Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1847489
A4 Pacific wrote:I’ve been reading Flying magazine ever since spending a weekend in the company of Dick Collins almost thirty years ago. They should cease any association with pilots who think they are Tom Cruise’s Maverick’!

Well if they cancel her, she can be my wingman any time.

:pirat:
User avatar
By JAFO
#1847500
I was flying 520 feet above the bridge when I saw a huge flock of birds ahead of me and above the bridge. In order to preserve life I had no alternative but to dive below the level of the birds and, unfortunately, this meant that I had to fly below the bridge. The sharp descent must have dislodged my transponder in some way, however I am pleased to report that when I climbed again at the other side of the bridge, it must have re-seated itself. Engineers could not replicate this anomaly on the ground for obvious reasons. :wink:
AfricanEagle liked this
User avatar
By Charles Hunt
#1847501
I forget the exact wording, but was it Biggles' chum Bertie who found himself in a similar predicament. " Had to chose between the gap and the pillar - so I chose the gap!"

A decision that was widely applauded.
User avatar
By exfirepro
#1847515
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
As has been stated before (probably by me), in France they don't have the Rule 5 (or ex thereof) exemption so there's one particular bridge in France where it's illegal there, but wouldn't be here.


Hi Paul,

Viaduc de Millau?

Looked very tempting when I was there in the flex back in 2009, but I had been made aware even then by the locals of the extreme likelihood of prosecution, so ‘kept the heid’ as we say up here and flew over it instead (I can’t guarantee I didn’t get a bit closer than 500ft though.... :wink: ). I can well see why they need legislation to prevent people flying under it !
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1847522
It's more a general legislation where you're not allowed to fly lower than 500ft AGL at all unless taking off or landing (SERA). We have an exemption for it to take us back to the previous 500ft from any person, structure, vehicle or vessel.
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1847531
Paul_Sengupta wrote:It's more a general legislation where you're not allowed to fly lower than 500ft AGL at all unless taking off or landing (SERA). We have an exemption for it to take us back to the previous 500ft from any person, structure, vehicle or vessel.


I disagree: 500ft does not relate just to altitude/height, it's in any direction:

So if you fly 200 ft under a bridge arch you are less than 500ft from a structure (It's above you and may have people on it).
By A4 Pacific
#1847538
rf3flyer wrote:
A4 Pacific wrote:...This pilot didn’t just attempt to conceal their rule breaking...

You don't know that and, I suspect, neither do the FAA. You may and they suspect it and the FAA may have decided it the most likely scenario, but neither they nor you can know it.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you know the standard of proof required by the FAA? I suspect it would be ‘balance of probability’, though it probably satisfies ‘beyond reasonable doubt’? On either basis this pilot is bang to rights!

Plenty of squealing but no appealing! Pathetic, and a dreadful end to a flying career.

The FAA never openly discuss the details of cases such as these. However in this instance they are encouraging those with an interest in the investigation to submit a freedom of information request so the facts can be more widely circulated.

But then again, maybe Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster are real after all!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited to add:

For some reason the individual at the centre of this whole episode does remind me of a well known axiom. “The older I get, the better I was.”
User avatar
By Rob L
#1847547
Josh wrote:I do find it strange that in the UK we are very quick to prosecute for all forms of infringement of licence privileges (this is the case at sea as well as in the air) but almost never seems to revoke or suspend licences.

It’s the complete opposite in the states, where the Feds are very quick to take action, demand retests, issue suspensions and so on but legal sanctions are very rare. I always feel it’s a side of the US scene that’s ignored when we have the “can’t the CAA be more like the FAA” conversations - given the uproar over the infringement courses I can’t imagine how long the threads would be if we were treated summarily in the “call this number after you land” fashion!


This was a well reported case; the Feds had to be seen to do something.
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1847548
[quote="plus7g"]The Milau Bridge allegedly has chains hanging from it to er ... um .... discourage GA pilots from flying under it :roll: :roll: :roll:

Myth. Prove it. Show me the pictures.

France has always had the (now SERA) 500ft AGL rule. This is why it would be illegal to fly under it, there is no special legislation as far as I know.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1847553
JAFO wrote:I was flying 520 feet above the bridge when I saw a huge flock of birds ahead of me and above the bridge. In order to preserve life I had no alternative but to dive below the level of the birds and, unfortunately, this meant that I had to fly below the bridge.

Having been accepted as a legit reason I think you may have to remove your tongue from your cheek. :wink:

Link

BBC wrote:Last year a pilot avoided prosecution for flying his plane under the bridge after he claimed he broke the law to avoid a flock of seagulls.
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By Rob L
#1847560
plus7g wrote:The Milau Bridge allegedly has chains hanging from it to er ... um .... discourage GA pilots from flying under it :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

It doesn't, so please remove the "allegedly has" from your post. I have been there by road and flown in to the local airfield; there are no chains. What a silly statement :?

By the way, it's the Millau bridge.
skydriller liked this
User avatar
By Josh
#1847561
Rob L wrote:
This was a well reported case; the Feds had to be seen to do something.


I was commenting more generally on the FAA vs CAA style of regulation. For example although on infringements the CAA are leaning that way there isn’t really any equivalent of the widely exercised power to enforce a 709 ride.