Glastonbury Festival -- (And a cautionary tale!)
Finalscheckplease - everything has a potential terrorist threat attached to it nowadays, to pretend otherwise is naive. That is why the police take things so seriously.
Heliport - the pilot in this case ignored the restriction even though he knew it was there which is worse than not knowing it was there in the first place. He could have checked and completed the flight another day but he felt he had tried to contact the heliport and therefore absolved himself of responsibility.
Just to underline what Finals 09 said - he did not report the pilot to the CAA, the police chose to do that because the law had been broken, Finals 09 simply informed the police as he was mandated to do, there is a subtle difference.
However, I still agree that this could have been sorted out much better with just a phone call - discretion seems to be a thing of the past in modern policing.
Heliport - the pilot in this case ignored the restriction even though he knew it was there which is worse than not knowing it was there in the first place. He could have checked and completed the flight another day but he felt he had tried to contact the heliport and therefore absolved himself of responsibility.
Just to underline what Finals 09 said - he did not report the pilot to the CAA, the police chose to do that because the law had been broken, Finals 09 simply informed the police as he was mandated to do, there is a subtle difference.
However, I still agree that this could have been sorted out much better with just a phone call - discretion seems to be a thing of the past in modern policing.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
How does the nomination of restricted airspace protect anything or anyone on the ground from an act of terrorism?
Crab,
My reasoning was / is that it would not have stopped the terrorist threat not there is not such a threat. Also if that was one of the Avon & Somerset constabulary main reasons for the RA more reason to go and speak with somebody who landed inside the that RA, just to make sure he /she wasn’t about do to a 9/11.
I’m not justifying the pilot who after all infracted the law of the air but I think like ShyTorque:
Greetings,
Finalchecksplease
My reasoning was / is that it would not have stopped the terrorist threat not there is not such a threat. Also if that was one of the Avon & Somerset constabulary main reasons for the RA more reason to go and speak with somebody who landed inside the that RA, just to make sure he /she wasn’t about do to a 9/11.
I’m not justifying the pilot who after all infracted the law of the air but I think like ShyTorque:
Whatever happened to good old common sense? It seems to have been replaced with a willingness to stitch up others in the industry and that I hate intensely.
Finalchecksplease
Shy, why then do we have restricted airspace around prisons with Cat A prisoners, nuclear power stations and chunks of central London? A fence round a military site won't actually prevent an attack but anyone who is inside the fence and shouldn't be can be assumed to be hostile. If pilots fly into RA without clearance then they are either lost or possibly up to something dodgy, in which case you can start to take action without waiting for them to act.
Finalscheckplease - I understand your point and, as I said, agree that the handling could have been different but no common sense was exercised by the pilot in this case either.
Finalscheckplease - I understand your point and, as I said, agree that the handling could have been different but no common sense was exercised by the pilot in this case either.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Shy, why then do we have restricted airspace around prisons with Cat A prisoners, nuclear power stations and chunks of central London?
The words 'stable door', 'horse' and 'bolted' spring to mind. In the case of prisons and central London, the 'powers that be' (ie Gov't/CAA) have to be seen to be doing something.
The restricted airspace around a prison isn't actually going to stop any further breakouts. Wires across any compounds ARE going to stop any further breakouts.
Which is the point that Shy was trying to make (I imagine).
.
Last edited by Bravo73; 31st Jan 2007 at 20:48. Reason: Appalling grammar
Bravo, if you are in charge of the prison and a heli flys into the RA around it, you have at least half a chance of getting the prisoners secured before any landing could take place. It ain't perfect but it's better than nothing and a RA(T) around any sensitive area is just a first line of defence.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
Nobody's disputing the pilot was wrong to do what he did. Everyone is agreed on that.
The discussion is about what the personnel at the helipad did.
Even if what you've said in your last post is 100% correct, they didn't know that at the time.
H.
Nobody's disputing the pilot was wrong to do what he did. Everyone is agreed on that.
The discussion is about what the personnel at the helipad did.
Even if what you've said in your last post is 100% correct, they didn't know that at the time.
H.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Crab,
Of course, I can fully appreciate that NOTAM reading, law abiding pilots will normally stay out if they have any common sense - BUT my question was - exactly how does the establishment of a NOTAM'd RA(T) area, as they seem to be calling them this year, prevent terrorist action by the use of aircraft at a folk festival? Or a nuclear installation or central London for that matter?
BTW, I think the reference to restricted airspace around H.M. prisons is something of a red herring in this discussion as the motives for an attack would presumably be rather different.
As Bravo 73 has picked up, my point was that terrorists about to commit suicide or whatever don't read NOTAMS or care about them one jot (except perhaps to pinpoint the co-ordinates of a target). 9/11 proved exactly this. It's all smoke and mirrors, so it can be said: "We have done something - Survivors will be prosecuted".
There is actually no practical counter to this type of threat, at least not in the present home situation. Should an errant aircraft turn up at the edge of a RA(T) it is far, far too late, an imaginary line in the air is of no significance.
Of course, I can fully appreciate that NOTAM reading, law abiding pilots will normally stay out if they have any common sense - BUT my question was - exactly how does the establishment of a NOTAM'd RA(T) area, as they seem to be calling them this year, prevent terrorist action by the use of aircraft at a folk festival? Or a nuclear installation or central London for that matter?
BTW, I think the reference to restricted airspace around H.M. prisons is something of a red herring in this discussion as the motives for an attack would presumably be rather different.
As Bravo 73 has picked up, my point was that terrorists about to commit suicide or whatever don't read NOTAMS or care about them one jot (except perhaps to pinpoint the co-ordinates of a target). 9/11 proved exactly this. It's all smoke and mirrors, so it can be said: "We have done something - Survivors will be prosecuted".
There is actually no practical counter to this type of threat, at least not in the present home situation. Should an errant aircraft turn up at the edge of a RA(T) it is far, far too late, an imaginary line in the air is of no significance.
Crab,
As a final word on prisons (before this thread drifts too far away from Glastonbury), surely the guards are going to start securing the prisoners with the approach of any heli, regardless of restrictive airspace?
I do however accept your point that without this airspace around prisons, there is a higher chance of spurious 'warnings' set off by errant helicopters. However, if there were wires across the compounds then these surely these wouldn't be 'warnings' at all.
Anyway, back to Glastonbury...
As a final word on prisons (before this thread drifts too far away from Glastonbury), surely the guards are going to start securing the prisoners with the approach of any heli, regardless of restrictive airspace?
I do however accept your point that without this airspace around prisons, there is a higher chance of spurious 'warnings' set off by errant helicopters. However, if there were wires across the compounds then these surely these wouldn't be 'warnings' at all.
Anyway, back to Glastonbury...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh, but Bravo73....
I have lost count of the number of phone calls we receive from the DPG/LHR tower/Watch manager asking us what the **** the helicopter is doing just outside Belmarsh at 700ft!
(err - it's "Police 251 boss"!!!!)
Seriously, it takes at least 10 minutes after being on site for anyone to call ATC.
back to the thread......
I have lost count of the number of phone calls we receive from the DPG/LHR tower/Watch manager asking us what the **** the helicopter is doing just outside Belmarsh at 700ft!
(err - it's "Police 251 boss"!!!!)
Seriously, it takes at least 10 minutes after being on site for anyone to call ATC.
back to the thread......
(We're still adrift, Alan...
)
Surely that just confirms what we're saying about the futility of the restrictive airspace?
The only actual way to stop an inbound heli is with a physical obstruction ie wires. AckAck might be a bit excessive.
)Surely that just confirms what we're saying about the futility of the restrictive airspace?
The only actual way to stop an inbound heli is with a physical obstruction ie wires. AckAck might be a bit excessive.
OK Heliport no need to shout
Back to the thread - Finals09 reported the pilot to the police - he could not do otherwise as it was his responsibility to control flight within the RA(T). Someone infringed the airspace and he reported him to the police (as he was required to do)- did he have a choice in this matter? I think not.
If you want to berate someone for reporting the pilot to the CAA then criticise the Police since they had the opportunity to exercise discretion and talk to the pilot without going through the CAA.
I think Finals09 was just unlucky that he sent someone else to check the registration (who did exactly as he was asked) when someone else with a bit of common sense might have taken the extra step and knocked on the door as well.
Whilst we might not like how the situation was handled, we are trying to defend the indefensible....the pilot broke the law...knowingly not accidentally, and got caught.
Shy - according to your logic we might as well dispense with RA entirely. If there was no security consideration regarding Glastonbury, why was the unusual step of having the RA controlled by the Police taken.
Back to the thread - Finals09 reported the pilot to the police - he could not do otherwise as it was his responsibility to control flight within the RA(T). Someone infringed the airspace and he reported him to the police (as he was required to do)- did he have a choice in this matter? I think not.
If you want to berate someone for reporting the pilot to the CAA then criticise the Police since they had the opportunity to exercise discretion and talk to the pilot without going through the CAA.
I think Finals09 was just unlucky that he sent someone else to check the registration (who did exactly as he was asked) when someone else with a bit of common sense might have taken the extra step and knocked on the door as well.
Whilst we might not like how the situation was handled, we are trying to defend the indefensible....the pilot broke the law...knowingly not accidentally, and got caught.
Shy - according to your logic we might as well dispense with RA entirely. If there was no security consideration regarding Glastonbury, why was the unusual step of having the RA controlled by the Police taken.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Crab, My point is that RA is no good for defending against terrorism and those who think otherwise have false logic and a false sense of security. The police don't physically "control" any airspace, only on paper.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Finals09 reported the pilot to the police - he could not do otherwise as it was his responsibility to control flight within the RA(T). Someone infringed the airspace and he reported him to the police (as he was required to do)
Are you saying he was legally required to report the pilot?
Can you could point to where we can find that?
I'm not suggesting it would be conclusive (people have different views about reporting or using discretion), but it might help the discussion if you could.
"we are trying to defend the indefensible"
Nobody's disputing the pilot was wrong to do what he did. Everyone is agreed on that.
The first post says even the pilot didn't dispute it. He pleaded guilty.
For some reason, you keep trying to fight a battle that doesn't exist.
Heliport - as I understand it Finals09 was allowed to control the heliport within the RA only after getting express permission from the Police to do so. Therefore the onus was on him to ensure his professional reputation (and any further concessions to manage such heliports) was not tarnished by running a sloppy operation which I read as reporting any infringements of the RA.
Now you can argue that he could have ignored the infringement or just contacted the pilot and not reported him to the Police - but what if someone else had reported the pilot to the Police who then asked why Finals had not done so since it was he who was charged with the safe operation of the airspace. He may well have blotted his copybook with the ASU and not been allowed to operate the heliport in subsequent years or he may have found himself reported to the CAA.
I am just trying to argue against the playground ganging up that has been going on against Finals09 - I admire and respect FLs work and knowledge but I think his contempt is ill-founded. Pilots by and large love to blame air traffickers for all cock-ups and this thread has some bandwagon jumping on it.
Many of the posts here indirectly absolve the pilot since they only find fault with Finals09s actions - I think reprehensible is too strong a term for a bloke just doing his job.
Now you can argue that he could have ignored the infringement or just contacted the pilot and not reported him to the Police - but what if someone else had reported the pilot to the Police who then asked why Finals had not done so since it was he who was charged with the safe operation of the airspace. He may well have blotted his copybook with the ASU and not been allowed to operate the heliport in subsequent years or he may have found himself reported to the CAA.
I am just trying to argue against the playground ganging up that has been going on against Finals09 - I admire and respect FLs work and knowledge but I think his contempt is ill-founded. Pilots by and large love to blame air traffickers for all cock-ups and this thread has some bandwagon jumping on it.
Many of the posts here indirectly absolve the pilot since they only find fault with Finals09s actions - I think reprehensible is too strong a term for a bloke just doing his job.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
Finding the pilot, speaking to him and pointing out the error of his ways and the correct procedures to be used might have gone quite some way to showing that there was proper control of safe aircraft operations inside the airspace. I fail to see how anyone might argue otherwise.