|
Originally Posted by ex_matelot
(Post 10239624)
My grouping was within 3.5cm on last APWT
Round 4 I think. I gotta get back to some work. Crab started it this time by picking on me. After I was nice to him last time. SAS kicked me in the fanny when I was down. It wasn’t me that started it. Honest guv. |
Is that a metric or imperial fanny? :} |
Suffice to say, one of the contributors to this thread was in that cab. It's not 'normal' for them to end up like this. It's a bit embarrasing actually but they got seen by the great unwashed and now they are slightly twitched that it's 'in the public domain'.....let's say.
Oh and by the way - outside of the "IFR" (I follow roads) brigade - anywhere in the world - this is NOT to be recommended flying by anyone. It isn't sanctioned, it isn't practiced and it certainly isn't clever. Let's just say - occasionally, just occasionally, one finds one's self up a creek without a paddle and one simply has to 'improvise'. They are sorry and promise never to be caught doing it again....... By the way - they also have the reg plate of the car that took the picture................:suspect: |
:):):):):)
|
TC - simple honest summary. ENDEX. |
So Tc you are now saying the pilots took their hands off the controls to take a picture ?????
|
Despite all the bickering and criticism, I have repeatedly laid out the facts about this video and the circumstances that preceded it - actually I don't give a flying whatsit if PDR or others don't believe what I have written - it is the truth but it would appear an uncomfortable or inconvenient truth for those who were so openly critical of a crew just doing their job very professionally.
I have no need to make stuff up to defend these guys - the fact that they are ex-colleagues and students of mine is irrelevant but I'm sure that won't hold sway with the conspiracy theory types. You can make your own minds up whether you think this was a total non-event that just happened to be caught on video or something much more dastardly - actually I don't care but when there is an opportunity to highlight the correct procedure when caught out by weather as opposed to the IIMC or CFIT versions then I will continue to do so - even if it turns out to be DB. |
I’m not taking the p1ss, but are these flights not subject to the 500ft rule (assuming the cab was within that distance of the car)? Are military aircraft automatically exempt? |
UK military aircraft are not subject to the 500 foot rule. If they were, how do you think they would practice low flying?
|
Who said the cab was Military?
|
Originally Posted by Thomas coupling
(Post 10240545)
Who said the cab was Military?
|
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
(Post 10240519)
UK military aircraft are not subject to the 500 foot rule. If they were, how do you think they would practice low flying?
I would assume when they practice this dangerous art form of low level flying, they are doing it in rather sparsely settled areas where no one is at risk? or at least where only the odd farmer who is expendable may call home. In Canada, Military aircraft can't just go scud running where ever they want under the guise of training flights. or any other higher level of authority simply because they are better trained or whatever. They still have to follow all the rules like john, steve and mike in their little personal helico-peters, to avoid running afoul of the laws that protect the citizen from the dangers of rampant cowboy flying. They do it in their designated airspaces on their military bases. Thank god Canada is so big with lots of unfettered landscape around. |
ShyT
UK military aircraft are not subject to the 500 foot rule. If they were, how do you think they would practice low flying? |
MY reading of this is completely different (of course !!).
For a start; I am amazed that this is regarded as something that should only be practiced 'by accident' - I would expect this to be part of their normal skill set, it's a perfectly 'normal' set of skills in many of the world's real environments... To only attempt to do this, unpractised, in times of crisis, by inexperienced folk 'being heroic' is at best foolhardy. I WANT 'our chaps' to be able to emerge from the merk, unexpected, in 'impossible conditions' at the front door of 'the baddies', and give them a bloody nose... when required. I am pretty surprised that DB regards this as something of a luck issue - this can be done employing 'normal' higher level flying skills - they should be part of the armory of this kind of operator. It is irresponsible for this to NOT be part of their operating capability. embarassing to be 'caught on camera' ... but t'will from time to time occur I do hope these guys don't get a bolloxing... they need to be capable of this, I would be appauled if they were NOT doing this. |
Thank goodness nobody on here ever knew what a 443 area was in Germany, they would never sleep again.
|
If you read all the media reports (good and bad) and piece together all the comments across social media platforms from people in the area who also saw it that day flying low into a bank of fog at Patterdale, it sounds like it may have crept the whole length of the pass like that from Ullswater to Windermere.
Cor! |
Your point being?
Do you have the foggiest notion of what the unit orders were for that flight? Did you include prior posts here at pprune during your analysis? Especially a couple of posts by Crab who reported all was well for the crew involved as they complied with their procedures and policies that day. That sure seemed to be the gist of what he posted.....he can correct me if I am wrong. |
Originally Posted by Two's in
(Post 10240693)
Thank goodness nobody on here ever knew what a 443 area was in Germany, they would never sleep again.
|
Harrogate - I have posted what actually happened - you can believe the BS in the press and social media, from people who have no idea about aviation in general and helicopters in particular, if you want but it is BS. People will swear black is white just to get a few likes on FB so I wouldn't put any store in such reports.
|
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 10248281)
Your point being?
Do you have the foggiest notion of what the unit orders were for that flight? Did you include prior posts here at pprune during your analysis? Especially a couple of posts by Crab who reported all was well for the crew involved as they complied with their procedures and policies that day. That sure seemed to be the gist of what he posted.....he can correct me if I am wrong. Calm down. I m mainly just looked at some social media posts. I work in marketing (which I know will make you sick in your mouth) and have access to various paid social media and content listening tools that I can, and do, use for my own amusement. Other people saw the same chopper in different places nearby and there was also at least one other video shot further along the pass that was posted to a forum and then removed after about 3 days by the looks of it. That is all. I'm not speculating about what their unit orders etc were. Speculation and analysis of anything and everything globally to do with helicopters is clearly more your thing. You seem to be the expert in most things, so I'll leave the analysis to you, Chuck Yeager. |
Originally Posted by harrogate
(Post 10248656)
Analysis?
Calm down. I m mainly just looked at some social media posts. I work in marketing (which I know will make you sick in your mouth) and have access to various paid social media and content listening tools that I can, and do, use for my own amusement. Other people saw the same chopper in different places nearby and there was also at least one other video shot further along the pass that was posted to a forum and then removed after about 3 days by the looks of it. That is all. I'm not speculating about what their unit orders etc were. Speculation and analysis of anything and everything globally to do with helicopters is clearly more your thing. You seem to be the expert in most things, so I'll leave the analysis to you, Chuck Yeager. Which Black Helicopter did they see, I'm sure that this type of unit has more than one helicopter and more than one were doing training flights that day. Moderators can we have this thread lock as I feels it's been beaten to death many times over. Roybert |
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story Harrogate - no wonder you are in marketing..........
Agreed Roybert :ok: |
The video appears to have been shot in the vicinity of the Red Pit Car Park which is about half a mile short of the high point of the pass and the and the Kirkstone Pass Inn; the car was heading south, the Dauphin north.
So if it had been seen earlier at the Ullswater end of the pass heading south towards Windermere, it suggests to me that they certainly turned round exactly as Crab says and never got anywhere near Windermere. No doubt if the vis had been really crap at that point they could have said "sod this for a game of civilians" and made a precautionary landing in the car park to await an improvement in conditions. |
I find it strange that some simply can't accept that our military are required to train to fly in extremely poor weather so they can do what others can't. As I said before, if our forces can't do it, others will surpass their abilities and one day we might well regret that.
|
Shy, you must know that is BS right??? You must know!! Do you really think that any authorising officer (or any pilot with self-auth) would authorise a flight into fog/dog**** weather where there are civilians driving in their cars.... for training??? Not in a million years mate, the risk/liability is too high and could not be mitigated.
|
DB - I don't think you understood what Hihover was saying - a crew wouldn't be authorised specifically to fly in those conditions - they were authorised for low flying - standard 100'agl/10m MSC, got caught by the weather, turned round and resumed. If you end up below your authorised minima, you recover to normal limits asap and report it on return to your authorising officer - as I said earlier, exactly what they did.
Our standard SAROPs auth had no weather limits or minima applied to it, it was at captain's discretion (and that of his crew) how far you pushed into bad weather, it depended on the risk assessment at the time. |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 10249623)
DB - I don't think you understood what Hihover was saying - a crew wouldn't be authorised specifically to fly in those conditions - they were authorised for low flying - standard 100'agl/10m MSC, got caught by the weather, turned round and resumed. If you end up below your authorised minima, you recover to normal limits asap and report it on return to your authorising officer - as I said earlier, exactly what they did.
Our standard SAROPs auth had no weather limits or minima applied to it, it was at captain's discretion (and that of his crew) how far you pushed into bad weather, it depended on the risk assessment at the time. |
Shy, I believe you are confusing a few issues here to bolster your case that our "military are required to train to fly in extremely poor weather"...... We were not allowed above 150ft because the Phantoms, Jaguars and Harriers were allowed to fly down to 250ft. Nothing to do with training for bad weather. Expected to launch on a "TASK" when the cloud base was 200 ft and the visibility 800m is not quite the same as sending pilots out to TRAIN in extreme weather.
You are implying that military pilots are sent out specifically to train in poor weather, I disagree emphatically. There is training value to be had when we get it wrong and end up in extremely poor conditions, and there are lessons to be learned, but no-one departs on any military training flight with that intention. DB - have we just wandered into Round 5??? I have to learn how not to take crab bait. |
Originally Posted by hihover
(Post 10249724)
Shy, I believe you are confusing a few issues here to bolster your case that our "military are required to train to fly in extremely poor weather"...... We were not allowed above 150ft because the Phantoms, Jaguars and Harriers were allowed to fly down to 250ft. Nothing to do with training for bad weather. Expected to launch on a "TASK" when the cloud base was 200 ft and the visibility 800m is not quite the same as sending pilots out to TRAIN in extreme weather.
You are implying that military pilots are sent out specifically to train in poor weather, I disagree emphatically. There is training value to be had when we get it wrong and end up in extremely poor conditions, and there are lessons to be learned, but no-one departs on any military training flight with that intention. I could have phrased it better but I think you are trying to split hairs in a point scoring exercise. I'll leave you to carry on. |
Originally Posted by hihover
(Post 10249724)
Shy, I believe you are confusing a few issues here to bolster your case that our "military are required to train to fly in extremely poor weather"...... We were not allowed above 150ft because the Phantoms, Jaguars and Harriers were allowed to fly down to 250ft. Nothing to do with training for bad weather. Expected to launch on a "TASK" when the cloud base was 200 ft and the visibility 800m is not quite the same as sending pilots out to TRAIN in extreme weather.
You are implying that military pilots are sent out specifically to train in poor weather, I disagree emphatically. There is training value to be had when we get it wrong and end up in extremely poor conditions, and there are lessons to be learned, but no-one departs on any military training flight with that intention. DB - have we just wandered into Round 5??? I have to learn how not to take crab bait. :} |
Not interested in points Shy, I have as many as I will ever have.
I am, however, very interested in preserving the highest standards of military flying and in not tarnishing the reputation of military pilots. We learn through quality training and experience, not by being sent out to train in extremely poor weather. That gives a quite different impression. Al - I agree, the Belgians were rascals. But at least they were on our side!! |
Al - I agree, the Belgians were rascals. But at least they were on our side!! I still cherish the memory of a joint NATO helo gathering at Ahlhorn's 60th Anniversary at which I was sent to display the mighty Wessex. A young Luftwaffe Leutnant about to give the met brief asked the assembled company if anyone minded him briefing in German. I had enough school boy German to cope but a crusty Belgian Major, in a real leather flying jacket and with an S58 (piston powered version of Wessex), claimed he couldn't understand German and turning to me winked broadly and announced "who won the bloody war anyway"! The brief continued in English. Sorry, off topic, about that Dauphin, how's it doing? :ok: |
:D All the Belgians I ever worked with on exercise were a great bunch. Still in touch with a couple today.
As for the Dauphin, I think we're done here. |
This thread has had some time out to allow bickering to cool off; if normal manners aren’t maintained then it’ll be closed permanently.
|
Phew, thank heavens it's back! I thought that I'd have to resort to reading Mail On-Line for morning entertainment :ok:
|
Oh Dear! After almost a week of Hurricane Florence winds I finally get somewhat normal comma back to discover a much longer tempest blowing! Back into my Hurricane Shelter I go....maybe even this one will blow over by the time I see Mains Electrics working again! |
I think we are now mostly on the same page thanks mainly to the concise summaries by Hi-hover. 1. What we see in the video is, most probably, a cab below its authorised minima, with a crew electing to continue to fly to recover, probably, back to their minima. 2. Training in and for such conditions is nonsense. Cannot be authorised and crazy to suggest they were deliberately training like this. 3. A’s Hi-hover states, BAOR flying orders recommended us all to be below 150 feet, or above 1500 feet, essentially to remain out of the fast Jet Band. The weather minima for VFR flight in 318 I cannot recall. But definitely could not train, fly or fight below that minima. 4. Having “Special” or “SAR” or “HEMS” appended to your operational status provides no immunity from the solidity of Mother Earth. Extra training and formal regulatory risk assessments may provide lower operating limits. But they are limits. 5. There is no excuse ever, for putting your aircraft and crew at risk by flying below your limits. If you end up in such a situation your command decision making is flawed. I have been there also. So in summary the crew made a serious mistake that ended up putting the aircraft close to persons and property on the ground, below their authorised minima. This is debate really started with me objecting to the glorification and justification if such flying as “Essential” because of who we assume the occupants are. Crab you supported such a position from the outset. Now, you have finally come to accept the crew made a mistake. |
So in summary the crew made a serious mistake Now, you have finally come to accept the crew made a mistake. Did they press on regardless? No Did they go down and slow down? Yes Did they turn round when possible? Yes Could they have landed? No, due to terrain Please let me know where in that process there is a serious mistake What would you have done DB, upon getting caught out by unexpected and un-forecast weather? (No smug IFR option due to fuel reserves and terrain) Have you ever been caught out at low level by deteriorating weather and did you debrief yourself that it was a 'serious mistake'? Now just waiting for the sound of someone mounting their high horse again............... |
Crab
For arguments sake supposing there was a serious road traffic accident due to the Dauphin flying so close to the road. What would your feelings be then if an innocent member of the public was killed ? |
Crab dear boy.....Hog wrestling only gets you all muddy....and the Hog loves it! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.