Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
I think the only hazard would be to motorists who, spotting the airplane taking off, would drop their cell phones and in an attempt to retrieve said phone, would spill hot coffee on their testicals/beaver, lose control and ended up either on the sidewalk, striking pedestrians or into the oncoming lane, stiking another car and interupting that persons phone call.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
It did not seem to me that the bridge was standing in his way. No more than a hill on an IFR departure with a safe procedure to avoid.Rockie wrote:Rigpiggy
I have sufficient float time to know better than to take off with a concrete bridge standing in the way of my takeoff path. I have sufficient overall flying time to respect, and be wary of obstacles in my takeoff path, and I have sufficient spare brain cells in my head to usually avoid doing something stupid like like endangering motorists and possibly my passengers by doing what this person did.
You might very well have more float time than me, but if you're using that to defend this stupidity it isn't worth much is it?
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
It would have been better in a loaded Beaver with a two bladed, square tip, Ag prop. That way it would have been heard in the parliament buildings Prime Minister's chambers. Then he would have been entertained as well.black hole wrote:I don't see any danger to anyone. But: to bad in was just a supercub; and not a 185, a Beaver or a mighty Norseman. That would have gotten everyone's attention cause of the noise, but still no danger. [maybe a local noise ordinance] he he!
BH
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
I'll try to explain my point with an example. Let's say my buddies have a party at someone's place and the place is within a populated area. Let's say I am coming back from a night sortie and my route takes me right on top. It is 11PM. I decide to fly over at 1000 feet AGL in max afterburner.
Is it legal? Yes
Is it unsafe? No
Is it required? No
Is it something out of the ordinary? Absolutely.
Because it was not required for the completion of the flight and it was something out of the ordinary, it makes it a bad judgement call, even though it was perfectly safe and legal.
Is it legal? Yes
Is it unsafe? No
Is it required? No
Is it something out of the ordinary? Absolutely.
Because it was not required for the completion of the flight and it was something out of the ordinary, it makes it a bad judgement call, even though it was perfectly safe and legal.
Going for the deck at corner
- Shiny Side Up
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5335
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Group W bench
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
I don't think that's good litmus test for what's considered good judgement. After all, what's "not ordinary" is purely your opinion, and "required for the completion of the flight" is again someone's opinion. I'd almost never fly if I had to depend on the opinions of others for these two criteria.Because it was not required for the completion of the flight and it was something out of the ordinary, it makes it a bad judgement call, even though it was perfectly safe and legal.
Personally I've taken off under a bridge before - though technically it would have been the same as Cat suggests where we remained on the step until we were clear of it, but I see no functional difference here. In this case, "necessary" and or "ordinary" seems to be the opinion of the rowing club members. If this would have happened and no one had an iPhone would we even have heard about it? I think we have some manufactured outrage here, and being Canadians, we're all too much in a hurry to wring our hands and apologize.
While in some cases pilots do need to be better ambassadors of aviation, sometimes we also need to make sure Joe Q. Public gets told to screw off and we're not giving ground so he "feels" safe. If we give ground on this fellow doing something that is reasonable and safe, but maybe not entirely "ordinary" enough for the bed-wetting public, then they're just going to keep pushing the line until we can't do anything at all.
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Although that's true, I think what he did is technically illegal and they're going to get him on this one:Colonel Sanders wrote:Read the first sentence of CAR 602.14:If the aircraft was in the air then all the CARs dealing with minimum distances would be applied.
Minimum Altitudes and Distances
602.14 (2) Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where permitted under section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft
(b) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a), at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
602.13 (1) Except if otherwise permitted under this section, section 603.66 or Part VII, no person shall conduct a take-off, approach or landing in an aircraft within a built-up area of a city or town, unless that take-off, approach or landing is conducted at an airport, heliport or a military aerodrome.
I don't think he did anything dangerous, so I hope he doesn't get in too much trouble.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
How?and they're going to get him on this one:
No one here seems to be able to tell what kind of airplane it is never mind what airplane.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
- Shiny Side Up
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5335
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Group W bench
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Sure we can Cat, its a ******** ****** with the registration C-****.
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Rockie, I think in about the 10ish years on here we have agreed on 2 things.... Good to see things haven't changed
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
With a fire breathing, smoke snorting ** HP!Shiny Side Up wrote:Sure we can Cat, its a ******** ****** with the registration C-****.
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
The danger of course is hitting the bridge - I would have thought that would be obvious but apparently not. There was maybe 70 feet of clearance between the bridge and the water that the pilot had to thread. Staying on the step until clear would have meant he didn't have to thread anything, but he chose not to thereby unnecessarily creating a collision risk that endangered not only the people in his plane but the people on the bridge as well.5x5 wrote:I would say of course he did it on purpose, but what was the danger? The simple fact there was a bridge there does not, in and of itself, constitute a danger.
I'm surprised at the people here who think flying under a steel and concrete structure with less than 100 feet of clearance is not a risk. If it isn't then people would naturally do it all the time and you should go out, find a bridge and do it yourself since it's a completely normal occurrence. Just don't do it when I'm one of your passengers or driving across the bridge.
Try CAR 602.01 Reckless or Negligent Operation of AircraftDHQ wrote:602.13 (1) Except if otherwise permitted under this section, section 603.66 or Part VII, no person shall conduct a take-off, approach or landing in an aircraft within a built-up area of a city or town, unless that take-off, approach or landing is conducted at an airport, heliport or a military aerodrome.I don't think he did anything dangerous, so I hope he doesn't get in too much trouble.
It's kind of a catch-all and one of Hedley's favourites. Of course it would come down to what a tribunal considers "reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person". Personally I think needlessly flying under a low, heavily trafficked bridge in an urban area is reckless and negligent for blatantly obvious reasons that shouldn't need to be explained. But putting aside our own personal opinions for a moment, what do you think a tribunal judge would say?
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
You can't sell me on the fact that he endangered or was likely to endanger life or property. Bottom line is in order to obtain your license you have to be proficient in landing and taking off. At my airport there is a lot less than 100 feet of clearance between the rwy and the local dog path yet people land there every day without incident.... I'm saying is it was safe because he had enough clearance to take off without it being classified as reckless behavior with risk to life and property
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Now we have something that is a lot easier to figure out.But putting aside our own personal opinions for a moment, what do you think a tribunal judge would say?
His / her decision may depend on who he / she is making the decision on.
Personally I would prefer a Mafia Don to judge me rather than anyone in Transport or an appointed " Judge " in the tribunal.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Interesting. How much formal training have you had passing 30 feet under a steel and concrete bridge immediately after takeoff, and how did you do on the flight test demonstrating that proficiency?DonutHole wrote: Bottom line is in order to obtain your license you have to be proficient in landing and taking off.
For the life of me I can't remember that lesson or anything remotely like it, but it was a long time ago and things might have changed.
- Colonel Sanders
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
- Location: Over Macho Grande
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Call me nuts - and I'll admit its been 20 years since I was on that section of river - but wasn't there a dock for seaplanes right there? As in neighboring the rowing club?
I remember watching seaplanes coming and going from their dock back in the mid 90s... And most took a similar takeoff...
I remember watching seaplanes coming and going from their dock back in the mid 90s... And most took a similar takeoff...
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
yes - in fact there are still 2-3 planes docked just on the east side of the bridge.
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
It is interesting to see the amount of support for this pilot taking off and being airborne, way before he got the bridge.
Is the issue really the ability to actually take off and land or whether the take off and landing was legal? I think not. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate to fly under the bridge, under that circumstance.
While SMS applies to companies, I don’t feel it would be a stretch to apply the concept to general aviation. SMS is there to help identify risks before they become bigger problems.
Certainly, there can be no argument to the need of identifying risks before they become bigger problems in general aviation. In my view, it is common sense basic airmanship. Was there passengers on board? Was it a commercial flight? Anyone ever had an excited passenger touching the control column? What if the pilot has a seizure just before the bridge, loose control and hits the bridge? Is it not dangerous to life and property on this bridge? What about the vehicles crossing the bridge as the aircraft flew underneath; they certainly could be damaged in a collision. If the pilot DOES NOT fly under the bridge then none of the above is a real problem. Therefore, the pilot should not have done it.
From the legal point of view, CARs 602.01 would be appropriate. The Tribunal has many cases available for a read. The standard proof relies on what ‘’a prudent and a diligent’’ pilot would do under this kind of circumstances. This example does not meet the standard of proof.
Remains to be seen if the aircraft and-or pilot will be located and what action will be taken by the regulator.
Is the issue really the ability to actually take off and land or whether the take off and landing was legal? I think not. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate to fly under the bridge, under that circumstance.
While SMS applies to companies, I don’t feel it would be a stretch to apply the concept to general aviation. SMS is there to help identify risks before they become bigger problems.
Certainly, there can be no argument to the need of identifying risks before they become bigger problems in general aviation. In my view, it is common sense basic airmanship. Was there passengers on board? Was it a commercial flight? Anyone ever had an excited passenger touching the control column? What if the pilot has a seizure just before the bridge, loose control and hits the bridge? Is it not dangerous to life and property on this bridge? What about the vehicles crossing the bridge as the aircraft flew underneath; they certainly could be damaged in a collision. If the pilot DOES NOT fly under the bridge then none of the above is a real problem. Therefore, the pilot should not have done it.
From the legal point of view, CARs 602.01 would be appropriate. The Tribunal has many cases available for a read. The standard proof relies on what ‘’a prudent and a diligent’’ pilot would do under this kind of circumstances. This example does not meet the standard of proof.
Remains to be seen if the aircraft and-or pilot will be located and what action will be taken by the regulator.
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
dumb it down one step further..Sasquash wrote: If the pilot DOES NOT fly...
OR
what if he climbed to barely clear the bridge?
Or what about an airport with a road at one end of the runway...?
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Yes, it was in Rotterdam.Hey chuckles didn't you have a pick of the cat doing something similar in Europe?
There was no enforcement because it was being done under an air display exemption.
How could they punish me for flying an air display that I held a license for?
The bottom line is when they issue you an air display authority based on passing recurrent rides that are designed to ensure you can fly accurately then it becomes the same as flying a perfect ILS.
Or landing on the center line.......
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.