at each end for use when practicing circuits or joining overhead. From this I gather that approaches and takeoffs are "normal aviation practice" but circuits aren't.....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From this I gather that approaches and takeoffs are "normal aviation practice" but circuits aren't.....
I would have thought that it would not be difficult to defend that a circuit is 'normal aviation practice'
FL?
FD
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, Dutch.
By the way, slightly diverging from thread, but note in particular BEagle's points in this discussion from the Instructors' forum.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=1
Edit: duff link amended, should work now.
By the way, slightly diverging from thread, but note in particular BEagle's points in this discussion from the Instructors' forum.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...5&pagenumber=1
Edit: duff link amended, should work now.
Last edited by FNG; 18th May 2004 at 18:51.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting feedback about Sundays beach flying. Thank you for your comments.
When a pilot fails a trip he is not usually reported to the CAA. Generally, everyone in the coffee bar discusses him.
Mr 30ft was on Exercise 19*. He failed on airmanship; the beach wasn’t deserted and he nearly wound up wearing a kite. DNCO. He knows it and now we all know it.
* Exercise 19: "a bit of a beach bimble."
When a pilot fails a trip he is not usually reported to the CAA. Generally, everyone in the coffee bar discusses him.
Mr 30ft was on Exercise 19*. He failed on airmanship; the beach wasn’t deserted and he nearly wound up wearing a kite. DNCO. He knows it and now we all know it.
* Exercise 19: "a bit of a beach bimble."
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
Psyclic, that is correct. My answer was one of frustration in this forum. If anyone accuses dangerous or foolish flying, they are attacked into submission by the same people every time. It always comes to the same conclusion, that people cannot judge height. Whilst that is correct, some of us can actually recognise foolish/dangerous acts, but are told time after time that we are wrong. It gets personal at times and you usually just give up as it is like bashing your head against a wall. My comment on reporting people is one borne of a refusal of some people to accept that anyone can actually do any wrong. My personal view would be for a forum like this to educate people on how some things, although strictly legal, can annoy, upset or hack off people
FlyinDutch I would have thought that a circuit would be defensible at an airstrip which has planning permission to be an airstrip, has been an airstrip for 20 odd years and has neighbours who LIKE it being an airstrip. However, it seems that the CAA don't think this way. When the houses are built, our circuit dies. Period. End of story.
The fact that building 5,000 houses right under the approach to Luton's busy and getting busier 26 is a complete nonsense is lost on Two Jags who is pushing the scheme.
The fact that building 5,000 houses right under the approach to Luton's busy and getting busier 26 is a complete nonsense is lost on Two Jags who is pushing the scheme.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jayteeto, I disagree. People become irritated because threads of this kind tend to start, not with a calm post along the lines of "I have some concerns about this", but instead open with all guns blazing: "this guy is a tosser!", sometimes accompanied, as was this one , by "and you are all tossers as well". The author is usually Captain Nigel, or similar, on his day off (in this case it is PC Nigel of the Bigglesworth Squad) . Requests for specifics are not invariably met (although Big Hilly did give chapter and verse in his recent motorway flying thread, and moderated his anger after a shouty start).
In addition, people may be naturally sceptical of the motives of someone who, on an anonymous forum, castigates a pilot or pilots. Plenty of people here, myself included, have suggested that psyclic contact the aircraft owners, which he can easily do as he knows the aircraft registrations. None of us is condoning unsafe or illegal flying.
[break]
LownSlow
For reasons we discussed a month or so past, the circuit problem derives from the 1500 foot rule, not the 500 foot rule. I hope that Rush Green survives.
In addition, people may be naturally sceptical of the motives of someone who, on an anonymous forum, castigates a pilot or pilots. Plenty of people here, myself included, have suggested that psyclic contact the aircraft owners, which he can easily do as he knows the aircraft registrations. None of us is condoning unsafe or illegal flying.
[break]
LownSlow
For reasons we discussed a month or so past, the circuit problem derives from the 1500 foot rule, not the 500 foot rule. I hope that Rush Green survives.
Last edited by FNG; 19th May 2004 at 11:11.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that these types of threads polarise those that post here. Private pilots think this sort of thing is heroic, where as professional pilots / ATCOs view these low flyers as complete tossers.
Maybe it is because a professional pilot will loose his/her job if they are caught doing this, or if something goes wrong and end up on the beach, they will be made to look a complete tw*t. A complete unemployed tw*t. Whereas a private pilot would shrug it off, it would become a good story for the bar, even it means a different aero club bar.
I do not doubt the height reports. psyclic should know what 30 feet looks like and if it wasn’t 30 ft, then may be it was 40 or 20’, it matters not. The fact that Mr 30 feet had to avoid a kite is evidence enough.
As had already been said, low flying requires skill and currency and part of that skill is to know when and where to do this. Up a beach is not a place for low flying - birds, kites, boats not to mention plenty of cameras to record the incident. Not only that, sea spray plays havoc with aluminium and sand will do your prop and flying surfaces no good.
In short, pulling a stunt like this shows utter ignorance and that, in the professional world, is a deadly sin.
Maybe it is because a professional pilot will loose his/her job if they are caught doing this, or if something goes wrong and end up on the beach, they will be made to look a complete tw*t. A complete unemployed tw*t. Whereas a private pilot would shrug it off, it would become a good story for the bar, even it means a different aero club bar.
I do not doubt the height reports. psyclic should know what 30 feet looks like and if it wasn’t 30 ft, then may be it was 40 or 20’, it matters not. The fact that Mr 30 feet had to avoid a kite is evidence enough.
As had already been said, low flying requires skill and currency and part of that skill is to know when and where to do this. Up a beach is not a place for low flying - birds, kites, boats not to mention plenty of cameras to record the incident. Not only that, sea spray plays havoc with aluminium and sand will do your prop and flying surfaces no good.
In short, pulling a stunt like this shows utter ignorance and that, in the professional world, is a deadly sin.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check the profiles of some who have posted views in opposition to psyclic's and you will see that some are ATPLS. Also, the assumption that all private pilots admire reckless low level stupidity is almost as offensive a generalisation as that which began this thread. Most of us value our licences and our lack of criminal records. Even as a mere amateur (and therefore, by definition, dangerous and irresponsible) pilot, I might be disciplined by my professional body if convicted of a flying offence.
I agree with FNG on the 'all tarred with the same brush' aspect of psyclic's post and his with to see RG survive!
I have done some low flying (along the surf, for height judgement, on a winter's day in Wales when there really was nobody about) with an experienced chap in the RHS for example. It is fun and as other posters have pointed out, it is neither reckless or illegall if done within your skill levels and in the right place.
I have done some low flying (along the surf, for height judgement, on a winter's day in Wales when there really was nobody about) with an experienced chap in the RHS for example. It is fun and as other posters have pointed out, it is neither reckless or illegall if done within your skill levels and in the right place.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree opinions tend to polarise in discussions such as this, but I don't think the division is between professionals and private pilots; nor is it generally as extreme as between those who think low fliers are "heroic" and those who view them as "complete tossers."
There are several divisions of opinion, and varying degrees of disagreement between the poles.
eg
Between those who think low flying is harmless fun and those who view it very seriously (for a variety of reasons);
Between those who think any breach of Rule 5 is necessarily reckless/dangerous or irresponsible and those who pause to think before making daft sweeping statements;
between those who think it's nobody's business but the pilots' if they're prepared to risk being reported and those who think it is our business as aviators and that we should do something about it.
Of those in the 'something should be done' category, opinions are divided between those who favour contacting the pilot in a friendly and helpful 'aviator-to-aviator' manner, and those who urge the witness to report him to the CAA.
Finally, there's a division between those who think "If the pilots have not broken any rules, then they have nothing to fear" and those who know that is utter nonsense.
BTW Crashondeck, re my earlier description of flying low in a Stearman and Harvard:
I'm not sure if I fall into your "complete tosser" category.
Padre Island is the longest undeveloped barrier island in the world, stretching for more than 100 miles along the Texas Gulf Coast. The section over which I flew was uninhabited and virtually deserted. From memory, there were about 5-6 walkers in about 20 miles. Please accept I kept a good lookout for people and other aircraft.
Illegal?
I flew much closer than 500' to one pair who appeared from behind a sand-dune and waved as I flew along the beach. It was obvious they were friendly but, even if it hadn't been, the risk of them complaining was extremely remote - Americans don't seem to regard a passing aeroplane or helicopter in the same 'outraged' way as many Brits. Furthermore, even if they did, I was optimistic the FAA would take a reasonable view. The FAA places great emphasis on flight safety and is very quick to prosecute where there was danger, but not relatively minor infringements where there was none.
Tudor Owen
There are several divisions of opinion, and varying degrees of disagreement between the poles.
eg
Between those who think low flying is harmless fun and those who view it very seriously (for a variety of reasons);
Between those who think any breach of Rule 5 is necessarily reckless/dangerous or irresponsible and those who pause to think before making daft sweeping statements;
between those who think it's nobody's business but the pilots' if they're prepared to risk being reported and those who think it is our business as aviators and that we should do something about it.
Of those in the 'something should be done' category, opinions are divided between those who favour contacting the pilot in a friendly and helpful 'aviator-to-aviator' manner, and those who urge the witness to report him to the CAA.
Finally, there's a division between those who think "If the pilots have not broken any rules, then they have nothing to fear" and those who know that is utter nonsense.
BTW Crashondeck, re my earlier description of flying low in a Stearman and Harvard:
I'm not sure if I fall into your "complete tosser" category.
Padre Island is the longest undeveloped barrier island in the world, stretching for more than 100 miles along the Texas Gulf Coast. The section over which I flew was uninhabited and virtually deserted. From memory, there were about 5-6 walkers in about 20 miles. Please accept I kept a good lookout for people and other aircraft.
Illegal?
I flew much closer than 500' to one pair who appeared from behind a sand-dune and waved as I flew along the beach. It was obvious they were friendly but, even if it hadn't been, the risk of them complaining was extremely remote - Americans don't seem to regard a passing aeroplane or helicopter in the same 'outraged' way as many Brits. Furthermore, even if they did, I was optimistic the FAA would take a reasonable view. The FAA places great emphasis on flight safety and is very quick to prosecute where there was danger, but not relatively minor infringements where there was none.
Tudor Owen
Peoples' Champion!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s a tricky one.
One the one hand when you see something that you perceive to bring GA into disrepute, you get cross (I think "blood boiling" rings a bell
). On the other, you have to ask yourself how strongly you feel about it and does it really matter? There is no doubt that the general consensus is to have a ‘quiet word’ and so, if you got his reg, and you’re CERTAIN that he was in the wrong then do so via G-INFO.
BH
One the one hand when you see something that you perceive to bring GA into disrepute, you get cross (I think "blood boiling" rings a bell
). On the other, you have to ask yourself how strongly you feel about it and does it really matter? There is no doubt that the general consensus is to have a ‘quiet word’ and so, if you got his reg, and you’re CERTAIN that he was in the wrong then do so via G-INFO. BH
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not going to get involved in discussion as haven't time to defend my views!
But have any other rotary pilots here flown the LAX beach transition? ATC always give as "...at or below 150'!
Fun - yes especially in summer!!!!
Dangerous - well yes probably - in an R22 you are going to end up in the sea if you are at 100knts and 50'!
Done it once at 25', (beach empty - late evening), and was frightened by just how close the ground seems!
Irresponsible? Maybe - could have done it at 70 knots and 150' but then that's not having fun whilst following ATC instructions!!
PW
But have any other rotary pilots here flown the LAX beach transition? ATC always give as "...at or below 150'!
Fun - yes especially in summer!!!!
Dangerous - well yes probably - in an R22 you are going to end up in the sea if you are at 100knts and 50'!
Done it once at 25', (beach empty - late evening), and was frightened by just how close the ground seems!
Irresponsible? Maybe - could have done it at 70 knots and 150' but then that's not having fun whilst following ATC instructions!!
PW
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilotwolf
Yes, I've done it a few times in R22s and a JetRanger.
It's great fun, and not entirely without risk, even when maximising safety.
Just in case you pop back to the discussion:
The helipad is on top of a multi-storey car park higher than 25' -
At what height did you fly over all the buildings between the pad and the beach?
Where would you go if the engine stopped while you were skimming the roofs?
The airport must be about 100' amsl - did you descend to 25' after clearing the buildings?
There's banking between the airport and the beach, From 25', how much of the beach do you see before you're on top of it?
Is the extra fun worth the extra risk?
You can fly down the coast all the way from LAX to San Diego. It's a wonderful trip, with some deserted parts where you can fly low legally and safely if you wish. The big difference is you have a clear view of the beach way into the distance which enables you to continuously plan where you're going to go if it suddenly goes quiet.
You're a braver man than me if you fly the LAX beach transition as low as possible rather than as high as possible. ATC give the clearance, but the clearance assumes good airmanship - and the controller isn't the one who dies or is seriously injured if something goes wrong.
NB: My comments/questions are directed at safety, not legality.
Here's a pic of LAX for anyone unfamiliar with it. The helipad is on the building in the top left corner of the group of buildings surrounding the Tower. The 'Beach Transition' is directly from the pad to the beach.
Aerial photo
It should expand to full screen size if you click on the picture.
Yes, I've done it a few times in R22s and a JetRanger.
It's great fun, and not entirely without risk, even when maximising safety.
Just in case you pop back to the discussion:
The helipad is on top of a multi-storey car park higher than 25' -
At what height did you fly over all the buildings between the pad and the beach?
Where would you go if the engine stopped while you were skimming the roofs?
The airport must be about 100' amsl - did you descend to 25' after clearing the buildings?
There's banking between the airport and the beach, From 25', how much of the beach do you see before you're on top of it?
Is the extra fun worth the extra risk?
You can fly down the coast all the way from LAX to San Diego. It's a wonderful trip, with some deserted parts where you can fly low legally and safely if you wish. The big difference is you have a clear view of the beach way into the distance which enables you to continuously plan where you're going to go if it suddenly goes quiet.
You're a braver man than me if you fly the LAX beach transition as low as possible rather than as high as possible. ATC give the clearance, but the clearance assumes good airmanship - and the controller isn't the one who dies or is seriously injured if something goes wrong.
NB: My comments/questions are directed at safety, not legality.
Here's a pic of LAX for anyone unfamiliar with it. The helipad is on the building in the top left corner of the group of buildings surrounding the Tower. The 'Beach Transition' is directly from the pad to the beach.
Aerial photo
It should expand to full screen size if you click on the picture.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NW England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charcter Flaw
There is an unfortunate trait to many a Brits character which manifests itself as outrage when seeing other people enjoying themselves.
Typically, uniquely and unfortunately British -
How many times have you heard:
'They shouldn't be doing that' egged on by friend
'report them, go on....'
Flying along beaches, speeding power boats, garden parties, motor cyclists........... (need I go?)
A popular character in the microlight world was 'visited' today by the CAA 'enforcers,' he was seemingly reported for allegedly flying at 50 foot above a caravan park by a fellow PPL. No further action after a brief interview, but what kind of W****r and fellow PPL (to boot) takes such a negative course of action?
Bad news in my opinion and such people need to get out a bit more, practise smiling and get a life.
Tony
There is an unfortunate trait to many a Brits character which manifests itself as outrage when seeing other people enjoying themselves.
Typically, uniquely and unfortunately British -
How many times have you heard:
'They shouldn't be doing that' egged on by friend
'report them, go on....'
Flying along beaches, speeding power boats, garden parties, motor cyclists........... (need I go?)
A popular character in the microlight world was 'visited' today by the CAA 'enforcers,' he was seemingly reported for allegedly flying at 50 foot above a caravan park by a fellow PPL. No further action after a brief interview, but what kind of W****r and fellow PPL (to boot) takes such a negative course of action?
Bad news in my opinion and such people need to get out a bit more, practise smiling and get a life.
Tony