:confused::confused:

Have I missed something ---- again?

This thread is just starting to get pedantic, without cause.

No slagging and no abuse please.

PPP

It may have no bearing on this matter, but those using on-line "radar", should be aware that some of the information is derived from SBS type equipment which is certainly not fallible and aircraft are occasionally depicted in wrong positions. This is due to ADS-B not transmitting correct lat and log. Just yesterday I observed two aircraft approaching Heathrow in what appeared to be extremely dangerous conflict. A few minutes later one "landed" at Bracknell, several miles south of the true location! A/c postions on SBS can be 5 or more miles wrong so don't trust everything you see on-line.

I see no problem with post #17, but the next one was a bit off-side.

In the cruise you can hear a jet pass overhead by 1000'. This when you have all the other noise in your own flightdeck and them at 'cruise' thrust.

At the airport, most jets do not use 'full' power for take off and that is pretty noisy.

By comparison it's not difficult to see why someone outside, or in a relatively quiet place, would take notice of a full thrust go-around directly above them :eek:
You could easily assume this was something to do with the height!

And those of us who have endured.... sorry, ENJOYED a Concorde go-around will agree fully with Helen!

Really? :confused: You must have much better hearing than me!

It was never dangerously low or even too low for that matter, it was a bog standard missed approach, breaking right of 15 to re-position for another approach. It's just a big aeroplane so your perspective is somewhat different making it appear lower than it actually was.

Now you know where the waiting list for UK 'luxury' cars comes from - they're all out plane spotting instead of building posh Mondeos.

Sorry F
 

Sorry f my fault meant 18 :ouch::ouch::ouch::ouch:

Well people can grumble and grizzle all they like, but the fact remains someone came here and erroneously reported a violation against an identifiable flight and crew with a drastically exaggerated claim of nearly hitting things and killing lots of people. They could have been in trouble because of this. And when it comes out that the report was, quite simply, wrong, what do we get........silence....until we presumably try and nail someone else with a grossly exaggerated written up report of children running away screaming while the vortex whips them off their feet and almost sucks them into the engine.

If you are going to try and nail someone, at least take the trouble to try and get your facts right and not exaggerate! Rather than object to my posting criticising this nonsense, perhaps someone could say to the perpetrator 'well maybe you did overstate it!'. Extraordinary. If you are going to use false alleged 'facts' to try and nail a professional doing his job, should you be able to get away with it without any comeback or criticism whatsoever?

Perspective is everything! It can play incredible tricks on your eyes (brain) and will alter what is apparently normal.

When a large piece of 'metal' is contained within a peripheral that is, perhaps, 'enclosed' on both sides it will by definition alter many other perspectives also.......therefore a 74, 76 or 77 filling a relatively small area will look bigger than it is! Same aeroplane in a open space will look a little smaller than it is. Vision and height evaluations being grossly exaggerated.

Perhaps, this go-around was simply the crew acting correctly because they MIGHT have been slightly below the glideslope but I doubt it was as much as has been suggested.

Just a normal everyday event.

Maybe people were confusing 777s for 737s and thinking they were much closer than they actually were :p

They were sadly 'confused' alright...or is it totally 'deluded' and in a highly 'exaggerated' state of mind! I find it absolutely outrageous. And when it is shown what a plonker they have been, do we get any attempt at an apology? Dream on!

So perhaps time to end this nasty thread attempt to get a crew hammered with just a few mindless presses of a keyboard!

Don't go overboard, old chap and no apologies are necessary. During my years at Heathrow I fielded any number of phone calls from Joe Public with similar stories. I even had a BA Captain quite adamant that he had seen a scary airmiss over Westminster. What he'd seen was a light aircraft at 1500ft and a Heathrow inbound at 3000 ft.

Point taken. But do reread post 1. Did the light aeroplane come so close to Parliament 'that all the MPs thought they'd had it'? After the alleged airmiss, did the Heathrow inbound 'struggle after the airmiss to climb over Tower Bridge, sucking in startled pigeons?'. By all means query peculiar observations, but leave out the poetic (and totally fictional) setting-of-scenes! The man was so deluded all I can say is.........you know what's coming, don't you.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
He shudda gone to Specsavers!

...which brings it full circle and kind of back to the post i'm most proud of, i.e. number 18....

I stand by it. The original post was moronic...not abuse but a statement of fact.

I do, however, apologise to notsofantastic, my irony radar was evidently not working as it should. Maybe your post was below the coverage of EMA Webtrak and was so low that it's wingtip was carving it's way through a playground full of frightened children, the engines roaring as the deadly aircraft struggled to miss the local orphanage. Whatever, I thought you were being serious :O

Maybe he should have gone to specsavers, but no amount of optical correction will help an 'adult' differentiate between 2000' and a motorway bridge, 50' above the ground. :rolleyes:

The only apology needed is one from the original instigator of this nonsense for the damage he could have done and his dramatic recount of his imaginary events. But I guess we will wait for a long time!

.....and in any case, if anybody wonders why I'm still so annoyed about self appointed flight-inspector jerks apparently permanently on the look out to snitch on any flight operations alleged 'deviations' to newspapers, pprune, CAA and anybody else who will possible be persuaded to listen, let me tell you it's hard enough doing the bloody job at the best of times without these creeps blasting into print anytime they think they can get a bit of free publicity AND nail a professional pilot at the same time.

As evidence, I point to a planeload of hysterical Air France passengers recently- any true nosey aviation busybody will know the details already. The desire to bag a pilot scalp seems to be very strong these days! And a bit of daft exaggeration helps the cause!

Over-reaction
 

Notso (clearly) fantastic & Topside - I posted this is the spotters forum to avoid people like you.

H.D answered my query adequetly as did a few others - I never made accusations of the crews ability - I didnt make it up as verified independantly by others.

And BTW it was luchtime so we were not making cars at the time.

You are everything that is wrong with PPRUNE - self opinioned oafs... :yuk:

I beg to differ.

There are many that would suggest that giving a voice to nonsense like this is what is wrong with pprune. After all, this is the 'Professional Pilots Rumour network'. Whilst it is obvious that you have posted this in the spotters forum, it was also obvious that pilots would read it. The point is, of course, that you have identified a specific flight, and by that, a specific crew and made observations that would be amusing if made by a child, but that are frankly pathetic for an adult.

I refer you to a couple of your points...

I find it difficult to believe you can try and defend those comments without at the very least feeling uncomfortable. Personally, i'd be embarrassed. You reported this to ATC, which in turn suggests that you also believe they cannot do their job. If there was ever an issue, it would have been dealt with long before your 'overwhealming opinion' (sic) came along.

A quote from one of your other posts:

So you know this kind of stuff is crap, yet you post it yourself. Dr Jeckyll, let me introduce Mr Hyde. :rolleyes: