FLYER Club Member
a known Military low fly area
What do you understand by that term Manonthefence? The chances are that the reality in the UK is not what you think.
Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:00 am
#212722
2Donkys
Ok I know ALL of the UK is subject to Military low flying (except highly built up areas end even then they are to some degree), this was just a well known route.
Would you fly a down the Mach loop on a weekday?
Ok I know ALL of the UK is subject to Military low flying (except highly built up areas end even then they are to some degree), this was just a well known route.
Would you fly a down the Mach loop on a weekday?
Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:09 am
#212728
Manonthefence
It seems to me, reading the report, that as with most accidents, there were a number of factors which combined to cause the collision which understandably makes you feel hot under the collar. However, the factors were not all on the side of the 152.
I have no axe to grind on one side or the other of the aerial photography business, but tarring all operators with the shortcomings of one operator in one incident doesn't make for a particularly defensible argument.
I suspect that most posters wouldn't have a clue what you are talking about and therefore might well do so...
It seems to me, reading the report, that as with most accidents, there were a number of factors which combined to cause the collision which understandably makes you feel hot under the collar. However, the factors were not all on the side of the 152.
I have no axe to grind on one side or the other of the aerial photography business, but tarring all operators with the shortcomings of one operator in one incident doesn't make for a particularly defensible argument.
Would you fly a down the Mach loop
I suspect that most posters wouldn't have a clue what you are talking about and therefore might well do so...
Guernsey Based Piper Lance - N101DW
Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:18 am
#212729
Manonthefence wrote: this was just a well known route.
I personally wouldn't know that this location is on a well known fast jet route. I doubt whether many civilian pilots would. The only guidance I have on avoiding low flying jets is to avoid flight at low level, obtain a radar service if possible, make my aircraft as visible as possible and if I have to be at low level then make use of the CANP system.
Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:37 am
#212733
Indeed.
Many other countries adopt rather more structured schemes to the UK's rather impenetrable system. Many countries argue that fast jets operating at speeds in excess of 400 knots at low level are not actually able to comply with the rules of the air in any meaningful sense, making it negligent to allow them to operate in the same uncontrolled airspace as the rest of us; so long as they continue to rely on see-and-avoid.
This is what gives rise to the Visual and Instrument Training Routes marked on US charts, and the familiar low-level corridors found in countries like France.
Both of these systems are met with blank stares when raised at events like MCASD. The concept of fitting fast jets with TCAS is apparently also budget-constrained. This is an outlook that many of us find tough to agree with.
It has been said that there are rather too many ex Fast Jet Jocks in the CAA for there to be much hope of Civil regulatory pressure being brought to bear on the RAF any time soon.
Many other countries adopt rather more structured schemes to the UK's rather impenetrable system. Many countries argue that fast jets operating at speeds in excess of 400 knots at low level are not actually able to comply with the rules of the air in any meaningful sense, making it negligent to allow them to operate in the same uncontrolled airspace as the rest of us; so long as they continue to rely on see-and-avoid.
This is what gives rise to the Visual and Instrument Training Routes marked on US charts, and the familiar low-level corridors found in countries like France.
Both of these systems are met with blank stares when raised at events like MCASD. The concept of fitting fast jets with TCAS is apparently also budget-constrained. This is an outlook that many of us find tough to agree with.
It has been said that there are rather too many ex Fast Jet Jocks in the CAA for there to be much hope of Civil regulatory pressure being brought to bear on the RAF any time soon.
Guernsey Based Piper Lance - N101DW
Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:57 am
#212739
2Donkeys
You are correct in your assumption hat I get hot under the collar about this, and yes I am biased as a result.
That said I have heard many times on these forums and others that there are height bands which it is sensible to avoid. The RAF as a result of this accident have reviewed their procedures, it would be nice to think that an aerial photography pilot would do likewise.
As you quite rightly say, the accident was not a result of a single cause. I have done what I can to remove one of the causes by not buying from such companies however reputable they are.
A good debate, I have learnt something today.
You are correct in your assumption hat I get hot under the collar about this, and yes I am biased as a result.
That said I have heard many times on these forums and others that there are height bands which it is sensible to avoid. The RAF as a result of this accident have reviewed their procedures, it would be nice to think that an aerial photography pilot would do likewise.
As you quite rightly say, the accident was not a result of a single cause. I have done what I can to remove one of the causes by not buying from such companies however reputable they are.
A good debate, I have learnt something today.
Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:01 am
#212740
Manonthefence
There are worthwhile debates.
Worth factoring into your thinking that the C152 pilot in this instance appears to have made no effort to use the various collision avoidance tools such as CANP available to him. I think it is less a case of others "learning lessons from this", it is more about people doing what they were meant to be doing all along.
I think that the RAF might do well to consider though, how long a "we low fly everywhere" policy is tenable.
There are worthwhile debates.
Worth factoring into your thinking that the C152 pilot in this instance appears to have made no effort to use the various collision avoidance tools such as CANP available to him. I think it is less a case of others "learning lessons from this", it is more about people doing what they were meant to be doing all along.
I think that the RAF might do well to consider though, how long a "we low fly everywhere" policy is tenable.
Guernsey Based Piper Lance - N101DW
Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:33 am
#212746
Perversely the fact that the RAF has downsized so much may increase the risk.
The less it happens the less people are familiar with it.
The less it happens the less people are familiar with it.
Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:07 am
#212766
It seems strange that firms who sell aerial photo's can operate without the regulations that govern other commercial flying activity.
Many years ago I knew a young guy at Swansea who was hour building by flying a C152 taking pic's for Skyviews. I believe at one stage they had a whole fleet that flew for six months of the year. He recieved no pay for his flying but instead got commision from the sale of photo's.
He was of course being rewarded with free flying hours so surely this must have breached the ANO?
Many years ago I knew a young guy at Swansea who was hour building by flying a C152 taking pic's for Skyviews. I believe at one stage they had a whole fleet that flew for six months of the year. He recieved no pay for his flying but instead got commision from the sale of photo's.
He was of course being rewarded with free flying hours so surely this must have breached the ANO?
Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:27 am
#213013
Old Pilot
I totally agree with your comments about the Dennis Kenyon prosecution - ludicrous IMHO. At least the JPs got it half right by imposing a Conditional Discharge - shame about the absurd amount of costs they made him pay the CAA.
However, and please forgive me for asking this about a friend of yours but, is he perhaps one of those pains in the butt with whom those of us who enjoy flying unfortunately have to contend?
I don't doubt he's a perfectly reasonable man in every other way, but telephoning the CAA? Even if aircraft flying over his house is a 'regular' occurrence, each disturbance must only last seconds, or maybe a minute at most from beginning to end - no mention of orbiting his house and they can't all be very low.
"Worse still he gets the door knocking salesmen trying to flog the pix of his house a couple of times a year."
A couple of times a year and he calls the CAA to find out if what they are doing is legal? Well done the CAA for responding as they did.
I'm not condoning pilots who break the low flying rules, nor would I necessarily condemn those who do occasionally (depends on circumstances) but some people are over-sensitive and those who complain to the CAA instead of allowing their irritation to pass as quickly as the offending aircraft are a pain IMHO. (I'd use a different description if he wasn't a friend of yours.
)
I totally agree with your comments about the Dennis Kenyon prosecution - ludicrous IMHO. At least the JPs got it half right by imposing a Conditional Discharge - shame about the absurd amount of costs they made him pay the CAA.
However, and please forgive me for asking this about a friend of yours but, is he perhaps one of those pains in the butt with whom those of us who enjoy flying unfortunately have to contend?
I don't doubt he's a perfectly reasonable man in every other way, but telephoning the CAA? Even if aircraft flying over his house is a 'regular' occurrence, each disturbance must only last seconds, or maybe a minute at most from beginning to end - no mention of orbiting his house and they can't all be very low.
"Worse still he gets the door knocking salesmen trying to flog the pix of his house a couple of times a year."
A couple of times a year and he calls the CAA to find out if what they are doing is legal? Well done the CAA for responding as they did.
I'm not condoning pilots who break the low flying rules, nor would I necessarily condemn those who do occasionally (depends on circumstances) but some people are over-sensitive and those who complain to the CAA instead of allowing their irritation to pass as quickly as the offending aircraft are a pain IMHO. (I'd use a different description if he wasn't a friend of yours.
)
Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:00 am
#213029
Surely the instant that one attempts to make money from the sale of an aerial photo the flight becomes, at the very least, aerial work, if not a full commercial flight.
These flights should IMHO be regulated as commercial flights, should REQUIRE minimum two persons (one to fly one to take photos) and should be required to have a serviceable mode C transponder so that ATC can maybe see if they are contravening Rule 5 which, I suspect, many of them are to get the photos they desire.
Orbiting over a built up area for hours (yes, hours in some cases) at a barely legal level is guaranteed to upset the populace and give GA a bad name.
Experienced one pilot a while ago who was stupid enough to admit, on the RTF, that he was orbiting over a town taking aerial photographs "not above 1,000' QNH".
These flights should IMHO be regulated as commercial flights, should REQUIRE minimum two persons (one to fly one to take photos) and should be required to have a serviceable mode C transponder so that ATC can maybe see if they are contravening Rule 5 which, I suspect, many of them are to get the photos they desire.
Orbiting over a built up area for hours (yes, hours in some cases) at a barely legal level is guaranteed to upset the populace and give GA a bad name.
Experienced one pilot a while ago who was stupid enough to admit, on the RTF, that he was orbiting over a town taking aerial photographs "not above 1,000' QNH".
Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:13 am
#213032
KNT754G wrote: should be required to have a serviceable mode C transponder so that ATC can maybe see if they are contravening Rule 5
Would ATC be interested though? It's not the role of an ATCO to enforce the Rules of the Air. Indeed, from a radar screen I'd suggest it's unlikely that an ATCO would know where each and every built up area is in their area of responsibility.
It's down to the pilot to ensure compliance with Rule 5, I've often heard traffic accepting a clearance over a major built up area 'not above 1500ft', IMHO there is absoloutely no chance of a glide clear so take an alternative routing.