Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1680804
Anyone know why VS28 from Orlando to Gatwick decided Heathrow would be a better bet this morning?

Image

Are 52kt gusts down the runway sufficient cause ?
By Barcli
#1680810
Pages about it on Facebook GA Community page - windshear apparently - upset a local by allegedly being a bit low....
747 went round at LGW this morning before diverting to LHR. In the process it flew over my house below CAS. I know they're allowed outside of CAS but that flight must have more risk than a flight conducted within CAS. But it is lawful and considered acceptable.
If a GA plane is 100m outsde of CAS and a commercial flight is 100m inside CAS - total separation 200m - that has a degree of risk but is lawful and acceptable.
If a GA pilot infringes CAS by 100m any commercial air traffic in the CAS needs to be moved such that it maintains 5nm separation. And the GA pilot will get the book thrown at him. So this is a situation where there is LESS risk and yet someone is penalised on *safety* grounds. Operating a transponder creates an environment of less risk and yet there is no mandatory requirement to carry a transponder. Anyone not operating a transponder could infringe CAS and not be detected. But if you do operate one, making you safer, and fly the same flight you would get penalised. Someone who is flying more safely is penalised more than someone who is flying less safely. It's a real nonsense and annoys me - we all want the skies to be safer and yet NATS/CAA are following a line that is *discouraging* safety. Occasional, accidental, CAS infringement, where there is no increased risk, should not result in penalties. One of my friends accidentally infringed (up to 3700 in 3500). He was penalised. He then removed his transponder as he is legally entitled to do. But is now less visible. It is counter-productive to safety. Discuss...
By avtur3
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1680837
matthew_w100 wrote:How bad does wind have to be before a 747 goes somewhere else?


Bad but there are times when it probably wise. I once watched a BA 747 land at MAN in a very strong crosswind causing wind shear (on 06 finals - as it was before R2), he saw the approach though and landed but in so doing rolled (laterally) after touching down and no1 engine struck the ground. As is was night time there was no avoiding the shower of sparks as the engine cowl struck the ground. Apparently, the flight crew were unaware of what had happened, it was only when the ground engineers started their turn around checks that it came to light. The turn around was scrubbed, engine change required.
By PaulB
#1680848
Dave W wrote:The attitude in that FB quote is truly bizarre. :shock:



If you think that's bad you should read of the comments!
User avatar
By GonzoEGLL
#1680849
Barcli wrote:Pages about it on Facebook GA Community page - windshear apparently - upset a local by allegedly being a bit low....
747 went round at LGW this morning before diverting to LHR. In the process it flew over my house below CAS. I know they're allowed outside of CAS but that flight must have more risk than a flight conducted within CAS. But it is lawful and considered acceptable.
If a GA plane is 100m outsde of CAS and a commercial flight is 100m inside CAS - total separation 200m - that has a degree of risk but is lawful and acceptable.
If a GA pilot infringes CAS by 100m any commercial air traffic in the CAS needs to be moved such that it maintains 5nm separation. And the GA pilot will get the book thrown at him. So this is a situation where there is LESS risk and yet someone is penalised on *safety* grounds. Operating a transponder creates an environment of less risk and yet there is no mandatory requirement to carry a transponder. Anyone not operating a transponder could infringe CAS and not be detected. But if you do operate one, making you safer, and fly the same flight you would get penalised. Someone who is flying more safely is penalised more than someone who is flying less safely. It's a real nonsense and annoys me - we all want the skies to be safer and yet NATS/CAA are following a line that is *discouraging* safety. Occasional, accidental, CAS infringement, where there is no increased risk, should not result in penalties. One of my friends accidentally infringed (up to 3700 in 3500). He was penalised. He then removed his transponder as he is legally entitled to do. But is now less visible. It is counter-productive to safety. Discuss...


How odd.....looking at the trace on FR24 I don’t see it going outside of CAS.
Flyin'Dutch', Ben K liked this
User avatar
By Iceman
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1680908
As there wasn't much of a crosswind component, why did Heathrow offer the prospect of an easier landing than Gatwick, their runways being nearly aligned ?

Iceman 8)
User avatar
By seanxair
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1680977
The FB poster is a microlight pilot as far as I am aware. Never met him but invariably comes across on forums as a complete tool. Of course he may be perfectly nice away from his keyboard. And possibly a poster on here!
Ben K liked this
User avatar
By mick w
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1680986
seanxair wrote:The FB poster is a microlight pilot as far as I am aware. Never met him but invariably comes across on forums as a complete tool. Of course he may be perfectly nice away from his keyboard. And possibly a poster on here!


Some real Snap On Tools in that Group , I had a look a couple of years ago , soon binned it . :wink: