Seneca low level orbits over Hammersmith
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seneca low level orbits over Hammersmith
Have just had a Seneca over conducting half a dozen very low levels orbits over my place in Hammersmith under the 27R approach.
Low enough certainly to easily read the registration with the naked eye. Hate to guess the height but appeared lower than the frequent transiting heli's in this part of town, which are around the 1000' mark I believe.
Looks like it may have been doing a photo-shoot over a new development.
I know it will have had a superbly trained and experienced CPL/IR at the controls, is a twin from a very reputable AOC only on-station for a matter of minutes and weather conditions are benign.
But.... standing back at looking at it objectively, even as a PPL, I can't help but wonder at the safety case for this kind of activity. There aren't many "out's" for an issue at <1000' for an MEP, notwithstanding you ought to be able to struggle out of the area on one engine.
Any thoughts? Want to just ask an honest question.
Regards
BFA
Low enough certainly to easily read the registration with the naked eye. Hate to guess the height but appeared lower than the frequent transiting heli's in this part of town, which are around the 1000' mark I believe.
Looks like it may have been doing a photo-shoot over a new development.
I know it will have had a superbly trained and experienced CPL/IR at the controls, is a twin from a very reputable AOC only on-station for a matter of minutes and weather conditions are benign.
But.... standing back at looking at it objectively, even as a PPL, I can't help but wonder at the safety case for this kind of activity. There aren't many "out's" for an issue at <1000' for an MEP, notwithstanding you ought to be able to struggle out of the area on one engine.
Any thoughts? Want to just ask an honest question.
Regards
BFA
Last edited by betterfromabove; 7th Feb 2013 at 20:43.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt the risks of a sufficient catastrophe to a Seneca to cause it to make an immediate forced landing is significantly greater than the 100s of CATs over London every day, and the collateral consequences would be much less. At the weights it would be operating at performance on one engine is very good. Mind you it is no more exempt from low flying than anyone else unless it had specific authority.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ring em and ask , cant hurt. It is highly unlikely , although not impossible that the aircraft would not have have had an low flying exemption granted by the caa for this action. They are easy enough to get if the reason is a good one . Ive done a few in the past over city centres . the apperowrk is the hardest part of it . The seneca is more than capable of climbing away should it all go wrong
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An AOC aircraft on a job with a CAA exemption from Rule 5?
Your perception of 1000' in error?
Heathrow SVFR (125.625) with their incredible eye for pilots sinning not noticing?
Odd how in this thread you eventually mention working in the area of enforcements even though your profile gives an occupation of geophysicist, well outside aviation.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/441...mmersmith.html
Why not contact the operator first before posting on a public forum? after all you obviously are aware who the operator is.
SND
Your perception of 1000' in error?
Heathrow SVFR (125.625) with their incredible eye for pilots sinning not noticing?
Odd how in this thread you eventually mention working in the area of enforcements even though your profile gives an occupation of geophysicist, well outside aviation.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/441...mmersmith.html
Why not contact the operator first before posting on a public forum? after all you obviously are aware who the operator is.
SND
Last edited by Sir Niall Dementia; 7th Feb 2013 at 14:59.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot is aware of this thread. OP, any thoughts? Well, yes. Mind your own business! Nothing illegal here, move on...
Perhaps they might like to clarify though whether they are asking it from the point of view of a disinterested bystander who happens to have a PPL or whether this has anything to do with their work "on infringements" (and whatever that might be exactly?) as mentioned on the helicopter thread.
Last edited by Contacttower; 7th Feb 2013 at 15:36.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown over parliament and almost up to tower bridge in the past in a Seneca the only other aircraft was the eye in the sky Seneca.
Yes you could look down Parliament chimneys and into the busy streets below.
Pace
Yes you could look down Parliament chimneys and into the busy streets below.
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, seeing as one poster seems intent on some kind of pre-emptive personal attack, based on minimal information, it seems an immediate clarification is required.
To the rest of you, thank you for your informed initial answers.
The question which had nothing to do with infringements. I was hoping that was abundantly obvious.
The pilot, no doubt highly qualified, with all the correct permissions and paperwork, was obviously talking to Heathrow Special and doing a job asked of them.
Mine is a dispassionate query, but as a PPL, as to the safety case for such a flight, which appears to be a photo-shoot (I stand to be corrected). i.e. risk-reward.
As I mentioned, I'm not going to guess heights, but for what is a non-life saving mission, it seemed uncomfortably low. If it had been a set of orbits at start of base, I think my opinion would have been the same.
Yes, I could contact the operator out of curiosity and ask them and maybe I will, but I was hoping to gain a wider range of opinions from those who've perhaps planned and executed such a sortie.
I'm here to be educated. When we stop asking questions about some of the more challenging things we do as a community, we really are in trouble....
To the rest of you, thank you for your informed initial answers.
The question which had nothing to do with infringements. I was hoping that was abundantly obvious.
The pilot, no doubt highly qualified, with all the correct permissions and paperwork, was obviously talking to Heathrow Special and doing a job asked of them.
Mine is a dispassionate query, but as a PPL, as to the safety case for such a flight, which appears to be a photo-shoot (I stand to be corrected). i.e. risk-reward.
As I mentioned, I'm not going to guess heights, but for what is a non-life saving mission, it seemed uncomfortably low. If it had been a set of orbits at start of base, I think my opinion would have been the same.
Yes, I could contact the operator out of curiosity and ask them and maybe I will, but I was hoping to gain a wider range of opinions from those who've perhaps planned and executed such a sortie.
I'm here to be educated. When we stop asking questions about some of the more challenging things we do as a community, we really are in trouble....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a roll...
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And with all due respect, for those wondering why geophysicists might get involved with airspace infringements, stop and think about their primary cause: Spatial Awareness.
Am happy to answer any questions by PM.
Am happy to answer any questions by PM.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth would you think that a safety case would even come into it.
Even if it was a bit dodgy which i don`t think it is.
The first question would be have we got the equipment
Second would be have we got someone to fly it
Third would be how much.
Forth is will atc let us do it.
Then they would go and do it.
And if one company refused to do it, there would be another that would.
If its legal and they can make some cash off it it doesn`t matter how stupid something seems to be there will be someone out there with an aircraft and someone stupid enough to fly it.
Even if it was a bit dodgy which i don`t think it is.
The first question would be have we got the equipment
Second would be have we got someone to fly it
Third would be how much.
Forth is will atc let us do it.
Then they would go and do it.
And if one company refused to do it, there would be another that would.
If its legal and they can make some cash off it it doesn`t matter how stupid something seems to be there will be someone out there with an aircraft and someone stupid enough to fly it.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, that's tame for him.
Some of his spelling errors are truly side splitting!
Mad Jock one seems to be proof that in order to fly a plane, all that's required is the ability to fly a plane.
Some of his spelling errors are truly side splitting!
Mad Jock one seems to be proof that in order to fly a plane, all that's required is the ability to fly a plane.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least mad jock is not afraid of spiders!!! leave off !
i can't spell worth a tinkers cuss, and you should see what i do for a job... computer fixes all the unimportant mistakes :-)
On ya Jock! (thats a kiwi saying.... oh never mind)
i can't spell worth a tinkers cuss, and you should see what i do for a job... computer fixes all the unimportant mistakes :-)
On ya Jock! (thats a kiwi saying.... oh never mind)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betterfromabove
Inherently when we start flying we are uncomfortable at low level. In reality there is little difference being at 500 feet or 1000 feet terrain and weather issues aside. So in benign weather with no obstacles to avoid there is really no difference, the extra 500 feet gives no more and no less options.
Inherently when we start flying we are uncomfortable at low level. In reality there is little difference being at 500 feet or 1000 feet terrain and weather issues aside. So in benign weather with no obstacles to avoid there is really no difference, the extra 500 feet gives no more and no less options.
I recently saw a helicopter (R44 or possibly R66) flying circuits at very low level over the town I work in, which seemed odd to me especially as there weren't many landing options given the level it was flying at - not much above me (5 storeys high at the time).
I looked into it out of curiosity and it turned out to be operated by the home office, and presumably covered by the same exemption as police operations. Quite interesting. No harm in wondering what it was up to (still don't know, though I have my suspicions). And yes, it was black.
My points being... There's no harm in wondering (though not necessary to post the registration). And I believe the police operate some light twins too - electronic surveillance as I recall.
Now what I would really like to know is why there was a Chinook hovering over Newcastle a few years back, with half of the Bigg market cut off by roadblocks. Whatever the reason, that one never made it into the news.
I looked into it out of curiosity and it turned out to be operated by the home office, and presumably covered by the same exemption as police operations. Quite interesting. No harm in wondering what it was up to (still don't know, though I have my suspicions). And yes, it was black.
My points being... There's no harm in wondering (though not necessary to post the registration). And I believe the police operate some light twins too - electronic surveillance as I recall.
Now what I would really like to know is why there was a Chinook hovering over Newcastle a few years back, with half of the Bigg market cut off by roadblocks. Whatever the reason, that one never made it into the news.
Last edited by abgd; 7th Feb 2013 at 23:38.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot see what the big deal is regarding a twin operating low level over central London as long as he is not scud running and about to collide with a Crane arm concealed in the clouds.
I was shoved up the river low level a few years back by Thames Radar and went as far as Tower Bridge before being turned back. This was because of IFR traffic.
One of the most amazing experiences looking straight down the chimney stacks of Parliament and into the busy streets below.
A Seneca twin flies very happily level on one engine.
If you did something totally stupid like running out of fuel it would not be that hard to put down in the Thames.
So I am a bit puzzled with the question too?
Pace
I was shoved up the river low level a few years back by Thames Radar and went as far as Tower Bridge before being turned back. This was because of IFR traffic.
One of the most amazing experiences looking straight down the chimney stacks of Parliament and into the busy streets below.
A Seneca twin flies very happily level on one engine.
If you did something totally stupid like running out of fuel it would not be that hard to put down in the Thames.
So I am a bit puzzled with the question too?
Pace
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the OP's point that we should always be questioning the safety of what we do with planes. That I very much agree with so I take no issue with the initial question.
However in this case of twins low over London I don't see a problem provided the weather is good and the risks are mitigated by planning. I mean if you want to get aerial photos you have to use some sort of aircraft and a light twin is probably the most convenient and cost effective.
I think we all accept that some operations carry greater risks than others and that often we use aircraft for things that are perhaps riskier than flying A to B at 10,000ft or whatever but without aircraft could not be done. My view is that the risk load of what is being done here is not unacceptably high.
Throw low vis into the mix though and the risk load goes up considerably but I doubt these ops are done in bad weather.
However in this case of twins low over London I don't see a problem provided the weather is good and the risks are mitigated by planning. I mean if you want to get aerial photos you have to use some sort of aircraft and a light twin is probably the most convenient and cost effective.
I think we all accept that some operations carry greater risks than others and that often we use aircraft for things that are perhaps riskier than flying A to B at 10,000ft or whatever but without aircraft could not be done. My view is that the risk load of what is being done here is not unacceptably high.
Throw low vis into the mix though and the risk load goes up considerably but I doubt these ops are done in bad weather.
Last edited by Contacttower; 8th Feb 2013 at 09:43.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
The visibility over London yesterday morning was exceptionally good, at least it was an hour before the time of the original post.
But maybe only three engined aircraft should be allowed to fly over congested areas, and then only when four engined ones aren't available.
Two pilots, too. Preferably wearing high visibility vests.
Or alternatively, why not ban all aircraft? That should bring aviation risks down a bit.
But maybe only three engined aircraft should be allowed to fly over congested areas, and then only when four engined ones aren't available.
Two pilots, too. Preferably wearing high visibility vests.
Or alternatively, why not ban all aircraft? That should bring aviation risks down a bit.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
see the OP's point that we should always be questioning the safety of what we do with planes
I was trying to point out that commercially if its legal and there is money to be made it will be done. And even if one AOC holder deems it to high risk for their operation there will be multiple other companys willing to take the money.
Now this particular situation isn't actually anything special its just that its the first time the poster has seen it. The fisheries are operating down to 200ft everyday those boys climb to get into the circuit to land most of the day (5 hours) is spent at sub 500ft doing steep turns around fishing taking photo's of them.
Nothing dangerous about a twin flying low is not a Single engine where height equals safety. In a twin its mainly speed which equals safety so the higher you are above Vmca the thinking time you have and easier it is to handle a engine failure.