Low-flying incident at sheepdog trial
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low-flying incident at sheepdog trial
Tin hats on folks.
Someone has caused an international incident by flying low over the world sheepdog trials near Bala Lake in Wales.
Seems the MoD gave assurances that a temporary avoidance area would be in force around the site, but a fast jet flew by, circled twice and roared off.
A shepherdess from the French team is claiming the noise distracted her dog and lost it a place in the semi finals.
Someone has caused an international incident by flying low over the world sheepdog trials near Bala Lake in Wales.
Seems the MoD gave assurances that a temporary avoidance area would be in force around the site, but a fast jet flew by, circled twice and roared off.
A shepherdess from the French team is claiming the noise distracted her dog and lost it a place in the semi finals.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: preston
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sheepdog trials
you say it flew by. how far away was it? standard avoids are 2nm and 2000' agl. it may well be that he was outside the avoid, dont forget jet noise doesnt half travel. of course someone may have not plotted the notam(if one was issued) or the notam may not have been distibuted on the station, although as all fast jet sqns have alfens so they should get them. then again the fast jet may have been an ex military aircraft now flown by a civilian.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quel Con!
MOD-Plod is snooping around. Someone is going to have to buy a whole lot of dinners for the sheep-shaggers (and their dogs) to smooth this one over. Fingers crossed for whoever it was!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Trucky Field at 512ft, UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a NOTAM issued for the trials, UKLB was 2000ft and 1nm AVOID. There was also a BIDNWS issued with a 'request' for pilots to avoid overflight of the area 2nm and 2000ft agl.
Looks like someone will be in the dwang; don't envy them.
WW
Looks like someone will be in the dwang; don't envy them.
WW
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low flying
FJJP - If only your attitude was much more prevalent then this would be less likely to happen. When will it be learnt that this highly populated country of ours has to be very carefully looked after.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This (rather sad) thread reminds me of a chinook crew who not only waxed a sheepdog trial, but noticed a lot of bright lights and associated TV cameras filming the whole affair. Said crew waited for the complaints to come flooding in, but were suprised not to get any. They then watched One Man and his Dog diligently every Sunday and eventully they were rewarded with the footage of their wokka scattering the sheep that the poor shepherd was about to finish coralling into the pen. The commentator took it all very well, simply exclaiming "Aaaawww, now that IS a stroke of bad luck!"
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..That last incident was an RN Lynx - unless of course we are managing to make an annual appearance in some form or another at these events!!
The first dog was in fact acquitted since it's upbringing in a large litter in one of the poorer kennels was looked on sympathetically. Its story will now appear in a Sunday national rag.
Ho hum..
The first dog was in fact acquitted since it's upbringing in a large litter in one of the poorer kennels was looked on sympathetically. Its story will now appear in a Sunday national rag.
Ho hum..
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the issue here is one of flight safety, rather than the disruption of a sheepdog trial. If, and it's a big if, the capt in question did breach the avoidance without good cause, then it's lucky for him that, on this occasion, his straying only disturbed events on the ground.
Avoidances are there for a reason and, aside from the safety issue, the public are more likely to support our cause if we abide by the rules.
Flatus
I think you've been given duff gen. MOD-Plod don't investigate low flying complaints.
Avoidances are there for a reason and, aside from the safety issue, the public are more likely to support our cause if we abide by the rules.
Flatus
I think you've been given duff gen. MOD-Plod don't investigate low flying complaints.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Forward Fuel Tank
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
POH,
Ah well, you've put a bit of bark on the bite mentioning the Welsh see boyo.
The Welsh sheep are in fact right-handed, so their right legs are shorter than their left. This enables them to transit the Welsh hills clockwise as opposed to the mutton counter parts across the border who are left handed / anti-clockwise. A condition which at first glance, appears woolly, could very well hold the key to solving this whole dreadful affair.
In spite of being left-handed or the anti-clockwise variety, these mint sauce Bahahs, were in fact on relatively flat ground. Couple this with the fact that their natural tendency is to roll to the shorter leg, they would have been tracking south over the field. Now I could go on at length, explaining the ins and outs of anti-clockwise roll against the Centre of Buoyancy change with the down slope varible but I just don't have the time.
In brief:
FJ approaching from the south (at whatever speed), seeing large-ish earth-bound crowd, initiates right-hand orbit to get a better look.
Factor 1. Clockwise aerial presence with associated noise.
Highly trained anti-Vichy Virgin look-a-likes, preparing sneak pack attack on unsuspecting sheep dog.
Factor 2. Uneven ground roll with anti-clockwise thrust i.e. The Penguin Factor.
We have now reached what was to be the undoing of this thread.
Factor 3. They looked up
From this point all was lost in a haze of wool, dog hair, grass, wooden splinters (from whose sitting on the fence), double barrelled names and a touch of garlic.
Conclusion: If only he had approached from the north none of this would have happened and the whole affair could have been avoided
- pun what pun?
Ah well, you've put a bit of bark on the bite mentioning the Welsh see boyo.
The Welsh sheep are in fact right-handed, so their right legs are shorter than their left. This enables them to transit the Welsh hills clockwise as opposed to the mutton counter parts across the border who are left handed / anti-clockwise. A condition which at first glance, appears woolly, could very well hold the key to solving this whole dreadful affair.
In spite of being left-handed or the anti-clockwise variety, these mint sauce Bahahs, were in fact on relatively flat ground. Couple this with the fact that their natural tendency is to roll to the shorter leg, they would have been tracking south over the field. Now I could go on at length, explaining the ins and outs of anti-clockwise roll against the Centre of Buoyancy change with the down slope varible but I just don't have the time.
In brief:
FJ approaching from the south (at whatever speed), seeing large-ish earth-bound crowd, initiates right-hand orbit to get a better look.
Factor 1. Clockwise aerial presence with associated noise.
Highly trained anti-Vichy Virgin look-a-likes, preparing sneak pack attack on unsuspecting sheep dog.
Factor 2. Uneven ground roll with anti-clockwise thrust i.e. The Penguin Factor.
We have now reached what was to be the undoing of this thread.
Factor 3. They looked up
From this point all was lost in a haze of wool, dog hair, grass, wooden splinters (from whose sitting on the fence), double barrelled names and a touch of garlic.
Conclusion: If only he had approached from the north none of this would have happened and the whole affair could have been avoided
- pun what pun?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Here
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact 1: this shouldn't have happened.
Fact 2: it did, but will serve as an (obvious) reminder to all aircrew of the (obvious) repercussions of infringing NOTAMs. Especially twice.
Opinion: there are a number of reasons why this could have happened, but at the end of the day this lad will probably be putting his life on the line in hotter places than Blighty in the not-too-distant-future, the Sun will be calling him a hero, public opinion may well turn against him if the war becomes drawn out, etc.
BOTTOM LINE: pilots like this are earning our freedom, and some French **** is miffed because her pooch stuffed a bloody SHEEP-DOG competition. Well, I'm sorry Mme Zob, but a sense of reality and scale wouldn't go amiss here.
Rant out.
Fact 2: it did, but will serve as an (obvious) reminder to all aircrew of the (obvious) repercussions of infringing NOTAMs. Especially twice.
Opinion: there are a number of reasons why this could have happened, but at the end of the day this lad will probably be putting his life on the line in hotter places than Blighty in the not-too-distant-future, the Sun will be calling him a hero, public opinion may well turn against him if the war becomes drawn out, etc.
BOTTOM LINE: pilots like this are earning our freedom, and some French **** is miffed because her pooch stuffed a bloody SHEEP-DOG competition. Well, I'm sorry Mme Zob, but a sense of reality and scale wouldn't go amiss here.
Rant out.
As a mere PPL I wouldn't presume to question NOTAMs and 'avoids'.
But isn't there a difference between a technical infringement of a NOTAM imposed for PR/noise reasons and something which genuinely poses a real flight safety hazard?
Is there any suggestion that what this poor clot did was actually dangerous?
I do think it's to your great credit, as military aviators, that you are not gathering around and 'protecting' or condoning such breaches by 'one of your own' since it's a stark demonstration in your belief in doing the right thing and playing by the rules. I'm not being sarcastic - it's far from the kind of covering-up that happens in other professions.
But isn't there a difference between a technical infringement of a NOTAM imposed for PR/noise reasons and something which genuinely poses a real flight safety hazard?
Is there any suggestion that what this poor clot did was actually dangerous?
I do think it's to your great credit, as military aviators, that you are not gathering around and 'protecting' or condoning such breaches by 'one of your own' since it's a stark demonstration in your belief in doing the right thing and playing by the rules. I'm not being sarcastic - it's far from the kind of covering-up that happens in other professions.
Pee-Rick,
Are you sure of your FACTS? I hear rumour that it was actually above 2000 ft and therefore outside the NOTAM.
Perhaps more time could be spent coming up with more effective avoid dimensions, 2000 ft vertically is hardly going to prevent noise.
Are you sure of your FACTS? I hear rumour that it was actually above 2000 ft and therefore outside the NOTAM.
Perhaps more time could be spent coming up with more effective avoid dimensions, 2000 ft vertically is hardly going to prevent noise.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Here
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
motionlotion: no, not alright, but hardly worthy of the comments "He's a pillock and deserves everything that's thrown at him" and "this highly populated country of ours has to be very carefully looked after" (this last one's particularly ironic, donchathink?). It's just a shame that to err is criminal, when our boys and girls are trying to do as professional a job as possible. Sure, if it's negligence, throw the book at him/her.
Background Bleat: no, only he/she and whoever's watched the HUD tape can be sure of the FACTS. 1999ft = career diminishing, 2001ft = bollocking, not that it would make the slightest difference to Mme Questcequecestlefcuk's pooch. I assume by "more effective avoid dimensions" you mean "larger". Less airspace = more infringements.
Background Bleat: no, only he/she and whoever's watched the HUD tape can be sure of the FACTS. 1999ft = career diminishing, 2001ft = bollocking, not that it would make the slightest difference to Mme Questcequecestlefcuk's pooch. I assume by "more effective avoid dimensions" you mean "larger". Less airspace = more infringements.