Low Flying---Nice but illegal but fun!

C-150Pilot · Post by **C-150Pilot** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:16 pm

If anyone wants to bring this guy to TC his name is edit (no names guys) ( Second video). I dont have the time

Ray-Ban · Post by **Ray-Ban** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:20 pm

150 pilot. You don't have the time to rat on this guy to TC but you have the time to type his name for everyone to see?? Grow up.

bush pilot · Post by **bush pilot** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:48 pm

The last comment of grow up was not directed right at you Blue side down, you had some sensible things to say and I do believe you have a head on your shoulders. However I still do not agree that he had a way out. A way out in my opinion is an alternative that leaves you and your a/c in one piece on the ground without any unnecessary fatalities, so at that I tend not to agree that a crash site is "a way out". Speed and a field he did have, unfortunately altitude was missing in that equation. He does not have time to do anything but panic, even less time if he is a rookie. It was mentioned that the gear is retractable, Therefor 1000ft extra would be a nice thing to have to do about 60 pumps and plan a forced approach as apposed to "I guess this spot right infront of me will do".

I do agree with Wilbur, How does he know that he is not putting anyone else at risk. A kid in the field? a fisherman on the ice and cars on the road to avoid.

C-150Pilot · Post by **C-150Pilot** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:55 pm

Cheeze your welcome for the vids Ray-Ban

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:56 pm

A quote from Wilbur :

" The fact that you don't understand the differences between going out and doing adhoc low flying and working on a carefully planned, prepared and choreographed movie stunt sequence is the reason you should not be doing it. "

Unfortunately Wilbur was correct in a previous post, there is grave dangers in anyone viewing the kind of video that was posted here and thinking that is sure cool. And his comment about ever more rules and regulations are correct and the regulator will only look harder for the mentality who thinks wreckless flying is somehow cool.

As for the movie stunt flying may I explain to you young guys a very simple fact.

To be hired by the movie industry to perform risky manouvers requires a very in depth examination of not only your previous flying experience but a very close examination of your maturity and the ability to understand where dangerous and deadly start to get to close together.

And regardless of who you know in the movie business it all comes down to several insurance underwriters sitting in London England who will decide if you fly for the movie industry or not.

To give you an idea of why they are so paranoid about insuring movie display pilots it is really quite simple...in the last movie we did the liability for the movie crew that we had in the airplane was eighty million dollars not to mention the other coverages that were required.

I can gurantee you that by the time you get to the point in your career that you would be approved to fly for the movie industry "cool " is the last thought that crosses your mind...what you think about is concentrating on pleasing the director without killing yourself doing it....

....the good display pilots can satisfy both the movie directors and the insurance underwriters. Directors are brutal in their demands and underwriters are even more brutal in their requirements, and believe me that takes more than thinking " this is cool "

Hopefully some of you will reflect on what I am trying to tell you and become true professionals.

Cat

LH · Post by LH » Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:23 pm

Simple check-ride for me when I fly with some cowboy who likes to fly low. I talk about the countryside and look out past him through his window or off in his quarter of the windscreen and all of a sudden say "Holy shit, what the hell?" The pilot looks out to see what I'm looking at, I pull the throttle back real quick(while I have MY hands on everrything and the throttle), he turns back real quick with an "oh shit" look on his face and I immediately ask him "Engine just quit....where you gonna put this piece of metal?" The answer is usually "Geez, I can't see any place that I could make right now....guess I better get some more altitude"......with a stupid grin on his face.

You know the area REAL well, where all the towers are, all the lines of any description and numerous trees on a first-name basis and if you don't, then you keep your ass high enough so that if the feces hits the osscillating air conditioner you have "an OUT". You do otherwise and you need a lobotomy. For over 2 years I had to fly at low altitude and I mean LOW, as in "nap-of-the-earth" every day whether I wanted to or not and I knew ALL swamps, fields of any kind, roads, lake shore lines and lakes with shallow ends and where the smallest timber/bush was on my route. Ask me how "cool" and "exciting" that was. Ya, it was all fine until the first time a large eagle appeared RIGHT NOW in my windscreen and I had to turn one way or the other........BUT WHICH WAY?.......because if he turned the same way, I had a new co-pilot and I can't fly shit if I got my face covered in blood, flesh and can't see..

looproll · Post by **looproll** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:51 pm

If anyone wants to bring this guy to TC his name is Edited Name Out ( Second video). I dont have the time

TC enforcing in another country? I don't think so. God help us!

xduster · Post by **xduster** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:08 pm

Wilbur wrote

The fact that you don't understand the differences between going out and doing adhoc low flying and working on a carefully planned, prepared and choreographed movie stunt sequence is the reason you should not be doing it.

I have to agree fully. I always inspected every field i sprayed for any obstacles that were in and around the area, even if i had sprayed it two weeks earlier.....it's amazing what obstacles can be put up in a couple of weeks since you've been there....

http://www.headlandaviation.com/images/PA230116.JPG

there used to be a roadsign in that wing.... a lesson my friend learned

Did he have a safe way out if his engine quit? I don't think he "planned" ahead in case it did quit. When i went to a field to work you look around to see where you can go if the fan in front does quit. I have had an engine failure at the end of spray run doing 130mph and i can tell you that it doesn't leave you a lot of time. Only got up to about a 150ft before reaching my glide speed of 80 and you fall outta the sky like a rock. Nothing at all for glide, not even close to the glide when you practice forced approches with the engine at idle. Thank god i had great "crop duster training" and was able to walk away...

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:30 pm

That was phu*@ing hilarious!!!!.......LMAO

Another quality post!

Blue Side Down · Post by **Blue Side Down** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:30 pm

Wilbur wrote:Blueside, should this guy be allowed to do what he wants as long as he's not putting others at risk; perhaps. But how does he know he's not putting others at risk? He might think he's not, but he doesn't really know because he doesn't have control over these people he's buzzing around. He has no way of knowing how that truck driver will react, and I doubt he's done any planning whatsoever for his irresponsible display of jackass airmanship. Has he explained to his camera carrying passenger all the hazards associated with this type of flying? Probably not because he probably doesn't have a clue himself.

I had this really cool response typed up, but then I hit backspace when the text box wasn't selected and lost it all... doh.

The jist of it was that I agree with you on all points. The exact same thoughts (minus the fact that he may not see how his actions endanger the drivers' lives- excellent point) did go through my head while I was watching the clip.

I'm also especially curious as to what sort or pre-flight breifing his cameraman did get. If the cm was given the impression that this as safe as a rollercoaster, then there was some serious misinformation dispensed.

For those interested to find out what can happen when seconds count: http://www.airviolence.com/request.php?93 It's a sobering watch, but a learning experience none the less. If anybody feels that this is out of taste, les me know, I'll remove it... but I think we (especially the inexperienced) all too often forget this aspect of flight.[/url]

mental vomit · Post by **mental vomit** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 9:39 am

Cat Driver wrote:A quote from Wilbur :

Unfortunately Wilbur was correct in a previous post, there is grave dangers in anyone viewing the kind of video that was posted here and thinking that is sure cool.

Cat

Cat, naturally your post is well received and I am sure you've seen enough kids plant themselves into solid objects doing silly things. I appreciate the "don't try this at home" post because you're right, it's a one way trip to the hurt locker.

But if I hired an experienced stunt pilot to fly that same video in a controlled scenario and gave out a nice bowl of popcorn to watch it with, wouldn't most people think it was kind of neat, if not cool? The young 'uns will always be that way, as long as people let them know the stove is hot, MOST of them shouldn't get burned.

So I don't have a problem with individuals appreciating the sheer novelty of things like that, as long as they realise the stupidity in it.

I just saw something shiny float by my window, gotta scoot.

CH124 Driver · Post by **CH124 Driver** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 3:40 pm

Crazy stuff.

I have no problem with low flying, as long as it's properly pre-briefed. We do it all the time in the CF, in Moose Jaw you fly 240kt ground speed @ 500ft in the Harvard, the Hawks do their low level nav at 250ft at 420kts. Helicopter school we do nav at 250ft and operationally, we do it way lower. Sea Kings fly 40ft over the water while photographing ships and the winners of the "who can fly lowest" contest are the TacHel guys doing their nav at 15ft.

It's all done in prescribed low level areas or on prescribed low level routes. I wouldn't even think about doing it in an unfamiliar area, even if I knew the area I'd want wire strikes on my helo or a bang seat in my aircraft in the event of an engine flame out.

Oh and for the record, that video that Blue Side Down posted with the Sea King crash, that was vortex ring state, not an engine failure. VRS can happen to any and all helos if you meet the conditions for it to happen.

Anyways, does anybody know the song in the second video, the one with the idiot flying under the wires?

DA900 · Post by **DA900** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:47 pm

CH124 Driver

The song is a remake of Steve Winwood's "call on me"
It was redone by Eric Prydz here is a link to the video, but before warned this video is about as close to X-rated as you can get. With that said I wish to join this aerobic class...enjoy

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/callonme.html

CH124 Driver · Post by **CH124 Driver** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:08 pm

DA900 wrote:CH124 Driver

The song is a remake of Steve Winwood's "call on me"
It was redone by Eric Prydz here is a link to the video, but before warned this video is about as close to X-rated as you can get. With that said I wish to join this aerobic class...enjoy

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/callonme.html

Awesome, thanks. That video kind of reminds me of Satisfaction by Benni Benassi.

The last minute or so is the best, girls in bikinis using jackhammers, need I say more?

http://azad814.tripod.com/satisfaction.html

Snagmaster E · Post by **Snagmaster E** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:55 pm

Hey, I 've done low flying on sight seeing flights (bout 50 feet) but I know I didn't break the regs. Stayed 500' feet away and within gliding distance (I was next to the shore, below a cliff line. Main thing was I kept my speed up, because the way I saw it, the only place to go, if something looked wrong, was up. trade speed for altitude.

But I'd never do shit like that. Not my cup of tea.

Just my OP.

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:53 pm

well for the having an out.
IMHO, an out would be at 2000' in a float plane following a river, or trying to be in gliding distance of some type of water all the time(I know that this is not always possible as I have flown floats and not done this).
To say that this guy had an out while 5' off the deck is just wrong, you get into a plane do say like he was, probably 110 knots lose an engine of that lake, and put it down, after you plow through the 3-4 feet of snow, detroy the plane, hope you walk away, than tell me you had a good out.
thats just my humble opinion though.

shimmydampner · Post by **shimmydampner** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:39 am

bush pilot wrote: So you are impressed with someone who can fly low and turn a plane slightly to the left and right! I'm sorry but that is not enough to impress me.

Agreed. I'm sure anyone who's done a summer on floats has done the same thing to get where they were going when the weather took a dump. I'm not sure exactly what it was in those videos that exhibited any special flying skills.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:42 pm

This mans license needs to be pulled.

homerj · Post by **homerj** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:47 am

I'd say hes going to be flying low alright!,, like 6 feet under!

grouchy · Post by **grouchy** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:25 am

http://rafaero.free.fr/videos-eng.html

check out " Kairys flies under bridge"

LH · Post by LH » Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:23 am

It would be ignorant to compare an experienced aerobatic demonstration pilot to some dude with 500hrs and flying a Cessna 150. Having stated that much, I wonder what that same aerobactic pilot would say if he was told that he must do the same thing each day and all day for the next two years. I can hear it now....."F*ck you buddy".

xduster · Post by **xduster** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:38 am

I had to do that for the first 5 years of my career....Becomes part of the job after a while but doesn't mean that I liked having to be close to all those obstacles all the time. Sure was nice to go to a job with open ends and no powerline to go under/over.....good ol manitoba... notorious for a powerline on at least one side of a field you had to do.
They taught us that the most dangerous part of our job is not the chemicals we carry, but dodging all the manmade structures that invade our airspace.

Lost in Saigon · Post by **Lost in Saigon** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:51 pm

There have been numerous references to the pilot in the video as flying a C150.

It definitely is not a C150. My guess is it is some kind of homebuilt experimental aircraft.

Can anyone identify the aircraft?

zaac · Post by **zaac** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:34 pm

I can't tell.

1st time under the wires it shows a t-tail(tomahawk).

Watching their shadow it's a low wing(tomahawk).

2nd time under the wires it's a high wing. Different side window than a Cessna I think.

You got me.

Lost in Saigon · Post by **Lost in Saigon** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:06 am

It is the same aircraft in both movies and in all "scenes".

It is a high wing T-tailed aircraft.

What is it ????????