C'mon, own up

[Hamishdylan]

Glad someone's still got all their fingers; just a big chip on the shoulder is enough for one person to have to bear...

[Guest]

Stop talking to me then!?!? I was done with this a long time ago until i see your notification popping up. 

[Hamishdylan]

Sorry I thought you had gone off to paint an Airfix model or something suitably mature...

[Steve]

Bugger, I've run out of popcorn. 

[shobbers]

11 minutes ago, Steve said:

Bugger, I've run out of popcorn. 

I agree.. This has been one of the best posts on the forum....

[alan_k]

I have a French paramotoring license (required over there) and flew in a licensed environment for many years.

Still didn't stop shit happening or idiots doing stupid things.

[Hamishdylan]

Gone a bit quiet now.  Anyone else got fresh bait?

[Scott Harcourt]

Wow, add Jesus and crumple zones and you have classic Super Dell rants...... Does this make me part of the baying mob?

[alan_k]

Of course, and welcome 

[cas_whitmore]

[gordon_dunn]

Makes you wonder through-  if a PPG pilot can fly within 50ft of the US president, towing a banner.... what other things could they be capable of?  My mind dreads to think of the possibilities.... I dare say others are too...
Stricter regulation is not the answer, but more severe penalties are going to be a deterrent.   Greenpeace have let themselves down  big time for this, not that I had much respect for them anyway in the first place.

 

[Guest]

Dylan, busy cracking on with my life mate, you should do the same and wind your neck in. Do yourself a favour. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Guest

[Hamishdylan]

But not too busy with your life to keep biting though.  Paint dry yet?

[Dave M]

Jeez is this guy going to give up...lol

[Patrick1]

 

[gordon_dunn]

Nice one!

 

[admin (Simon W)]

As requested by the poster. He is no longer here. 

SW. 

 

[poz]

I'm afraid this is going to be a long and probably controversial post. More popcorn required for this one.

I've been flying PPG for nearly 10 years now, with a lot of air time (Southern Spain) 1500+ hrs, and GA (Cessna's and 'A' class kit planes) for 25 years.

Unfortunately, I have a medical, neurological condition which prevents me from conforming to rules that are set by desk jockeys, rules that are not based on any informed analysis or common sense. As a policeman (retired) this did me no favours with the bosses as I tended to let everyone off, well those that broke rules that I believed were politically motivated, for example possession/consumption of cannabis, stupid non dangerous motoring offences; One day we'd be told to hammer the motorist with no discretion, and the next we'd be told to leave the motorist alone (wtf). My take was always stop them, bollock them and send them on their way without assaulting their wallet. 

I preferred to spend my time trying to stop crimes against individuals (mostly unsuccessfully thanks to a judicial system hell bent on defending criminals  ).

Going back to flying. I consider the skill of 'risk assessment' in any given situation a dying art, courtesy of an agenda driven 'nanny state' mentality that has all but been completely accepted. Perceived health and safety infringement has now made any form of risk taking largely frowned upon. This (IMO) is a huge mistake as FUNDAMENTALLY young men need to take risk... in order to have the nerve to go and hunt the woolly mammoth. The truly devastating result of this is just starting to show. "Men in the UK aged 20 to 49 are more likely to die from suicide than any other cause of death". https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a9202/britain-male-suicide-crisis/

Sorry, I digress again, back to flying. If I am honest, I can probably say that I break the 500ft rule with virtually every flight that I make, in that I will probably fly my 25kg back pack with 10 litres of gas at 20 mph closer than 500ft to some or other building, structure, person, vehicle).  However, I can confidently say I have never broken this rule in my 1000kg Cessna with 188litres of Avgas travelling at 120mph , because that would be really dangerous, and alarming to 100% of those who would witness it.

Those of you that think there is no difference between the 2 because the law is the law, should probably stop reading this now, as we are NEVER going to see eye to eye. But, whilst flying my PPG I have never broken my own risk assessment rules, which at any one time preserve the safety of any person, vehicle, building, structure.

I suppose l liken a PPG to a bicycle (+ a few kg's). If it hits you, yeah it's going to hurt, but in all likelihood you would only be coming down if the prop was no longer spinning, and your speed during a flare would be similar to a bicycle, so my common sense says that it should not be subject to the same rules as a Cessna. 

I know I started this thread by saying this act by Green Peace will not help our sport, and I stand by this statement, not because I believe there was any danger to anyone on the ground, but because it was an act that was so high profile it could motivate some high level desk jockey trying to make a name for himself, or even trying to justify his high paid position, to sit up and feel compelled to take action and create legislation for the wrong reasons. 

As humans, we are manipulatable to the point that we are programable to think and believe virtually anything they want us to believe, by instilling fear, a need to conform and the need to fit in. However, some people; those that understand this, and wish to see the real picture,  tend to put their faith in mathematics. They look at the numbers, and then ask themselves; ACTUALLY what are the chances of this bad outcome happening. If it's say 1 in 10,000, imagine 10,000 table tennis balls in a big bowl. One has a red dot. What are the real chances of pulling out that red dotted ball? 

I've gone off at another tangent....No I'm not stoned, I've just got so many thoughts on the subject 

In some respects, this modern day fear of taking risks has had an unexpected but really positive impact on our sport, as it keeps the numbers low. Danny B is a good example of this. PPG was obviously too scary for him (I get that), but he felt the need to create this poor story about giving up because of other pilots (bless).

This has the effect of keeping the numbers low enough to be uninteresting to politicians, unlike Drones which require no risk to be taken by the pilots, just a bit of cash, and therefore have sold in the billions making them a genuine target for governments around the world to create heavy handed legislation, and demonise drone pilots.

The response I get flying low along the beach in my PPG armed with my massive resolution Nikon D800 and 300mm lens compared to the response I get flying over the same beach with my Phantom 4 Pro is laughable. One takes wide angle pictures where you can just make out that there are people on the beach, whereas the other can zoom in to a sunburnt belly button. They wave and smile at the PPG and confront and get angry at me for flying the drone. Programmed by the self-serving bureaucrats they'll never meet.

Rant over. 

Dan

 

 

Edited July 17, 2018 by poz

[Patrick1]

Put another way, rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools..?

Good post which probably sums up how a lot of us feel.

Edited July 17, 2018 by Patrick1

[Steve]

Brilliant post poz, no popcorn required. 

[AndyB]

Brill post Dan. 

As regards the Greenpeace thing I came to the conclusion that what should happen is very simple.

1. There was a NOTAM creating a legal no fly zone over the Trump area.

2. One idiot decided to DELIBERATELY fly into that no fly zone.

3. The risk (as Dan nicely puts it) to anyone was small, but the perceived risk of terrorism was very high.

4. The idiot should be fined and told not to do it again. 

[gordon_dunn]

3 hours ago, Patrick1 said:

Put another way, rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools..?

Good post which probably sums up how a lot of us feel.

Indeed--  a quote from Douglas Bader himself..   Classic!!!

[Hamishdylan]

Nice one Dan - lots of threads of discussion which we could take further, and it shows that this isn't just a simple black and white discussion but one which requires a bit of judgement and consideration (the flying/risk/regulation/legislation piece - not the deliberate and public rule breaking in order to make a high profile political protest).

I couldn't agree more about the need for young men (in particular) to take risks, thrill seeking is almost hard wired into the species.  But a lot of that can be addressed by perceived  risk - something feeling risky or fear-inducing but actually can be objectively quite safe, like bungy jumping (helmet on in case I offend the bungy jumping community)!  

To get good at real-world risk assessment people need to be exposed to a modicum of hazard so they can make sensible decisions about the actual risk.  So when the time was right I gave my youngster a sharp penknife, showed him how to use it safely and then waited for the inevitable learning curve (with some elastoplast handy just in case).  Sure, he cut himself a few times whilst he was learning but he is now in his late twenties, has all his fingers and a sensible regard for sharp things; he also isn't afraid of using knives, scissors, saws, etc in order to get things done.  He doesn't tolerate blunt tools which IMHO cause more accidents than sharp ones.

In our sport, young men tend to be seriously outnumbered by chaps of more mature years.  One would hope that life experience(plus good training) has equipped them with the decision making skills to know the difference between hazard, perceived and actual risk.  If anything, we always need more practice in making good decisions (dare I say airmanship?) rather more legislation - keeping engaged in discussions such as this one certainly helps.

[alan_k]

Yes, dare say airmanship, that is an excellent word that has been in use since the early 1900's, since the birth of aviation.

[poz]

2 hours ago, Hamishdylan said:

Nice one Dan - lots of threads of discussion which we could take further, and it shows that this isn't just a simple black and white discussion but one which requires a bit of judgement and consideration (the flying/risk/regulation/legislation piece - not the deliberate and public rule breaking in order to make a high profile political protest).

I couldn't agree more about the need for young men (in particular) to take risks, thrill seeking is almost hard wired into the species.  But a lot of that can be addressed by perceived  risk - something feeling risky or fear-inducing but actually can be objectively quite safe, like bungy jumping (helmet on in case I offend the bungy jumping community)!  

To get good at real-world risk assessment people need to be exposed to a modicum of hazard so they can make sensible decisions about the actual risk.  So when the time was right I gave my youngster a sharp penknife, showed him how to use it safely and then waited for the inevitable learning curve (with some elastoplast handy just in case).  Sure, he cut himself a few times whilst he was learning but he is now in his late twenties, has all his fingers and a sensible regard for sharp things; he also isn't afraid of using knives, scissors, saws, etc in order to get things done.  He doesn't tolerate blunt tools which IMHO cause more accidents than sharp ones.

In our sport, young men tend to be seriously outnumbered by chaps of more mature years.  One would hope that life experience(plus good training) has equipped them with the decision making skills to know the difference between hazard, perceived and actual risk.  If anything, we always need more practice in making good decisions (dare I say airmanship?) rather more legislation - keeping engaged in discussions such as this one certainly helps.

Excellent post Hamishdylan. 

It's so true about the 'perceived' risk, and it also works the other way round too. For example, cars are so much more dangerous than people perceive them to be. I've lost count how many torn apart bodies, and the inevitable and devastating aftermath, I've had to deal with over the years. Mostly due to drivers feeling safe in their vehicles as a result of widely marketed 'safety' features aimed at flogging cars. The trouble is, when a human body decelerates from 60mph to zero in 3ft, human organs obey the rules of physics, not the latest Ford advertising campaign

Now, instead of an airbag in front of you if they put a huge spike on the steering wheel, I bet people wouldn't drive so fast: as you say, it's all about perceived danger.