Once is stupid, twice is irresponsible.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,609
Received 469 Likes
on
248 Posts
Goatface, calm down.
You make far too many assumptions about what my opinions might be. Whirls is correct and I'm not going to apologise to you, or anyone else for posing the question.
I think I'm as qualified as most here to ask.
You make far too many assumptions about what my opinions might be. Whirls is correct and I'm not going to apologise to you, or anyone else for posing the question.
I think I'm as qualified as most here to ask.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an arrogant post.
Most of us here have as much if not more experience of aviation than you do. Not just in GA, but in Airline, Military, Heli etc.etc.
As someone who has been involved with all of those except mil flying and who has trained and looked after hundreds of PPL's and other GA flyers, then you are waaaaaaaay out of order in suggesting that GA flying has lower standards than you do.
What I am very aware of is that PPL's are slightly different from us professional pilots in that for them it is not a job, but a past-time. So their mindset is slightly different.
That's not to say that their risk acceptance profile is worse or better. In fact, some of the most sensible pilots I've flown with do "only" have the baby poo brown book from the CAA.
I'll tell you what, since you mention accident stats, go off and find out exactly how many accidents and fatalities have been caused in the last 10 years by low flying over the coast on a nice clear day.
No low level scud running and CFIT, that is a seperate issue, but actual loss of control, engine failure or bird strike leading to an accident caused by stuffing about at low-level.
Most of us are intimately aware of what is likely to kill us in small aircraft, though that doesn't mean I don't like pushing it a bit sometimes. Nothing too stupid, but away from the restrictive life of a professional pilot it is sometimes nice to cut loose a bit and remember why we started in this business.
So again. I say Meh. Some bloke did a bit of low flying. No puppies or nuns were killed. It wasn't the smartest thing they've ever done, but unless you are going to report it, then what is the point in whinging on here?
If someone is going to do it, what you type here will make naff all difference.
Most of us here have as much if not more experience of aviation than you do. Not just in GA, but in Airline, Military, Heli etc.etc.
As someone who has been involved with all of those except mil flying and who has trained and looked after hundreds of PPL's and other GA flyers, then you are waaaaaaaay out of order in suggesting that GA flying has lower standards than you do.
What I am very aware of is that PPL's are slightly different from us professional pilots in that for them it is not a job, but a past-time. So their mindset is slightly different.
That's not to say that their risk acceptance profile is worse or better. In fact, some of the most sensible pilots I've flown with do "only" have the baby poo brown book from the CAA.
I'll tell you what, since you mention accident stats, go off and find out exactly how many accidents and fatalities have been caused in the last 10 years by low flying over the coast on a nice clear day.
No low level scud running and CFIT, that is a seperate issue, but actual loss of control, engine failure or bird strike leading to an accident caused by stuffing about at low-level.
Most of us are intimately aware of what is likely to kill us in small aircraft, though that doesn't mean I don't like pushing it a bit sometimes. Nothing too stupid, but away from the restrictive life of a professional pilot it is sometimes nice to cut loose a bit and remember why we started in this business.
So again. I say Meh. Some bloke did a bit of low flying. No puppies or nuns were killed. It wasn't the smartest thing they've ever done, but unless you are going to report it, then what is the point in whinging on here?
If someone is going to do it, what you type here will make naff all difference.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cornish Jack
I don't quite understand why you seem to have singled me out as an advocate of utter stupidity. I wish you could believe that most of us civilians do actually understand extremely well, exactly what we are doing.
We all get a copy of GASIL, far too often, to read over breakfast.
I have read the book "The Killing Zone" & it seems that inexperience, over confidence & ill-advised flight into IMC is what kills most of us. Your "stupid/irresponsible/prat" showed none of these un-enviable qualities.
I fly a low wing single & usually fly my circuits at 500ft max, often less than that. No doubt that makes me a prat! As Say again slowly has suggested, check the stats on accidents involving low flying over beaches/flat terain in good vis by civilian a/c. No mil supersonic mountain stuff.
You have got your SAR hat on & cannot seem to see past your latest rescue mission, Elfin Safety people are like that too, everything they see is life threatening.
If the wx is good tomorrow I'm going to bash along the beach at 50ft, maybe try a PFL, no groynes to measure distance with I'm afraid, just the occasional rocky outcrop!!
I don't quite understand why you seem to have singled me out as an advocate of utter stupidity. I wish you could believe that most of us civilians do actually understand extremely well, exactly what we are doing.
We all get a copy of GASIL, far too often, to read over breakfast.
I have read the book "The Killing Zone" & it seems that inexperience, over confidence & ill-advised flight into IMC is what kills most of us. Your "stupid/irresponsible/prat" showed none of these un-enviable qualities.
I fly a low wing single & usually fly my circuits at 500ft max, often less than that. No doubt that makes me a prat! As Say again slowly has suggested, check the stats on accidents involving low flying over beaches/flat terain in good vis by civilian a/c. No mil supersonic mountain stuff.
You have got your SAR hat on & cannot seem to see past your latest rescue mission, Elfin Safety people are like that too, everything they see is life threatening.
If the wx is good tomorrow I'm going to bash along the beach at 50ft, maybe try a PFL, no groynes to measure distance with I'm afraid, just the occasional rocky outcrop!!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scud running and CFIT are what you need to whinge about, as is exercising the rescue services whilst diverting from Lydd to Switzerland and not telling anyone. Enjoying a 50' run clear of stuff on a nice day is not. Its just for NIMBYs.
Anyway-50' is not low enough.....
YouTube - T6 Waterskiing
(I know its been on before, but its worth just one more look at!)
Anyway-50' is not low enough.....
YouTube - T6 Waterskiing
(I know its been on before, but its worth just one more look at!)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read some bo****ks on some of these forums , and seen postings by all sorts, but this one is worthy of a prize!
If you give me the co-ordinates of your house I will fly up the beach at 501 ft, which is the level set by the CAA as the safety level (NOTE NOT SET BY US PILOTS). Any one below me will then clearly be illegal and you can report them if it makes it easier for you.
I will not charge you for this service as this would be illegal.
If you give me the co-ordinates of your house I will fly up the beach at 501 ft, which is the level set by the CAA as the safety level (NOTE NOT SET BY US PILOTS). Any one below me will then clearly be illegal and you can report them if it makes it easier for you.
I will not charge you for this service as this would be illegal.
Okay, so we know that flying within 500 feet of a person, vessel, vehicle or structure violates Rule 5. CJ's description of the length of his groyne (!) shows that this pilot is guilty and the Rule is there for a good reason, so I won't condone the pilot's actions.
What surprises me is the other posts on this thread damning low-flying per se. Surely it's perfectly acceptable where legal?!
Every PPL course includes a lesson on flying at low-level and every landing and take off is at low-level. Flying close to the ground is a skill that should be practised because it requires concentration, improves hand-eye co-ordination and general flying skills. IMHO flying down to, say, 100-200 feet is no more dangerous or difficult than driving down a busy road at 70mph amongst poorly trained drivers who are chatting to passengers, changing radio stations or CDs and generally not concentrating.
Don't get me wrong, I only fly low twice per flight, as a rule, but I don't agree with those who object to anybody who is willing to take greater (legal) risks than they themselves feel comfortable with. Shall we ban aerobatics, landing in high crosswinds, complex aircraft, and dumb-down flying so the lowest common denominator feels comfortable with the risks? It might sound facetious, but I'm quite serious.
What surprises me is the other posts on this thread damning low-flying per se. Surely it's perfectly acceptable where legal?!
Every PPL course includes a lesson on flying at low-level and every landing and take off is at low-level. Flying close to the ground is a skill that should be practised because it requires concentration, improves hand-eye co-ordination and general flying skills. IMHO flying down to, say, 100-200 feet is no more dangerous or difficult than driving down a busy road at 70mph amongst poorly trained drivers who are chatting to passengers, changing radio stations or CDs and generally not concentrating.
Don't get me wrong, I only fly low twice per flight, as a rule, but I don't agree with those who object to anybody who is willing to take greater (legal) risks than they themselves feel comfortable with. Shall we ban aerobatics, landing in high crosswinds, complex aircraft, and dumb-down flying so the lowest common denominator feels comfortable with the risks? It might sound facetious, but I'm quite serious.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite my earlier comments, I wouldn't want anyone to think that low flying as a regular occurance is particualrily safe or sensible.
It does take specific training and when things do go wrong at low level, then you have a vastly reduced series of options.
It isn't massively safe or smart, however if it is thought about and flown properly, then you can make it as safe as possible.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it smart, it's just that a bit of low flying isn't the instant suicide that the OP seems to believe it is.
It does take specific training and when things do go wrong at low level, then you have a vastly reduced series of options.
It isn't massively safe or smart, however if it is thought about and flown properly, then you can make it as safe as possible.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it smart, it's just that a bit of low flying isn't the instant suicide that the OP seems to believe it is.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In a dreamworld!
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in my fiftees, a dad and a granddad, established and run a successful business, paid myself to learn to fly some years ago and flown regularly since. I don't like being barked at by some ex-military type who it seems has never paid for a private (fun) flight and who enters my community calling one of my number a prat. I think there are better ways of influencing people's opinion, but no doubt Cornish Jack knows best.
(I've nothing against ex-militrary types in general - many of my firends are.)
(I've nothing against ex-militrary types in general - many of my firends are.)
).
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,609
Received 469 Likes
on
248 Posts
GF, Thanks; accepted!
(I volunteered for all my low level stuff, over 25 years of it, all in).
(I volunteered for all my low level stuff, over 25 years of it, all in).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ.
What we (I) disagree with most is your attitude that the civilian contingent of aviation is somehow inferior to the "real thing" How dare you have the audacity to lecture us on the "unforgiving environment" "if we have the sense to read & understand flight safety blah blah blah".
I ask, Who do you think you are?
You may, for all I know, be the ex NAAFI barman at some Stone Frigate that may have had a SAR unit operating out of it once. Or you may be the most experienced Sea King driver of all time. Neither gives you the right to refer to some innocent, & still alive, pilot as an irresponsible prat, just because he upset your lunch.
I have only had a licence for a couple of years & had no idea that such pompous nimbyism existed. & I too do not like tar brushes.
What we (I) disagree with most is your attitude that the civilian contingent of aviation is somehow inferior to the "real thing" How dare you have the audacity to lecture us on the "unforgiving environment" "if we have the sense to read & understand flight safety blah blah blah".
I ask, Who do you think you are?
You may, for all I know, be the ex NAAFI barman at some Stone Frigate that may have had a SAR unit operating out of it once. Or you may be the most experienced Sea King driver of all time. Neither gives you the right to refer to some innocent, & still alive, pilot as an irresponsible prat, just because he upset your lunch.
I have only had a licence for a couple of years & had no idea that such pompous nimbyism existed. & I too do not like tar brushes.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it is worth I have seen plenty of threads like this over the years and contributed to a few 
.
Sometimes we have to accept people have very different views from our own. When they do, it is impossible to have a rational debate, because the protagonists have moved beyond rationality.
In short by all means enjoy a few wind ups if that is your thing, but dont expect to have a meaningful debate or to change anyone's views.
.Sometimes we have to accept people have very different views from our own. When they do, it is impossible to have a rational debate, because the protagonists have moved beyond rationality.
In short by all means enjoy a few wind ups if that is your thing, but dont expect to have a meaningful debate or to change anyone's views.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading through here again and the first post in particular, it struck me that CJ was frightened by this aircraft. Flying low it would not have been where he would have normally expected to see an aircraft so startled him and if flying into wind might not have been heard until it was very close. The end result is his rant in here which is really just a way of dealing with his fear. Maybe he thought it was about to hit his house - not an unreasonable thought if it was as close as he says.
SAS be very careful what you say about lovely little Cessna 150s and152s.
It won't be too long before some of them are old enough to be considered Classic Aircraft then everyone will want to fly them. 
Then they will discover just what great little aircraft they really are and those of us who already know that may find ourselves having to fight for time to fly them. 
SAS be very careful what you say about lovely little Cessna 150s and152s.
It won't be too long before some of them are old enough to be considered Classic Aircraft then everyone will want to fly them. Then they will discover just what great little aircraft they really are and those of us who already know that may find ourselves having to fight for time to fly them.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you'll excuse the thread creap......
It is interesting the differing attitudes regarding the quality (for want of a better word) of military flying vs that of private flying.
So here's a question for those who have been exposed to both:
Does the quality of ab initio and continuation training in private aviation match that in the military?
Does this matter?
I have never been in the military, but I work in an job which is normally performed by the military and thus exposed to ex military personnel who continue the ways of old. My opinion is that the military system is far more thorough. It is my perception that this is bourne out by the number of CFIT incidents in private flying vs that of military and commercial flying.
Does this matter in my opinion? For most private flying, no. But the more specialised aspects of flying yes it most definitely does. I believe low flying falls into this category. And lets not confuse low flying with landing and taking off. When landing and taking off you have a well defined and familiar set of visual references and more rigorous knowledge of obstructions.
It is interesting the differing attitudes regarding the quality (for want of a better word) of military flying vs that of private flying.
So here's a question for those who have been exposed to both:
Does the quality of ab initio and continuation training in private aviation match that in the military?
Does this matter?
I have never been in the military, but I work in an job which is normally performed by the military and thus exposed to ex military personnel who continue the ways of old. My opinion is that the military system is far more thorough. It is my perception that this is bourne out by the number of CFIT incidents in private flying vs that of military and commercial flying.
Does this matter in my opinion? For most private flying, no. But the more specialised aspects of flying yes it most definitely does. I believe low flying falls into this category. And lets not confuse low flying with landing and taking off. When landing and taking off you have a well defined and familiar set of visual references and more rigorous knowledge of obstructions.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well obviously, the military training is to a higher standard. There is a whole heap more tax payers money spent on it.
That however doesn't make low level flying any safer. Military pilots still get killed at low level. In fact the only examples that leap into my mind of accidents from low level flying are from military pilots.
Military aviation is a completely different beast from the civvy PPL world. You cannot compare them. I wouldn't compare airline flying to flying a spamcan either. Different horses, different courses.
The training that is provided for the "average" PPL is alright. If you get a decent instructor, then it can be very good indeed.
You get a very variable range of students, but hopefully we bring them all to at least a minimum standard.
I have taught some who would be perfectly capable of becoming a fast jet jockey if they wished and I have taught others who, frankly, would struggle to reverse a car out of their drive.
How about some of those people who "only" have a PPL and yet display ex-military machines at low level? Or those other people who aren't military pilots but compete in things like the Red Bull air races? Yeah, they're crap aren't they................
Lowish level flying is taught in the PPL. It isn't rocket science and anyone is able to do it. It has some specific problems and issues to be aware of, but it isn't beyond the wit of anyone to be honest.
To suggest that it is the sole realm of the military is, to be honest utter crap. Anyone can be taught how to do it as safely as possible and anyway, we aren't talking about performing high G manouevers at low level, just a bit of straight and level for what is likely to be a short time period. Few people will hang about at low level for an entire flight.
That however doesn't make low level flying any safer. Military pilots still get killed at low level. In fact the only examples that leap into my mind of accidents from low level flying are from military pilots.
Military aviation is a completely different beast from the civvy PPL world. You cannot compare them. I wouldn't compare airline flying to flying a spamcan either. Different horses, different courses.
The training that is provided for the "average" PPL is alright. If you get a decent instructor, then it can be very good indeed.
You get a very variable range of students, but hopefully we bring them all to at least a minimum standard.
I have taught some who would be perfectly capable of becoming a fast jet jockey if they wished and I have taught others who, frankly, would struggle to reverse a car out of their drive.
How about some of those people who "only" have a PPL and yet display ex-military machines at low level? Or those other people who aren't military pilots but compete in things like the Red Bull air races? Yeah, they're crap aren't they................
Lowish level flying is taught in the PPL. It isn't rocket science and anyone is able to do it. It has some specific problems and issues to be aware of, but it isn't beyond the wit of anyone to be honest.
To suggest that it is the sole realm of the military is, to be honest utter crap. Anyone can be taught how to do it as safely as possible and anyway, we aren't talking about performing high G manouevers at low level, just a bit of straight and level for what is likely to be a short time period. Few people will hang about at low level for an entire flight.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not suggesting that ppl's shouldn't low fly, fly ex military jets or do aeros. That is the great thing about private flying - you have a wonderful diverse mix of options with a ppl, far greater than most military or commercial pilots do in their work.
And yes low flying does kill military pilots (and by low flying I mean less than 200 feet). The very fact that military training doesn't fully mitigate against low flying accidents suggest that there would be even more if there were no training. I believe the only reason that we don't hear many if any ppls dying from it is that very few hours are actually spent doing it on a national scale.
But the point is low flying, and again I am talking about below 200', is a special skill set (and not one that is necessarily beyond most ppls), but where does one get the proper training and experience to gain and maintain that skill set?
So by all means low fly if you have the training and experience and only if it is legal and as safe as is reasonable. In fact that goes for any aspect of flying. That is the difference between the military/commerical pilots and private aviators. They can't do something new without training. There is only the law and good airmanship (common sense) that prevent a ppl from getting the right training and experience and sadly there are some who are quite happy to ignore both.
And yes low flying does kill military pilots (and by low flying I mean less than 200 feet). The very fact that military training doesn't fully mitigate against low flying accidents suggest that there would be even more if there were no training. I believe the only reason that we don't hear many if any ppls dying from it is that very few hours are actually spent doing it on a national scale.
But the point is low flying, and again I am talking about below 200', is a special skill set (and not one that is necessarily beyond most ppls), but where does one get the proper training and experience to gain and maintain that skill set?
So by all means low fly if you have the training and experience and only if it is legal and as safe as is reasonable. In fact that goes for any aspect of flying. That is the difference between the military/commerical pilots and private aviators. They can't do something new without training. There is only the law and good airmanship (common sense) that prevent a ppl from getting the right training and experience and sadly there are some who are quite happy to ignore both.