Glastonbury Festival -- (And a cautionary tale!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: cornwall
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glastonbury Festival -- (And a cautionary tale!)
Hi
Does anyone have a copy of any old AIC's relating to the restriction of flying regs for the Glastonbury Festival? Or can anyone give me an idea of typical procedures for the event?
Any info appreciated. (Doing a bit of very advanced planning)
Adrian
Does anyone have a copy of any old AIC's relating to the restriction of flying regs for the Glastonbury Festival? Or can anyone give me an idea of typical procedures for the event?
Any info appreciated. (Doing a bit of very advanced planning)
Adrian
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory last year there was a TRA set up to 2.5 or 5 miles I forget which.
The Landing site is to the North of the main crowd area.
Entry to the zone is from the east through an entry and exit corridor which uses Pylons as the separation marker.
You will need to book in, they will landrover guests to/from the landing site to the festival area.
Make sure you put down lots of protective material in the aircraft, last time it was really very muddy.
Very straightforward.
The Landing site is to the North of the main crowd area.
Entry to the zone is from the east through an entry and exit corridor which uses Pylons as the separation marker.
You will need to book in, they will landrover guests to/from the landing site to the festival area.
Make sure you put down lots of protective material in the aircraft, last time it was really very muddy.
Very straightforward.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be warned:
If that's the same Mr Ford who's run the helipad in previous years, make sure you comply with the procedures or there's a serious risk the first thing you'll hear about it will be an investigation by the CAA.
FL
If that's the same Mr Ford who's run the helipad in previous years, make sure you comply with the procedures or there's a serious risk the first thing you'll hear about it will be an investigation by the CAA.
FL
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: here
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL, Do i detect a hint of malice in that post? Surely if there are procedures notified it is incumbent upon all pilots to follow them? I had always thought that ignorance was no defence in law, let alone wilful non adheherence??!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malice? Not one iota.
Surely if there are procedures notified it is incumbent upon all pilots to follow them?
Yes, of course.
'I had always thought that ignorance was no defence in law'
Ignorance of the law is no defence, but I realise what you mean in this context and I agree.
'let alone wilful non adheherence??!'
Whether non adherence was negligent or willful.
However, none of those points is relevant to nor detracts from the particular warning I gave.
Nor, in case there be any further misunderstanding, do I suggest that it is necessarily excessive/OTT to report pilots who fail to comply with procedures to the CAA. My view would depend upon the nature of the breach and all the circumstances in which it occurred. For example, but not exhaustively, whether the breach actually caused any danger.
I have utter contempt for the person I mentioned, but that's very different from malice, and is my considered opinion based upon facts concerning his behaviour at a previous Glastonbury which are incontrovertible.
I consider the warning I gave to be entirely justified, and I stand by it.
Surely if there are procedures notified it is incumbent upon all pilots to follow them?
Yes, of course.
'I had always thought that ignorance was no defence in law'
Ignorance of the law is no defence, but I realise what you mean in this context and I agree.
'let alone wilful non adheherence??!'
Whether non adherence was negligent or willful.
However, none of those points is relevant to nor detracts from the particular warning I gave.
Nor, in case there be any further misunderstanding, do I suggest that it is necessarily excessive/OTT to report pilots who fail to comply with procedures to the CAA. My view would depend upon the nature of the breach and all the circumstances in which it occurred. For example, but not exhaustively, whether the breach actually caused any danger.
I have utter contempt for the person I mentioned, but that's very different from malice, and is my considered opinion based upon facts concerning his behaviour at a previous Glastonbury which are incontrovertible.
I consider the warning I gave to be entirely justified, and I stand by it.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: here
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL, You are correct 'malice' was not the right word, I think it was more a case of sour grapes maybe. Perhaps you would be so good as to let us know why you hold the aforementioned gentleman in such contempt, as my dealings with him have always been absolutely fine.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oldgit
No, your “sour grapes” suggestion is also wrong.
That’s not my nature but, even if it was, I'd have no reason for ‘sour grapes’ re Ford. His conduct contributed to my income that year.
That’s not my nature but, even if it was, I'd have no reason for ‘sour grapes’ re Ford. His conduct contributed to my income that year.
“Perhaps you would be so good as to let us know why you hold the aforementioned gentleman in such contempt”
I didn't suggest he was a gentleman, but I'm happy to answer your question.Background:
On a Sunday morning, a helicopter pilot flew to a house inside the Glastonbury temporary zone. He had not obtained the necessary permission. There was no other flying activity at the time.
Ford reported the matter to the CAA.
The pilot was in due course prosecuted for 3 offences relating to breaching the temporary restriction.
The CAA conceded that there was no other flying (actual or expected) at any of the relevant times, and that no danger was caused to anyone.
The pilot had no defence, pleaded guilty, was fined and ordered to pay costs to the CAA.
(I make no comment upon the CAA’s decision to deal with the matter by prosecution rather than other means; that is an entirely separate issue and would be a distraction.)
The Facts:
Although there was no flying at the time, the Ops Manager or similar title (Ford) and a 'controller' (Ward) were on site. They saw the helicopter enter the zone and descend to land at a house on the far side of the nearby village. (First breach/offence.)
Ford sent an assistant (Tolley) to obtain the registration.
Tolley found the helicopter and, from the road, could see the pilot beside it. He made no attempt to speak to him, but did what he’d been tasked to do - obtain the registration. He reported the registration, and what he’d seen, to Ford.
Later in the morning, before finally departing, the pilot took the householder’s son for a quick flight in the helicopter. (Second breach/offence.)
He then departed. (Third breach/offence.)
Note: The facts (apart from the purpose of the second movement) are taken from witness statements made by and signed by Ford, Ward and Tolley.
Although there was no flying at the time, the Ops Manager or similar title (Ford) and a 'controller' (Ward) were on site. They saw the helicopter enter the zone and descend to land at a house on the far side of the nearby village. (First breach/offence.)
Ford sent an assistant (Tolley) to obtain the registration.
Tolley found the helicopter and, from the road, could see the pilot beside it. He made no attempt to speak to him, but did what he’d been tasked to do - obtain the registration. He reported the registration, and what he’d seen, to Ford.
Later in the morning, before finally departing, the pilot took the householder’s son for a quick flight in the helicopter. (Second breach/offence.)
He then departed. (Third breach/offence.)
Note: The facts (apart from the purpose of the second movement) are taken from witness statements made by and signed by Ford, Ward and Tolley.
Basis of my Contempt:
- Ford’s sole interest was in obtaining the registration in order to report the pilot to the CAA.
- He made no attempt whatsoever to find out, or arrange for anyone else to find out, if the pilot was aware of what he’d done. Even if Tolley had not actually seen the pilot, it was obvious that he was visiting the house.
- Although the first breach/offence occurred when there was no other helicopter activity, there was an obvious risk that the pilot would depart later in the day at a time when movements were expected. As it transpired, he left before the helipad became busy later in the day, but Ford didn’t know the pilot’s intentions.
- The second breach/offence would have been prevented.
- The third breach/offence would have been prevented, either by the pilot not departing during the period the restrictions were in force or by departing with permission.
- If Ford had the slightest interest in flight safety, as opposed to getting the pilot into trouble with the CAA, he would have taken steps (readily available to him) to prevent the second and third incidents.
Even if Ford intended to report the first breach regardless of what the pilot might have said, he could (and in my view should) have taken the steps readily available to him.
Whether or not he was under any duty to do so, not doing so is IMHO, behaviour deserving of contempt for the reasons I’ve set out.
Whether or not he was under any duty to do so, not doing so is IMHO, behaviour deserving of contempt for the reasons I’ve set out.
Now would you now be so good as to answer a couple of questions for me?
(1) I’m interested in your attempts to attribute some unattractive/ulterior motive to me. Are you by any chance the same person who used to post as old heliman in this forum? I ask because he had a similar style(2) Are you, or were you, employed by the CAA?
FL
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: here
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
In answer to your 2 questions:
1. No i am not 'old heliman' whoever he may be. The only reason I had an issue your post, was that I have always had the greatest respect for your work on behalf of the helicopter community and your opinions.I just found the post regarding the'Glastonbury incident' somewhat lacking in the normal calm, non confrontational style I have become used to. Thank-you for the reasons you gave for your 'contempt' I can now understand why!
2. I most certainly do not work for the CAA, never have, and godwilling never will!!
In answer to your 2 questions:
1. No i am not 'old heliman' whoever he may be. The only reason I had an issue your post, was that I have always had the greatest respect for your work on behalf of the helicopter community and your opinions.I just found the post regarding the'Glastonbury incident' somewhat lacking in the normal calm, non confrontational style I have become used to. Thank-you for the reasons you gave for your 'contempt' I can now understand why!
2. I most certainly do not work for the CAA, never have, and godwilling never will!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lasham
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear All
I do believe it is time that we (Glastonbury 2003 Heliport Operator) put our side to this story.
FL I am rather disappointed in your comment in your earlier thread
'I have utter contempt for the person I mentioned, but that's very different from malice, and is my considered opinion based upon facts concerning his behaviour at a previous Glastonbury which are incontrovertible'
That person is obviously me and as I have never met you, spoken to you or corresponded with you over this issue I think you may be jumping the gun.
As I understand it the 2003 was only the second year a heliport was considered and in the previous year the landing area was in a different location. We were asked to look at setting up in another location due to the expected movement rate out growing the existing location.
Setting up any heliport requires a number of boxes to be ticked and permissions granted. This we did and the AIC stated the following:
'a Subject to Paragraph b, between 06:00 hours (UTC) on 26 June 03 and 17:00 hours (UTC) on 30 June 2003 no aircraft shall fly below 3,100 feet above mean sea level within the area bounded by the circle having a radius of 2.5 nautical miles whose centre is 510921N 0023510W
b Paragraph a shall not apply to any aircraft flying with the permission of the Chief of the Police for the Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Telephone 0117 xxxxxxx) or aircraft under the control of the ATC unit at RNAS Yeovilton flying above 2000 feet on the Portland Regional Pressure Setting.'
The restricted area covered the whole of the festival site and the outlying villages. To operate any heliport within this zone we therefore had to apply for and get the approval of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary. This was something that was not straight forward and I firmly believe that if it wasn't for the fact that we had a great deal of experience between the various people involved then we would not have been granted approval. The bottom line was that they trusted us.
We were then granted a clearance to restriction in flying regulations for this area by the Avon & Somerset ASU Chief Pilot which stated:
'You are authorised to act on behalf of Avon & Somerset constabulary to grant entry clearances to visiting aircraft to enter the restriction in flying regulations area, subject to the following:
PPR authority is for your site only at Clover Hill Farm'
The AIC had the Avon & Somerset ASU's phone number and anyone wishing to enter the area had to phone them. They would have then passed on our details and phone number, which during the four days of the event was a mobile phone, with an answering service.
The important fact here is that we were only allowed to operate the site with the express permission of the Avon & Somerset Constabulary and had their authority to grant access to visiting aircraft to our site only on a strictly PPR basis. Again they trusted us and we therefore had a responsibility to carry out this authority.
So to reply to FL's statements in his earlier thread
Correct
There was no other flying activity at the time.
Correct
Ford reported the matter to the CAA.
Incorrect - The matter was reported to the Avon & Somerset Constabulary ASU
The pilot was in due course prosecuted for 3 offences relating to breaching the temporary restriction.
Correct
The CAA conceded that there was no other flying (actual or expected) at any of the relevant times, and that no danger was caused to anyone.
The pilot had no defence, pleaded guilty, was fined and ordered to pay costs to the CAA.
Correct
As stated above the Avon & Somerset ASU had given us authority to allow entry to aircraft to our site. The aircraft in question was not intending to land at our site and therefore was entering the restricted zone without any permission from the Avon & Somerset Constabulary, who as per the AIC were the only one that could give permission to this particular landing site. The matter was therefore reported to them.
Having run the odd heliport over the last 8 years I think that I do know a thing about flight safety. I can safely say that the other person involved who FL correctly identifies as 'Ward' has probably got more experience in running the air traffic side of heliports, both permanent and temporary, than anyone in the UK today. Just coming up to his 80th year and still involved in the biggest temporary heliport, I would think that if he thought there was a case to answer then there probably was. I think it would be a fairly safe bet to say he has a very big interest in flight safety. I would also say that he would be very reluctant to report anyone unless there was a very good reason for it. Again as stated we did not report this to the CAA.
As for taking more action on the ground when two personnel were sent off to investigate, perhaps in hindsight they should have climbed over the wall or rung the bell on the gate. Knowing my luck they would have probably have been done for trespassing ! In addition the two personnel were also employed as fire crew and without them we could not have operated legally so did not want to have them off site for too long.
I do agree whole heartedly that we should help each other in aviation and I personally believe I go out of my way to assist others in this business when I can. I would hope that people who know me in this industry would agree. The same certainly goes for David Ward.
So finally just to reiterate, we were given permission to operate the heliport by the Avon & Somerset Constabulary. This was a responsibility that we took very seriously. If we hadn't reported the matter to them, and they had later found out about it, which was highly probable, then I can imagine that they would have thought us completely unreliable, unprofessional and amateurs, something which we are quite clearly not. It was therefore our responsibiity to report any breach of the restricted area to them.
What they did with this information was up to them and as we know now they thought there was a case to answer.
As for the Pilot's comment that he tried to call the site but no answer.
I presume he called the number on the AIC and then was given the heliport's mobile number. I can't prove he couldn't get through but the phone worked successfully all day for other people and I had no messages.
I apologise for the length of this thread but just wanted to get the facts out.
Many thanks
F09
I do believe it is time that we (Glastonbury 2003 Heliport Operator) put our side to this story.
FL I am rather disappointed in your comment in your earlier thread
'I have utter contempt for the person I mentioned, but that's very different from malice, and is my considered opinion based upon facts concerning his behaviour at a previous Glastonbury which are incontrovertible'
That person is obviously me and as I have never met you, spoken to you or corresponded with you over this issue I think you may be jumping the gun.
As I understand it the 2003 was only the second year a heliport was considered and in the previous year the landing area was in a different location. We were asked to look at setting up in another location due to the expected movement rate out growing the existing location.
Setting up any heliport requires a number of boxes to be ticked and permissions granted. This we did and the AIC stated the following:
'a Subject to Paragraph b, between 06:00 hours (UTC) on 26 June 03 and 17:00 hours (UTC) on 30 June 2003 no aircraft shall fly below 3,100 feet above mean sea level within the area bounded by the circle having a radius of 2.5 nautical miles whose centre is 510921N 0023510W
b Paragraph a shall not apply to any aircraft flying with the permission of the Chief of the Police for the Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Telephone 0117 xxxxxxx) or aircraft under the control of the ATC unit at RNAS Yeovilton flying above 2000 feet on the Portland Regional Pressure Setting.'
The restricted area covered the whole of the festival site and the outlying villages. To operate any heliport within this zone we therefore had to apply for and get the approval of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary. This was something that was not straight forward and I firmly believe that if it wasn't for the fact that we had a great deal of experience between the various people involved then we would not have been granted approval. The bottom line was that they trusted us.
We were then granted a clearance to restriction in flying regulations for this area by the Avon & Somerset ASU Chief Pilot which stated:
'You are authorised to act on behalf of Avon & Somerset constabulary to grant entry clearances to visiting aircraft to enter the restriction in flying regulations area, subject to the following:
PPR authority is for your site only at Clover Hill Farm'
The AIC had the Avon & Somerset ASU's phone number and anyone wishing to enter the area had to phone them. They would have then passed on our details and phone number, which during the four days of the event was a mobile phone, with an answering service.
The important fact here is that we were only allowed to operate the site with the express permission of the Avon & Somerset Constabulary and had their authority to grant access to visiting aircraft to our site only on a strictly PPR basis. Again they trusted us and we therefore had a responsibility to carry out this authority.
So to reply to FL's statements in his earlier thread
Background:
On a Sunday morning, a helicopter pilot flew to a house inside the Glastonbury temporary zone. He had not obtained the necessary permission. Correct
There was no other flying activity at the time.
Correct
Ford reported the matter to the CAA.
Incorrect - The matter was reported to the Avon & Somerset Constabulary ASU
The pilot was in due course prosecuted for 3 offences relating to breaching the temporary restriction.
Correct
The CAA conceded that there was no other flying (actual or expected) at any of the relevant times, and that no danger was caused to anyone.
The pilot had no defence, pleaded guilty, was fined and ordered to pay costs to the CAA.
Correct
(I make no comment upon the CAA’s decision to deal with the matter by prosecution rather than other means; that is an entirely separate issue and would be a distraction.)
The Facts:
Although there was no flying at the time, the Ops Manager or similar title (Ford) and a 'controller' (Ward) were on site. They saw the helicopter enter the zone and descend to land at a house on the far side of the nearby village. (First breach/offence.)
Correct
Ford sent an assistant (Tolley) to obtain the registration.
Tolley found the helicopter and, from the road, could see the pilot beside it. He made no attempt to speak to him, but did what he’d been tasked to do - obtain the registration. He reported the registration, and what he’d seen, to Ford.
Correct
Later in the morning, before finally departing, the pilot took the householder’s son for a quick flight in the helicopter. (Second breach/offence.)
Correct
He then departed. (Third breach/offence.)
Note: The facts (apart from the purpose of the second movement) are taken from witness statements made by and signed by Ford, Ward and Tolley.
Correct
Basis of my Contempt:
Although there was no flying at the time, the Ops Manager or similar title (Ford) and a 'controller' (Ward) were on site. They saw the helicopter enter the zone and descend to land at a house on the far side of the nearby village. (First breach/offence.)
Correct
Ford sent an assistant (Tolley) to obtain the registration.
Tolley found the helicopter and, from the road, could see the pilot beside it. He made no attempt to speak to him, but did what he’d been tasked to do - obtain the registration. He reported the registration, and what he’d seen, to Ford.
Correct
Later in the morning, before finally departing, the pilot took the householder’s son for a quick flight in the helicopter. (Second breach/offence.)
Correct
He then departed. (Third breach/offence.)
Note: The facts (apart from the purpose of the second movement) are taken from witness statements made by and signed by Ford, Ward and Tolley.
Correct
Basis of my Contempt:
- Ford’s sole interest was in obtaining the registration in order to report the pilot to the CAA.
As stated above the Avon & Somerset ASU had given us authority to allow entry to aircraft to our site. The aircraft in question was not intending to land at our site and therefore was entering the restricted zone without any permission from the Avon & Somerset Constabulary, who as per the AIC were the only one that could give permission to this particular landing site. The matter was therefore reported to them.
- He made no attempt whatsoever to find out, or arrange for anyone else to find out, if the pilot was aware of what he’d done. Even if Tolley had not actually seen the pilot, it was obvious that he was visiting the house.
- Although the first breach/offence occurred when there was no other helicopter activity, there was an obvious risk that the pilot would depart later in the day at a time when movements were expected. As it transpired, he left before the helipad became busy later in the day, but Ford didn’t know the pilot’s intentions.
- The second breach/offence would have been prevented.
- The third breach/offence would have been prevented, either by the pilot not departing during the period the restrictions were in force or by departing with permission.
- If Ford had the slightest interest in flight safety, as opposed to getting the pilot into trouble with the CAA, he would have taken steps (readily available to him) to prevent the second and third incidents
Having run the odd heliport over the last 8 years I think that I do know a thing about flight safety. I can safely say that the other person involved who FL correctly identifies as 'Ward' has probably got more experience in running the air traffic side of heliports, both permanent and temporary, than anyone in the UK today. Just coming up to his 80th year and still involved in the biggest temporary heliport, I would think that if he thought there was a case to answer then there probably was. I think it would be a fairly safe bet to say he has a very big interest in flight safety. I would also say that he would be very reluctant to report anyone unless there was a very good reason for it. Again as stated we did not report this to the CAA.
As for taking more action on the ground when two personnel were sent off to investigate, perhaps in hindsight they should have climbed over the wall or rung the bell on the gate. Knowing my luck they would have probably have been done for trespassing ! In addition the two personnel were also employed as fire crew and without them we could not have operated legally so did not want to have them off site for too long.
I do agree whole heartedly that we should help each other in aviation and I personally believe I go out of my way to assist others in this business when I can. I would hope that people who know me in this industry would agree. The same certainly goes for David Ward.
So finally just to reiterate, we were given permission to operate the heliport by the Avon & Somerset Constabulary. This was a responsibility that we took very seriously. If we hadn't reported the matter to them, and they had later found out about it, which was highly probable, then I can imagine that they would have thought us completely unreliable, unprofessional and amateurs, something which we are quite clearly not. It was therefore our responsibiity to report any breach of the restricted area to them.
What they did with this information was up to them and as we know now they thought there was a case to answer.
As for the Pilot's comment that he tried to call the site but no answer.
I presume he called the number on the AIC and then was given the heliport's mobile number. I can't prove he couldn't get through but the phone worked successfully all day for other people and I had no messages.
I apologise for the length of this thread but just wanted to get the facts out.
Many thanks
F09
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Playing in the sand
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even though I have no interest in this matter whatsoever, seems to me that if I took the time to join PPRUNE and write a long winded response like that to defend my honor, I'd at least post my name at the end.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Up there
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no interest or bias in any way...
However, I do have one question
"In addition the two personnel were also employed as fire crew and without them we could not have operated legally"
Then why send them offsite to obtain a registeration instead of just reporting it, and therefore ending your obligations?
However, I do have one question
"In addition the two personnel were also employed as fire crew and without them we could not have operated legally"
Then why send them offsite to obtain a registeration instead of just reporting it, and therefore ending your obligations?
Last edited by Outlook; 29th Jan 2007 at 16:16. Reason: For clarity
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lasham
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Heli1
Outlook, any report would need a registration and due to the paint scheme it wasn't easy to make out the registration in the air, hence sending two people off site to investigate.
As reported there were no planned movements at the time so it was possible to deploy these assetts, although not for long.
Outlook, any report would need a registration and due to the paint scheme it wasn't easy to make out the registration in the air, hence sending two people off site to investigate.
As reported there were no planned movements at the time so it was possible to deploy these assetts, although not for long.
Possibly the moral of this is that times have changed and when the police say you can't fly in an area it is probably for very good reasons. Although I don't like the idea of dropping people in the poo - it would have looked very different had the offending helo performed a '9/11' on a crowded Glastonbury festival; many questions would have been asked.
Restricted airspace is restricted airspace and ignorance is no defence....just because you are a low time PPL (and I am generalising here) doesn't absolve you from the need to obey the rules.
Restricted airspace is restricted airspace and ignorance is no defence....just because you are a low time PPL (and I am generalising here) doesn't absolve you from the need to obey the rules.
Crab,
Sorry but don’t think a 9/11 scenario has anything to do with this, don’t think the terrorists would be stopped by the prosecution that might follow afterward. If the terrorist threat was part of the reason of reporting the registration it would have made more sense to send somebody to check / speak with the pilot. These days IMHO the government and other services seem to use the “terrorist” trump card too much to justify some of their actions. Not saying there is no risk but don’t think restricted airspace would stop that specific risk in this case.
As you I do agree “dropping in the poo” isn’t the thing to do and would I think it would have been better if finals09 would have tried to speak with the pilot involved after he landed nearby. First so he could have made sure there would be no safety risk later in the day (as in FL argument) and secondly depending on his /her reaction, attitude and story taken it further or just give him a “warning” so to speak. All this based on his and his colleague claimed great deal of experience (not doubting this, just don’t know any party involved).
Greetings
Finalchecksplease
Sorry but don’t think a 9/11 scenario has anything to do with this, don’t think the terrorists would be stopped by the prosecution that might follow afterward. If the terrorist threat was part of the reason of reporting the registration it would have made more sense to send somebody to check / speak with the pilot. These days IMHO the government and other services seem to use the “terrorist” trump card too much to justify some of their actions. Not saying there is no risk but don’t think restricted airspace would stop that specific risk in this case.
As you I do agree “dropping in the poo” isn’t the thing to do and would I think it would have been better if finals09 would have tried to speak with the pilot involved after he landed nearby. First so he could have made sure there would be no safety risk later in the day (as in FL argument) and secondly depending on his /her reaction, attitude and story taken it further or just give him a “warning” so to speak. All this based on his and his colleague claimed great deal of experience (not doubting this, just don’t know any party involved).
Greetings
Finalchecksplease
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the above.
The way the infringing pilot was dealt with all seems rather heavy handed to me.
Anyway, about this heliport, is it rockstars only? or are the rest of us invited (provided we call for PPR?)
SB
The way the infringing pilot was dealt with all seems rather heavy handed to me.
Anyway, about this heliport, is it rockstars only? or are the rest of us invited (provided we call for PPR?)
SB
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Restricted airspace is restricted airspace and ignorance is no defence....just because you are a low time PPL (and I am generalising here) doesn't absolve you from the need to obey the rules.
Nobody's suggested it does or should.
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
A more sensible way would have been to seek out and inform the pilot in person that he had made a mistake. He could have been urged to call the helipad operator by telephone when he wanted to depart and to call on the radio before re-entering the restricted area next time. That would have made it safer for all involved, surely that is why the restriction was put in place? Even if the reporter believed that the airspace restriction was known about by the pilot in question and deliberately ignored, this would surely have been a more reasonable option.
To allow him to continue and fly unbriefed in radio silence was surely a derogation of responsibility, it certainly did NOTHING to fulfil a safety responsibilty on the day. To do nothing except report him was just a 'rear-end covering' exercise after the event and had nothing to do with safety as far as I can see.
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.
To allow him to continue and fly unbriefed in radio silence was surely a derogation of responsibility, it certainly did NOTHING to fulfil a safety responsibilty on the day. To do nothing except report him was just a 'rear-end covering' exercise after the event and had nothing to do with safety as far as I can see.
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.