Mach Loop Typhoon ‘Incident’.
Discussion
frodo_monkey said:
WinstonWolf said:
What did he actually do wrong? I just like looking at the pictures and vids, I've no idea what the rules are 
For fast jets, unless doing Operational Low Flying where the rules are different (three areas, Borders, Highland and Wales - but not inc the Mach Loop) you need to maintain 250ft MSD (= minimum separation distance). Which he *may* have scraped in the video - note that I don’t know, you’d need to do some analysis. Then there’s obviously the other bit. The other more pertinent answer would be “getting caught”
frodo_monkey said:
For fast jets, unless doing Operational Low Flying where the rules are different (three areas, Borders, Highland and Wales - but not inc the Mach Loop) you need to maintain 250ft MSD (= minimum separation distance). Which he *may* have scraped in the video - note that I don’t know, you’d need to do some analysis. Then there’s obviously the other bit.
The other more pertinent answer would be “getting caught”
Why can't his gaffer say "look, we've got video evidence of you flying like a nob. You know not to fly like a nob because that's not how we do things here because of reasons x, y and z. Don't fly like a nob. If it happens again you're out." ?The other more pertinent answer would be “getting caught”
Lemming Train said:
Why can't his gaffer say "look, we've got video evidence of you flying like a nob. You know not to fly like a nob because that's not how we do things here because of reasons x, y and z. Don't fly like a nob. If it happens again you're out." ?
Once more and you'll be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog s
t out of Hong Kong.Lemming Train said:
Why can't his gaffer say "look, we've got video evidence of you flying like a nob. You know not to fly like a nob because that's not how we do things here because of reasons x, y and z. Don't fly like a nob. If it happens again you're out." ?
I think that could happen (best case!)... depends on the gaffer Scabutz said:
Lemming Train said:
Why can't his gaffer say "look, we've got video evidence of you flying like a nob. You know not to fly like a nob because that's not how we do things here because of reasons x, y and z. Don't fly like a nob. If it happens again you're out." ?
Once more and you'll be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog st out of Hong Kong.essayer said:
Guarantee a man posting the video wouldn’t have received such abuse..
How would you be qualified to offer such a guarantee?
Thought it looked like he was having a great time and makes for a good vid But...as someone who lost a close relative flying a GR4 at v low level, if he’s found to have broken rules that endanger life just for sts and giggles, he’s got only himself to blame if he gets torn a new one..
But...as someone who lost a close relative flying a GR4 at v low level, if he’s found to have broken rules that endanger life just for sts and giggles, he’s got only himself to blame if he gets torn a new one..DuraAce said:
saaby93 said:
She does seem to be out of touch though.
Is it really necessary to post up everything or are some things best quiet about
Out of touch with what? Some arcane 'rules' from the saddest men on earth...'the mach loop veterans'? Is it really necessary to post up everything or are some things best quiet about
The Brummie said:
I don’t do Twitter hence couldn’t find the video.
I have now seen it - whilst great to watch it does appear to have been a rather silly thing to do beating in mind that some Loopers practically live in the mountainside & will record/photograph anything that moves.
The amount of abuse thrown at the lady was staggering & completely out of order. The culprits are blaming her for potentially ending the pilots flying career because they have an unwritten rule that anything footage of afterburner use, power climbs etc will not be posted anywhere.
She is being blamed for also potentially having all flying through the Loop being halted.
Well that's a bI have now seen it - whilst great to watch it does appear to have been a rather silly thing to do beating in mind that some Loopers practically live in the mountainside & will record/photograph anything that moves.
The amount of abuse thrown at the lady was staggering & completely out of order. The culprits are blaming her for potentially ending the pilots flying career because they have an unwritten rule that anything footage of afterburner use, power climbs etc will not be posted anywhere.
She is being blamed for also potentially having all flying through the Loop being halted.
ks excuse. If you choose to fly like that and someone films it - good for the pilots and good for the lucky sod who got the footage. Hardly worth the recriminations faced by the lady. Self appointed police - tossers more like. If there is a 'self agreed rule' it holds no water and wouldn't prevent any foreign tourist doing exactly what this lady has done.
Sanctimonious a
holes. frodo_monkey said:
I know the guy, he is a solid and decent pilot but unfortunately made a bit of an error of judgement here and will no doubt be polishing some Axminster carpet for the foreseeable.
Where I disagree with you is that once he’s signed for the aircraft it really is his (or hers)... we had this debate on ops a year or so back when we were debating who holds risk at certain times. Ultimately the pilot (in this case) or crew (in my case) are always holding the risk, which is why there’s such a stringent, lengthy and expensive selection process.
If the aircrew decide that “the juice is worth the squeeze” i.e. they need to do something that could break rules or break the aircraft in order to get a job done, then ultimately the choice is always with them because you rarely have either the time or the comms to ask!
But anyway, it doesn’t apply in this case because fairly obviously an error of judgement was made and he’ll have to deal with the consequences.
I agree in essence, but the pilot has responsibility for, not ownership of the aircraft. He almost definitely can't afford the fuel for one supersonic flight every few weeks, let alone the tens on millions for the aircraft. Where I disagree with you is that once he’s signed for the aircraft it really is his (or hers)... we had this debate on ops a year or so back when we were debating who holds risk at certain times. Ultimately the pilot (in this case) or crew (in my case) are always holding the risk, which is why there’s such a stringent, lengthy and expensive selection process.
If the aircrew decide that “the juice is worth the squeeze” i.e. they need to do something that could break rules or break the aircraft in order to get a job done, then ultimately the choice is always with them because you rarely have either the time or the comms to ask!
But anyway, it doesn’t apply in this case because fairly obviously an error of judgement was made and he’ll have to deal with the consequences.
I can just imagine a sad little group of those 'veteran loopers' with their flasks of weak lemon drink swearing at the muggles who have the cheek to post their own videos without consulting them first.
I wonder where you find these loopers or how you identify them? Do they have special hats, or maybe they've designed a badge they all wear?
I've found a hat they can use. It's embroidered on the back, which is important as they'll all need to be wearing them back to front so they can still get to their viewfinders.
I wonder where you find these loopers or how you identify them? Do they have special hats, or maybe they've designed a badge they all wear?
I've found a hat they can use. It's embroidered on the back, which is important as they'll all need to be wearing them back to front so they can still get to their viewfinders.
frodo_monkey said:
WinstonWolf said:
What did he actually do wrong? I just like looking at the pictures and vids, I've no idea what the rules are
For fast jets, unless doing Operational Low Flying where the rules are different (three areas, Borders, Highland and Wales - but not inc the Mach Loop) you need to maintain 250ft MSD (= minimum separation distance). Which he *may* have scraped in the video - note that I don’t know, you’d need to do some analysis. Then there’s obviously the other bit. Except that, I guess that argument might not cut any merit because of the multiple twinkle rolls on the climb out......which could indicate showboating rather than a safety lead abort...?
aeropilot said:
I'm guessing, that he could claim that he realised that he'd cocked up the MSD, and thus aborted the run through by pulling clear........
Except that, I guess that argument might not cut any merit because of the multiple twinkle rolls on the climb out......which could indicate showboating rather than a safety lead abort...?
If you fExcept that, I guess that argument might not cut any merit because of the multiple twinkle rolls on the climb out......which could indicate showboating rather than a safety lead abort...?
k up...then fk up in style! Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff