Ullswater Lake Maule pilot not guilty
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Judging by the wheel tracks, the dead stick takeoff was practiced quite a few times prior to the video.....
But isn't this what hang glider pilots do every takeoff?
What's more, I watched a James Bond film where 007 did a dead stick takeoff in a helicopter from the back of another aircraft. Now that that was impressive....
But isn't this what hang glider pilots do every takeoff?
What's more, I watched a James Bond film where 007 did a dead stick takeoff in a helicopter from the back of another aircraft. Now that that was impressive....
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque,
I'm not sure how one would "practice" dead-stick take-offs from a spot like that.
(EDIT: Perhaps by "practice" you mean take-off with engine running?).
Hang-glider pilots do indeed practice take-offs - but generally from low sandhills and the like.
The James Bond stunt aircraft was a gyrocopter, ISTR. (I'm open to correction on that one).
I'm not sure how one would "practice" dead-stick take-offs from a spot like that.
(EDIT: Perhaps by "practice" you mean take-off with engine running?).
Hang-glider pilots do indeed practice take-offs - but generally from low sandhills and the like.
The James Bond stunt aircraft was a gyrocopter, ISTR. (I'm open to correction on that one).
Last edited by Stanwell; 27th Apr 2015 at 12:24. Reason: add edit
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming it's the owner of the Maule
I have noticed in my flying career that there are pilots with unusually good hands and feet skills, whose sense of judgement, caution, and/or regulatory compliance is sometimes not in sync with their basic flying skills, and sense of adventure or daring.
During my wreck recovery days, I met some of these pilots, though a few had been removed before I got there....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6 dead this year so far in what appear to be weather related accidents caused, possibly, by a lack of judgment and/or over confidence in their abilities and yet this 'clown' seems to be achieving cult hero in the eyes of some with comments such as:
There is a time and a place to 'push boundaries' and this is not an example of one of them.
Doesn't send out the right message and is an affront to flying training in the UK.
I give up.
I'll never be up to his level of competence but I admire him for his skill and knowledge & handling of his aircraft.
Doesn't send out the right message and is an affront to flying training in the UK.
I give up.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spanner
Doesn't send out the right message and is an affront to flying training in the UK.
Doesn't send out the right message and is an affront to flying training in the UK.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What on earth has this to do with flight training?
Oh yeah, Harrumph... ('cause I'm still alive to say it...)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6 dead this year so far in what appear to be weather related accidents caused, possibly, by a lack of judgment and/or over confidence in their abilities
Many of the IMC related accidents are due to a lack of handling skills and an over reliance on modern pilot aids, autopilots and advanced navigation aids which just maybe coaxing pilots into weather they are not really up to flying without those aids. Hence I would say the very opposite to that argument
Pace
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step Turn
I am certain they derive enormous enjoyment from their flying. They are all professional pilots who choose to display in their free time.
I fully understand your enjoyment of your first flight in a Harvard but, is it possible (as SSD suggested) that if you had more hours in the type that you might be tempted to try something more ambitious than simply flying it?
If an aircraft or type is very rare, some people argue that there is a moral obligation not to risk losing it but, ultimately, that decision is for the owner(s) to make. (Some aviation enthusiasts even believe that historic aircraft should only do fly-pasts at displays, not aeros.
)
I shared this 'piece of history' with a couple of friends for about four years -
Even if I'd had the opportunity to waterski it I would not have done so because I don't have sufficient skill (or courage), but I respect the right of others to do what they wish with their aircraft. (I would have been concerned if one of the friends had wanted to try water-skiing our Harvard, but would have had no concerns if the other had wanted to do it.)
Copy-cat
I learnt to fly a Harvard (actually SNJ-5 Texan) from a farm strip near Harlingen Texas many years ago, and my instructor was an experienced crop-duster. (I was required to check out in a Stearman first – wonderful aircraft.) I was lost in admiration for his precision and handling skills. Did I ever try to emulate his low level manoeuvres ? No. I didn't (and still don't) have his phenomenal ability. However, if I had tried and things ended badly, there would be no-one to blame but me. I'd be horrified at the thought that someone might criticise him for demonstrating the manoeuvres. I accept full responsibility for my own actions.
I used to display the Harvard with pilots whose experience and expertise far exceeded my own. (They flew the more exotic WW2 fighters.) The same principles applied.
If I had exceeded my own limitations it would have been no-one's fault but my own.
Risk v Benefit
Does pure enjoyment count as benefit?
A friend and I ferried his single across the Atlantic (in the days before GPS).
Risk: Realistically, even with a dry-suit, life-jacket and dinghy the chance of surviving an engine failure in the middle of the North Atlantic is close to zero.
Benefit: None - apart from the opportunity of a lifetime (for me) and, if successful, a sense of achievement and the happy memories of having done it.
Irresponsible? Unprofessional approach to flying?
I had the privilege of meeting Scully Levin, leader of the water-skiing Harvards, at a dinner I helped organise in Cape Town in 2009: Link here
When I next visit South Africa I certainly intend to take up his kind invitation to fly with him and, if the flight includes some water-skiing, so much the better.
No, I don't speed around blind corners.
In our modern, risk averse, over regulated, nanny-state world, I have more than a passing admiration for people who push the boundaries and are prepared to take risks - provided, of course, that they risk only their own lives and/or that of a voluntary informed passenger. Probably my rebellious streak which I've had to keep in check.
In a world of ubiquitous phone cameras, the old adage of 'Do it once and don't go back' is sometimes even more important than it used to be.
Dan_Brown
Scully Levin is not inexperienced. He's been flying for 45 years and has more than 27,000 hours. He was Head of Training when he retired from SAA aged 60 and now flies for a smaller airline. In 30+ years of display flying (solo and formation) he has flown more than 2000 displays – and still counting.
SPS? He is one of the most highly respected pilots in South Africa and has been honoured for his enormous contribution to aviation there. He doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. He displays because he enjoys it.
-------
He'd be fired these days.
….. I thought to myself of someone wanting to waterski such a piece of history - can they not simply be happy with their opportunity to fly it at all? Or, to fly anything at all??
I fully understand your enjoyment of your first flight in a Harvard but, is it possible (as SSD suggested) that if you had more hours in the type that you might be tempted to try something more ambitious than simply flying it?
If an aircraft or type is very rare, some people argue that there is a moral obligation not to risk losing it but, ultimately, that decision is for the owner(s) to make. (Some aviation enthusiasts even believe that historic aircraft should only do fly-pasts at displays, not aeros.
)I shared this 'piece of history' with a couple of friends for about four years -
Even if I'd had the opportunity to waterski it I would not have done so because I don't have sufficient skill (or courage), but I respect the right of others to do what they wish with their aircraft. (I would have been concerned if one of the friends had wanted to try water-skiing our Harvard, but would have had no concerns if the other had wanted to do it.)
Copy-cat
I learnt to fly a Harvard (actually SNJ-5 Texan) from a farm strip near Harlingen Texas many years ago, and my instructor was an experienced crop-duster. (I was required to check out in a Stearman first – wonderful aircraft.) I was lost in admiration for his precision and handling skills. Did I ever try to emulate his low level manoeuvres ? No. I didn't (and still don't) have his phenomenal ability. However, if I had tried and things ended badly, there would be no-one to blame but me. I'd be horrified at the thought that someone might criticise him for demonstrating the manoeuvres. I accept full responsibility for my own actions.
I used to display the Harvard with pilots whose experience and expertise far exceeded my own. (They flew the more exotic WW2 fighters.) The same principles applied.
If I had exceeded my own limitations it would have been no-one's fault but my own.
Risk v Benefit
Does pure enjoyment count as benefit?
A friend and I ferried his single across the Atlantic (in the days before GPS).
Risk: Realistically, even with a dry-suit, life-jacket and dinghy the chance of surviving an engine failure in the middle of the North Atlantic is close to zero.
Benefit: None - apart from the opportunity of a lifetime (for me) and, if successful, a sense of achievement and the happy memories of having done it.
Irresponsible? Unprofessional approach to flying?
It's okay to waterski a land plane, I wanna come = It's okay to speed around the blind corner, I wanna come - the way I see it.
When I next visit South Africa I certainly intend to take up his kind invitation to fly with him and, if the flight includes some water-skiing, so much the better.
No, I don't speed around blind corners.
In our modern, risk averse, over regulated, nanny-state world, I have more than a passing admiration for people who push the boundaries and are prepared to take risks - provided, of course, that they risk only their own lives and/or that of a voluntary informed passenger. Probably my rebellious streak which I've had to keep in check.
In a world of ubiquitous phone cameras, the old adage of 'Do it once and don't go back' is sometimes even more important than it used to be.
Dan_Brown
There are two people in aviation. One is a person who tries to stay out of trouble. The other is a person who looks for trouble. Look for trouble long enough, you'll find it.
The above behavior is a sign of inexperience and or SPS. (small penis syndrome) It is not worth the risk and gives aviators a bad name.
The above behavior is a sign of inexperience and or SPS. (small penis syndrome) It is not worth the risk and gives aviators a bad name.
SPS? He is one of the most highly respected pilots in South Africa and has been honoured for his enormous contribution to aviation there. He doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. He displays because he enjoys it.
-------
He'd be fired these days.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In our modern, risk averse, over regulated, nanny-state world, I have more than a passing admiration for people who push the boundaries and are prepared to take risks
I totally agree with you on that sentiment! What happened to the pioneering days? first man on the moon creation of Concorde beautiful aircraft designs like the Vulcan bomber have gone to be replaced by the era of the computer where everyone knows everything about everyone oh well another congestion charge just dropped through the door because I was held in traffic exiting the congestion zone in London at 0703 three minutes after it came into force
So something inside me gives a little smile when someone gives two fingers to that nanny state
and the holier than thou disapproving attitude instilled in so many minds nowadays
Last edited by Pace; 7th May 2015 at 10:06.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if I'd had the opportunity to waterski it I would not have done so because I don't have sufficient skill (or courage)
Great remark from a 'lawyer' - NOT!
In our modern, risk averse, over regulated, nanny-state world, I have more than a passing admiration for people who push the boundaries and are prepared to take risks - provided, of course, that they risk only their own lives and/or that of a voluntary informed passenger. Probably my rebellious streak which I've had to keep in check. In a world of ubiquitous phone cameras, the old adage of 'Do it once and don't go back' is sometimes even more important than it used to be.
My client apologises your Honour for his reckless driving, although it was at night on an empty motorway, and appreciates he attained speeds in excess of 140 mph, but he didn't hurt anyone - and, to be honest, in this risk averse, over regulated, nanny-state world, I have more than a passing admiration for people who push the boundaries and are prepared to take risks - provided, of course, that they risk only their own lives and/or that of a voluntary informed passenger.
As I said I give up!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SpannerInTheWerks
I am not, and have never claimed to be, a 'saint' in any aspect of life. (I claim to be honest but admit to 'social' exceptions when answering honestly would hurt or offend.)
Contrary to popular belief, lawyers are human beings.
Some even post on aviation forums.
Fine and disqualification in any court, unless the speeding was in very exceptional circumstances.
Lawyers' personal opinions are wholly irrelevant.
You haven't said what was "reckless" about the defendant's driving in your scenario so I can't comment upon that aspect.
I'm not sure what you are giving up but, whatever it is, that's your free choice.
Great remark from a 'lawyer' - NOT!
Contrary to popular belief, lawyers are human beings.
Some even post on aviation forums.
Scenario for the Flying 'Lawyer':
Lawyers' personal opinions are wholly irrelevant.
You haven't said what was "reckless" about the defendant's driving in your scenario so I can't comment upon that aspect.
As I said I give up!
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 26th May 2015 at 14:25.
I could almost buy the argument of people choosing to use the freedom to fly as the see fit to go do some unorthodox flying if they did it in a place and way that they would not be observed. The reality is the majority of these stunts , including this one, seem to be deliberately performed in a way that ensures the " hero" pilot gets an audience.
At this point the "freedom to fly as you see fit" point looses its power. The actions of one pilot now begin to affect every pilot. It feeds the narrative that private pilots are reckless, rich fools, and the drip, drip, drip, of anti GA measures gathers steam.
I owned 2 float planes and paid dearly for insurance. Part of the reason was the number of private float plane owners that did stupid things with their own airplane. My enthusiasm for risk taking float plane pilots got pretty low every spring when I had to write the big cheque...........
At this point the "freedom to fly as you see fit" point looses its power. The actions of one pilot now begin to affect every pilot. It feeds the narrative that private pilots are reckless, rich fools, and the drip, drip, drip, of anti GA measures gathers steam.
I owned 2 float planes and paid dearly for insurance. Part of the reason was the number of private float plane owners that did stupid things with their own airplane. My enthusiasm for risk taking float plane pilots got pretty low every spring when I had to write the big cheque...........
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Pistons Forever
Just for the avoidance of any misunderstanding - my thoughts in theory and my actions in practice when flying are not the same.
I have always done my utmost to fly safely and legally.
And just out of curiosity -
Do you/did you fly air tankers out of Kamloops?
Just for the avoidance of any misunderstanding - my thoughts in theory and my actions in practice when flying are not the same.
I have always done my utmost to fly safely and legally.
And just out of curiosity -
Do you/did you fly air tankers out of Kamloops?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my thoughts in theory and my actions in practice when flying are not the same.
When I have to take a risk, I acknowledge that, and mitigate as much as possible toward safety.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Step Turn
Since what you think and what you do are the same, the issue doesn't arise.
The idea of flying through Tower Bridge appeals to me. (A competent and current pilot could fly a light aircraft through it entirely safely.)
The idea appeals to me - in theory.
Would I do it?
No, because I'd be breaking the law.
Would I think badly of someone who did?
No, provided it was carefully planned and executed safely.
Do I think they should be punished?
Of course; 'criminal' laws are enforced by sanctions.
A very good friend of mine did this (at about 200 kts):
It was carefully planned and executed safely.
Would I like to do it?
Yes - in theory.
Would I do it?
No. It was a 'piece of cake' for him but I don't have the skill.
So do I.
However, I suspect we might differ about what 'have to take a risk' means.
I have a cautious approach to flying; that is my choice. However, I certainly wouldn't argue that no-one should take a risk of any sort unless it has to be taken. In my view it depends upon the nature and degree of the risk and the circumstances. (Including whether anyone else is put at risk.)
(Edit)
Just as a BTW ....
Flying in breach of aviation rules/laws does not necessarily mean flying unsafely,
any more than breaking the speed limit is necessarily dangerous.
Both depend upon the particular law and the circumstances.
What I think about flying safely, and what I do to fly safely, are the same. What I post about flying will convey my approach to safety, without ambiguity - how could I not?
The idea of flying through Tower Bridge appeals to me. (A competent and current pilot could fly a light aircraft through it entirely safely.)
The idea appeals to me - in theory.
Would I do it?
No, because I'd be breaking the law.
Would I think badly of someone who did?
No, provided it was carefully planned and executed safely.
Do I think they should be punished?
Of course; 'criminal' laws are enforced by sanctions.
A very good friend of mine did this (at about 200 kts):
Would I like to do it?
Yes - in theory.
Would I do it?
No. It was a 'piece of cake' for him but I don't have the skill.
When I have to take a risk, I acknowledge that, and mitigate as much as possible toward safety.
However, I suspect we might differ about what 'have to take a risk' means.
I have a cautious approach to flying; that is my choice. However, I certainly wouldn't argue that no-one should take a risk of any sort unless it has to be taken. In my view it depends upon the nature and degree of the risk and the circumstances. (Including whether anyone else is put at risk.)
(Edit)
Just as a BTW ....
Flying in breach of aviation rules/laws does not necessarily mean flying unsafely,
any more than breaking the speed limit is necessarily dangerous.
Both depend upon the particular law and the circumstances.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 26th May 2015 at 20:02.