Can someone explain how this is legal?
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
Perhaps the best answer to the question about legality, is a quote from Douglas "Tin Legs" Bader. "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men." In simple terms, if they managed to do it without causing any trouble, they must have been wise enough.
So it was done to get somewhere before it closed…safe?
Gnome de PPRuNe
Joined: Jan 2002
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 15,200
Likes: 1,202
From: Too close to Croydon for comfort
I am very familiar with this event. I don’t think that was the case.
They rang me before take off and asked the closing time at our airfield. I confirmed the time and said they were unlikely to make it.
The pilot then said he would cross directly over London to make it. I did question this at the time.
So it was done to get somewhere before it closed…safe?
They rang me before take off and asked the closing time at our airfield. I confirmed the time and said they were unlikely to make it.
The pilot then said he would cross directly over London to make it. I did question this at the time.
So it was done to get somewhere before it closed…safe?
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,265
Likes: 1,170
From: Central UK
When I was employed in a business that spent a lot of time (in helos) operating from around cities and towns it was understood that green areas contained within them are not uncongested areas no matter their size. We'd tried to posit this exact same scenario - park hopping across London in single and were firmly told it wasn't on. A large park just inside a connurbation was still part of the congested area. Furthermore, upon quizzing Flight Ops Inspectors their opinion was that even a rural golf course was probably a congested area as it is used for public leisure purposes which surprised us all. The bottom line was that if it isn't farmland, undeveloped or open countryside it's probably 'congested' for the purposes of the CAA who steadfastly refuse to define what congested actually means. (I got busted for breaking the 1500ft rule while conducting a photo op over a disused airfield on the edge of a town under an exemption from the 500ft rule doen to 200ft. Go figure!). My CAA-experienced barrister said it was a waste of time trying to defend the charge as the CAA aways win - perhaps a bit of an exaggeration - but the message was clear, courts are overawed by the 'might' of the CAA and their legal teams and bow to their undefined definitions in blind deference. Anyone who imagines they can exploit what they regard as a 'loophole' in the regs by park-hopping like this is a naive fool and chancing their arm. The CAA are neither that naive nor that dim.
Of course all pilots know (don't they?) that the legality of a flight regarding low flying rulesor the suitability of the aircradft flown is nothing to do with ATC who can and often will approve routings that cross unsuitable areas. If the pilot chooses to fly that route it's up to him. The CAA however, if made aware, will throw the book at you.
Of course all pilots know (don't they?) that the legality of a flight regarding low flying rulesor the suitability of the aircradft flown is nothing to do with ATC who can and often will approve routings that cross unsuitable areas. If the pilot chooses to fly that route it's up to him. The CAA however, if made aware, will throw the book at you.
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,115
Likes: 1,091
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
I know of one case where the pilot of a twin engined helicopter (not me) was reported to the CAA by LHR ATC. In that case it was for alleged contravention of the low flying regulations (pilot descended to maintain VMC).
As a chief pilot I was once asked to respond to a threatening letter from the CAA legal branch (which, from its tone, appeared to be have been composed by an office junior) regarding an allegation of continued breaches of the 500 ft rule during take off and landing, causing unnecessary noise and danger.
My reply was that although we always tried to minimise noise nuisance and flew to Class A profiles, the 500 ft rule didn’t actually apply to our aircraft when taking off or landing at our (registered and CAA approved) helipad and that in any case, as a police air support unit, we were exempt the low flying rules as per our CAA approved operations manual.
Never heard anything further.
As a chief pilot I was once asked to respond to a threatening letter from the CAA legal branch (which, from its tone, appeared to be have been composed by an office junior) regarding an allegation of continued breaches of the 500 ft rule during take off and landing, causing unnecessary noise and danger.
My reply was that although we always tried to minimise noise nuisance and flew to Class A profiles, the 500 ft rule didn’t actually apply to our aircraft when taking off or landing at our (registered and CAA approved) helipad and that in any case, as a police air support unit, we were exempt the low flying rules as per our CAA approved operations manual.
Never heard anything further.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 187
Likes: 31
From: Brisbane
I see Mr. Bader's quote as being able to be interpreted two ways: Wise men will generally do what the rule said anyway, to avoid being in the situation the rule is there to prevent. Fools may get away with silly things - until they don't.
There have been a number of times in my GA flying career where I have had to land elsewhere and spend the night because "trying to make it" would have been unwise. Pilots must be prepared for this for cross country flights....
There have been a number of times in my GA flying career where I have had to land elsewhere and spend the night because "trying to make it" would have been unwise. Pilots must be prepared for this for cross country flights....
Bader's classic line can be interpreted various ways, so here's another. We have to accept that we all begin as fools, requiring rules for guidance, and the only way to become wise is by experiencing the consequences of our own folly. In other words, if we religiously complied with rules, we'd never develop the judgement necessary to become wise, or above average skills. It would be great if we could gain this valuable experience under the guidance of wise pilots, but they're pretty rare nowadays, and probably were during Bader's time as well, so it's usually left up to the individual to define their own limits, rather than rigidly adhering to the limits imposed by the majority of idiots.
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
I'll also have to invoke a second, and less ambiguous saying: "Learn from the mistakes of others, you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.".
Having spent a lot of my life repairing and maintaining airplanes, I know what goes into making one fly - it's a lot of work! I cringe thinking about thousands of hours of people's caring effort simply wasted when someone wrecks a plane attempting something silly - but yes, we do have to give some room for pilots to develop the judgement to become wise. That said, they may risk their life doing so, but not others - innocent people are not a part of a pilot's judgement building. So dropping your gliding airplane into a built up area because of the pilot's poor judgement is not on = rule. Pilots taking off, and flying super steep, unsafe Vx (or slower) climbs for no good reason other than some silly misinterpretation of what "STOL" means in the civil world - only risks the pilot (notice that these pilot's don't carry pax - too heavy!) and the thousands of hours of airplane building labour (maybe theirs), so guidance, but no rule against.
In my early days, I was a part of a team which recovered wrecked airplanes. Often we'd fly into the remote wreck site in floatplanes. I was always thinking about what may have caused that accident, so whatever that was, I did not do it! In middle days, I would train pilots, I would give them my best as to why to do, or not do things based upon my experience - both good and bad. In my middle to latter days, during training, I took my eyes off my student at the wrong time, and allowed my student to put us both in hospital for three months. In my latter days, I approve modifications to airplanes (I have for 25 years, I don't train anymore). So, I think about the flight manual supplement I'm going to prepare for the modified airplane. Sometimes it will present a procedure (a best way to do this), sometimes with an amplified procedure (explaining why). Sometimes an "avoid" to say you can do it, but better if you don't, and if I'm certain, a prohibition - you don't get to even attempt this legally. What you do after that is up to you.
I don't have the authority to regulate who flies where nor how high (except over my own home runway - I don't like my house getting buzzed). I leave that the authorities, but it's for a reason which I understand and agree with.
Another saying, "If you think safety is expensive, try an accident!".
Having spent a lot of my life repairing and maintaining airplanes, I know what goes into making one fly - it's a lot of work! I cringe thinking about thousands of hours of people's caring effort simply wasted when someone wrecks a plane attempting something silly - but yes, we do have to give some room for pilots to develop the judgement to become wise. That said, they may risk their life doing so, but not others - innocent people are not a part of a pilot's judgement building. So dropping your gliding airplane into a built up area because of the pilot's poor judgement is not on = rule. Pilots taking off, and flying super steep, unsafe Vx (or slower) climbs for no good reason other than some silly misinterpretation of what "STOL" means in the civil world - only risks the pilot (notice that these pilot's don't carry pax - too heavy!) and the thousands of hours of airplane building labour (maybe theirs), so guidance, but no rule against.
In my early days, I was a part of a team which recovered wrecked airplanes. Often we'd fly into the remote wreck site in floatplanes. I was always thinking about what may have caused that accident, so whatever that was, I did not do it! In middle days, I would train pilots, I would give them my best as to why to do, or not do things based upon my experience - both good and bad. In my middle to latter days, during training, I took my eyes off my student at the wrong time, and allowed my student to put us both in hospital for three months. In my latter days, I approve modifications to airplanes (I have for 25 years, I don't train anymore). So, I think about the flight manual supplement I'm going to prepare for the modified airplane. Sometimes it will present a procedure (a best way to do this), sometimes with an amplified procedure (explaining why). Sometimes an "avoid" to say you can do it, but better if you don't, and if I'm certain, a prohibition - you don't get to even attempt this legally. What you do after that is up to you.
I don't have the authority to regulate who flies where nor how high (except over my own home runway - I don't like my house getting buzzed). I leave that the authorities, but it's for a reason which I understand and agree with.
Another saying, "If you think safety is expensive, try an accident!".
Gnome de PPRuNe
Joined: Jan 2002
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 15,200
Likes: 1,202
From: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Interestingly I noticed a European registered light single fly south across central London yesterday afternoon, routing perhaps 1/4 mile east of the Thames at Westminster before turning east and passing to the north of Biggin Hill. Think it was at about 1500' or so. This was after London City had closed for the afternoon (assume they still do?) but I did wonder if he was legal and talking to somebody?
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 3,398
Likes: 328
From: near an aeroplane
You can look up the Flightradar tracks for that particular timeframe. If he was squawking mode-M and such, that is one indication that he was most likely talking to someone. It may have been a non-ADS-B out airframe of course, which will keep him off the Flightradar screen, so not definitive answer I'm afraid.
Joined: Sep 2025
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 43
Likes: 9
From: Dublin
Ah, the blind leading the blind!
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
This:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...onto-1.7634799
is why flights over extensive built up areas should not be conducted in single engined aircraft. The area where the plane was crashed is highly built up, with the nearest "open" area being Lake Ontario, more than two miles away, and a "suitable" forced landing area much farther away than that. I have not flown across Toronto for decades, exactly to prevent this possibility, and having my plane on the news this way.
If it was a sightseeing flight, fly two miles further south along the lakeshore (and wear lifejackets). If it was an enroute flight, fly two miles further south along the lakeshore (and wear lifejackets).
Pilots do not do our industry any favours by selecting over city routes, and allowing this risk to exist - and getting on the news this way, it erodes public acceptance of general aviation.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...onto-1.7634799
is why flights over extensive built up areas should not be conducted in single engined aircraft. The area where the plane was crashed is highly built up, with the nearest "open" area being Lake Ontario, more than two miles away, and a "suitable" forced landing area much farther away than that. I have not flown across Toronto for decades, exactly to prevent this possibility, and having my plane on the news this way.
If it was a sightseeing flight, fly two miles further south along the lakeshore (and wear lifejackets). If it was an enroute flight, fly two miles further south along the lakeshore (and wear lifejackets).
Pilots do not do our industry any favours by selecting over city routes, and allowing this risk to exist - and getting on the news this way, it erodes public acceptance of general aviation.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 36
From: France
Remind me what he was doing with an aeroplane just before the crash in which he lost his legs?
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
Well, the intrepid Cherokee glider pilot has had all of the news around Toronto today. To her credit, she was pretty calm on the radio during her emergency, lots of points to her for that. Though I'm still not enthusiastic about her selecting a route from which a non newsworthy forced approach could be conducted. 'Turns out, she was returning from my nearby airport, where there is a pretty good restaurant, so I guess she'd had a nice dinner, and flew right over my house on her way home. I opine that she will be the wiser in the future about over city route choices, but otherwise, she made the best of a bad situation, and maintained her calm - good for her for that!
