Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 30
By malcolmfrost
#1767748
What a story, hope it works out well for him, at GOSH he will be in the best hands :D
I don't think any of us are really criticising the 172, clearly if the flight was truly carried out by an SEP, it would fail the Covid rules and also the land clear parts of the ANO. It's more curiosity about the flight and also why it shows as a 172! Which sort of ties in with your last comment!
By Vedeneyev
#1767765
the C172 flew over my house, in london. it was a C172. not a helicopter. i don't spend my bankholidays looking at FR24. the never before seen sight of a C172 over my house is what made me pull out FR24. the surprise is that it was transponding.
User avatar
By Sjoram
#1767793
riverrock wrote:Emergency brain surgery to fit a shunt on his 2nd birthday (Sunday), then more scans. Apparently there are no pediatric brain surgeons anywhere in Africa, so medevac it was. Surgery scheduled at Great Ormond Street today.

malcolmfrost wrote:What a story, hope it works out well for him, at GOSH he will be in the best hands :D


Only posting to +1 this from another recipient of a shunt (and a few 'revisions') from GOSH - albeit for a different condition - in the late '80s. Wish all of you all the best.
riverrock liked this
User avatar
By JAFO
#1767803
malcolmfrost wrote:What a story, hope it works out well for him, at GOSH he will be in the best hands :D
I don't think any of us are really criticising the 172, clearly if the flight was truly carried out by an SEP, it would fail the Covid rules and also the land clear parts of the ANO. It's more curiosity about the flight and also why it shows as a 172! Which sort of ties in with your last comment!


Leaving the ANO stuff aside, what makes you believe it would contravene the COVID regulations?
User avatar
By Flying_john
#1767873
what makes you believe it would contravene the COVID regulations


I thought the consensus on interpretation was that it was for engine health reasons or maintenance flight, within 10nm of departure and for 30 mins unless engine manufacturer says longer , i.e 60 mins for lycoming every 30 days for engine health remaining above 1000' except for T/O and landing.
By malcolmfrost
#1767875
JAFO wrote:
malcolmfrost wrote:What a story, hope it works out well for him, at GOSH he will be in the best hands :D
I don't think any of us are really criticising the 172, clearly if the flight was truly carried out by an SEP, it would fail the Covid rules and also the land clear parts of the ANO. It's more curiosity about the flight and also why it shows as a 172! Which sort of ties in with your last comment!


Leaving the ANO stuff aside, what makes you believe it would contravene the COVID regulations?

The actual regs don't prohibit a flight such as that, so perhaps I should have said the COVID recommendations!
It would still be interesting to see the "reasonable excuse" that enabled them to do such a flight.
I'm just jealous really :D
By Vedeneyev
#1767889
personally i think flight over central london should be allowed in sepl - there's small outright risk and no more risk than taking a rental cherokee up the hudson. plus there's very little difference in crashing performance into the thames between a sep r22 or a sep cessna. it's only caa wisdom that says there are no suitable engine out fixed wing landing sites. covid or medevac reasons aside, i think this c172 flight would be a useful test case to get some clarity on this decades old grey area.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1767890
Vedeneyev wrote:i think this c172 flight would be a useful test case to get some clarity on this decades old grey area.

A few have suggested they would be interested in following the 172 flightpath. Flying over cities holds no attraction for me, I'm, curious as to the attraction for others? :?
User avatar
By Dave W
#1767906
Vedeneyev wrote:... no more risk than taking a rental cherokee up the hudson. ..

I'm not so sure.

The last time this came up, I was interested enough to compare river width and distance between bridges on the Hudson and the Thames in Central London.

The images are to just about the same scale - the yellow line in each is 1 nautical mile long.

To me, the third party hazards are chalk and cheese - and that's without considering density of river traffic.
Image
Iceman, skydriller, Boxkite and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By JAFO
#1767913
malcolmfrost wrote:The actual regs don't prohibit a flight such as that, so perhaps I should have said the COVID recommendations!
It would still be interesting to see the "reasonable excuse" that enabled them to do such a flight.
I'm just jealous really :D


I know nothing about the flight but could it have not been for work? That would be a reasonable excuse.
By SteveX
#1767915
But we don't need a nautical mile, 50m for a sep splash down? Entire Thames should be opened up one way to SEP say east to west with a chance to head out south near Sandown racecourse, or carry on until exiting the zone. Max alt 700ft. Lifevests mandatory. Listen in on Heathrow Director, special squawk code for following the route.
By AlanC
#1767923
SteveX wrote:But we don't need a nautical mile, 50m for a sep splash down?


How far would 1000-1700kg at 80-90kts take to stop, given fitted with wings so not an instant dive to the bottom? A genuine thought, having never done the calcs, but flown a few SEPs that fit in that bracket. Then add Thames tourist traffic which fills the river most days, even more so than the Seine. And factor in insurance claims from tourists hit by flying metal, were the very worst to happen...

Much as with night flying, or flight over congested areas, it isn't the risk to us as informed participants that informs policy, rather the risk to others. An autorotating helicopter doesn't go quite as far on splashdown.
Dave W, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
  • 1
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 30