Display of reckless flying along N Norfolk coast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry I really do have to put in a word for the amateur pilot here. We are talking about recreational flying. It is a sport. Sport by definition is going to reduce safety factors over slumbering in an arm chair.
We all approach this recreation or sport in different ways. What matters is the extent to which any action is putting others in danger to an unacceptable level. Those of us who fly single engined aircraft where there are people below us are increasing the danger level for those innocent parties. Those of us who carry out aerobatics or formation flying are increasing the chances of something going wrong. Generally we train for it and keep doing it to maintain currency to reduce the danger (and indeed sometimes sharpen us up to deal better with other dangers). Is low flying dangerous?. It depends on how you define it. The law defines it for the purposes of the ANO and possible legal action. Whilst this might be related to danger it does not define the increased danger level (just as making it illegal for a Cessna 150 to fly close to Sizewell nuclear plant does not give an indocation of the level of additional safety risk this creates).
Flying at 50 feet is less safe than at 5,000 ft (all other things being equal). Flying at 501ft is less safe than at 5,000 ft. Where does low flying become irresponsible?. I am currently working up my display authority which will allow me to fly down to 100ft with the full support of the CAA (in certain circumstances during displays or display practice). Flying over open water I have flown at lower heights but have had a heightened understanding of the safety erosion I have created. Why should I bother doing this? Why should I bother flying in close formation, why should I bother doing aerobatics?. It is a sport we participate in not pretending to be mini airliners.
What does the argument that a commercial pilot might be sacekd if he flew so low tells us about this case?. Nothing.
A 737 bound for Palma formating on a 737 bound for Dublin or doing a loop might also raise the interests of the pilots employer. It doesnt make these activities wrong or illegal in a Tiger Moth or Chipmunk.
Now 30ft over a packed beach with nowhere to go if the engine quits is both illegal and unsafe. 30ft over a beach with one person on it within 500ft is illegal - it might or might not be unsafe.
I don't know the precise circumstances of this occurence. I don't know the skill level or state of practice of the pilot so I wont judge.
Ignorant condemnation and extension of blame and criticism to others is a fact of life in forums. Sometimes, however, sensible debate breaks out.
Me I shall seek to continue to enjoy the sport I have spent more money on than I have on my house and will continue to improve my skill level to be able to do more things which generate more enjoyment and excitement.
We all approach this recreation or sport in different ways. What matters is the extent to which any action is putting others in danger to an unacceptable level. Those of us who fly single engined aircraft where there are people below us are increasing the danger level for those innocent parties. Those of us who carry out aerobatics or formation flying are increasing the chances of something going wrong. Generally we train for it and keep doing it to maintain currency to reduce the danger (and indeed sometimes sharpen us up to deal better with other dangers). Is low flying dangerous?. It depends on how you define it. The law defines it for the purposes of the ANO and possible legal action. Whilst this might be related to danger it does not define the increased danger level (just as making it illegal for a Cessna 150 to fly close to Sizewell nuclear plant does not give an indocation of the level of additional safety risk this creates).
Flying at 50 feet is less safe than at 5,000 ft (all other things being equal). Flying at 501ft is less safe than at 5,000 ft. Where does low flying become irresponsible?. I am currently working up my display authority which will allow me to fly down to 100ft with the full support of the CAA (in certain circumstances during displays or display practice). Flying over open water I have flown at lower heights but have had a heightened understanding of the safety erosion I have created. Why should I bother doing this? Why should I bother flying in close formation, why should I bother doing aerobatics?. It is a sport we participate in not pretending to be mini airliners.
What does the argument that a commercial pilot might be sacekd if he flew so low tells us about this case?. Nothing.
A 737 bound for Palma formating on a 737 bound for Dublin or doing a loop might also raise the interests of the pilots employer. It doesnt make these activities wrong or illegal in a Tiger Moth or Chipmunk.
Now 30ft over a packed beach with nowhere to go if the engine quits is both illegal and unsafe. 30ft over a beach with one person on it within 500ft is illegal - it might or might not be unsafe.
I don't know the precise circumstances of this occurence. I don't know the skill level or state of practice of the pilot so I wont judge.
Ignorant condemnation and extension of blame and criticism to others is a fact of life in forums. Sometimes, however, sensible debate breaks out.
Me I shall seek to continue to enjoy the sport I have spent more money on than I have on my house and will continue to improve my skill level to be able to do more things which generate more enjoyment and excitement.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been many well reasoned entries on this thread, contributed by Flying Lawyer and by others, but I would like particularly to compliment TonyR and formationfoto on the quality of their last two contributions. I would welcome similarly reasoned responses from psyclic and others on his side of the debate.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK FNG,
As someone who wouldn't support the 30ft over beaches flying, let me put a non safety argument to you. Please don’t take this argument as in any way against you personally. I tend to agree with most of what you post here!
You mentioned earlier in this thread that your professional body might discipline you if you were successfully prosecuted for low flying. I too belong to a professional body which might take similar action. (I'm an accountant). However, I can also be disciplined without ever breaking the letter of any law or rules, if I'm seen to bring my profession into disrepute. I'm sure you're in the same situation.
This is not because our professional bodies enjoy disciplining their members, but rather because our fellow members can, undeservedly, suffer because of our actions. This can be true, even if we haven't broken any rule.
While flying might not be covered by a professional members body, I think we each should consider the implications of what we do on our fellow pilots.
Supposing a fellow pilot sees what he thinks is a deserted beach, and decides to fly down it at 100ft. Behind a sand dunne there is a group of people having a bbq. Our pilot sees the group in time, and continues to fly at 100ft, but moves horizontally away, so that he remains at 500ft from the people. Lets assume that the pilot is highly skilled, so that this situation is neither illegal, nor dangerous (I know some might argue it is dangerous, but lets assume it's not.) The pilot has a very enjoyable few minutes, and flies off thinking "I'm legal & safe. Everything is fine."
Now there happens to be a small local strip nearby, which isn't shown on the VFR chart. This strip has some nimby neighbours, who are constantly complaining about noise, and complaining to the local council to have it closed. They claim that these little planes are just the rich boys toys, and that they are noisy and dangerous. They don't want them flying over or anywhere near their homes.
Some of these nimbys happen to be at that bbq on the beach and take a pic of the aircraft flying at 100ft over the beach They send these pics to the local town council to show how dangerous and reckless these pilots are. The pilot will never be called in front of the town council to explain that this was legal and safe. And it may very well lead to the council placing further restrictions on the local airfield.
The one pilot who flew low, but legally and safely, enjoyed his 60 second of exhilaration, and went away satisfied, but he ruined a lifetime of flying for the other pilots who can no longer operate from that strip, or are now restricted on their movements. That pilot could well be on this thread giving out about anyone who complains about low flying, and on another complaining about over pricing at larger strips.
Suppose an hour later another aircraft did the same thing, when that bbq was still going on, and they got a photo of that aircraft too? How would that affect things?
Suppose that rather than the nimbys at the beach party, that it was a local councillor and a few of his friends, which would also include other councillors. How would they look at the next complaint about that local airfield?
Flying is seen by much of the public as a rich mans hobby. They don't see the need to let little planes fly over their homes and make noise. Whenever we go flying, we should always think about how our actions affect our fellow pilots, and our sport in general. I don't believe that low flying can do anything but harm to our hobby, and will just lead to further restrictions on our flying.
I have deliberately kept away from the legal/illegal issue as the standard answer to the "it's illegal" accusation is "you can't judge height". I’ve also kept away from the it's safe/unsafe argument, as the standard response to that is "I’m a display/test pilot and am perfectly safe". However briefly on these I'd say, if someone can accurately read your registration unaided, then you are too close, and also that even display and test pilots die in aviation accidents.
dp
As someone who wouldn't support the 30ft over beaches flying, let me put a non safety argument to you. Please don’t take this argument as in any way against you personally. I tend to agree with most of what you post here!
You mentioned earlier in this thread that your professional body might discipline you if you were successfully prosecuted for low flying. I too belong to a professional body which might take similar action. (I'm an accountant). However, I can also be disciplined without ever breaking the letter of any law or rules, if I'm seen to bring my profession into disrepute. I'm sure you're in the same situation.
This is not because our professional bodies enjoy disciplining their members, but rather because our fellow members can, undeservedly, suffer because of our actions. This can be true, even if we haven't broken any rule.
While flying might not be covered by a professional members body, I think we each should consider the implications of what we do on our fellow pilots.
Supposing a fellow pilot sees what he thinks is a deserted beach, and decides to fly down it at 100ft. Behind a sand dunne there is a group of people having a bbq. Our pilot sees the group in time, and continues to fly at 100ft, but moves horizontally away, so that he remains at 500ft from the people. Lets assume that the pilot is highly skilled, so that this situation is neither illegal, nor dangerous (I know some might argue it is dangerous, but lets assume it's not.) The pilot has a very enjoyable few minutes, and flies off thinking "I'm legal & safe. Everything is fine."
Now there happens to be a small local strip nearby, which isn't shown on the VFR chart. This strip has some nimby neighbours, who are constantly complaining about noise, and complaining to the local council to have it closed. They claim that these little planes are just the rich boys toys, and that they are noisy and dangerous. They don't want them flying over or anywhere near their homes.
Some of these nimbys happen to be at that bbq on the beach and take a pic of the aircraft flying at 100ft over the beach They send these pics to the local town council to show how dangerous and reckless these pilots are. The pilot will never be called in front of the town council to explain that this was legal and safe. And it may very well lead to the council placing further restrictions on the local airfield.
The one pilot who flew low, but legally and safely, enjoyed his 60 second of exhilaration, and went away satisfied, but he ruined a lifetime of flying for the other pilots who can no longer operate from that strip, or are now restricted on their movements. That pilot could well be on this thread giving out about anyone who complains about low flying, and on another complaining about over pricing at larger strips.
Suppose an hour later another aircraft did the same thing, when that bbq was still going on, and they got a photo of that aircraft too? How would that affect things?
Suppose that rather than the nimbys at the beach party, that it was a local councillor and a few of his friends, which would also include other councillors. How would they look at the next complaint about that local airfield?
Flying is seen by much of the public as a rich mans hobby. They don't see the need to let little planes fly over their homes and make noise. Whenever we go flying, we should always think about how our actions affect our fellow pilots, and our sport in general. I don't believe that low flying can do anything but harm to our hobby, and will just lead to further restrictions on our flying.
I have deliberately kept away from the legal/illegal issue as the standard answer to the "it's illegal" accusation is "you can't judge height". I’ve also kept away from the it's safe/unsafe argument, as the standard response to that is "I’m a display/test pilot and am perfectly safe". However briefly on these I'd say, if someone can accurately read your registration unaided, then you are too close, and also that even display and test pilots die in aviation accidents.
dp
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those are fair and sensible points, Dublinpilot, and well put. We should consider how our flying may affect the reputation of our sport and its continued enjoyment by others. This was the point I made to the paramotor chap I mentioned on an earlier page of this thread, whose flying, in my opinion, could have engendered fear and hostility amongst non aviators.
In the example you give, the pilot's flight planning might include, via Lockyear's, taking account of local strips and their problems. Even if not intending to operate from a strip, a call to the owner might prompt advice as to particular local sensitivities, and as to hazards (local wind patterns, obstacles etc).
PS: When I fly along the North Norfolk coast, I tend not to go below 500 feet. That's my personal choice based on my assesssment of my skills and of the safety and nuisance implications. I will not go that low if the nearby military stations are active.
In the example you give, the pilot's flight planning might include, via Lockyear's, taking account of local strips and their problems. Even if not intending to operate from a strip, a call to the owner might prompt advice as to particular local sensitivities, and as to hazards (local wind patterns, obstacles etc).
PS: When I fly along the North Norfolk coast, I tend not to go below 500 feet. That's my personal choice based on my assesssment of my skills and of the safety and nuisance implications. I will not go that low if the nearby military stations are active.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, but my point about the airfield not being shown on the vfr chart was that the pilot flying along the beach, may not have been from the area, and may not have know about the strip as it wasn't on his chart.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps, from the social responsibility point of view, the pilot's self briefing might include looking up off-map strips in sources such as Lockyear's before he sets off, particularly if he plans to fly low level. I don't wish to dampen spontaneity in flying, but we all know that even a purely fun flight needs an element of planning. Someone seeing an unfamiliar bit of beach and deciding on the spur of the moment to give it a good stonking could arguably be criticised anyway for not acquainting himself with local factors (eg bird colonies).
PS: Dub, there's no chance of me taking your balanced and polite arguments as being in any way ad hominem . Anyway, I owe you a pint for your helpful pointers about flying in the auld country.
PS: Dub, there's no chance of me taking your balanced and polite arguments as being in any way ad hominem . Anyway, I owe you a pint for your helpful pointers about flying in the auld country.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dp,
I can see where you are coming from but there can still be room in this society to operate within the law and that we don't have to chasticise ourselves just because we may well be perceived to be doing a 'rich man's hobby'?
You may however be surprised that a lot of complaints are made by people who fly themselves rather than 'the general public'
It is with interest that I noted that the most fervent supportors of the line 'string them up these alleged low flyers' seem to be helo drivers (always dangerous to generalise).
I am all for prudence and against annoying folks wherever possible, however it is not always just that those with the biggest mouth/vociferity/ability in time/money and opportunity to put pen to paper should just be slavishly served for fear that otherwise 'things may get worse'
FD
Talking about which it is my opinion that the 'public at large' would be served a lot if we over here in the UK were allowed to fit (or in some cases on imported machines leave fitted) silencing kits to our puddle jumpers.
I can see where you are coming from but there can still be room in this society to operate within the law and that we don't have to chasticise ourselves just because we may well be perceived to be doing a 'rich man's hobby'?
You may however be surprised that a lot of complaints are made by people who fly themselves rather than 'the general public'
It is with interest that I noted that the most fervent supportors of the line 'string them up these alleged low flyers' seem to be helo drivers (always dangerous to generalise).
I am all for prudence and against annoying folks wherever possible, however it is not always just that those with the biggest mouth/vociferity/ability in time/money and opportunity to put pen to paper should just be slavishly served for fear that otherwise 'things may get worse'
FD
Talking about which it is my opinion that the 'public at large' would be served a lot if we over here in the UK were allowed to fit (or in some cases on imported machines leave fitted) silencing kits to our puddle jumpers.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FNG
I look forward to it
FD
I agree. Silencers are the way to go. I also think there is a lot that the piloting community can do to help themselves as far as public image goes, but that's one for another thread
If someone really wants to fly low down, why not go 2 or 3 miles out to sea where there is noone around to see, complain or endanger, and do all the low flying they want? Obviosuly they should have the necessary survival gear.
I look forward to it FD
I agree. Silencers are the way to go. I also think there is a lot that the piloting community can do to help themselves as far as public image goes, but that's one for another thread
If someone really wants to fly low down, why not go 2 or 3 miles out to sea where there is noone around to see, complain or endanger, and do all the low flying they want? Obviosuly they should have the necessary survival gear.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dp,
You should get out of that there City and come and fly with us up in them there hills where there are not as many NIMBYS.
On another aspect of low flying, I do (and have done for a few years) some "Banner towing" in Portugal in the summer. two complete idiots stand and hold a 16' pole each about 20' apart with a loop of rope for me to pick up. I have a grab hook on a 12' wire hanging from the aircraft, I'm flying at 25 ft at 60 knots with this hook wizzing past their faces.
And this IS legal
Tony
You should get out of that there City and come and fly with us up in them there hills where there are not as many NIMBYS.
On another aspect of low flying, I do (and have done for a few years) some "Banner towing" in Portugal in the summer. two complete idiots stand and hold a 16' pole each about 20' apart with a loop of rope for me to pick up. I have a grab hook on a 12' wire hanging from the aircraft, I'm flying at 25 ft at 60 knots with this hook wizzing past their faces.
And this IS legal
Tony
Last edited by TonyR; 20th May 2004 at 11:26.
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 watched a very skillful chap pick up a banner from a farmstrip the other day (in North Norfolk , as it happens, a mile or so from the scene of the dastardly crimes witnessed by Inspector Psyclic). Very interesting to see it done: Low approach, hook the thing, then max angle climb away as the banner peels off the ground.
As Tony says, it's all legal: banner towers are exempt from the 500 foot rule when picking up and dropping their banners. The one I watched had his poles stuck in the ground, so no need for nutters to hold on to them.
As Tony says, it's all legal: banner towers are exempt from the 500 foot rule when picking up and dropping their banners. The one I watched had his poles stuck in the ground, so no need for nutters to hold on to them.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,682
Received 337 Likes
on
186 Posts
Interesting debate - I've been treated to some spectacular and legal low flying off the Florida coast and around San Diego/North Island NAS, and although I enjoy looking down on Mother Earth from above, getting down amongst the weeds (or the sea spray) is also fun!
However, as Banner Towing and Alight Clear have been mentioned, I'd be interested in opinions about this...
A few months ago a Cessna 172 orbited three or four times over the centre of Croydon one weekday morning whilst towing a large banner. Croydon is without doubt a built up area! I estimated his height at certainly less than 1000ft, possibly less than 500ft at times. I work on the 16th floor of a 20-storey office block (Centre Tower, approx 200ft AGL) and he disappeared behind a building of similar height (the "Threepenny Bit" building) at one point, probably less than a quarter of a mile beyond it. At that point I'd say he was certainly less than 500ft.
Whether or not he was within 500ft of the larger structures in Croydon is debatable (I couldn't quite read the side reg, poor eyesight and optically poor windows, plus the angle on the underwing) but I would suppose that the 1500 rule applies to him as well as anybody else. I am certain that, had the donk stopped, he had very little chance of alighting clear for much of each orbit, plus I have no doubt that he would have dropped the banner immediately with potentially disasterous consequences for any poor sod. Banner was one of those large poster style efforts, rather than made up of letters.
Not mixing it, just curious!
However, as Banner Towing and Alight Clear have been mentioned, I'd be interested in opinions about this...
A few months ago a Cessna 172 orbited three or four times over the centre of Croydon one weekday morning whilst towing a large banner. Croydon is without doubt a built up area! I estimated his height at certainly less than 1000ft, possibly less than 500ft at times. I work on the 16th floor of a 20-storey office block (Centre Tower, approx 200ft AGL) and he disappeared behind a building of similar height (the "Threepenny Bit" building) at one point, probably less than a quarter of a mile beyond it. At that point I'd say he was certainly less than 500ft.
Whether or not he was within 500ft of the larger structures in Croydon is debatable (I couldn't quite read the side reg, poor eyesight and optically poor windows, plus the angle on the underwing) but I would suppose that the 1500 rule applies to him as well as anybody else. I am certain that, had the donk stopped, he had very little chance of alighting clear for much of each orbit, plus I have no doubt that he would have dropped the banner immediately with potentially disasterous consequences for any poor sod. Banner was one of those large poster style efforts, rather than made up of letters.
Not mixing it, just curious!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suppose that the 1500 rule applies to him as well as anybody else
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. I admit I am guilty as charged - I made a sweeping generalisation. I did not set out to offend those pilots who observe good airmanship and are sensible enough to prepare themselves for the unexpected.
However, I make no apology for offending those pilots who view their licence as a God given right to strap on a plane/helcopter and fly without an appreciation of what they are doing and what risks they expose themselves and others to.
Unfortunately there seems to be a significant proportion of General Aviation who seem to be either completely ignorant of good airmanship or choose to ignore it. We have all seen them/heard them or read about them on our travels. We all (PPL, CPL, ATPL) operate in a very regulated environment and most pride themselves on their good airmanship and respect flying as a privilage. It is very frustrating when someone takes it upon themselves to make such a public demonstration of bad airmanship, thereby deriding the effort and professionalism that most pilots put into their flying.
Flying Lawyer,
I am not against low flying at all - that would make me a hypocrite. But as I eluded to in my earlier post, there is a time and a place for this sort of thing. There is a big difference between quiet US beaches and a crowded East Anglian beach. I reserve the “Tosser Label” for those that dogde kites over crouded beaches and fly under bridges in Scottish Lochs.
Englishal,
I don’t know what your evidence for those stories are (cone planting and totty hunters), but I have heard them too. It would not surprise me if they are true. But are they really flying dangerously (or for that matter illegally)? A twin engined police/coastguard/navy helicopter is very different from a small SE fixed wing.
COD
However, I make no apology for offending those pilots who view their licence as a God given right to strap on a plane/helcopter and fly without an appreciation of what they are doing and what risks they expose themselves and others to.
Unfortunately there seems to be a significant proportion of General Aviation who seem to be either completely ignorant of good airmanship or choose to ignore it. We have all seen them/heard them or read about them on our travels. We all (PPL, CPL, ATPL) operate in a very regulated environment and most pride themselves on their good airmanship and respect flying as a privilage. It is very frustrating when someone takes it upon themselves to make such a public demonstration of bad airmanship, thereby deriding the effort and professionalism that most pilots put into their flying.
Flying Lawyer,
I am not against low flying at all - that would make me a hypocrite. But as I eluded to in my earlier post, there is a time and a place for this sort of thing. There is a big difference between quiet US beaches and a crowded East Anglian beach. I reserve the “Tosser Label” for those that dogde kites over crouded beaches and fly under bridges in Scottish Lochs.
Englishal,
I don’t know what your evidence for those stories are (cone planting and totty hunters), but I have heard them too. It would not surprise me if they are true. But are they really flying dangerously (or for that matter illegally)? A twin engined police/coastguard/navy helicopter is very different from a small SE fixed wing.
COD
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t know what your evidence for those stories are (cone planting and totty hunters), but I have heard them too. It would not surprise me if they are true. But are they really flying dangerously (or for that matter illegally)? A twin engined police/coastguard/navy helicopter is very different from a small SE fixed wing.
And no, I don't think they were flying dangerously either. EA
Guest
Posts: n/a
FL,
I think you're guilty of one or two sweepers yourself. I remain to be convinced just why anybody would want bust R5. I don't see where the option of flexibility exists.
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;
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HWD,
Not sure if anyone is advocating breaching rule 5.
Flying below 500ft does not automatically mean that rule 5 is broken.
I get the impression that a lot of folk think it is.
FD
Not sure if anyone is advocating breaching rule 5.
Flying below 500ft does not automatically mean that rule 5 is broken.
I get the impression that a lot of folk think it is.
FD
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crashondeck
I think this whole "low flying thing is blown out of all proportion, I fly more than most, I fly from farm strips and international airports, I banner tow, I glider tow, I chuck out skydivers, I sometimes even go upside-down.
I just cant remember the last time I saw someone fly really low. (except the Nimrod yesterday, below me when I was at 500 ft)
I cant even remember the last time I read a report of an accident being caused by "low flying"
Now I also drive more than most and every week I see hundreds of nutters flying low on the roads.
Pilots on the whole are responsible people.
The "shoot the low flyers" line taken by many on this thread seems to come from the so called "Pro Pilots".
I come across this from time to time. are they jealous of those who have fun and don't have to do it for a living, or what??
Some of you should go out and have some "fun flying", you might even remember why you ever wanted to fly.
Tony
However, I make no apology for offending those pilots who view their licence as a God given right to strap on a plane/helcopter and fly without an appreciation of what they are doing and what risks they expose themselves and others to.
I just cant remember the last time I saw someone fly really low. (except the Nimrod yesterday, below me when I was at 500 ft)
I cant even remember the last time I read a report of an accident being caused by "low flying"
Now I also drive more than most and every week I see hundreds of nutters flying low on the roads.
Pilots on the whole are responsible people.
The "shoot the low flyers" line taken by many on this thread seems to come from the so called "Pro Pilots".
I come across this from time to time. are they jealous of those who have fun and don't have to do it for a living, or what??
Some of you should go out and have some "fun flying", you might even remember why you ever wanted to fly.
Tony
Peoples' Champion!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TonyR,
Blimey mate, had we had a few shandies when we posted that little lot????
BH
For those amongst us who have had a sense of humour lobotomy, I think that TonyR is a great bloke and that was a JOKE!
Blimey mate, had we had a few shandies when we posted that little lot????
BH
For those amongst us who have had a sense of humour lobotomy, I think that TonyR is a great bloke and that was a JOKE!
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Hilly, isn't it a shame that we can't just rely on the effective use of language to convey humour? The inability of some people here to recognise a joke when it hits them with a wet fish never fails to surprise me. I don't like resorting to smileys, or to (that was a joke) in brackets but, sheesh, some of the people here seem to have had irony bypasses at birth (and I don't just mean the Americans). More shandies here, and one for Big Hilly!
Last edited by FNG; 21st May 2004 at 07:00.