17 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

Low flying, of itself, is not particularly dangerous

 

 "Particularly" is defined as higher degree than average. And I think its fairly obvious that flying low level at 40 feet is far more dangerous than average and than flying at 20,000, 30,000 feet etc. At 350 knots (the speed of the Hunter) and low level there is limited time to react, often a split second, and a greater danger of hitting power lines or any object on the ground. This is obvious. 

 

17 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

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

 

Its "relatively" more dangerous. Relatively more dangerous than flying at 20,000 feet with no chance of hitting a pylon, power lines or anything else on the ground. There's far more time to react at 20,000 feet at 350 knots than 40 feet at 350 knots. 

The Kai Tak approach wasn't at 350 knots and buzzing the House of Commons. And Kai Tac was ranked as one of the most dangerous airports in the world, partly due to the maneuvering required for the checkerboard approach but also the proximity to buildings. Its fairly obvious that there is relatively  greater danger inherent in very low altitude than higher altitude. 

 

17 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

We could be very critical of our colleagues in many situations.

 

But weren't when Pollock's Hunter tail fin narrowly missed the upper walkway of Tower Bridge, not to mention all of the other obvious transgressions. 

 

17 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

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.

 

Precisely! 

All flight simulator pilots know that it is perfectly safe to fly through Tower Bridge. You just have to make sure that CRASH DETECTION is turned off.

Another political thread.

Another argument created for the sake of an argument. As if there's not enough to be concerned about in today's world.

 

Bill W

Methinks Martin doesn't have a lot to do.

5 minutes ago, Ron Attwood said:

Methinks Martin doesn't have a lot to do.

Isn't that why we are all here - because we don't have a lot to do? Or, like me, I have a lot to do but I just can't find the motivation.

26 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

Isn't that why we are all here - because we don't have a lot to do? Or, like me, I have a lot to do but I just can't find the motivation.

So very true. 👍

On 10/25/2022 at 10:08 AM, martin-w said:

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

Here's some more highly dangerous low flying involving London landmarks and a certain bridge. With the blessing and active participation of HM The Queen. 

Of course neither the RAF, nor Her Majesty were the first to fly under Tower Bridge.

Oh yeah, why not spread the joy.....or synthetic angst

 

From the video about 4:20:

Quote

In 1982, Pollock was fully exonerated.

The video also mentions exactly why he did it (agree with him or not, it's up to you) and that his reason was to be kept quiet.  I guess he made his point, knowing fully what would happen when he landed.  Talk about taking one for the team.

Hook

Edited October 27, 20223 yr by LHookins

18 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

Another political thread.

 

Its not a political thread. But like most topics there can be a political aspect. The moderators will warn us if they think its too political. In the mean time we can help them out by avoiding that aspect.

17 hours ago, Ron Attwood said:

Methinks Martin doesn't have a lot to do.

 

Plenty to do. Which is why I posted 21 hours ago. Worth remembering that my opinion on the degree of severity that this individuals punishment should involve was but a few words and not the primary reason I posted this. I was unaware that this has occurred and found it interesting from a historical perspective. I assumed others would likewise be unaware of this event and also find it interesting. I wasn't prepared for the fact that his punishment would be the thing that elicited the response from others. Maybe I was naïve. Not an issue though as long as everyone is respectful and doesn't insult each other. 

18 hours ago, BillW said:

Another argument created for the sake of an argument. As if there's not enough to be concerned about in today's world.

 

Bill W

 

What argument? There is no argument. Its a friendly discussion between aviation enthusiasts with differing opinions. Nobody is being unpleasant to others. 

And no, as I've said a few times now, and its even in the title, I was totally unaware that this event occurred and found it interesting from a historical aviation perspective. I assumed there would be others who were unaware it had happened and also find it interesting. 

I briefly mentioned that I believed his punishment too be too lenient, and it seems that its that opinion that has elicited a response from others. So be it, I find other forum members opinions on this interesting. 

What could become an argument though is false accusations, so better we avoid that. 🙄

Edited October 27, 20223 yr by martin-w

16 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Of course neither the RAF, nor Her Majesty were the first to fly under Tower Bridge.

 

Yep, slow, officially sanctioned, bridge evacuated and not at 350 knots with the tail fin narrowly missing the upper deck. 😏

The Bonanza fly through was to recreate and honor the Mustang pilot that chased a BF-109 under the Eifel Tower I believe. A ton of paperwork to make it happen apparently.  

Edited October 27, 20223 yr by martin-w

Spam, lovely spam... I really enjoy looking at "Unread content" these times of the day. Not.