Motorway Flying ...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I know what I saw and would stand up in any Court as an expert witness and say so.
Btw, as far as being an expert witness is concerned, from your comments it appears that you haven't borne in mind that the "500 foot rule" doesn't necessarily mean that aircraft have to be flown 500 ft agl.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note you didn't answer whether you hold a professional licence.
"500 foot rule" doesn't necessarily mean that aircraft have to be flown 500 ft agl.
'an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure'.
I was a PERSON in a VEHICLE driving down the motorway, with its various STRUCTURES, and the aircraft was closer than 500 feet to all of these.
Then why, if it really was so serious, did you not report your observation via more appropriate channels?
Not me - I only made a comment at the start of this Thread that stated how lucky I thought that particular pilot had been in the conditions.
ALL OF YOU have teased out the details from me and flushed out the pilot concerned.
I was willing to call it a day but no, you just couldn't leave it alone - like some perverse game I've been baited and ridiculed at the expense of a serious learning point.
But I can take it - at least at the low level the Moderators allow (no pun intended). Humour too!
I've worked as an expert witness in aviation, and your writing style looks somewhat unlike how we normally tend to work.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that flying below 500 feet, in accordance with Rule 5, is WRONG and not a 'valuable learning experience'.
That people who do it are not to be supported and congratulated, but taken to one side and not told it is a BAD THING and may, if others so wish, be prosecuted for it.
That people who brave it out and hope it will go away doesn't make it RIGHT by attempting to undermine the evidence of a witness.
Evidence, if I remember from my law notes, is based on FACTS, FACTS, FACTS and FACTS.
The only piece of evidence which isn't a FACT is the precise height of the aircraft when I saw it.
The FACT it was flying below 500 feet, is!
Genghis the ENGINEER. Maybe a spanner would be more appropriate? I've got one if you want?
A while since anybody paid me to use a spanner mind you.
The FACT it was flying below 500 feet, is!
Evidence, if I remember from my law notes, is based on FACTS, FACTS, FACTS and FACTS.
G
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Spanner in the werks", I did say that I would not post again regarding this thread, but you leave me no choice. As I said before I was prepared to obtain a trace from Hawarden; that would confirm the route, in other words I flew between Wigan and Standish where there are fields to glide clear. I can assure you that my experience level can take into account wind drift. Please feel free to obtain motorway camera footage I have nothing to hide, as I stated before 500ft AGL was maintained at all times. Feel free to contact the CAA if you wish, you seemed prepared to do so when other posts did not agree with your comments.
I have not spoken to the student in question, and I shall reframe from discussing the matter until the CFI and I get together with the student. There will be no discussion with the student on this matter prior to the meeting. That way the student will be able to give an independent account of the flight.
I am going to state again publicly on this forum that I shall be more than happy to meet with you, the student and the CFI. Are you happy on this forum to state that you are prepared to do that?
I have not spoken to the student in question, and I shall reframe from discussing the matter until the CFI and I get together with the student. There will be no discussion with the student on this matter prior to the meeting. That way the student will be able to give an independent account of the flight.
I am going to state again publicly on this forum that I shall be more than happy to meet with you, the student and the CFI. Are you happy on this forum to state that you are prepared to do that?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone who does something wrong should be taken to one side?????????
How about vilified by some anonymous poster on a public forum?
What part of the Private flying section of Pprune is difficult to understand.
Facts can only be proven as such by evidence and not one persons word against anothers.
This is fun.
How about vilified by some anonymous poster on a public forum?
What part of the Private flying section of Pprune is difficult to understand.
Facts can only be proven as such by evidence and not one persons word against anothers.
This is fun.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
Seriously, for once, this is becoming a bit of a mystery?
You're right - when hotcloud first published on this Thread I was not convinced it was his aircraft.
Then when spekesoftly Posted it seemed logical that it was.
Now that hotcloud has so vehemently denied any wrongdoing I'm beginning to wonder what the truth really is?
I know what I saw and will never vary that statement.
There is no point in meeting with hotcloud and his CFI at Barton, at this stage, as it will prove nothing - hotcloud will say he was never scud running below 500 ft, in breach of Rule 5, and I will always say the aircraft I saw was?
If hotcloud would be so kind as to PM me the reg of the aircraft he was flying, then I will know if it was his aircraft or not?
I've flown the aircraft I saw from Barton, so I know it well.
Before we can move on we must establish one fact - what aircraft was it?
Seriously, for once, this is becoming a bit of a mystery?
You're right - when hotcloud first published on this Thread I was not convinced it was his aircraft.
Then when spekesoftly Posted it seemed logical that it was.
Now that hotcloud has so vehemently denied any wrongdoing I'm beginning to wonder what the truth really is?
I know what I saw and will never vary that statement.
There is no point in meeting with hotcloud and his CFI at Barton, at this stage, as it will prove nothing - hotcloud will say he was never scud running below 500 ft, in breach of Rule 5, and I will always say the aircraft I saw was?
If hotcloud would be so kind as to PM me the reg of the aircraft he was flying, then I will know if it was his aircraft or not?
I've flown the aircraft I saw from Barton, so I know it well.
Before we can move on we must establish one fact - what aircraft was it?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Spanner in the werks", there is no need to PM. I believe in being open and honest, the reg of the aircraft was G-AWPU. Please take me up on my offer to meet, I shall be very civil with you, as I am to anyone that I meet. Don't take my word for it, feel free to speak to the Management or my colleagues about my conduct. I take my work very seriously and therefore slagging me off on a public forum, seems very petty and immature. Why don't you meet with my student, CFI and myself to obtain further facts. You have my word that I will not discuss this issue with my student before we meet. He will be able to tell you that I drummed it into him about maintaining at least 500ft above ground level. I chose Hawarden as a place to obtain a trace, because I considered to be the furthest airfield from my position. If I was as low as you stated then I am sure the trace would have dropped out. Can you please confirm whether or not you spotted the aircraft north of Standish?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst we're establishing facts, can we also remind ourselves who made the following comments:
And please do answer GtE's question as to whether you have a professional licence? This might be ProfessionalPilotsRumourNetwork but not all on here are professionals - after all, are we made to verify our credentials before we join?
... and grass someone up!!!
Not me - I only made a comment at the start of this Thread that stated how lucky I thought that particular pilot had been in the conditions.
Not me - I only made a comment at the start of this Thread that stated how lucky I thought that particular pilot had been in the conditions.
In view of the comments and criticisms I have received I consider the only way forward is to file Form FCS1520 for an Alleged Breach of Air Navigation Legislation against this pilot.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are looking at your 1:500k chart, then the 299ft power pylons will not be marked, so really you would need to fly at 299+500 = 799+ ft to avoid falling foul of the 500 ft rule.
What happens in the localised case where power lines from 300ft pylons cross a valley... the wires could be over 300ft agl.
What happens in the localised case where power lines from 300ft pylons cross a valley... the wires could be over 300ft agl.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
The FACT it was flying below 500 feet, is!
The thing you're really not understanding is that you have declared yourself to be an expert, and take exception to those here who have quite rightly questioned you about this, but you will not back that up by information regarding your qualifications.
Folks have been around here long enough to have seen this sort of thing here before. Someone who will not give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question possibly has something to hide and therefore will understandably be treated with suspicion, if not derision.
You have your "victim". He has explained the situation from his point of view but because this does not fit your "facts" you now claim it was someone else.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"................foreshortening, perspective, variations in the immediate landscape. I guess some peoples visual acuity can account for, and adjust accordingly to compensate for natural illusions. We all have to remember that there are some "Rain Man" type people out there who's brains and powers of perception are far more advanced than those of the rest of us. It would seem that our lovely spanner is one of these suitably advanced people.
Aircraft registrations are INTENTIONALLY large enough to be read from distances further than the limits of Rule 5. Depending on the type of vehicle spanner was driving, the shape of most windscreens dictate that objects above vehicle roof level must be a considerable distance away, horizontally, before they can be seen from behind the drivers seat. This horizontal distance then introduces several "curve-balls" to anyone bold enough to believe they can accurately measure the height/altitude of the object being viewed. Some are mentioned above..........
Spanner is competent enough to compensate for any induced errors and determine ACCURATELY; the height, track, etc of the aircraft in question; whilst driving SAFELY in low visibility (spray from rain!!!) from the comfort of his driving seat.
Go figure!!
LFB.
Aircraft registrations are INTENTIONALLY large enough to be read from distances further than the limits of Rule 5. Depending on the type of vehicle spanner was driving, the shape of most windscreens dictate that objects above vehicle roof level must be a considerable distance away, horizontally, before they can be seen from behind the drivers seat. This horizontal distance then introduces several "curve-balls" to anyone bold enough to believe they can accurately measure the height/altitude of the object being viewed. Some are mentioned above..........
Spanner is competent enough to compensate for any induced errors and determine ACCURATELY; the height, track, etc of the aircraft in question; whilst driving SAFELY in low visibility (spray from rain!!!) from the comfort of his driving seat.
Go figure!!
LFB.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sheffield
Age: 57
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hotcloud will say he was never scud running below 500 ft, in breach of Rule 5, and I will always say the aircraft I saw was?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This entire thread needs to be donked. It gets more bizarre by the hour.
I have now just read post # 101, which I am sure I did not see/read just
prior to my own post.
Spanner seems to have inherited a friend called "Johny 737"
Johny 737 - A cockpit emergency is not JUST an engine fire.
I'm glad that I have cleared up that misunderstanding. I have not read anything to suggest that the "alleged" flight in question had any bad/poor flight planning.
Lets please keep it real.
I have now just read post # 101, which I am sure I did not see/read just
prior to my own post.
Spanner seems to have inherited a friend called "Johny 737"
Johny 737 - A cockpit emergency is not JUST an engine fire.
I'm glad that I have cleared up that misunderstanding. I have not read anything to suggest that the "alleged" flight in question had any bad/poor flight planning.
Lets please keep it real.