I understand why he decided to demonstrate, but they should have thrown the book at him.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter_Tower_Bridge_incident

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 20223 yr by martin-w

He did pay the price as I understand it.

 

What would you suggest they do to him? Execute him? Good grief! He lost all flying privileges and rank.

1 hour ago, BillW said:

What would you suggest they do to him? Execute him? Good grief! He lost all flying privileges and rank.

 

He flew UNDER Tower Bridge. Yes, he was an experienced pilot but he endangered life by flying at ultra low level in a populated area. Without authorisation of course. He also circled the houses of Parliament, a breach of security. 

The only reason he was simply kicked out of the RAF and not jailed was political. 

"We better not let you fly again" seems insufficient for an illegal action that risked lives.

The hundreds of congratulation letters from fellow RAF pilots were a verdict on his actions.

John Morris comment on the video: "He inadvertently started my flying career, he passed low over my school by the river in Battersea, I was already an aviation nut but this tipped me over the edge, I was 8."

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

He flew UNDER Tower Bridge. Yes, he was an experienced pilot but he endangered life by flying at ultra low level in a populated area

I would not agree that he endangered life by his actions. It was spectacular, but carried out with great precision. 

Al Pollock was not only an experienced pilot, he was also exceptionally skilled. I write this from personal experience, as he was my flight comander during my own advanced flying training course on the Folland Gnat. He was certainly adventurous, but that was considered normal in the RAF in those days. Many of the more senior officers had flown during the war and had a very different attitude to todays risk averse population.  Al was a very capable fighter pilot, with several operational tours over quite a few years, in the low level ground attack role, which requires fine judgement and accurate flying. It was the job we all wanted, but few made the standard.

In terms of punishment, losing the remaining years of an active flying career is pretty severe for any RAF pilot.

Ah come on, I think that was one heck of a stunt and amazing flying. He should not have lost his privileges'.

10 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

I would not agree that he endangered life by his actions. It was spectacular, but carried out with great precision. 

 

I disagree and that isn't born out by the facts Mr. Biggles. It doesn't matter how skilled you are, low level flying, especially in a populated area, is highly dangerous. 

The photograph you see below is a recreation of the incident. But the creator of the image was in close contact with Pollock. Initially, when creating the image, he placed the Hunter dead center between the upper pedestrian walkways and the lower road traffic deck. Pollock however, insisted that this was wrong and that he was precariously close to the upper walkways. In fact, as he approached he saw the crossing traffic included a double decker bus, so he quickly pitched up as close to the upper walkway as he dared and for a heart stopping moment thought the Hunters tailfin would collide.

 

10 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

In terms of punishment, losing the remaining years of an active flying career is pretty severe for any RAF pilot

 

Actually it was court-martial that was on the cards. The only reason that didn't happen was because there were politicians who opposed the RAF spending cuts and used this incident to their advantage by supporting him. The government didn't want to draw more attention to the spending cuts so they had him discharged on medical grounds rather than a court-marital. The politics at the time saved him from a more severe punishment, possibly including jail time.

Now I know that in the 60's pilots got away with more than they can today, but that doesn't make his actions acceptable or laudable. In my opinion, and I would think its common sense, we can't have pilots that fly highly expensive, sophisticated war machines,  zooming off on a joy ride, buzzing the Houses on Parliament three times because they don't like the Prime Misters defense cuts, and then flying between the two decks of tower bridge with their aircrafts tail fin narrowly missing the pedestrian walkway. 

I expected many here to disagree, given we are all biased aviation enthusiasts and it appears some ex RAF, but I expected at least ONE person to see my point. 😁

Its not just the risk to human life of course, for example the innocent passengers in the bus below, or the pedestrians on the walkway, its also the loss of an expensive asset paid for by the tax payer and potential damage to a Grade 1 listed structure that was built between 1886 and 1894. 

 

https://www.aerialcombat.co.uk/2016/04/seven-seconds-the-tower-bridge-hawker-hunter-incident.html

 

Edited October 25, 20223 yr by martin-w

10 hours ago, Fielder said:

The hundreds of congratulation letters from fellow RAF pilots were a verdict on his actions

 

Well yes, those fellow RAF pilots were about as biased as its possible to be. They obviously supported one of their own and obviously didn't want the cuts to the defense budget to impact the RAF. That doesn't make Pollocks actions right or laudable or safe.

Now you and I would love being on a bus with a Hunter flying a few feet over us at 350 knots... but now spare a thought for any elderly people with health issues on the bus that aren't enthusiastic about fast jets.

Edited October 25, 20223 yr by martin-w

What is the point of this thread?

This took place the best part of sixty years ago.

Seems a bit late to be outraged by it….

19 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

What is the point of this thread?

This took place the best part of sixty years ago.

Seems a bit late to be outraged by it….

• It's in general chat so pretty much any topic is up for discussion
• is there a limit on how far back we can discuss topics?
• not sure anyone on here was outraged, Martin raised the topic and expressed what he thought should have been done, I agree with him. 
  
  He may well have been a brilliant pilot but what he did was irresponsible and probably illegal, which I hope he would have known better.
  Experienced pilots make mistakes as the Shoham air crash showed. In that instance the pilot had 12000+ hours and had been an instructor for the RAF.

11 minutes ago, BrianT said:

is there a limit on how far back we can discuss topics?

Yes. Clearly, it's 16th December 1773, as our American cousins don't think anything of note ever happened before then.
And, conversely, no topics about events after 23:59 on 31st December 1999. That is because everything that has happened since then just proves that we are living in a simulation...  😆
[/sarcasm]

It was a risky manoeuvre, no doubt. The footage of him coming out of the roll over one of the airfields is marginal also.
https://youtu.be/Gavx54dKYvI?t=234

As for punishment:

13 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

losing the remaining years of an active flying career is pretty severe for any RAF pilot.

21 hours ago, BillW said:

He lost all flying privileges and rank

He lost his military career and no mention of a civilian flying career after, which is severe for a pilot.
That said, he benefitted from being the first person to pull such a stunt. I don't think any subsequent pilot attempting likewise would have been so fortunate, with the senior ranks and politicians seeking lengthy custodial sentences to deter stunts being seen as legitimate expressions of protest.

3 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

What is the point of this thread?

This took place the best part of sixty years ago.

Seems a bit late to be outraged by it….

 

This point of this thread is as stated in the title, namely that I had no idea this incident occurred and found it fascinating that it did from a historical perspective. My opinion of what the consequences should be in my opening post was but a few words, merely a side note, not outrage. Others chimed in and disagreed with how/whether he should have been punished and a debate regarding that began.

Many topics in the Hangar Forum don't have a profound, contemporarily relevant point to make. If we don't find them of interesting then we don't bother to engae with them and we pay attention to something else instead.  

 

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

It was a risky manoeuvre, no doubt. The footage of him coming out of the roll over one of the airfields is marginal also

 

I find myself wondering what would happen if a fast jet pilot decided to protest in the US, and attempted a few low level passes over the Whitehouse. 😁 I guess the missile system in the vicinity would get a workout. 😲

Edited October 25, 20223 yr by martin-w

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

It doesn't matter how skilled you are, low level flying, especially in a populated area, is highly dangerous. 

Actually Martin, that is not an entirely accurate assumption. Low flying, of itself, is not particularly dangerous. It is other factors like marginal weather conditions and mountainous terrain, or lack of perspective, over water or the desert, which make it dangerous. Those of us who specialised in low level operations all had moments, under those conditions, when we realised it could have gone very badly, and for some it did. By comparison, flying low over a populated area, in reasonable conditions, when people are not shooting at you, is not usually considered dangerous. Think of the eastbound approach to London City, or the old Kai Tak approach. Of course, extra factors like flying under a bridge are somewhat different.

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

Well yes, those fellow RAF pilots were about as biased as its possible to be. They obviously supported one of their own and obviously didn't want the cuts to the defense budget to impact the RAF. That doesn't make Pollocks actions right or laudable or safe.

I think you might be surprised at how objectively RAF aircrew viewed any incident. There was little evidence of simply 'supporting one of our own' in my experience. We could be very critical of our colleagues in many situations. There was certainly widespread opposition to the way defence cuts were being implimented and because of that, there was support for what was viewed as a couragious demonstration of the general feeling that we were not allowed to express.