Poor weather options
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read this thread with interest and conclude that the AAIB will only get busier with attitudes such as that demonstrated by Chopjock.
chopjock - your arrogance is extraordinary. It's that same arrogance that will get you and your unfortunate pax into some scary flying (if you're lucky) and dead (if you're not).
I think you should re-read this thread from the top and instead of trying to respond with half-baked, smart-arse sarcasm, you should at least acknowledge the vast experience of the many contributors to this thread who know what they're talking about. Judging from flingingwing's post #38 in this thread (which I note you chose to ignore), you haven't learned from your mistakes. Worse still, you're not prepared to learn from others' mistakes either.
As someone else pointed out, you really are an accident waiting to happen, but your arrogance won't let you see it.
TTB
I think you should re-read this thread from the top and instead of trying to respond with half-baked, smart-arse sarcasm, you should at least acknowledge the vast experience of the many contributors to this thread who know what they're talking about. Judging from flingingwing's post #38 in this thread (which I note you chose to ignore), you haven't learned from your mistakes. Worse still, you're not prepared to learn from others' mistakes either.
As someone else pointed out, you really are an accident waiting to happen, but your arrogance won't let you see it.
TTB
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chopjock
In the 37 years of my involvement in civil helicopters in the UK, I have met several people with your attitude to aviation.
They are all dead.
I wish you - and your passengers - the best of luck.
They are all dead.
I wish you - and your passengers - the best of luck.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An "attitude" doesn't hurt any one.
Someone who's (apparently) only satisfied the requirements for the PPL(H) perhaps should consider that the path of prudence is likely not telling the numerous ATPL, CPL, Instructors both Civil and Military, and SAR Professionals on this forum about the direct and indirect effects of "attitude".
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTB
You are right, I don't see why. But accidents may happen to the best of us, whether we are arrogant or not.
FFF
I can't for the life of me figure why the AAIB would be busier as a result of reading this thread or because I may have a bad attitude.
TRC
Why did they die? because of a bad attitude? or they flying beyond their limitations?
um lifting
I disagree, my "attitude" does not create conditions by which I outfly my abbilities. I have all ready stated I fly within my limitations.
But I apologise for having a different point of view to all of you on here. It is a forum and I usually like to be controversial and argue the "other corner".
Kind of a wind up if you didn't guess.
As someone else pointed out, you really are an accident waiting to happen, but your arrogance won't let you see it.
FFF
I do not aim to change your attitude, that is clearly impossible reading this thread, I mearly point out that the AAIB may be busier because of it.
TRC
In the 37 years of my involvement in civil helicopters in the UK, I have met several people with your attitude to aviation.
They are all dead.
They are all dead.
um lifting
Not directly, but it does create the conditions by which you outfly your abilities, and that hurts people.
But I apologise for having a different point of view to all of you on here. It is a forum and I usually like to be controversial and argue the "other corner".
Kind of a wind up if you didn't guess.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree, my "attitude" does not create conditions by which I outfly my abbilities. I have all ready stated I fly within my limitations.
I daresay my observations are probably more comprehensive than yours. Professionally, I wouldn't fly with you.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will go one step beyond Um.. and say that it does.
Being fit to fly depends on more than just a pilot’s physical condition and recency of experience. Having a Hazardous attitude, and being in an accident can land you in hot water, not just risking the safety of yourself or others.
So much so that the FAA and NTSB explicitly identify Five Hazardous attitudes that would deem you not fit to fly, and if you are not fit to fly, you are highly likely to hurt someone, including yourself.
I would gather that repeatedly demonstrating Hazardous attitudes could land one in trouble with your regulator. (Flying Lawyer, could you comment on the CAA?)
chopjock, there is no reason to be defensive in this, I certainly can't see an upside for you, on the forum or in real life.
My experience with Rotorheads vs. rest of PPRuNe on balance is a good group of participants with a sense of camaraderie and support. (And a healthy tolerance of private pilots like myself)
This is definitely a situation where I would not fight their advice on this definition.
Being fit to fly depends on more than just a pilot’s physical condition and recency of experience. Having a Hazardous attitude, and being in an accident can land you in hot water, not just risking the safety of yourself or others.
So much so that the FAA and NTSB explicitly identify Five Hazardous attitudes that would deem you not fit to fly, and if you are not fit to fly, you are highly likely to hurt someone, including yourself.
1. Anti-Authority:
"Don't tell me."
This attitude is found in people who do not like anyone telling them what to do. In a sense, they are saying, "No one can tell me what to do." They may be resentful of having someone tell them what to do, or may regard rules, regulations, and procedures as silly or unnecessary. However, it is always your prerogative to question authority if you feel it is in error.
2. Impulsivity:
"Do it quickly."
This is the attitude of people who frequently feel the need to do something, anything, immediately. They do not stop to think about what they are about to do; they do not select the best alternative, and they do the first thing that comes to mind.
3. Invulnerability:
"It won't happen to me."
Many people feel that accidents happen to others, but never to them. They know accidents can happen, and they know that anyone can be affected. They never really feel or believe that they will be personally involved. Pilots who think this way are more likely to take chances and increase risk.
4. Macho:
"I can do it."
Pilots who are always trying to prove that they are better than anyone else are thinking, "I can do it –I'll show them." Pilots with this type of attitude will try to prove themselves by taking risks in order to impress others. While this pattern is thought to be a male characteristic, women are equally susceptible.
5. Resignation:
"What's the use?"
Pilots who think, "What's the use?" do not see themselves as being able to make a great deal of difference in what happens to them. When things go well, the pilot is apt to think that it is good luck. When things go badly, the pilot may feel that someone is out to get me, or attribute it to bad luck. The pilot will leave the action to others, for better or worse. Sometimes, such pilots will even go along with unreasonable requests just to be a "nice guy."
"Don't tell me."
This attitude is found in people who do not like anyone telling them what to do. In a sense, they are saying, "No one can tell me what to do." They may be resentful of having someone tell them what to do, or may regard rules, regulations, and procedures as silly or unnecessary. However, it is always your prerogative to question authority if you feel it is in error.
2. Impulsivity:
"Do it quickly."
This is the attitude of people who frequently feel the need to do something, anything, immediately. They do not stop to think about what they are about to do; they do not select the best alternative, and they do the first thing that comes to mind.
3. Invulnerability:
"It won't happen to me."
Many people feel that accidents happen to others, but never to them. They know accidents can happen, and they know that anyone can be affected. They never really feel or believe that they will be personally involved. Pilots who think this way are more likely to take chances and increase risk.
4. Macho:
"I can do it."
Pilots who are always trying to prove that they are better than anyone else are thinking, "I can do it –I'll show them." Pilots with this type of attitude will try to prove themselves by taking risks in order to impress others. While this pattern is thought to be a male characteristic, women are equally susceptible.
5. Resignation:
"What's the use?"
Pilots who think, "What's the use?" do not see themselves as being able to make a great deal of difference in what happens to them. When things go well, the pilot is apt to think that it is good luck. When things go badly, the pilot may feel that someone is out to get me, or attribute it to bad luck. The pilot will leave the action to others, for better or worse. Sometimes, such pilots will even go along with unreasonable requests just to be a "nice guy."
chopjock, there is no reason to be defensive in this, I certainly can't see an upside for you, on the forum or in real life.
My experience with Rotorheads vs. rest of PPRuNe on balance is a good group of participants with a sense of camaraderie and support. (And a healthy tolerance of private pilots like myself)
This is definitely a situation where I would not fight their advice on this definition.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Birrddog
I see you have come up with quite a list of Hazardous attitudes, do you also have a list of positive attitudes?
Either way, they are still attitudes.
I've just apologised and now you have me going again. Sorry.
I suppose I do suffer from "anti-authority" sometimes,
I see you have come up with quite a list of Hazardous attitudes, do you also have a list of positive attitudes?
Either way, they are still attitudes.
I've just apologised and now you have me going again. Sorry.
I suppose I do suffer from "anti-authority" sometimes,
However, it is always your prerogative to question authority if you feel it is in error.
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
I think CJ wins one of two awards here;
1. Most successful wind up of the professional fraternity of rotary pilots.
or:
2. Rotary pilot most likely to arrive at his own smoking hole any time soon.
He should wear either award with pride...
1. Most successful wind up of the professional fraternity of rotary pilots.
or:
2. Rotary pilot most likely to arrive at his own smoking hole any time soon.
He should wear either award with pride...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: AFRICA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without full details this thread is completly stupid
1500 m VIS is enough for special VFR in most countries, then 200ft OVC is the minimum for an ILS
Is the aircraft IFR certified ? single crew ?
With this weather conditions you have nothing to do there in VFR
(stay in bed or in your favorite bar), if you are IFR where is the problem, just do what the company pay you for 
you have minimums for the approach
If you were in VFR flight you should have landed long before weather get that bad, when pilots will know and follow official rules then the sky will be a safe place...
Just follow the rules, simple
1500 m VIS is enough for special VFR in most countries, then 200ft OVC is the minimum for an ILS
Is the aircraft IFR certified ? single crew ?
With this weather conditions you have nothing to do there in VFR
(stay in bed or in your favorite bar), if you are IFR where is the problem, just do what the company pay you for you have minimums for the approachIf you were in VFR flight you should have landed long before weather get that bad, when pilots will know and follow official rules then the sky will be a safe place...
Just follow the rules, simple
Last edited by froggy_pilot; 23rd Mar 2010 at 02:48. Reason: Added the last line
Without wishing to stir up a hornet's nest, and with the greatest of respect for all the private owners on this forum, it's a fact that to privately own and operate a helicopter requires a degree of wealth that most people would consider to be rich. I think most of us agree that money doesn't grow on trees and that, by-and-large, 'normal' occupations do not allow one to become 'rich.' It is generally true that those who become rich through their own endeavours (as opposed to inheritance or lottery wins) do so because of their strong characters and personalities enabling them to succeed in their chosen enterprise - be it business or sports or entertainment.
Sadly, some of the character traits that lead to such success are mutually incompatible with the traits required of a safe pilot. Steve Hislop and Colin McCrae stand out as well known examples, but there are many more less well known owner/pilots who have met similar ends.
I do not wish to tar every owner with the same brush, of course, and many many owners on this forum demonstrate excellent commitment to safety and understanding. I even know of one owner (of an EC-155) who paid for a CPL/IR and then flew periodically with an operator to 'professionalise' himself (admitedly he also had a full time pilot employee.)
Flame me if you wish, but from a basic human factors perspective, I believe the above to be true.
Sadly, some of the character traits that lead to such success are mutually incompatible with the traits required of a safe pilot. Steve Hislop and Colin McCrae stand out as well known examples, but there are many more less well known owner/pilots who have met similar ends.
I do not wish to tar every owner with the same brush, of course, and many many owners on this forum demonstrate excellent commitment to safety and understanding. I even know of one owner (of an EC-155) who paid for a CPL/IR and then flew periodically with an operator to 'professionalise' himself (admitedly he also had a full time pilot employee.)
Flame me if you wish, but from a basic human factors perspective, I believe the above to be true.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like many threads in which chopjock has participated, I suspect (or should that be "hope") it's a wind-up. Otherwise ...
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
Whilst not accepting the arguments put forward by Chopjock, he does have a correct understanding of the (somewhat liberal and soon to be replaced) regulations of the UK.
Sadly, they do not agree with those provided in the pamphlet referenced by Talk The Torque; they are also not in compliance with ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air:
Sadly, they do not agree with those provided in the pamphlet referenced by Talk The Torque; they are also not in compliance with ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air:
Flight outside controlled airspace
28.—
28.—
(1) Subject to paragraph (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace at or above flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 8 km.
(2) Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace below flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.
(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which—
(2) Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace below flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.
(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which—
(a)flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(c)is in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.
(4) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which is not a helicopter and which—(b)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(c)is in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.
(a)flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b)flies at a speed which, according to its air speed indicator, is 140 knots or less;
(c)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d)is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.
(5) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which—(b)flies at a speed which, according to its air speed indicator, is 140 knots or less;
(c)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d)is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.
(a)flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b)flies at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable; and
(c)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight.
(6) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which is air-taxiing or conducting manoeuvres in accordance with rule 6(i)(b)flies at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable; and
(c)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight.
Jim
Thats pre the 2007 amendment which can be found here The Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2007 No. 1371
It modifies rule 28(5) to read
This has an amendment bar next to it in the current rules of the Air.
Thats pre the 2007 amendment which can be found here The Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2007 No. 1371
It modifies rule 28(5) to read
(5) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which—
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) flies at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.”
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) flies at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.”
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Have you ever been IMC?
... my "attitude" does not create conditions by which I outfly my abbilities. I have all ready stated I fly within my limitations.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok wind up over. I apologize to everyone. 
Just because I have done it does not make it right. I assure all of you I am a safe and cautious pilot. Any forum bashing or "attitudes" stay right here, they do not reflect into my flying skills.
Just because I have done it does not make it right. I assure all of you I am a safe and cautious pilot. Any forum bashing or "attitudes" stay right here, they do not reflect into my flying skills.
Ok wind up over
I don't think it was, but I do sincerely hope your attitude has been tested in the wake of the overwhelming pressure from the many qualified (both academic and experience) pilots on this thread.
Fly safe Mr. chopjock