Low level flying
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver Island
Depth perception over water, even rough water, is challenging to determine, even with experience. Depth perception when jinking around and thrill seeking may present a greater challenge. The pilot in the video was up and down and all over the place, rolling reversals this way and that, displaying poor airmanship and again judgment.
That is exactly what I saw in the video.
It made me fearful for whoever fly's with that pilot.
My opinion is based on thousands of hours of low level flying for over fifty years as a pilot trained and paid to do such flying, both fixed wing and helicopters.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 2
From: USA
It probably needn't be pointed out, but I believe Chuck's experience includes considerable water flying too.
No need to apologize. You're welcome.
Whoops, ok, thanks for reminding all of us of our abject ignorance, Guppy.
And, oh, our lack of experience, obviously
And, oh, our lack of experience, obviously
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
From: 45 yards from a tropical beach
BPF
Thanks mate; I'd fly on your wing any time (remember, I'm an ex Big Piston pilot too.)
This has been an interesting thread, with the funsters versus the naysayers. The crux of the matter is, any form of flying needs discipline, adequate and proper training plus thorough understanding and briefing of the job in hand.
Low flying, aerobatics and formation flying are amongst the most demanding of our repertoire, so require special attention. However, they can all be performed safely, given appropriate conditions of weather, training and skill.
Having spent many hours flying low over the sea, I would never do it in a single-engined aircraft. (I always had four, or even six.) I have also many hours of formation and aerobatics experience. I would never do either without a parachute.
Train hard - fight easy.
Thanks mate; I'd fly on your wing any time (remember, I'm an ex Big Piston pilot too.)
This has been an interesting thread, with the funsters versus the naysayers. The crux of the matter is, any form of flying needs discipline, adequate and proper training plus thorough understanding and briefing of the job in hand.
Low flying, aerobatics and formation flying are amongst the most demanding of our repertoire, so require special attention. However, they can all be performed safely, given appropriate conditions of weather, training and skill.
Having spent many hours flying low over the sea, I would never do it in a single-engined aircraft. (I always had four, or even six.) I have also many hours of formation and aerobatics experience. I would never do either without a parachute.
Train hard - fight easy.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver Island
It probably needn't be pointed out, but I believe Chuck's experience includes considerable water flying too.
In my opinion abrupt bank angle changes such as I saw in that video that close to the water is very high risk for any pilot because just a slight error in pitch control can result in flying into the water.
Fun flying is one thing, but high risk taking can quickly change fun into disaster.
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
From: suffolk
Hey, big pistons and friends, its half an hour to Christmas day here ,and i don't want to start an argument with you guys. You have your view, I have mine and I don't think we will ever agree.
What I have said is what I believe, It is what I have done. In my day job I write risk assessments and method statements every day.
I deal with consultants and engineers and experts every day. These guys write hypothetical risk assesments that make my job impossible. They charge more for a hyperthetical assesment that I charge to actually do the job.
More often than not I find that these consultants specify things that cannot be achieved, and when questioned on detail have to admit that they don' t know anything about what we do. Meanwhile we have 45yrs experience in the field of installing our products with a combined experience of over 60 yrs in our management team of 3 people. We have over 3800 successful installations .
That gives us credability.
By the same token I have stated on here in a public forum that what was shown is not inherently dangerous. I have demonstrated that to be the case.
What I have not done is qualified those comments(because I do not feel the need to, those that know me personally know the truth of my statements).
I have
not gone into minute detail , nor have I encoureged any one to try it.
Also there are geographical detail differences between doing this on the east coast of England and in an air sea search situation in a flying boat over the sea.
I am not presumptious enough to say that my way is the only way , or that I am always right.
What I claim is simple...In exactly the way I act in my everyday work.
Results speak for themselves, they are factual and demonstrated, factual results beat hyperthetical cases hands down every time!
Merry Christmas and safe flying for the New Year.
What I have said is what I believe, It is what I have done. In my day job I write risk assessments and method statements every day.
I deal with consultants and engineers and experts every day. These guys write hypothetical risk assesments that make my job impossible. They charge more for a hyperthetical assesment that I charge to actually do the job.
More often than not I find that these consultants specify things that cannot be achieved, and when questioned on detail have to admit that they don' t know anything about what we do. Meanwhile we have 45yrs experience in the field of installing our products with a combined experience of over 60 yrs in our management team of 3 people. We have over 3800 successful installations .
That gives us credability.
By the same token I have stated on here in a public forum that what was shown is not inherently dangerous. I have demonstrated that to be the case.
What I have not done is qualified those comments(because I do not feel the need to, those that know me personally know the truth of my statements).
I have
not gone into minute detail , nor have I encoureged any one to try it.
Also there are geographical detail differences between doing this on the east coast of England and in an air sea search situation in a flying boat over the sea.
I am not presumptious enough to say that my way is the only way , or that I am always right.
What I claim is simple...In exactly the way I act in my everyday work.
Results speak for themselves, they are factual and demonstrated, factual results beat hyperthetical cases hands down every time!
Merry Christmas and safe flying for the New Year.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver Island
Am I to understand that professional pilots who specialize in low level flying and the teaching of same have no credibility because they are fear mongers and their advice should be ignored hatzflyer?
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 2
From: USA
In my day job I write risk assessments and method statements every day.
I deal with consultants and engineers and experts every day. These guys write hypothetical risk assesments that make my job impossible. They charge more for a hyperthetical assesment that I charge to actually do the job.
More often than not I find that these consultants specify things that cannot be achieved, and when questioned on detail have to admit that they don' t know anything about what we do. Meanwhile we have 45yrs experience in the field of installing our products with a combined experience of over 60 yrs in our management team of 3 people. We have over 3800 successful installations .
That gives us credability.
I deal with consultants and engineers and experts every day. These guys write hypothetical risk assesments that make my job impossible. They charge more for a hyperthetical assesment that I charge to actually do the job.
More often than not I find that these consultants specify things that cannot be achieved, and when questioned on detail have to admit that they don' t know anything about what we do. Meanwhile we have 45yrs experience in the field of installing our products with a combined experience of over 60 yrs in our management team of 3 people. We have over 3800 successful installations .
That gives us credability.
Now, if those were 45 years of experience flying low level operations, with 3,800 low level hours, and a combined total of 60 years of low altitude experience by those same three people, you'd have something. As it turns out, you don't. If you'd spend all day flying low altitude runs, rather than spend all day writing "risk analysis," you'd have something. But you don't. If the consultants and engineers you deal with all day have that experience and care to chime in, they'd have credibility on the topic.
Your sum total contribution to the topic seems to be that you've done it and didn't die, and you think it's fun.
Also there are geographical detail differences between doing this on the east coast of England and in an air sea search situation in a flying boat over the sea.
I hear this a lot on this site. Carburetor ice is different within the borders of the UK, vs. anywhere else on earth. Pilots in the UK don't need aircraft flight manuals, although everywhere else requires them. Pilots in the UK don't need to learn to lean the mixture, even though it's one of the most basic tenets of operating a piston aircraft engine. And so on. Now I'm most impressed to learn that flying over water near the UK is entirely different than flying over water anywhere else, and I'm frothing at the mouth to learn why.
I'd really love to hear your take on glassy water, too.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 2
From: USA
I make my quiet point again - we don't know that they/the pilot are/was inexperienced.
