"ShawnD2112" wrote:

It depends. Was the DC-3 in the act of landing or practicing a forced
landing?

No, the nearest place he could have done a force landing without
hitting buildings would be a golf course about a mile away with
continuous low level housing all the way, flight was controlled, both
engines sounded ok, he flew away out of sight behind the building,
then came back for a second pass which is the one I saw in detail (the
first pass I only saw the tail end of),

The plane then flew away until I lost sight maybe 2 or 3 mins later,
he didn't gain height much but there were no reported crashes either
;-)

If so, then it's legel to break Rule 5. Also, airplanes,
especially bigger ones, often appear to be a lot lower than they actually
are and the human eyeball is actually a pretty poor judge of distance
without comparisons. Could you read the registration number? If not, then
chances are he was at least 300+ feet as the size of UK registration
markings are designed to be read from a minimum of 300 feet.

I was displaced laterally about 500ft from the nearest point to where
the pilot banked, the cloud cover was almost complete at high level
but the sky was relatively bright looking from my direction (WSW at
16:35 BST 14th Sept 2003) and so the plane effectively turned into a
dark object against the bright sky, someone 180 degrees to me would
have clear sight of any markings on the starboard side of the
aircraft. The patients in the hospital could have counted the rivets
;-)

The building I do know to be 10 floors high (12-15ft ceilings) with a
roof structure incorporating lift motor rooms / ventilation plant, the
chimney adjacent to is the equivalent of about 4 or 5 floors above the
main building and having lived next to it for 20 years and visiting
occasionally back to see family I have a good feel of its height. next
chance I get i'll make a few enquiries to the actual height.

It also depends on the clearances. As long as he was laterally 500 feet
away from the building/chimney, and not over any other manmade objects, then
he was OK. As I understand it, if you could find a path across the country
with no people or buildings in it, you can fly as low as you want as long as
you're more than 500 feet away from everything. Not that I've actually
tried it, and it's an extreme interpretation open to argument, but you get
the idea.

As the land rises slightly to the north or his track he would have
been even closer to the buildings located there!

And finally I don't want to condone behavior by a fellow aviator which could
be construed as dangerous, foolish, or un-neighborly, if he was in fact any
of the above.

No, neither do I but I'm convinced he was breaking the law on this
occasion. Maybe he will get away with it. I couldn't be bothered
reporting to the CAA it as I was on holiday a day or so later and
without a reg number there is not a lot that can be done except trawl
through radar recordings perhaps.


--