The Seaside Flyer 5043 24th May

It was mentioned in the buffet coach by one of the VTS volunteers that someone had "asked permission" to fly alongside in a light aircraft to take photos between Crewe and Chester and that is what duly happened. Don't know why they "asked permission" unless they are going to use the photos for publication, but even then .....

 

The aircraft offered to film some pacing shots of 5043 in motion at speed from the air for us to use as a promo tool.

I believe they did the same for the Great Britain.

Is there a problem?

 

But was it at what l understand is the recommended height for an aircraft of it's type?

 

Decent enough trip from VT and everything they could control, just a shame the weather didn't play ball and largely decimated events in Llandudno, least that's my excuse for sitting in a pub for over 3 hours

 

No problem here, though would love to see some of the footage, when made available.

 

I can personally say that I was not the least bit impressed with the activities of this aircraft yesterday. In my view it was too low at times and far too close to a train carrying over 300 passengers and travelling at speeds up to 75 mph. We have a number of photographs of this plane taken by members of the support crew from the train, which we estimate to show the aircraft well below 500 feet altitude, indeed one could almost be an air to air shot as it is almost broadside. On return to work on Tuseday, I shall be giving consideration to reporting the matter to the CAA, and can say that as far as I am concerned we shall not be using any material from this source for publicity or promotion, as I would not want Vintage Trains to be seen to condone what we view as a degree of irresponsibility in the way that this was undertaken. If anyone has taken photographs showing the plane in proximity to the train I would be grateful if you would forward them to us on office@vintagetrains.co.uk . This is not the first time that we have had this sort of thing, although it could not be said to be common, but together with an idiot flying alongside us on Harringworth viaduct, this is about the worst such incident and is something that needs to be discouraged when performed in this manner.

By now some of you will have seen my comments in Steam Railway on the growing use of drones and their dangers in the wrong hands. This whole subject was a source of discussion during the break in Llandudno, and there was a suggestion that what we needed was a turret mounting 4 Brownings in the rear of the BSO.

Regards
Bob

 

Minimum flying height is 1000' above built up areas, 500' over rural areas. A pilot can't be expected to keep rising and dropping for every farmhouse. A friend is a first officer for a large airline, and I've asked him what size of settlement does the 1000' limit apply. He's going to get back to me, but he said it's a fairly subjective thing.

I've done aerial photography once, of the Torbay Express. Flew at 500 over the river and sea from Powderham, but we had to climb to 1000' over Teignmouth and Shaldon bridge, then drop back to 500 along the Teign estuary.

 

Wouldn't that nice dome on a Great Western Tender be a good cover for a Surface to Air Missile, Bob?! Or maybe the tracking radar (the WiFi on Thalys TGV sets looks a lot like the trackers for Sea Dart on a Type 42 destroyer).

I have posted this before, but, as the only half decent bit of Photoshop I have done, make no apology for posting again - another option:



Seriously, I seem to recall that helicopter can, if flying directly above a steam loco, cause some potentially nasty blow back, and presumably a large drone close up or the slipstream of an aircraft too close could cause similar effects. Coupled with how quickly things 500ft apart can come together at speed (just think hiow far away from each other is classed as a "near miss" for two aircraft by the CAA), and this is actually no joking matter.

Steven

 

Am i correct in thinking that if you fly under 500 feet you avoid radar contact ?

 

Bob - Can we at least get the opinion / assurances from the pilot before we condem them on a public forum!

 

Not a lot of assurance that you can get. Have a look at the attached photo of the plane flying alongside the train at low speed, flaps apparently deployed and flying a fairly high angle of attack (apparently not much less than that required for a perfect 3 point landing), all indicating low airspeed and consequential reduction in control responses. Given that this was taken from the train I will leave all to decide if it was at a minimum altitude or seperation of 500 feet. Whatever, I have been told by a passenger who has held a private pilots licence that this aircraft crossed over the train at a height he estimated to be no more than 15o to 200 feet. No plane should be flying over a loco at that height, particularly when I am on the footplate. At the height and seperation apparent there is not much room for manoevre if something goes wrong with the plane.

If anyone wishes to see the full rules, low flying rules are covered under Rule 5 of The Rules of the Air which are enacted under article 84 of the ANO (Air Navigation Order 2000)


.

 

No low flying aircraft featured in this video, just a lovely sounding Castle.

 

What a Fokker!!

Cheers

Alan

 

What a spotter!!

Bob

 

depends what zoom ratio was used on the camera, there is nothing shown on the ground to compare with. general rule is if u can read id numbers on plane with naked eye, then it is too low

 

I could from coach H, didn't think nothing of it at the time as I know sweet FA about aviation.

 

As Austin suggested, same aircraft as that at Cefn Mawr last month. Post 20 on the link below may be of interest...

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?118590-Dornier-G-BMFG

And quite a poor video from 28th April.