unprofessional flying
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On my CPL exam, my examiner made me do a PFL and then touch and go to a gliding site without once contacting the gliding frequency. That bad airmanship?
It wasn't but I shall let you figure out why for yourself.
It's all situational If it was a soaking wet day or the wind was 40kts at 1000ft or if the vis was low and cloudbase 1000ft I wouldn't consider for one second contacting Errol before flying over them, whether I was talking to Dundee or not, they're not flying. I've already said that flying through a DZ on a nice day when they are dropping and not being on frequency sounds pretty unwise.
The rest is my just winding up Crash One because I don't like this concept of absolutes when it comes to flying, generally speaking there are many ways of doing things and while not agreeing with them, they are often perfectly safe within a given set of parameters. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should but just because I don't think it should be done, doesn't mean it's stupid or dangerous.
It wasn't but I shall let you figure out why for yourself.
It's all situational If it was a soaking wet day or the wind was 40kts at 1000ft or if the vis was low and cloudbase 1000ft I wouldn't consider for one second contacting Errol before flying over them, whether I was talking to Dundee or not, they're not flying. I've already said that flying through a DZ on a nice day when they are dropping and not being on frequency sounds pretty unwise.
The rest is my just winding up Crash One because I don't like this concept of absolutes when it comes to flying, generally speaking there are many ways of doing things and while not agreeing with them, they are often perfectly safe within a given set of parameters. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should but just because I don't think it should be done, doesn't mean it's stupid or dangerous.
Last edited by Dan the weegie; 4th Sep 2012 at 14:29.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you are going to decide whether Errol are dropping based on your superior knowledge. Believe me I have seen dropping ops in wx I wouldn't take the dog out in.
Then you pretty much quote me with:
CPL or not you are coming over as a prat.
No doubt your PFL site was closed. Big deal. My examiner pulled the throttle on me about half a mile west of Errol in sunshine. Do you think I called them first? Do you think he did?
As for absolutes that is bull****e. I will decide what I consider the correct piece of airmanship to apply, based on my interpretation of the situation at the time. Do I really have to spell out every thought that might go through my mind?
I suggest you grow up, if it amuses you to try & wind people up.
CPL, my arse
Then you pretty much quote me with:
Just because we can, doesn't mean we should
No doubt your PFL site was closed. Big deal. My examiner pulled the throttle on me about half a mile west of Errol in sunshine. Do you think I called them first? Do you think he did?
As for absolutes that is bull****e. I will decide what I consider the correct piece of airmanship to apply, based on my interpretation of the situation at the time. Do I really have to spell out every thought that might go through my mind?
I suggest you grow up, if it amuses you to try & wind people up.
CPL, my arse
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will decide what I consider the correct piece of airmanship to apply, based on my interpretation of the situation at the time. Do I really have to spell out every thought that might go through my mind?
I probably am a Prat
I have nothing to prove and I'm not enjoying winding you up, to me it's debate . I just don't like the "I am right, they are wrong and I must ensure everyone knows about it" attitude. Which is very common and is fairly unhealthy from a flying perspective and that's something you are unquestionably guilty of.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan the weegie
I don't recall saying "I am right they are wrong". I used those very words to describe the direction this discussion was heading from posts by others.
I certainly did not criticise anyone without knowing the context. I fail to understand how you should come to the conclusion that I have insufficient experience to make a judgment. I do actually know by looking at the airfield whether Portmoak is active or not.
I also am certainly not in the category of "I am right, they are wrong & I must ensure everyone knows about it" I have never in my life said or implied such a thing. I have a NPPL, I have been flying on & off since 1956. I don't consider myself any kind of expert. On the other hand I cannot stand being mis-understood. If you think my remark "If this is the way instructors behave then >>>>" is a bad thing to say then so be it.
I refuse to believe that ALL & EVERY instructor is a GOD. I think I have been around long enough to make that assumption with some justification.
I mentioned a down angle to Portmoak of 30 deg from 5000 ft this equates, acording to my inadequate maths to about 8660ft laterally, 10000ft distant. Hardly 10 miles!
I say again "I do not think I am right & they are wrong" I do still believe that flying in the close vicinity of such places is silly, perhaps I should have added the bit WHEN THEY ARE ACTIVE. I thought that last bit was bloody obvious.
For interest the instructors in these two experiences of mine were both excellent. The remark about no ATZ etc was made by another.
Yes you have pissed me off!
I don't recall saying "I am right they are wrong". I used those very words to describe the direction this discussion was heading from posts by others.
I certainly did not criticise anyone without knowing the context. I fail to understand how you should come to the conclusion that I have insufficient experience to make a judgment. I do actually know by looking at the airfield whether Portmoak is active or not.
I also am certainly not in the category of "I am right, they are wrong & I must ensure everyone knows about it" I have never in my life said or implied such a thing. I have a NPPL, I have been flying on & off since 1956. I don't consider myself any kind of expert. On the other hand I cannot stand being mis-understood. If you think my remark "If this is the way instructors behave then >>>>" is a bad thing to say then so be it.
I refuse to believe that ALL & EVERY instructor is a GOD. I think I have been around long enough to make that assumption with some justification.
I mentioned a down angle to Portmoak of 30 deg from 5000 ft this equates, acording to my inadequate maths to about 8660ft laterally, 10000ft distant. Hardly 10 miles!
I say again "I do not think I am right & they are wrong" I do still believe that flying in the close vicinity of such places is silly, perhaps I should have added the bit WHEN THEY ARE ACTIVE. I thought that last bit was bloody obvious.
For interest the instructors in these two experiences of mine were both excellent. The remark about no ATZ etc was made by another.
Yes you have pissed me off!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You beat me to it.
I don't know much about gliding. Wind gusting to close to 50kts.
Should be safe to overfly Portmoak today. They won't be flying.
Aye right.
D.O.
I don't know much about gliding. Wind gusting to close to 50kts.
Should be safe to overfly Portmoak today. They won't be flying.
Aye right.
D.O.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of avoiding gliding and para drop sites, two points if I may;
1. “It's not hard for heaven's sake, they are all on the charts . . .”
They are on the official CAA/NATS ¼ and 1/2 million charts, but not all are on the new 1 million, and at least some were not on Jeppesen when an airprox report included as a reason that the pilot was flying with J. which did not show a gliding site . The pilot just missed a launch cable, IIRC.
2. “If it was a soaking wet day or the wind was 40kts at 1000ft or if the vis was low and cloudbase 1000ft I wouldn't consider for one second contacting Errol before flying over them, whether I was talking to Dundee or not, they're not flying.”
I know this was referring to para drops, and for all I know the poster’s judgement may be identical to that of the site operator. But again, I recall an airprox report where a power pilot just missed a gliding launch cable, because he thought they would not be flying with a 1000 foot cloudbase so he did not divert to miss their site. Our judgement of others’ minima, and/or our knowledge of other people’s aviation practices, may not be as good as we think.
Just my 2p’th.
Chris N
1. “It's not hard for heaven's sake, they are all on the charts . . .”
They are on the official CAA/NATS ¼ and 1/2 million charts, but not all are on the new 1 million, and at least some were not on Jeppesen when an airprox report included as a reason that the pilot was flying with J. which did not show a gliding site . The pilot just missed a launch cable, IIRC.
2. “If it was a soaking wet day or the wind was 40kts at 1000ft or if the vis was low and cloudbase 1000ft I wouldn't consider for one second contacting Errol before flying over them, whether I was talking to Dundee or not, they're not flying.”
I know this was referring to para drops, and for all I know the poster’s judgement may be identical to that of the site operator. But again, I recall an airprox report where a power pilot just missed a gliding launch cable, because he thought they would not be flying with a 1000 foot cloudbase so he did not divert to miss their site. Our judgement of others’ minima, and/or our knowledge of other people’s aviation practices, may not be as good as we think.
Just my 2p’th.
Chris N
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chrisN
Spot on. Pilot ignorance of the way airspace is used by others is the problem.
For many flyers the only time they give aviation a thought is when they are actually in the air. No planning, no continual learning, no weather, no nothing! Just turn up and fly.
D.O.
Spot on. Pilot ignorance of the way airspace is used by others is the problem.
For many flyers the only time they give aviation a thought is when they are actually in the air. No planning, no continual learning, no weather, no nothing! Just turn up and fly.
D.O.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thread, if a little clogged up with rubbish. The fact of the matter is that Errol isn't NOTAMed and while it is depicted as a parachuting site on charts, 90% of the time nothing's happening there - along with most other parachuting and some gliding sites in the area.
A NOTAM drawing attention to times of activity and contact frequencies would be a big help, as it's a little unreasonable to expect people to avoid the area for no reason.
A NOTAM drawing attention to times of activity and contact frequencies would be a big help, as it's a little unreasonable to expect people to avoid the area for no reason.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that last bit was bloody obvious.
what I read you saying was that it was bloody silly to do spins near a gliding site regardless of activity. If they were flying and you were near them then that's pretty unsafe.Windy days near a gliding site in Scotland usually means to me they're likely to be flying
.I know Errol fairly well and avoid it if I'm not briefed and the conditions are suitable.
Sorry Crash one, obviously crossed wires. I thought you were being very hard on the Instructors given I know most of the ones that were there at the time and I knew of none that were either bad or unsafe
. I'm pretty sensitive about that because some people think instructors are meant to know everything and react very badly if the experience differs. It's not easy flying with these old geezers who've been flying for ages and never tell you what they think is going on.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with DB6 on this.
And Errol in the past has been know to complain about folk flying through the area and no jumping was even planned for the day. The plane was on headings by leuchars at the time.
How do the others manage to do it then?
And Errol in the past has been know to complain about folk flying through the area and no jumping was even planned for the day. The plane was on headings by leuchars at the time.
How do the others manage to do it then?
Last edited by mad_jock; 5th Sep 2012 at 10:55.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airmanship isn't about rights it's about responsiblity and good manners. If you fly a powered aircraft it's only good manners to avoid parachuting sites and gliding sites, quite apart from it being a good deal safer!
I know, I know you either cant be bothered, they are too expensive, or they are too heavy.
.. .. but it is the responsible thing to do.
Oops well over dun my quota of smilies now.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From when I was flying in the area.
You forgeting the cars thrashing about
And aviation wise their is a bloke that flys his bird of prey there.
I have also seen Remote controlled aircraft there. With fists getting shaken at the powered aircraft.
All apparently in the belief that aircraft can't fly through the overhead or near by because its a DZ.
You forgeting the cars thrashing about
And aviation wise their is a bloke that flys his bird of prey there.
I have also seen Remote controlled aircraft there. With fists getting shaken at the powered aircraft.
All apparently in the belief that aircraft can't fly through the overhead or near by because its a DZ.
Last edited by mad_jock; 5th Sep 2012 at 13:00.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOD.O, don't get you. Normal ops at Errol is tumbleweed city Arizona; variation is at the weekend when they sometimes jump.TE][/QUOTE]
I hear what you are saying but I don't think the notam system would allow that.
Probably a note on the chart with a phone number may work. Of course you could always call 129.9 on the radio.
Really we should stop making excuses for bad airmanship. The existing chart logo should be adequete and it's not that inconvenient. As I said before it is not a good place to be anyway speaking to nobody with the proximity of the Dundee approach.
D.O.
I hear what you are saying but I don't think the notam system would allow that.
Probably a note on the chart with a phone number may work. Of course you could always call 129.9 on the radio.
Really we should stop making excuses for bad airmanship. The existing chart logo should be adequete and it's not that inconvenient. As I said before it is not a good place to be anyway speaking to nobody with the proximity of the Dundee approach.
D.O.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D.O - The main point, highlighted by me on post 49, and re-iterated by many, NO ONE IS EVER THERE
Dundee has its own control zone, and anyone encrouching is going to be talking to Dundee, otherwise they will bust the Dundee zone.
What good would a phone number do, when no one is there to answer the bloody thing
Dundee has its own control zone, and anyone encrouching is going to be talking to Dundee, otherwise they will bust the Dundee zone.
What good would a phone number do, when no one is there to answer the bloody thing