Motorway Flying ...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spekesoftly
Yes, of course you’re right.
Looking at the Post from hotcloud in a different light you could argue that s/he has decided that ‘attack is the best form of defence’.
By making that detailed statement on PPRuNe s/he has effectively created an alibi in public - or hung himself/herself.
If we met and the meeting did turn out as hoped for by maxred then the argument would simply be his/her word against mine and, without witnesses, the case could not be proven.
Time to dig deeper …
On the face of it, the only obvious criticism would be that it could be considered inadvisable to route at minimum altitude towards Burscough – simply because the route passes close to Martin Mere bird sanctuary (SFC to 2000 feet). At this time of year thousands of migrating geese converge on the general area around Martin Mere and to fly at 500 feet AGL, apart from causing a b****y nuisance, there is an increased risk of a bird strike. If I were briefing the flight, I would consider the TEM and avoid the area.
… and now to refer to my ¼ mill chart:
Route round Wigan, climb to 900 feet … okay, although a bit of a congested area around Wigan, Standish … glide clear and all that?
Hmmm … spot height on chart North of track of 515 feet, spot height South of track of 552 feet (Ashurst Beacon). Without anything other than his/her 6/5 Mk 1 eyeball that puts the aircraft roughly 150 – 200 feet above the ground at those points. I appreciate the ground falls away after the Gathurst Viaduct, but by how much is hard to say from the chart – and what was the precise track?
Approaches Martin Mere at minimum altitude – mentioned above.
– okay, I don’t think there’s a argument that the aircraft couldn’t glide clear of Skelmerdale.
However, what is the elevation of Skelmersdale?
Time to put my chartered surveyor’s hat on and refer to the 1:50000 OS chart.
Contours show about 135 -140 metres in the vicinity of the M58 – about 450 – 500 feet AMSL.
hotcloud, by his/her own admission, is still maintaining 700 feet QNH on this leg, but climbs to 900 feet approaching the M6 due to high ground, so 900 minus 450 equals 450 feet above the ground AT BEST on this leg.
Potentially this is where I saw the aircraft - although I think it was further North? Why, because I telephoned Liverpool ATC at 12:15Z. It took me 3 minutes to park my car (12:12Z), I noted the time I saw the aircraft (12:07Z). Driving at 60 mph I could only have travelled about 5 miles. So I saw the aircraft about 5 miles South of Charnock Richard services on the M6. I know I passed the M58 junction with the M6 when I saw it …?
If hotcloud is correct, the contours are around 70 metres adjacent to the M6 at this point – 700 minus 230 equals 470 feet.
The contours where I stated I saw the aircraft are around 100 metres – 700 minus 330 equals 370 feet.
Again, if I’m correct and the aircraft had to descend under the squally shower then my estimate of 150 to 250 feet AGL, gauged with my 6/4 corrected vision, is looking reasonable.
Nice try hotcloud but I’m not convinced your account is anything more than a bold attempt to deflect the accusation away from yourself.
Maps and charts don’t lie. You have stated quite clearly the routes and altitudes you flew and I believe both the route and the altitudes deserve closer scrutiny – in my humble opinion of course!!!
... and finally
'... I'd like 30 previous offences to be taken into account as well, M'Lord'
Bring it on boys ...
Yes, of course you’re right.
Looking at the Post from hotcloud in a different light you could argue that s/he has decided that ‘attack is the best form of defence’.
By making that detailed statement on PPRuNe s/he has effectively created an alibi in public - or hung himself/herself.
If we met and the meeting did turn out as hoped for by maxred then the argument would simply be his/her word against mine and, without witnesses, the case could not be proven.
Time to dig deeper …
On the face of it, the only obvious criticism would be that it could be considered inadvisable to route at minimum altitude towards Burscough – simply because the route passes close to Martin Mere bird sanctuary (SFC to 2000 feet). At this time of year thousands of migrating geese converge on the general area around Martin Mere and to fly at 500 feet AGL, apart from causing a b****y nuisance, there is an increased risk of a bird strike. If I were briefing the flight, I would consider the TEM and avoid the area.
… and now to refer to my ¼ mill chart:
Route round Wigan, climb to 900 feet … okay, although a bit of a congested area around Wigan, Standish … glide clear and all that?
I then descend to 700 ft the QNH whilst passing over the M6 and following the railway line to Burscough.
Approaches Martin Mere at minimum altitude – mentioned above.
I then fly south to the M58
However, what is the elevation of Skelmersdale?
Time to put my chartered surveyor’s hat on and refer to the 1:50000 OS chart.
Contours show about 135 -140 metres in the vicinity of the M58 – about 450 – 500 feet AMSL.
hotcloud, by his/her own admission, is still maintaining 700 feet QNH on this leg, but climbs to 900 feet approaching the M6 due to high ground, so 900 minus 450 equals 450 feet above the ground AT BEST on this leg.
At the M6 we then head southbound maintaining an altitude of 700 on the Manchester QNH.
If hotcloud is correct, the contours are around 70 metres adjacent to the M6 at this point – 700 minus 230 equals 470 feet.
The contours where I stated I saw the aircraft are around 100 metres – 700 minus 330 equals 370 feet.
Again, if I’m correct and the aircraft had to descend under the squally shower then my estimate of 150 to 250 feet AGL, gauged with my 6/4 corrected vision, is looking reasonable.
Nice try hotcloud but I’m not convinced your account is anything more than a bold attempt to deflect the accusation away from yourself.
Maps and charts don’t lie. You have stated quite clearly the routes and altitudes you flew and I believe both the route and the altitudes deserve closer scrutiny – in my humble opinion of course!!!
... and finally
an exercise I have done over thirty times before
Bring it on boys ...
Last edited by SpannerInTheWerks; 11th Nov 2013 at 04:05.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working nights at the moment.
I was asked to respond so I have.
If one day you're flying low and you think of this Thread and the potential dangers involved, then it will all have been worthwhile.
Best of luck with your flying - stay safe!
SITW
I was asked to respond so I have.
If one day you're flying low and you think of this Thread and the potential dangers involved, then it will all have been worthwhile.
Best of luck with your flying - stay safe!
SITW
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Midlands, England
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Gods sake Spanner, give it a rest now.
The student was being taught a very valuable lesson on safety by an experienced instructor.
This training could save that pilots life at some time.
Whether it was 600 feet, or 300 feet, is it worth reporting a fellow pilot / instructor who was educating a student in the dangers of poor planning and how to get safely out of such a situation.
coldair
The student was being taught a very valuable lesson on safety by an experienced instructor.
This training could save that pilots life at some time.
Whether it was 600 feet, or 300 feet, is it worth reporting a fellow pilot / instructor who was educating a student in the dangers of poor planning and how to get safely out of such a situation.
coldair
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: southern England
Age: 66
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spanner. Your target fixation on convincing everybody that you are right is deeply worrying. I am sure that these are not the correct attitudes for a pilot.
Anybody challenging you in the cockpit would be open to some difficult CRM issues, I am sure. The instructor has given a reasoned explanation of the alleged incident that stacks up completely with the surmise that it was an OML exercise
but you still want to rant on at him.
You were wrong in the first place, have betrayed your attitudes to be those of somebody I would not wish to have in the left hand seat and you will not gracefully acknowledge your mistake.
Now for Pete's sake, put the shovel down!
Anybody challenging you in the cockpit would be open to some difficult CRM issues, I am sure. The instructor has given a reasoned explanation of the alleged incident that stacks up completely with the surmise that it was an OML exercise
but you still want to rant on at him.
You were wrong in the first place, have betrayed your attitudes to be those of somebody I would not wish to have in the left hand seat and you will not gracefully acknowledge your mistake.
Now for Pete's sake, put the shovel down!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This shall be the last time I shall be posting on this subject. I repeat, there was no time at all when rule 5 was breached, at Burscough I turned at the railway crossing, and therefore the flight does not interfere with Martin Mere.
I very rarely post on Pprune however I felt it necessary on this occasion. Seriously what is "spanner in the werks" trying to prove. Earlier on, he claimed it could not have been me having studied my route, but now he has changed his story, there is a lack of consistency. I suspect I may even know "spanner in the werks", aviation is a small community.
Once again on this public forum I shall state that I am prepared to meet with "spanner in the werks" with my student and the CFI, I cannot say fairer than that.
I very rarely post on Pprune however I felt it necessary on this occasion. Seriously what is "spanner in the werks" trying to prove. Earlier on, he claimed it could not have been me having studied my route, but now he has changed his story, there is a lack of consistency. I suspect I may even know "spanner in the werks", aviation is a small community.
Once again on this public forum I shall state that I am prepared to meet with "spanner in the werks" with my student and the CFI, I cannot say fairer than that.
Certainly of the two main protagonists here, there's only one - on the basis of the evidence in this thread, who I'd wish to share a cockpit or an aeroplane with.
G
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there's only one - on the basis of the evidence in this thread, who I'd wish to share a cockpit or an aeroplane with.
The End
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
there's only one - on the basis of the evidence in this thread, who I'd wish to share a cockpit or an aeroplane with.
there's only one - on the basis of the evidence in this thread, who I'd wish to share a cockpit or an aeroplane with.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Epilogue ...
I hope you enjoyed the popcorn?!
Not, unfortunately, as far as Rule 5 is concerned.
I was always told it's not what you say but what you do that impresses the student.
What does this tell the student?
It's okay to fly in crappy weather and break the Rules, because if you do everyone will support you and just say: 'that was a valuable lesson well learnt'
... now how about flying under the Gathurst Viaduct!!!
Amateur pilots, don't you just love 'um?
*Feet up, popcorn in hand, waiting*
Isn't that, according to Douglas Adams, the trick to flying? Nearly hitting the ground? Ah, that was it: Throw yourself at the ground and miss......
For Gods sake Spanner, give it a rest now.
The student was being taught a very valuable lesson on safety by an experienced instructor.
This training could save that pilots life at some time.
Whether it was 600 feet, or 300 feet, is it worth reporting a fellow pilot / instructor who was educating a student in the dangers of poor planning and how to get safely out of such a situation.
The student was being taught a very valuable lesson on safety by an experienced instructor.
This training could save that pilots life at some time.
Whether it was 600 feet, or 300 feet, is it worth reporting a fellow pilot / instructor who was educating a student in the dangers of poor planning and how to get safely out of such a situation.
What does this tell the student?
It's okay to fly in crappy weather and break the Rules, because if you do everyone will support you and just say: 'that was a valuable lesson well learnt'
... now how about flying under the Gathurst Viaduct!!!
Amateur pilots, don't you just love 'um?
Amateur pilots, don't you just love 'um?
Out of interest, do you hold and use a professional licence yourself?
G
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's not what you say that matters, why in the name of God did you say what you did?
By your posts on here spanner, I am happy in the knowledge that I must never have met you. Had I done so I would most surely have remembered and made myself scarce from your company with all haste.
Please post on traffic websites when next you venture onto the roads. If you can spend several seconds recognising Aircraft you purport to be doing wrong in conditions of heavy rain and poor visibility, you endanger the lives of many more road users than a C150 could do in a City the size of London.
By your posts on here spanner, I am happy in the knowledge that I must never have met you. Had I done so I would most surely have remembered and made myself scarce from your company with all haste.
Please post on traffic websites when next you venture onto the roads. If you can spend several seconds recognising Aircraft you purport to be doing wrong in conditions of heavy rain and poor visibility, you endanger the lives of many more road users than a C150 could do in a City the size of London.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Spanner, please be careful what you say on a public forum. I am a colleague of hotclouds and know that the route is perfectly safe and doesn't break rule 5 at the altitudes flown.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFS Spanner,
I/we told you from the outset that you were on dodgy ground.
Having reviewed the evidence, by popular demand, we the jury find your
defendant/s not guilty.
PLEASE! Drop it.
I/we told you from the outset that you were on dodgy ground.
Having reviewed the evidence, by popular demand, we the jury find your
defendant/s not guilty.
PLEASE! Drop it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PLEASE! Drop it.
I dropped it at Posts 69, 71, 79, 83, 94 and 97!!!
If you're not careful the CAA will take notice and start interviewing the pilot, checking radar data - and even motorway cameras for low flying aircraft!
the route is perfectly safe and doesn't break rule 5 at the altitudes flown
Where on the route does hotcloud state that s/he flies South along the M6 where I saw the aircraft?
NOWHERE!!!
S/he wasn't on the b****y route!!!
My guess is that in the poor conditions and strong wind s/he drifted further North and then had to scud run South along the M6 to regain track at Gathurst.
From the evidence I've read there seems to be no other explanation?
So, please, no more Posts.
I know none of you have any respect for the Rules of the Air - that's obvious from the Posts and comments.
I'll leave hotcloud alone - let fate be the hunter.
I know what I saw and would stand up in any Court as an expert witness and say so.
But not here.
I've said my piece, I've dropped it, let that be an end to it.
NO MORE POSTS, PLEASE!!!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expert my anal orifice.
Pillock comes to mind.
You started the post and now because you have been found out, you want to stop it?
Nah......... I am having too much fun.
Pillock comes to mind.
You started the post and now because you have been found out, you want to stop it?
Nah......... I am having too much fun.
as an expert witness
Incidentally, from the bottom of the page, could I mention the standard PPrune warning...
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.
G