[seanxair]

You probably need to be on Facebook to see this

https://www.facebook.com/paulocunha.touareg/videos/1691473268376164/

[Rob P V2.0]

OMG!

Rob P V2.0

[T6Harvard]

And... they also nearly hit the mast and then clipped the fence and stalled in.

What I want to know was how much blood was pouring from the guy's head. He obviously thought he'd been scalped, and indeed it looks like it was a bit of a slice

Lesson learnt - better to be a short ass

[tb10er]

Looks like he is trying to hold his toupee in place

[Flying_john]

What a plonker !!

Dont they have 500 foot rule ?

[Sir Morley Steven]

Definitely scalped. You can see him lifting it after the “arrival”.

Nobody deserves that but, as has been said, what a plonker!

[skydriller]

What a plonker !!
Dont they have 500 foot rule ?

Well... the reg is RA...

[Spamcan Defender]

What a plonker !!

Dont they have 500 foot rule ?

But the 500ft Rule...

Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure

DOES NOT explicitly say anything about prohibiting flying below 500ft AGL. You could conceivably fly around at 20ft AGL (or less) in a suitably deserted area.


SD

[A4 Pacific]

There’s clearly a reason why you think a cable or cables suspended from towers, masts or poles isn’t a structure?

Like this pilot(s) I’m just struggling to see it myself.

[Spamcan Defender]

There’s clearly a reason why you think a cable or cables suspended from towers, masts or poles isn’t a structure?

Consider the following....
Driver A crashes into a parked car....Police/accident investigator/whoever says "Why did you crash into that parked car?? Didnt you see it?". Well of course they didnt see it or they wouldnt have hit it!!!!

The pilot in this case very clearly didnt see the cables or (I'm reasonably sure) would not have put himself in the position to hit them and cause himself injury.


During my flying training, my instructor had me flying at around 30ft above the water...perfectly legal! You would appear to be basing your interpretation of a 'structure' on anything that is not a natural formation....this is incorrect....

noun
noun: structure; plural noun: structures

1. The arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.
"the two sentences have equivalent structures"

2. A building or other object constructed from several parts.
"the station is a magnificent structure and should not be demolished"

Source:-https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/


You're telling me you class a flag pole as a structure or a telegraph pole (which is essentially a de-branched tree with a wire on it)...... . given (2) above I would disagree!!

Now I'm not saying I routinely fly around below 500ft but I'd certainly defend the right of folks to do it within the scope of the regulations. By the sounds of it you would impose a ban on flying belw 500ft in its entirety..


SD

[A4 Pacific]

During my flying training, my instructor had me flying at around 30ft above the water.

I had no idea that was a required part of the training syllabus these days. No wonder your views are tainted.

[GrahamB]

Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure
[/b]

DOES NOT explicitly say anything about prohibiting flying below 500ft AGL. You could conceivably fly around at 20ft AGL (or less) in a suitably deserted area.


SD

Why do you think the UK CAA rule would apply in Russia?

[Spamcan Defender]

Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure
[/b]

DOES NOT explicitly say anything about prohibiting flying below 500ft AGL. You could conceivably fly around at 20ft AGL (or less) in a suitably deserted area.


SD

Why do you think the UK CAA rule would apply in Russia?

I never said it DID....

Flying_john wrote:
What a plonker !!
Dont they have 500 foot rule ?

I was merely suggesting that, even if this WAS in the UK (which I'm well aware it WASNT!) that the 500ft rule doesnt automatically prevent you from flying below 500ft AGL.

A4 Pacific wrote:
I had no idea that was a required part of the training syllabus these days. No wonder your views are tainted.

Oh dear!! I think we both know it isnt but there's nothing to say that it cannot be done.....or are you one of these chaps that that live by the "If the rules dont say you CAN do it, then you CAN'T".

You're being combative for no real gain here....

SD