Mach Loop Typhoon ‘Incident’.

[Tony1963]

I'm not angry at all. In fact a few of us here are chuckling at how ridiculous it is that an employee of the MoD could claim to own an RAF aircraft.

Still, as long as she's throwing personal insults around, she's trying to divert the discussion away from its core.

[Tony1963]

Oh! Lol.

[WinstonWolf]

I think this guy's nailed it

[0000]

It's a plane, it's meant to be flown and no one in that valley expected otherwise.

More power to him.

[NordicCrankShaft]

"Veteran Loopers" hahahahahahahahaha

These sad acts.

There's some serious growing up to do in this thread by certain people.

[Marcellus]

moving swiftly passed the who owns what (please) and back to the initial discussion;

If the pilot knew what he did was such a massive no-no why did he do it? surely they're pilot for the love of flying and doing some apparent career ending stunt would end his ability to fly?

Or is it like most of us with driving and speeding on the motorway; we all do it and occasionally someone gets caught and this guy has been unlucky enough to be caught?

or does he know all he'll really get is a time on the naughty step by god it was an amazing feeling?

[4x4Tyke]

I think the whingers are just tossers, they seem to be two types. Those that are jealous that she got a far better video than they did and idiots that don't understand our pilots need to train. We occasionally get overflights of Hull from Coningsby heading to North Yorkshire and there will always be some idiots complaining all over FB or the local newspaper about the noise. Generally most people call them out but that doesn't stop them popping up to whinge again the next time.

As a kid pop would occasionally take us to bombing range at RAF Cowden to see the Buccaneers and A10s or North Yorks to see the Jaguars and Phantoms 'dog fighting'. We were always looking down from the hill tops on the latter following the valleys at high speed.

Kccv23highliftcam said:

It's all about trust!

I think the navigator is giving the photographer a thumbs up.

[V8FGO]

stevesingo said:

magpie215 said:

Possibly this?....looks to be less than 250 ft agl

Looks like 1/4 of that.

He/she will probably get a ticking off. Great advert for the RAF though. Every cloud!

Fag packet maths gives me 170- 186 ft ish possibly maybe

[frodo_monkey]

Marcellus said:

moving swiftly passed the who owns what (please) and back to the initial discussion;

If the pilot knew what he did was such a massive no-no why did he do it? surely they're pilot for the love of flying and doing some apparent career ending stunt would end his ability to fly?

Or is it like most of us with driving and speeding on the motorway; we all do it and occasionally someone gets caught and this guy has been unlucky enough to be caught?

or does he know all he'll really get is a time on the naughty step by god it was an amazing feeling?

Again, hard to say without all the facts - but likely a lapse of judgement I’d say. The pilot is only human after all. Everybody knows there’s always geeks on that hillside... which is why it wouldn’t be the place to ‘experiment’ around the edges of the regs.

[anonymous-user]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

This legitimises the individual actions of state warfare. Yes?

When they take control of the the aircraft they become the sword arm of the government. Yes?

Who owns the aircraft?

HMG still.

The captain PIC commander, who signs the tech log or F700 is responsible for it and in charge of it, but they still don’t own it.

I think even g girl conceded that.

[4x4Tyke]

Cheeky Jim said:

Correct! That's why I asked. I'm not trying to start another thread war... i'm just surprised at the furore... Pilot does piloty things with a fully functioning, very capable aircraft and it seems like he's done something horrifically bad/sacking offence etc.....which I can't believe is true.

I'm the same. My civi expectation is that we need them to be able to go into the most challenging situation possible, a fight to the death and win against somebody trying to do the same to them. We expect these guys to be able to take risks, it is an essential part of their job and to do that and win they need to hone their skills and judgement to be razor sharp. To be able to function at the very edge of what is possible. Then someone whines when they do and tries to use public opinion to squash the very sort of calculated risk we need them to be very good at. If these pilots were going too far all the time, they would be crashing, they are not; so in my civi opinion they are keeping to the right side of the line.

Edited by 4x4Tyke on Friday 26th October 12:55

[4x4Tyke]

El stovey said:

Kccv23highliftcam said:

This legitimises the individual actions of state warfare. Yes?

When they take control of the the aircraft they become the sword arm of the government. Yes?

Who owns the aircraft?

HMG still.

The captain PIC commander, who signs the tech log or F700 is responsible for it and in charge of it, but they still don’t own it.

I think even g girl conceded that.

When somebody says 'my car' or even 'my own car' it doesn't necessarily imply ownership, it could be a rental, lease or company car, it is a common colloquial English expression. In the case of planes, company or RAF, that presumption of responsibility over ownership is obvious. I don't see anybody seriously saying that pilots have ownership of their planes.

So can we shift this away from nitpicking the language and get back to the spirit of the original question, because I'm still at rather a loss on several things.

Is there a real problem here, what is it?
Did this pilot go too far with his risk taking and was lucky?

I don't see the problem with the signs, to me they suggest the navigators have the utmost confidence in their pilot which seems like a good thing to me. (I obvious not suggesting the navigators own the pilots )

I didn't see anything official on the tweets or news, all I could see in the tweets were a some apparently self important knowalls throwing their weight around and a much larger group of tweets being ok/cool with the video and pilots actions.

Edited by 4x4Tyke on Friday 26th October 18:08

[Lemming Train]

4x4Tyke said:

So can we shift this away from nitpicking language get back the spirit of original question, because I'm still at rather a loss on several things.

I predict another 5 pages of arguing over the 'ownership' semantics.

[anonymous-user]

4x4Tyke said:

So can we shift this away from nitpicking language get back the spirit of original question, because I'm still at rather a loss on several things.

What is the real problem here?
Did this pilot go too far with his risk taking and was lucky?

Flying is all about rules and understanding them. Knowing what you can legally do, knowing which rules are grey and which aren’t and being able to justify what you did.

As Frodo (who knows stuff) pointed out earlier, It would appear that the pilot may have broken some rules established for operating in this low flying area.

Everyone knows that these manoeuvres are within the pilot and aircraft’s abilities and enjoys seeing this and it makes people want to become raf pilots but that’s not really the issue. The issue is about what’s legal in this area and how the employer would view any possible deviation from the rules.

[LaurasOtherHalf]

Wow, plane nerds like to own the internet huh?

[anonymous-user]

LaurasOtherHalf said:

Wow, plane nerds like to own the internet huh?

It’s nice to see that most people even the raf pilots on twitter support the person who posted the video.

I showed it to my son after watching loads of higher Mach loop passes on YouTube.

He both wants to go and see this for real and fly a jet down a valley low and fast himself.

So why are the spotters so upset?

Are they worried that there will be new restrictions or even bans on low flying in this area? Is it because they missed it or that they don’t want others getting in on their club and filling up the car parks?

[aeropilot]

El stovey said:

So why are the spotters so upset?

Are they worried that there will be new restrictions or even bans on low flying in this area? Is it because they missed it or that they don’t want others getting in on their club and filling up the car parks?

I'd say yes, but to all 3 of your points.

[Marcellus]

El stovey said:

The issue is about what’s legal in this area and how the employer would view any possible deviation from the rules.

Are these rules as to what pilots can/can't do laws as in "They legally cannot do something" or guidelines as on "they should not do something"?

[the tribester]

Nanook said:

I'm a taxpayer. It's my plane.

I pay that pilot's wages don't you know!

I agree, and he can fly like that anytime he likes (you can tell I don't live there)

[Kccv23highliftcam]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Kccv23highliftcam said:

Tony1963 said:

Well, we've had a look through the Regulatory Articles this morning, especially the Flight 2000 series and, all we can see is that word "responsibility". At no point does it mention ownership.

Of course, if anyone can guide us to where the RAs say "ownership", we would be very grateful.

Has anyone got a print of a RAF officers commissioning scroll ?

I'll say this slowly.

Who owns the aircraft? HMG

When they go bombing over Iraq/Syria do they do it on a whim?, or at the bequest of HMG directed under order by their superior officers under the legitimate chain of command. Yes?

This legitimises the individual actions of state warfare. Yes?

When they take control of the the aircraft they become the sword arm of the government. Yes?

Who owns the aircraft?

You and Ginetta should make babies.

Little angry babies.