Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Photos of operational aircraft from bases, airports and "spotter" outings
User avatar
agdickie
UKAR Staff
Posts: 1545
Joined: Fri 29 Aug 2008, 11:21 pm
Location: West Coast of Scotland

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by agdickie »

AndyBeau wrote:
Tom wrote:
agdickie wrote:If you see a crew doing something they shouldn't then don't share the footage. Any sh1tstorm that follows from not obeying this rule is entirely the witnesses' fault and in no part the fault of the aircrew.

I'm sorry but that's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen posted on this forum.


Just what I was going to say.


Oh no Andy, don't tell me you fell for my sarcy post! It's my delivery, too deadpan :grin:
Agdickie on Airliners.net
Hey jet pilots! Do a barrell roll!

User avatar
DerekF
Posts: 4924
Joined: Sun 07 Sep 2008, 7:54 am
Location: Handforth, Cheshire, UK

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by DerekF »

RickIngham wrote:It is thought that posting pictures of:
- Jets low level in re-heat
- Jets inverted low level
- Tornados swept wing'd
Will get the aircrews in deep poo!


You mean like they do at airshows?

Whose rules are these then; the RAF's, the low flying clique?

User avatar
Mictheslik
Posts: 1358
Joined: Sun 08 Mar 2009, 12:27 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by Mictheslik »

DerekF wrote:
RickIngham wrote:It is thought that posting pictures of:
- Jets low level in re-heat
- Jets inverted low level
- Tornados swept wing'd
Will get the aircrews in deep poo!


You mean like they do at airshows?

Whose rules are these then; the RAF's, the low flying clique?


RAF to a certain extent....I'm led to believe that the only permitted use of burners at low level is when pulling out. I think this is a noise issue to keep disturbance to a minimum. Inverted rule is presumably for traffic avoidance etc.

.mic
Mictheslik Aviation Photography

Remember when we went to Payerne on that Wednesday?

User avatar
DerekF
Posts: 4924
Joined: Sun 07 Sep 2008, 7:54 am
Location: Handforth, Cheshire, UK

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by DerekF »

Well if they break their own rules, especially in a place known for photographers, they deserve all they get.

Duxfordian
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2010, 9:44 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by Duxfordian »

DerekF wrote:Well if they break their own rules, especially in a place known for photographers, they deserve all they get.


:clap: :clap: :clap:

Cant believe I read that someone said "if you see a pilot breaking the rules DON'T post your pictures" in case he gets in trouble.

If he gets caught and punsihed, thats one less reckless idiot behind a control column

User avatar
Craig
UKAR Staff
Posts: 4025
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:11 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by Craig »

DerekF wrote:Well if they break their own rules, especially in a place known for photographers, they deserve all they get.

I don't think I've ever seen such a ridiculous storm in a teacup. The reaction of the backseater suggests that getting photographed was exactly the intention. If there was any "rule" about no swept wings at low level then it's highly unlikely the pilot would be doing so, especially, as has been said, through such a well known photographer's location. The previous "incident" was down to a sense of humour failure on the part of the MoD, and as for the "deep in the brown stuff" idea I've never seen anything to suggest that that happened. Anyone would think the crew were grounded over this :roll: .

A bit of perspective would be useful here. If you have a photo of a crew doing something dangerous then yes posting that pic will get them in trouble no doubt, but then if you're that irresponsible you shouldn't be at the controls of a military jet anyway. I really don't see how that applies here though.

User avatar
DerekF
Posts: 4924
Joined: Sun 07 Sep 2008, 7:54 am
Location: Handforth, Cheshire, UK

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by DerekF »

To be fair, the storm in the teacup was caused by those who rounded on an innocent photographer who didn't know there were "rules" (like most of us I suspect). A simple, polite explanation in about post 2 of this thread and this whole "storm" would have been avoided. But no. Some used it as an opportunity to show off how much they knew and others didn't - a fairly typical "spotter" trait I've found.

I noticed a few low level threads have had their photos removed by one of those guilty of having a go at JackyRIAT. I wonder why?

You're right though Craig a storm in a teacup that should have been nipped in the bud (sorry about the mixed metaphors :smile: ).

ranger703
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:31 pm
Location: Inverness,Scotland.

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by ranger703 »

There are NO rules that a photographer HAS to abide by whilst taking images of military aircraft at low level!Unfortunately there are TOO many prima dona's out there who think that they have some sort of exclusivity when it comes to capturing aircraft in this environment. The low level environment is 'off-base' and on publicly accessible land,therefore there are no restrictions upon what you can and cannot take a photograph of. Ultimately it is up to the aircrew that operate in this environment to operate within the rules and regulations and they are more than aware that there is a high possibility that they will be captured on film.

Nowhere within the low flying environment is SECRET,all areas are published within public documents and finding the right spot just takes time and dedication and yes sometimes inside knowledge does help,but it certainly isn't secret!

You will more than likely find that the people that made up these so called RULES are the same prima dona's that BELIEVE they have some sort of exclusivity.

Continue showing your low level images,they will NOT stop low flying in the UK!

And to the prima dona's...............get a life!!!

Regards

Andy

User avatar
Mictheslik
Posts: 1358
Joined: Sun 08 Mar 2009, 12:27 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by Mictheslik »

ranger703 wrote:
Continue showing your low level images,they will NOT stop low flying in the UK!


Very true, but they can, and have done so in the past, go elsewhere and avoid popular photographic locations for an extended period of time after images were published in the national press.

.mic
Mictheslik Aviation Photography

Remember when we went to Payerne on that Wednesday?

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3575
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:17 am
Contact:

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by Spiny Norman »

Mictheslik wrote:
ranger703 wrote:
Continue showing your low level images,they will NOT stop low flying in the UK!


Very true, but they can, and have done so in the past, go elsewhere and avoid popular photographic locations for an extended period of time after images were published in the national press.

.mic


A hot potato this and no mistake. Does anyone know how this was communicated? That low-flying wasn't carried out in certain areas as a result of photographs in the press?

fideaux
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed 03 Sep 2008, 5:22 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by fideaux »

I've read some of the above incredulously... Some of the tone could be construed as unpleasant... although I am sure that the authors would disagree...
I have no wish to antagonise anyone, however..... this thread is most revealing...

I'm somewhat with ranger on this.
I'll declare an interest... I've had longstanding contact with RAF lowfly..... I like seeing jets at low level, and even holiday in low fly areas but don't think that my 'entertainment' it a very high priority for the Royal Air Force aircrew.
I've seen the effects of 'information' and 'secrecy'.... being 'part of the low fly club'. I've had brilliant guidance, help and assistance from the great majority, and also had the opposite from a few.... I can live with it....

The military low fly rules should not be broken by aircrew, sometimes there are genuine errors...
but sometimes they go 'wazzing' (much, much, much less so than thirty years ago!) ... if they get photographed, and then directed to avoid an area so be it, there is a lot of countryside to train it.. tough luck if you cannot get photos or I don't see any jets... For normal training they are the Royal Air Force (and other arms), not a theatre show/airshow demo. If they fly somewhere else I'm sure you can find them if you try.

Enjoy the flying that you see, take photos, share, and if someone is not following procedures I'm afraid that they should be asked to account etc.
How do you feel about breaking the rules...say... speeding/driving potentially dangerously...

If temporary avoid areas happen/even by word of mouth on a unit... so be it.

Get a life... I'm already aware that I've wasted too much of mine reading and replying to some of the content on here...

Chill out, help each other, communicate and enjoy.... And if no jets appear in front of your very, very expensive camera/lens... take a picture of something else, the LFA's are wonderful.

User avatar
N48284
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri 14 Nov 2008, 6:02 pm
Location: Newbury, Berks (EGVI)
Contact:

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by N48284 »

Mictheslik wrote:
Very true, but they can, and have done so in the past, go elsewhere and avoid popular photographic locations for an extended period of time after images were published in the national press.

.mic


The RAF is there to serve a purpose much greater than to keep photographers happy!!

User avatar
Mictheslik
Posts: 1358
Joined: Sun 08 Mar 2009, 12:27 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by Mictheslik »

N48284 wrote:
Mictheslik wrote:
Very true, but they can, and have done so in the past, go elsewhere and avoid popular photographic locations for an extended period of time after images were published in the national press.

.mic


The RAF is there to serve a purpose much greater than to keep photographers happy!!


Indeed....that is my point exactly.....they could do similar training in lots of other places, and will do if photos start to become widely published. Surely then, if we want to continue being 'kept happy' we should do all we can to prevent situations where they go elsewhere.

.mic
Mictheslik Aviation Photography

Remember when we went to Payerne on that Wednesday?

ranger703
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:31 pm
Location: Inverness,Scotland.

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by ranger703 »

I cannot believe some of the statements made in this thread and the quite unrequired berating of a young member of our community enjoying his hobby. I suggest some of you read RA2330, it is the Military Aviation Authority document stating the rules and regulations for low flying within the UK. Nowhere within the document does it state that wings fully swept is not permitted and even reheat is not totally banned! The incident in 2010 did NOT lead to the closure of the Mach Loop or indeed did it stop low flying,crews just chose to avoid the hotspots for a while whilst the media circus subsided. It is more likely that the Ospreys were breeding that reduced flying in the area.

Images of low flying are available all over the net and many far more impressive than the images that the poster has published(No offence),I see nowhere where his images have caused any embarrassment and as for the backseater being hauled in front of the CO then you obviously have never worked within a military squadron environment. To say that training will move if images become widely published is a very naieve statement considering the amount of images already out there! If the crews go elsewhere the photographers at those other locations will just increase.

I will reiterate what has already been stated,if crews choose to disregard the rules laid down within RA2330 and are captured doing so and those images are subsequently published by someone wanting the keudos of seeing their image in the media,regardless of monetary worth,then I say good luck to the photographer. Some people spend a fortune on camera gear,spend hours/months/years attempting to capture that unique image and still never get anything published.

Welldone Jacky for capturing the images and for subsequently getting one of them published,keep it up and enjoy yourself.

Andy

User avatar
Mictheslik
Posts: 1358
Joined: Sun 08 Mar 2009, 12:27 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by Mictheslik »

My points are less about things that are 'banned' (I know swept wings are not banned and I know that reheat is permitted in certain situations), more about any photos of low flying ending up in the mainstream media (resulting in the inevitable 'daredevil' 'thrillseeker' etc. labels.)

ranger703 wrote: The incident in 2010 did NOT lead to the closure of the Mach Loop or indeed did it stop low flying,crews just chose to avoid the hotspots for a while whilst the media circus subsided.


Exactly....so as a photographer I'd rather the 'media circus' had never existed in the first place! How do you prevent a 'media circus'? Don't actively show photographs to the mainstream media.

ranger703 wrote:.
To say that training will move if images become widely published is a very naieve statement considering the amount of images already out there!


I apologise, by published I meant in areas outside of specialist aviation (and to an extent, photographic) circles (I'm pretty sure I mentioned this....but may not have)

ranger703 wrote:
Welldone Jacky for capturing the images and for subsequently getting one of them published,keep it up and enjoy yourself.


Agree, but see my above point about 'publishing'

As I've said in almost all my posts above, and to Jack in the PM conversation we had before anyone else started commenting with abuse or otherwise, I always believe that it's up to the photographer what he does with the images.

At the end of the day, my opinion (and are we not all entitled to one?) is that from a purely selfish viewpoint I'd rather not put crews off doing the loop as i take great enjoyment from photographing them. The best way to do this is not to 'publish' (using my above definition of publishing) photos, so that's the advice I politely gave.

People clearly have differing opinions and I think my position is clear and not unreasonable. If anyone has been in any way insulted or offended by anything I said then I can only apologise.

.mic
Mictheslik Aviation Photography

Remember when we went to Payerne on that Wednesday?

User avatar
A380FWWOW
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 1:43 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by A380FWWOW »

http://www.flickr.com/photos/65589468@N04/
View on this site are my views and not those of any organisation!

User avatar
st24
Posts: 7988
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 9:31 am
Location: Sexville

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by st24 »



Oh no that's terrible, terrible, just awful..








.....fancy being called a plane spotter......
You caaan't trust the system... Maaan!

User avatar
JackyRIATWilson
Posts: 1519
Joined: Tue 18 Jan 2011, 9:34 am
Location: Wrexham

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by JackyRIATWilson »

Sorry to bring this thread up again, but I was just looking at some pictures of 2012!

This will be like Marmite to all of you - you will either hate it, or appreciate it, either way is fine. I am delighted to announce that not only did my photo of the Tornado GR4 make it onto the BBC News Wales "Photos of 2012" album cover, but it was captioned by the news team as "what must be the image of 2012". It is picture 9 in the list.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20877742

I cannot believe what I saw when returning from work and looking at the BBC news by complete coincidence, I even ended up being astounded. Here's to 2013, my review of 2012 will be posted shortly!

Cheers,

Jack.

XP282
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu 22 Jan 2009, 9:55 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by XP282 »

Congratulations Jack, thats a great result!

Happy new year to you all.

User avatar
boff180
UKAR Staff
Posts: 9151
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 2:28 pm
Location: Solihull
Contact:

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by boff180 »

Congratulations on being published Jack.

Andy

Luke28
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2012, 12:35 pm
Location: West Mids

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by Luke28 »

Congrats Jack, great result that is. I think they've got your 12 year wait for an Eagle mixed up in the text though. They make it sound like you've been going to the loop for 12 years and never saw any jets before :lol:

User avatar
Petedcollins
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:45 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by Petedcollins »

You should all be ashamed on this forum.

I have said in the past that this forum is elitest and tbh you have just proven again that this is the case.

agdickie wrote:If you see a crew doing something they shouldn't then don't share the footage. Any sh1tstorm that follows from not obeying this rule is entirely the witnesses' fault and in no part the fault of the aircrew.


You should hang you head in shame, how dare you say that any bodies action is anyones responsability then theirs. If they didnt do it then it couldnt be published could it!

Such pretentious rubbish is what gives people a bad name. If they want to pose for a photo then great, if they chose too then they have to take the consequences dont they, They are not 12 yr old kids. They know what they are doing.

I applaud the OP, great snap and well done for being recognised for it :clap:

If I had taken it I would be advertising it wherever I could and the aircrew that did it would just have to live with it.

Its quite simple, they know there are photographers there, they do this kind of thing anyway. They are doing this with eyes open.

Craig_85
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon 13 Jun 2011, 3:08 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by Craig_85 »

Mictheslik wrote:My points are less about things that are 'banned' (I know swept wings are not banned and I know that reheat is permitted in certain situations), more about any photos of low flying ending up in the mainstream media (resulting in the inevitable 'daredevil' 'thrillseeker' etc. labels.)

At the end of the day, my opinion (and are we not all entitled to one?) is that from a purely selfish viewpoint I'd rather not put crews off doing the loop as i take great enjoyment from photographing them. The best way to do this is not to 'publish' (using my above definition of publishing) photos, so that's the advice I politely gave.

.mic


This comment is absolutely spot on and hits the nail on the head. For me personally it is annoying that we almost have to pamper to the stupidity of joe public and the exaggerative nature of the press by not putting photos into their hands and the wider public eye that could be twisted into showing the RAF in a bad light. Unfortunately, even when the aircrew are acting in a totally safe manner a knee jerk reaction by their bosses to not upset the masses, or sour relations with residents in low fly areas has happened before after pictures getting into the press.

IMHO saying the photographer does not have a responsibility and if the aircrews don't want to get in trouble then they shouldn't put a foot wrong and if they do and low flying in a given area is restricted then so be it is all well and good. However, I think there is an unspoken understanding that if a pilot gives you a stonking pass, far too close, with fluff and burners then you keep it to yourself or show it to a limited audience. You do this, as mic says above, for the longevity of your hobby and the other participants. Sending it to the press is a sure fire way to get some negative backlash towards the crew, a fine way to repay them for entertaining you don't you think...

To be fair to Jack in this case the Welsh media appear to be mainly positive towards him getting a shot of a jet in Wales, appearing to embrace it as part of Welsh life, with the only stupid bit being "only yards away"!

User avatar
RRconway
Posts: 2359
Joined: Sat 04 Jul 2009, 4:09 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by RRconway »

Craig_85 wrote:This comment is absolutely spot on and hits the nail on the head. For me personally it is annoying that we almost have to pamper to the stupidity of joe public and the exaggerative nature of the press by not putting photos into their hands and the wider public eye that could be twisted into showing the RAF in a bad light. Unfortunately, even when the aircrew are acting in a totally safe manner a knee jerk reaction by their bosses to not upset the masses, or sour relations with residents in low fly areas has happened before after pictures getting into the press.

IMHO saying the photographer does not have a responsibility and if the aircrews don't want to get in trouble then they shouldn't put a foot wrong and if they do and low flying in a given area is restricted then so be it is all well and good. However, I think there is an unspoken understanding that if a pilot gives you a stonking pass, far too close, with fluff and burners then you keep it to yourself or show it to a limited audience. You do this, as mic says above, for the longevity of your hobby and the other participants. Sending it to the press is a sure fire way to get some negative backlash towards the crew, a fine way to repay them for entertaining you don't you think...

To be fair to Jack in this case the Welsh media appear to be mainly positive towards him getting a shot of a jet in Wales, appearing to embrace it as part of Welsh life, with the only stupid bit being "only yards away"!


If you are trying to say we need to ensure that the press and antis don't portray the aircrew as un-disciplined thrill seekers, then your comment above does little to dispel that piece of misinformation. In fact you seem to be confirming their impression, "to entertain you" really? That's why they're doing it?
Surely that kind of comment is as damaging as the pictures themselves?

Let's not forget these sorts of pictures are posted online all of the time, and we have little control what happens after we have posted them. I have found that out with my pictures of the Firefly which are currently being used for someone else's financial gain.

Cheers,
Jeff.
I know you think you understood what I said, but I'm not sure you realise that what I said is not what I meant.

Craig_85
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon 13 Jun 2011, 3:08 pm

Re: Cad West 28th August - Mach Loop Part Deux

Post by Craig_85 »

RRconway wrote:If you are trying to say we need to ensure that the press and antis don't portray the aircrew as un-disciplined thrill seekers, then your comment above does little to dispel that piece of misinformation. In fact you seem to be confirming their impression, "to entertain you" really? That's why they're doing it?
Surely that kind of comment is as damaging as the pictures themselves?


Twisted what I was saying a bit there mate. The reason they do it is obviously for their low fly training. They don't do it to entertain me but as a by product of them being there participating in low fly training I am entertained. If I want to continue to be entertained through their presence in the hills, especially if for perfectly justifiable reasons they have needed to plug the burners in or are at an extreme angle for instance, then I don't go throwing the pictures around the press.

To be honest for us watching if a pilot is a little bit lower or closer than regulations suggest then it is exciting. There should be a certain amount of honour amongst us photographers that we don't effectively try and get the pilot in trouble for it, that is what I am getting at. You may well be pleased to get a shot of something unique, but in your excitement just think, do you want to act like a mach loop speed camera? It makes no sense to feed the hysteric press and limp wristed public effectively acting as a regulating body damaging the chances of pilots carrying out low fly training in a given area. Which happens to also entertain you....