Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

[Shiny Side Up]

Of those 137 instances, how many were due to a bridge?

[Rockie]

It didn't say, and you didn't answer my question.

[Shiny Side Up]

Really? They're both made of concrete and steel and have a gap underneath them. In fact the overpass clearance may be the same as the bridge in Ottawa of 42 feet. Would that make it ok then?

First, most overpasses have significantly less distance underneath, the ones on Deerfoot I recall aroun about 6.4m the higher ones about 8 m. Second there's water under this bridge, not a roadway with cares on it. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time noticing those differences.

Looked to me like an awful lot of human beings crossing that Ottawa bridge in the video. And since one of the more popular arguments postulated here is the danger in extended water operations with other craft around it seems quite likely a pleasure boat could occupy the same space as the aircraft under the bridge at a really inconvenient time.

But there wasn't any watercraft under the bridge, The pilot, like most float pilots probably checked that the water ahead was clear. The people on the bridge were on the top side, so its a good thing he didn't just clear on the other side of it which would have put them in far greater risk.

In the TSB summary of float accidents the most common contributing factor was "Failed to obtain/maintain flying speed" (161 cases). The second most common cause was "Selected unsuitable area for take-off, landing, taxiing" (137). Do you think maybe...just maybe...Transport Canada, the TSB and pretty much anybody with an ounce of common sense might consider taking off under the bridge like this fellow did as "unsuitable"?

I'll get to answering your question in a sec, though its funny that you'd consider Transport Canada as equivelent to "anybody with an ounce of common sense" But my previous answer was relevant. If in all the 137 instances a bridge did not factor into the unsuitableness of the take off area, then this take off wasn't "unsuitable" according to your definition.

Either way, your point is moot. What's unsuitable as a take off area is very specifc in real operations, either the take off can be made without hazard or it can't. Its not all encompassing, just like a rule that bridges are never to be flown under as you would postulate. Therefore there is no specific CAR that outright forbids taking off if there are boats near by, there is none that forbid it near shorelines, with floating debris, etc. There are only general rules.

So therefore to answer, since you haven't defined "unsuitable" I can't say whether taking off under that bridge constitutes being unsuitable.

Do you see now where prosecuting this offender is somewhat problematic? One should also note that while the document you've provided is interesting and enlightening, its also not regulatory, so definitions provided within aren't directly applicable to the guilt or innocence of this float pilot.

[CpnCrunch]

Perhaps the landplane equivalent would be taking off or landing underneath a wire/cable. How often is that done intentionally?

[Shiny Side Up]

Probably more than you think, under the same sorts of instances, with more accidents, given how hard wires and cables are to see, but as of yet TC has not made the CAR that outright prohibits being under anything. I would imagine that people crap themselves too at the sight of a Maule leaving the factory.

[Rockie]

Probably more than you think, under the same sorts of instances, with more accidents, given how hard wires and cables are to see, but as of yet TC has not made the CAR that outright prohibits being under anything. I would imagine that people crap themselves too at the sight of a Maule leaving the factory.

Is that how things are run in your operation? If it isn't specifically prohibited in the CAR's (to your satisfaction, CAR 602.01 doesn't apply to your operation) then feel free to do it, and nothing is considered unsafe until someone crashes doing it and it is specifically cited in the accident report as the cause?

If you have young teenagers you'll know that those kinds of arguments drive parents crazy, so it's curious that you would present them here.

[Shiny Side Up]

Ok, now you're attacking me directly, that's different. Try to be civil.

Remember, I'm talking about the legal arguement that this guy has contravened the CARS and thus we should come down on him. Wisdom of his actions aside, I believe it would be a hard case to say that there's a law this guy broke. One of the things that irritates me more than anything is when pilots tell on-pilots what someone else is doing is illegal when its not. Unwise yes. Illegal No.

And since a lot of teenager fall under my care, I'm keenly aware of these sorts of discussions. Why do people think that flight schools have such onerus and lengthy rules in place for operation? Because guess what, since it isn't specifically outlined in the CARS that you shall not do unwise things, you have to legislate that on your own. If I don't want people flying under bridges, I got to make my own rule about that - which technically we have.

Now lets say I have an instance where someone does something I don't like with one of my airplanes. Stuff I don't like, isn't necessarily identical to the CARS, so if I ban him for flying my airplanes, that's a violation of my company imposed rules, not the CARS.

Understand now?

[Rockie]

Ok, now you're attacking me directly, that's different. Try to be civil.

Don't be silly. I'm guessing you work for some flight operation and the arguments you present run counter to any SMS/risk mitigation strategy I've ever seen. I'm asking if your arguments reflect the official policy where you work? Doesn't sound uncivil to me...

[Shiny Side Up]

How I conduct myself personally or my operation has nothing to do with the validity of my arguements. Since you've decided to attack my credibility since you can't refute what I'm saying.

Here's a question for you then: If this guy didn't do anything illegal, what should TC's course of action be, assuming that they're not just going to try and get it under the catch all of 602.01?

[Rockie]

Since you've decided to attack my credibility since you can't refute what I'm saying.

Once again, I asked if your arguments reflect the policy where you work. That cannot in any way be interpreted as an attack on your credibility or you personally. It's a pertinent question.

Here's a question for you then: If this guy didn't do anything illegal, what should TC's course of action be, assuming that they're not just going to try and get it under the catch all of 602.01?

If you don't think 602.01 applies here then you should have no problem anybody doing the same thing with one of your planes as it's neither dangerous or reckless. Would your company forbid that kind of activity, and if it does on what grounds?

[Shiny Side Up]

Once again, I asked if your arguments reflect the policy where you work. That cannot in any way be interpreted as an attack on your credibility or you personally. It's a pertinent question.

To attack my credibility, and thus the credibility of my arguement. Good try. But yes, they actually do in most cases directly reflect how things are where I work. Keep in mind that we do lots of things that on the face of it is dangerous, hazardous, risky, but that depends on your point of view. Things are circumstantial, what I find risky for me or my operation, aren't for someone else. And vice-versa. I'm keenly aware of that reality.

I'll give you an example. I let students use some of the grass runways around here. I got an earful from an instructor at another school that it was illegal for me to do. He also liked to tell anyone else what an unsafe operation we were, and how illegally we operated, but unsafe was merely his opinon, and illegal certainly wasn't the case. Curiously enough for as "illegal" as we operated - he of course fell back to 602.01 - TC told him to go pound sand (for once) He was full of shit.

Now I'm used to defending myself, and my operation to TC when sometimes they aren't as reasonable in interpreting their own rules, and occasionally take the side of someone's opinion. Case in point, I had one inspector actually tell me that teaching slips was unsafe to PPL students, and wanted to enforce that. Curiously he backed down when he was challenged to put that reason in writing. While he could rail at me al he wanted for what he thought was unsafe, and how he thought the CARS should work, until they're changed, I'm of the attitude that we stay within the bounds of them. In other words I still follow the FTM and teach slips.

That said, I also make our own rules of operation, which are there to rule where the CARS don't. I make very clear when something is against my rules, but not the CARS. For example, flying under a bridge with one of my airplanes would be against my rules, and if this Stinson was renting this Stinson from me he would be in violation of his rental rules - But not the CARS. He can go do this if he wants in his own airplane.

Here's a question for you then: If this guy didn't do anything illegal, what should TC's course of action be, assuming that they're not just going to try and get it under the catch all of 602.01?

If you don't think 602.01 applies here then you should have no problem anybody doing the same thing with one of your planes as it's neither dangerous or reckless. Would your company forbid that kind of activity, and if it does on what grounds?

Its neither dangerous or wreckless, but it is somewhat more risky. For my own its an unacceptable risk, but I'm not going to make that judgement on someone else with their own stuff. But then, you didn't answer my question either.

If my company was going to forbid this particular activity, it would be on its own authority and judgement and not the CARS.

[Rockie]

To attack my credibility, and thus the credibility of my arguement. Good try.

I'm afraid you're looking for fire where there isn't even smoke. I'm not the least interested in attacking your credibility, I am only interested in your arguments which seem to be contradictory.

You seem to apply your own criteria of what is acceptable or not which is perfectly fine, no argument from me. Yet you question anybody else's even if they're in a position to do so and indeed, responsible for it.

I'll give you an example. I let students use some of the grass runways around here. I got an earful from an instructor at another school that it was illegal for me to do. He also liked to tell anyone else what an unsafe operation we were, and how illegally we operated, but unsafe was merely his opinon, and illegal certainly wasn't the case. Curiously enough for as "illegal" as we operated - he of course fell back to 602.01 - TC told him to go pound sand (for once) He was full of shit.

In this case I fully agree that not only was there nothing illegal in it, but it is perfectly safe and should be a part of everyone's flight training. But you didn't really just equate using a grass runway to flying under a low bridge did you?

[the424]

Probably more than you think, under the same sorts of instances, with more accidents, given how hard wires and cables are to see, but as of yet TC has not made the CAR that outright prohibits being under anything.

Crop dusting is probably a pretty good example - I grew up in rural Manitoba, I've seen those guys get pretty damned close to everything from tree tops to power lines. Even as a kid, I never remember my parents being concerned about the planes so close overhead, and I was more likely to run outside and watch the planes flying up close than to consider it scary. (My parents were responsible, when they were spraying near-by, I was supposed to stay inside to avoid the chemical being dropped)

I don't know what's more dangerous, coming in steep to clear the power lines then leveling off right above the ground, or coming in flat but under the lines. (I honestly never paid attention to power lines, though I do remember them threading trees, silos, grain bins, etc with barely 20 feet off each wing tip).

I also don't remember a single instance of a crop duster crashing.

[Shiny Side Up]

Yet you question anybody else's even if they're in a position to do so and indeed, responsible for it.

So you're responsible for this fellow flying under the bridge? I'm not following you. You conduct yourself as you see fit Rockie, if you feel its unsafe to fly under bridges, that's fine, don't do it. What I'm against is you applying your rules to this other guy. What someone else did. You're the one passing judgement on this other pilot flying his floatplane, and what's more you're using your own judgement to make an interpretation of the CARS.

That is not correct.

But you didn't really just equate using a grass runway to flying under a low bridge did you?

No, I'm not equating the two. I'm merely giving you an example of how what someone might find objectionable, does not make it illegal. The pilot crowd is way too ready to jump on their fellow aviators with "you're doing something illegal!" arguement. Especially when it doesn't fit their own world view.

[Rockie]

Where does flying under low concrete structures containing heavy traffic in the middle of a city cross the line from "riskier" to reckless to you? Or does it ever? I'm not attacking you, just trying to pin down where you yourself draw the "reckless" line.

[DonutHole]

Probably more than you think, under the same sorts of instances, with more accidents, given how hard wires and cables are to see, but as of yet TC has not made the CAR that outright prohibits being under anything.

Crop dusting is probably a pretty good example - I grew up in rural Manitoba, I've seen those guys get pretty damned close to everything from tree tops to power lines. Even as a kid, I never remember my parents being concerned about the planes so close overhead, and I was more likely to run outside and watch the planes flying up close than to consider it scary. (My parents were responsible, when they were spraying near-by, I was supposed to stay inside to avoid the chemical being dropped)

I don't know what's more dangerous, coming in steep to clear the power lines then leveling off right above the ground, or coming in flat but under the lines. (I honestly never paid attention to power lines, though I do remember them threading trees, silos, grain bins, etc with barely 20 feet off each wing tip).

I also don't remember a single instance of a crop duster crashing.

Crop dusters crash all the time. I know two pilots who have written off machines in Manitoba, and two who clipped wires with their props

[Cat Driver]

Every once in a while someone posts a real good one here.

I'll get to answering your question in a sec, though its funny that you'd consider Transport Canada as equivelent to "anybody with an ounce of common sense"

This one wins the best of award for this thread.

[Shiny Side Up]

To be honest, I don't know, you only know those things when you come to them. There is no hard numbers after all. I'm assuming that given your position, any bridge would be too dangerous/hazardous/risky/wreckless to fly under, or take off under. Do you have hard numbers for everything you do that defines a line where it goes from safe to unsafe?

And that's the point. In many and most cases, what's risky or hazardous for people is different. The CARS outline what as a consensus we think is too much risk or hazard, but one might say that they are specifically ambiguous on points like this one. I personally believe that's on purpose rather than an oversight.

[pelmet]

Now I'm used to defending myself, and my operation to TC when sometimes they aren't as reasonable in interpreting their own rules, and occasionally take the side of someone's opinion. Case in point, I had one inspector actually tell me that teaching slips was unsafe to PPL students, and wanted to enforce that. Curiously he backed down when he was challenged to put that reason in writing. While he could rail at me al he wanted for what he thought was unsafe, and how he thought the CARS should work, until they're changed, I'm of the attitude that we stay within the bounds of them. In other words I still follow the FTM and teach slips.

What kind of aircraft did you teach slips in and did the POH mention anything about slips in those aircraft types.

[Cat Driver]

Crop dusters crash all the time.

Another specious argument.

How about the large number of crop dusters who never crash?

[DonutHole]

It's not a specious argument... at least my friends sleeping In earth don't think so.

A specious argument would be that because some crop dusters never crash none do.

If you think I'm trashing ag, I'm not. I left ag when the bodies started to pile up. 3 friends in one season was too much

[pelmet]

Crop dusters crash all the time.

Another specious argument.

How about the large number of crop dusters who never crash?

Specious argument? I believe it is actually a statement to enlighten someone who talks as if knowledgeable about cropdusters yet is amazingly unaware of one being in an accident(not exactly accurate as all the time means there is always one crashing). Note: cropdusting is a relatively high risk flying activity but if done carefully, the risks can be significantly reduced.

As for specious arguments....lets follow up with the same thought process with for example, Syria and Iraq can't be dangerous places because look at all the people who are alive.

[Cat Driver]

where you yourself draw the "reckless" line.

I can't answer for shiney, however having carefully examined the video over and over it is my opinion the pilot in that video had that airplane under excellent control, note how he / she leveled off once at a safe height above the water so as to go under the bridge right in center of the highest part of the bridge with lots of room to spare...

Reckless?

I don't see it as being reckless, maybe dumb but not reckless.

[pdw]

OK lets do the audience poll ... riskier or reckless

Handicaps:
Not over gross (but max) ... airborne just under redline temp (hot day) ... just enough fuel to get back to base legal (no dallying) ... throw in a tiny leak in one float (for good measure) .

[Shiny Side Up]

don't see it as being reckless, maybe dumb but not reckless.

And only dumb, because it had a high chance of violating Hedley's first guideline of aviation: Try really hard not to piss someone off.

There's a lot of pilots whom I'd say if they did this, it would be wreckless, but then for some of them everything they do from the moment they turn a prop is wreckless. From my judgement this guy did something reasonable and safely with very little risk and not creating a hazard.

Maybe if it comes to light that this guy has a long history of running airplanes into things I might think differently, or a long string of accidents and bent metal, but it sure doesn't look like he does from the video.