Motorway Flying ...
Character assasination and hanging without trial (metaphorically speaking) seems to be a very 21st Century thing in Britain. Why?
Regardless of cause and as Genghis lays out, a punitive approach does not work as well as a balanced approach.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(1) No, far too low (in breach of Rule 5(3)(b) etc)
There are two issues here...1) What someone thought was a dangerous act., and 2) What really happened. We don't know 2 as there is no one to answer their case but it could be explained by a million reasons....Aircraft landing at a private strip, good inflight vis below the cloudbase, aircraft positioning to land somewhere, student pilot caught out....Who knows. And for that reason I am not keen on throwing accusations around on a public forum. I reckon that in 14 years of flying, I don't reckon I could judge 500' very accurately from the ground.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
I had an old guy in Germany strike me because I was standing slightly in the bicycle lane
In reading GtE's post #18 I'm reminded of another scenario.
A C150 I once flew had the carb heat flap control lever connection to the cable become loose in flight, meaning that the flap freely and intermittently moved from fully closed to fully open.
Those that have flown the 150 will recall I'm sure that they're not well endowed with power, certainly this machine with the carb heat full on really wasn't particularly effective at staying in the air... so while I'm not necessarily suggesting this particular fault it's always possible that there was some issue with the 'craft.
In which case Spanner's concern and initial actions are commendable.. his/her latter suggestion of action however does seem to reek a little more of spite than anything else.
FP.
A C150 I once flew had the carb heat flap control lever connection to the cable become loose in flight, meaning that the flap freely and intermittently moved from fully closed to fully open.
Those that have flown the 150 will recall I'm sure that they're not well endowed with power, certainly this machine with the carb heat full on really wasn't particularly effective at staying in the air... so while I'm not necessarily suggesting this particular fault it's always possible that there was some issue with the 'craft.
In which case Spanner's concern and initial actions are commendable.. his/her latter suggestion of action however does seem to reek a little more of spite than anything else.
FP.
I had an old guy in Germany strike me because I was standing slightly in the bicycle lane - same thing I think, for the same reason: inappropriate rage caused by having ineffectually sacrificed a lifetime of opportunity in favor of conformance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that much of what has been posted in this thread has not been helpful but have to ask if your decision to file the form is intended to help the pilot or a reaction to criticism of your point of view and thus intended to justify your own actions?
If you are trying to help the pilot avoid a similar situation in the future, and given that you say you know the aircraft and where it came from, surely a quiet word with the pilot or the CFI at the airfield will achieve more than filing the form. After all, if the pilot won't listen, you can always file the form later.
My £.02 worth.
If you are trying to help the pilot avoid a similar situation in the future, and given that you say you know the aircraft and where it came from, surely a quiet word with the pilot or the CFI at the airfield will achieve more than filing the form. After all, if the pilot won't listen, you can always file the form later.
My £.02 worth.
All I can say is that with traffic slowed to 60 mph on the motorway, low cloud, strong wind, heavy rain and spray he was VERY low!
I have no intention of taking any further action, however, because I can't see anything would be gained by it - I don't want an argument with the CFI or the pilot and a complaint to the CAA would be time consuming, expensive to me and difficult to prove.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spanner
Thanks for your reaction to what I wrote.
It all depends on what you want to achieve: the very fact that you posted in the first place shows that you care.
If it was me, especially if I knew any of those involved, I wouldn't mind upsetting either the pilot or the CFI by mentioning what I saw in as sensitive and non-confrontational way as I could. I wouldn't be trying to win an argument, just to try to help the pilot, or someone else in a similar situation, not to do it again.
I understand that the pilot might find it hard to listen: the CFI shouldn't if they are any good. All I would want them to do is think about what happened in this case and avoid it happening in the future.
Ultimately, though, if doing so ended up offending them: that would still be OK with me provided it at least contributed to making them think about it. There's also often a difference between what people say in response to something like this and their subsequent thoughts about what they have done.
Something to think about: if you don't say anything and next week the same pilot, or another from the same airfield, makes the same mistake and dies, how will you feel?
I know that that puts you in an uncomfortable position: the balance of probabilities is that there won't be a fatal accident but, that said, I know what I'd do.....
It's your call.
Thanks for your reaction to what I wrote.
It all depends on what you want to achieve: the very fact that you posted in the first place shows that you care.
If it was me, especially if I knew any of those involved, I wouldn't mind upsetting either the pilot or the CFI by mentioning what I saw in as sensitive and non-confrontational way as I could. I wouldn't be trying to win an argument, just to try to help the pilot, or someone else in a similar situation, not to do it again.
I understand that the pilot might find it hard to listen: the CFI shouldn't if they are any good. All I would want them to do is think about what happened in this case and avoid it happening in the future.
Ultimately, though, if doing so ended up offending them: that would still be OK with me provided it at least contributed to making them think about it. There's also often a difference between what people say in response to something like this and their subsequent thoughts about what they have done.
Something to think about: if you don't say anything and next week the same pilot, or another from the same airfield, makes the same mistake and dies, how will you feel?
I know that that puts you in an uncomfortable position: the balance of probabilities is that there won't be a fatal accident but, that said, I know what I'd do.....
It's your call.
Spanner,
I have to agree with the above post, for me it would be a no brainer, speak to the CFI. If he is sensible he would have a word, if he doesn't and there is a smoking hole at least you will have given him the opportunity to re-educate or offer advice.
I had the same thing 25 years ago, fortunately no one was killed but it did cost the tax payer £25 million.
Ivor
I have to agree with the above post, for me it would be a no brainer, speak to the CFI. If he is sensible he would have a word, if he doesn't and there is a smoking hole at least you will have given him the opportunity to re-educate or offer advice.
I had the same thing 25 years ago, fortunately no one was killed but it did cost the tax payer £25 million.
Ivor
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just been advised by a colleague that there is a thread on motorway flying on Pprune. He told me that the tower had received a call from Liverpool regarding concerns that an aircraft may have been in difficulty and was following the M6 motorway at low level. This is the first I have heard of the incident as I was the one flying the aircraft at the time. I feel that I need to provide some balance regarding this thread.
This was a planned navigational exercise (18B operation at minimum level), and an exercise I have done over thirty times before. I use the same route as I believe it is highly beneficial to the students. I am certainly no maverick and I truly respect weather conditions that are within my limits. I have held a pilot’s licence for 30 years and have 8,800 hours of PI. I shall now provide the details of this particular exercise.
The route starts at Leigh flash at 650 ft on the Manchester QNH, the aircraft is then configured into the slow safe cruise. A track of about 320 is then flown to take us south of Wigan. The student is then told that we would be unable to cross Wigan at such a low altitude and therefore Wigan must be circumnavigated. A track is then taken easterly to follow round the outskirts of Wigan. The student is then told to climb up to 900 ft on the QNH to maintain the 500ft rule. This was duly done on the day. Whilst in the slow safe cruise I then ask the student how far landmarks are and estimate how long it would take to get to it, bearing in mind the wind direction. Once north of Wigan and flying in a westerly direction I then descend to 700 ft the QNH whilst passing over the M6 and following the railway line to Burscough. I demonstrate that the line feature must be to the left to comply with the rules of the air. At Burscough I then fly south to the M58 and again ask the student how long this would take. At the M58 motorway we overfly junction 3. With normal eyesight you can actually read the motorway sign legally, that is to say above 500 AGL. I happen to be fortunate I can read the motorway signs from a higher height as I have a visual acuity of 6/5. We then follow the M58 to the M6 and again I ask for an estimate to the M6. There is rising ground as the get close to the M6 and the student is then asked to climb to 900 ft on the QNH. At the M6 we then head southbound maintaining an altitude of 700 on the Manchester QNH. Southbound on the M6, I inform the student that we must keep the M6 close to us due to the Liverpool Airspace to the west. At the M6 M62 junction we head east to our destination airfield.
It is clear from reading this thread that people’s judgment can be inaccurate. I have not spoken to the student about this post as I have only just found out about it. Indeed I am happy to say nothing and would be prepared in front of the CFI to discuss the flight with the student. The reason why I am so confident is that during the flight I impressed on complying with Rule 5 with the student at all times. He will be able to independently verify the altitude flown. Indeed I drum it into the student that rule 5 must be complied with at all times. I certainly was not forced down by low cloud or poor visibility, indeed I actually pointed out Fiddlers Ferry at Haydock race track. I will even be happy to obtain the Metar at the time in question and the ATIS at my airfield. I would even go one step further, I would be happy to get a trace of our route from Hawarden, to prove I was not flying so low. Had I been flying at the altitude the instigator of this post suggested I am sure the trace would have drop out.
There are always two sides to a story, I know self-praise is no recommendation, however I would be more than happy for “Spanner in the werks” to contact the management at my airfield and also speak to the CFI about my airmanship. I have nothing hide about my conduct, I believe in being open and honest. I would be more than happy to meet with “Spanner in the werks” should he wish to take up the offer.
When I fly, I tell my students that I seek to achieve 3 goals, in that the flight should be safe, informative and fun. That was achieved on the day in question.
This was a planned navigational exercise (18B operation at minimum level), and an exercise I have done over thirty times before. I use the same route as I believe it is highly beneficial to the students. I am certainly no maverick and I truly respect weather conditions that are within my limits. I have held a pilot’s licence for 30 years and have 8,800 hours of PI. I shall now provide the details of this particular exercise.
The route starts at Leigh flash at 650 ft on the Manchester QNH, the aircraft is then configured into the slow safe cruise. A track of about 320 is then flown to take us south of Wigan. The student is then told that we would be unable to cross Wigan at such a low altitude and therefore Wigan must be circumnavigated. A track is then taken easterly to follow round the outskirts of Wigan. The student is then told to climb up to 900 ft on the QNH to maintain the 500ft rule. This was duly done on the day. Whilst in the slow safe cruise I then ask the student how far landmarks are and estimate how long it would take to get to it, bearing in mind the wind direction. Once north of Wigan and flying in a westerly direction I then descend to 700 ft the QNH whilst passing over the M6 and following the railway line to Burscough. I demonstrate that the line feature must be to the left to comply with the rules of the air. At Burscough I then fly south to the M58 and again ask the student how long this would take. At the M58 motorway we overfly junction 3. With normal eyesight you can actually read the motorway sign legally, that is to say above 500 AGL. I happen to be fortunate I can read the motorway signs from a higher height as I have a visual acuity of 6/5. We then follow the M58 to the M6 and again I ask for an estimate to the M6. There is rising ground as the get close to the M6 and the student is then asked to climb to 900 ft on the QNH. At the M6 we then head southbound maintaining an altitude of 700 on the Manchester QNH. Southbound on the M6, I inform the student that we must keep the M6 close to us due to the Liverpool Airspace to the west. At the M6 M62 junction we head east to our destination airfield.
It is clear from reading this thread that people’s judgment can be inaccurate. I have not spoken to the student about this post as I have only just found out about it. Indeed I am happy to say nothing and would be prepared in front of the CFI to discuss the flight with the student. The reason why I am so confident is that during the flight I impressed on complying with Rule 5 with the student at all times. He will be able to independently verify the altitude flown. Indeed I drum it into the student that rule 5 must be complied with at all times. I certainly was not forced down by low cloud or poor visibility, indeed I actually pointed out Fiddlers Ferry at Haydock race track. I will even be happy to obtain the Metar at the time in question and the ATIS at my airfield. I would even go one step further, I would be happy to get a trace of our route from Hawarden, to prove I was not flying so low. Had I been flying at the altitude the instigator of this post suggested I am sure the trace would have drop out.
There are always two sides to a story, I know self-praise is no recommendation, however I would be more than happy for “Spanner in the werks” to contact the management at my airfield and also speak to the CFI about my airmanship. I have nothing hide about my conduct, I believe in being open and honest. I would be more than happy to meet with “Spanner in the werks” should he wish to take up the offer.
When I fly, I tell my students that I seek to achieve 3 goals, in that the flight should be safe, informative and fun. That was achieved on the day in question.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are always two sides to a story, I know self-praise is no recommendation, however I would be more than happy for “Spanner in the werks” to contact the management at my airfield and also speak to the CFI about my airmanship. I have nothing hide about my conduct, I believe in being open and honest. I would be more than happy to meet with “Spanner in the werks” should he wish to take up the offer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hotcloud
Thank you for your Post.
I have studied your route and the altitudes flown.
Your route does indeed appear to comply with Rule 5, albeit with minimum margin for error.
Unfortunately the aircraft I saw was not on any part of the route you describe - so whilst I appreciate your lucid description of the flight, the aircraft I saw cannot have been you particularly as:
That's the point, there was clear weather either side of these atrocious conditions I'm describing - both to the North and the South so I have no doubt that you complied with the Rules of the Air and provided valuable instruction to your student.
Would the pilot of the aircraft I saw in appalling conditions, flying at low level, please stand up!!!???
Thank you for your Post.
I have studied your route and the altitudes flown.
Your route does indeed appear to comply with Rule 5, albeit with minimum margin for error.
Unfortunately the aircraft I saw was not on any part of the route you describe - so whilst I appreciate your lucid description of the flight, the aircraft I saw cannot have been you particularly as:
I certainly was not forced down by low cloud or poor visibility, indeed I actually pointed out Fiddlers Ferry at Haydock race track.
Would the pilot of the aircraft I saw in appalling conditions, flying at low level, please stand up!!!???
I had the same thing 25 years ago, fortunately no one was killed but it did cost the tax payer £25 million.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Somebody should file an Airprox - there were two of them.
Unfortunately the aircraft I saw was not on any part of the route you describe - so whilst I appreciate your lucid description of the flight, the aircraft I saw cannot have been you