|
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.......... The same thing could have happened here - you saw the plane, you knew the colour scheme and type and what for most people would have been a jumble of letters is, for you, as clear as day because your mind can recognise and unscramble the letters rather than being hieroglyphics at distance for the person unfamiliar with that aircraft leading to your assumption, I saw the registration hence the plane was low. Try it at a club, you'll find you can recognise the registration of aircraft known to you further away than aircraft visiting the base for the first time because, with familiar aircraft, your mind forms the smears into visible letters..... |
Quote: 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 Seriously, though, this thread has achieved all it is going to. Spanner, as I suggested some time ago: take the pilot up on his offer to talk it through. That way you will both end up understanding what happened better. If you don't want to do that, I suggest you drop the subject because it's an argument you are never going to win on here whether you are right or not. |
Reading this thread I am shocked to see the effort people go to to nit pick at people. I am personally very familiar with this airfield, and although I didn't learn with this school, I do know how they operate.
Along with this, I can say that all the instructors are very professional and this is something that they wouldn't do. I can also say I have witnessed excellent airmanship from them, especially from hotcloud on numerous occasions. This would lead me to suggest that people are making something out of nothing and it is a standard exercise that many pilots do during their ppl in the North West! |
30 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. I can't believe pprune has done it to me again. What kind of a mug am I?:ugh::ugh::ugh:
|
Forgive me for the intrusion. I'm a PPL but I never really venture in here...it's too much like Mumsnet.
I can't help but think that the original intention of the OP was to simply harvest congratulations on his observance and concern. "Look at me being all airmanship aware". It didn't exactly go to plan though did it..as it turned out that The majority of GA aviators are not utter cockstands trying to score points off the back of one another. Sod meeting up with the OP for a discussion of this alleged incident - I'd happily cave his head in...The throbber! |
PLEASE! Drop it. I keep dropping it, but you all keep replying and picking the Thread up again!!! 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! Quote: the route is perfectly safe and doesn't break rule 5 at the altitudes flown Yes that's the whole point. 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. You absolute throbber. I'd love to see you stand up and try to say your piece in front of the ones you try to criticise. I think I know you btw. Do you wear Farrah slacks and **** checked shirts?? Did I say you were a bellend? |
:D Maxred - More popcorn please, and can I have a pint of bitter with a Malibu chaser. Too funny!
(I prefer maltesers...yum) Stickandrudderman - Ditto................ ex_matelot - What's wrong with Farah Slacks and checked shirts? Must study hard for local Navex now...................don't want to be 'temporarily unaware of my position' /infringe airspace etc. |
@Spanner
The only thing I can say is that either you publicly answer the very simple questions posed to you by Ghengis et al and come clean about your claims of being an expert and or registered pilot/other aviator qualification, or...... http://fc02.deviantart.net/images/i/...he_****_up.jpg |
Correct me if I'm wrong, which I more than likely am, doesn't rule 5 purely state you must maintain "500ft separation between any man made object, person or vessel". Which to me says you can fly at 200ft AGL if you so wish, providing that you are 500ft away from any of the formentioned, so yes Spanner, hotcould may well have been lower than 500ft AGL, but he still may well be in accordance with rule 5...
If I am wrong - ignore my post completely and carry on I'm quite enjoying it If I am right and there are people that want to say it isn't possible to fly below 500ft AGL and maintain a 500ft separation, please study Pythagoras' theorem. PS. I am right |
Back at the beginning; "locally based." So you must have recognised the aircraft which, once the identity is confirmed you assert to be another aircraft.
Your expertise is beginning to look questionable. Ah! Got it. You are rumoured to be a professional pilot. (Here in the private flying section, you may find yourself to be overqualified to argue with "amateur pilots.") |
"beginning"?
G |
The very first post, Genghis, in which the identity of the aircraft had to have been established as it was known to be locally based.
|
"beginning"? G And it hasn't got much better since... :ugh: |
And it hasn't got much better since Scud running below 500 feet AGL in breach of Rule 5 is what I have always said and there it remains. Sorry, hotcloud, but that's the way it is. I wouldn't have stopped and rung ATC to report an aircraft unusually low, and be concerned about the safety of the crew, if I hadn't been startled by low height of the aircraft as it passed me on the motorway. The fact is, without further corroborating evidence, it will always be your word against mine. Stalemate I'm afraid. SITW |
SpannerInTheWerks
Are you the type of jobsworth who takes it upon theirselves to police the general public and go on a one man crusade? I bet you're the type who flashes other drivers to put their lights on when it's dusk but the light is perfectly fine & visible, or the type of person who shouts at people for having a button undone on their high vis jacket. You need to get a job as a Manchester Airfield Ops Officer, you'd blend right in. :ugh: |
Scud running below 500 feet AGL in breach of Rule 5 is what I have always said and there it remains. |
Scud running below 500 feet AGL in breach of Rule 5 is what I have always said and there it remains. I quote rule 5 from the CAA publication http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1676/Rule%...il%202005a.pdf "The 500 feet rule Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure." As I read it, that doesn't make a height of 500 feet a hard deck. In theory you could fly at 100 ft, or even lower, as long as you are at a slant distance of 500 ft. As I've suggested twice before, if you have any interest in breaking what you say is a "stalemate": go and talk to the pilot with an open mind. Who knows? You might even do some good or learn something. |
Jonzarno said:
In the beginning the thread was without form and void. And darkness moved over the face of the thread............ :) And it hasn't got much better since... :ugh: MOTORWAY FLYING The question is: would "they all lived happily ever after" be suitable as an ending????? |
Ed
Quite right, you did:ok: I don't think it was immediately accepted, though, and I just thought it might bear repeating as well as worth quoting the source as well. |
EdBarrett is the genius. He along with Jonzarno taught us about Rule 5. :)
Well done guys. :cool: This spanner guy is hilarious. Please do keep up. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.