For those who like Aircraft pictures

[woodenhead]

Interesting day for the sky over Manchester - Lancaster flew over around 1pm and then later in the afternoon as I was enjoying a beer in a beer garden in Lymm a silver Vampire flew over me.

[Jeff Smith]

Doesn't, or did the RAF have a vintage jet flight?

[rob D2]

9 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Doesn't, or did the RAF have a vintage jet flight?

Yes, it’s called “ the red arrows “ ;)

 

Seriously though, there used to be the “ vintage pair “ I think it was called , and I’m not sure if it was RAF but it was a vampire and meteor. That ended when they collided and half the crew was killed - must have been mid 90s.

[burgundy]

The accident was in May 1986 and both aircraft were lost.

CFS History 8 (centralflyingschool.org.uk)

Best wishes 

Eric 

[Flying Pig]

10 hours ago, Jeff Smith said:

Doesn't, or did the RAF have a vintage jet flight?

 

Identity of currently flying Vampires discussed on the previous page.

[BMacdermott]

Post deleted - trying to sort out link!

 

Brian

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by BMacdermott

[BMacdermott]

Hello everyone

 

Interesting short video from CAA.

 

Brian

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW1QLgEg-gw

 

[Lochgorm]

57 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello everyone

 

Interesting short video from CAA.

 

Brian

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW1QLgEg-gw

 

What a terrible video that explains little.  For example on a QNH based approach the rad alt will always under-read the pressure altimeter.  Really are there so many idiots who do not set airfield pressure settings when making an approach because they are a danger to themselves and other aircraft in the vicinity?  I find the need to make this video very worrying.

Charlie

[BMacdermott]

Hello Lochgorm

 

It was part of a wider CAA email which also contained the items below.

 

Brian

 

Safety Notice 2023/003

CAA Safety Files podcast (Episode 6)

[BMacdermott]

Hello Lochgorm

 

It should also be taken in context with the initial report of the actual incident at Paris.

 

Brian

[St Enodoc]

49 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Lochgorm

 

It should also be taken in context with the initial report of the actual incident at Paris.

 

Brian

4 reds should have been a clue.

[BMacdermott]

Hello John

 

As noted, the video should be taken in context with the actual incident which was in total cloud cover. Alarms went off in the Tower and these were missed apparently.

 

Brian

[rob D2]

Alex Rattray ... top bloke , my old boss .

 

Its highlighting the important points , which are - check rad alt when it activates against baro . I've taken to saying " radalt - sensible " when this happens .

 

But most importantly the fact there is no " terrain terrain pull up " GPWS warning as you are in landing configuration , merely a " too low terrain " , which is a caution not a warning .

[rob D2]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

4 reds should have been a clue.

No good in cloud 

[rob D2]

3 hours ago, Lochgorm said:

What a terrible video that explains little.  For example on a QNH based approach the rad alt will always under-read the pressure altimeter.  Really are there so many idiots who do not set airfield pressure settings when making an approach because they are a danger to themselves and other aircraft in the vicinity?  I find the need to make this video very worrying.

Charlie

The threat is a misset QNH , as cross checks of distance v height won't pick that up . 

[St Enodoc]

46 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello John

 

As noted, the video should be taken in context with the actual incident which was in total cloud cover. Alarms went off in the Tower and these were missed apparently.

 

Brian

Fair enough. I was going purely on what I saw (and heard) on the video. In fact, as an ex-PPL (VFR only), I think that the PAPIs would have been foremost in my mind.

 

1 minute ago, rob D2 said:

The threat is a misset QNH , as cross checks of distance v height won't pick that up . 

Interesting. Again, based on my extremely limited experience, I would have found the need to subtract mentally the field elevation from the QNH at a time of high workload would also be a risk. We always used the QFE on final.

[BMacdermott]

Hello again

 

Reading the (trustworthy) reports, it seems that the Tower gave an incorrect QNH which the crew accepted. It seems that - on the first approach - the crew realised something was amiss and instigated a go-around. They missed the ground by about 6 feet!

 

Brian

[jjb1970]

Some pictures from Bangkok today.

 

[newbryford]

Saw a few Dutch choppers (ooh err Missus) over work (Settle, N Yorks) today.

4x Chinooks, 2x Lynx and couple of Apaches (not in that shot)

Travelling north-south - last tracked over the southern Pennine hills

(I didn't get a good pic, but ta to my mate for the pic over Clitheroe)

 

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by newbryford

[PMP]

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

 

Interesting. Again, based on my extremely limited experience, I would have found the need to subtract mentally the field elevation from the QNH at a time of high workload would also be a risk. We always used the QFE on final.

The Paris event was interesting in many respects. The crew (and another) were given wrong QNH by controller, and didn’t notice mismatch between that and broadcast ATIS. Made the approach with incorrect setting in ‘poor weather’ and the controller hadn’t selected appropriate lighting configuration either. On the second approach the error hadn’t been noticed by either party until controller picked up the aircraft had descended early and queried it, fortunately the crew had just got visual and continued to land visually. 

Most Uk civil airfields now use QNH as default pressure setting, on first contact (particularly on an RNP approach) I’ve always given the QNH, there’s no requirement to do so, but it ensures the crew are prompted to cross check correct pressure setting.

Edited June 1, 2023 by PMP
Spellin

[5944]

 

Not the best shot in the world (the rest are on the camera) but six Merlins taxying up and down the runway at East Kirkby on Monday was rather pleasant! Shame they weren't out on the runway a bit later for the BBMF display with the Lancaster, a Spitfire and a Hurricane.

[55020]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

The Paris event was interesting in many respects. The crew (and another) were given wrong QNH by controller, and didn’t notice mismatch between that and broadcast ATIS. Made the approach with incorrect setting in ‘poor weather’ and the controller hadn’t selected appropriate lighting configuration either. On the second approach the error hadn’t been noticed by either party until controller picked up the aircraft had descended early and queried it, fortunately the crew had just got visual and continued to land visually. 

Most Uk civil airfields now use QNH as default pressure setting, on first contact (particularly on an RNP approach) I’ve always given the QNH, there’s no requirement to do so, but it ensures the crew are prompted to cross check correct pressure setting.

 

And we have to thank our UK government for not continuing to pay for European SBAS (EGNOSS) coverage, forcing pilots to use Baro RNP APCH procedures rather than the much safer LPV approach.  Another great Brexit related success story!

 

 

Steve

[PMP]

 

[rob D2]

rubbish photos with a phone but these are our celeb visitors at present . 60 plus spotters from all over europe at the fence today 

 

 

[jjb1970]

A beautiful sunny day in Copenhagen today with a couple of hours free to watch airliners, splendid.