Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

[Shiny Side Up]

Amusing bit: TC acknowledges that the term "built up area" is not defined in the CARS, from:

http://tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regse ... fo-116.htm

Scroll down, scroll waaaaaaay down...

Note that if we get to step (iv)....

Now I looked through a lot of definitions, and none classified a river as a built up area... Or included bridges that might cross rivers....

[CpnCrunch]

This might help:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca- ... ookesa.doc

I think this is from before the CARs were written. The decision is that if the takeoff surface is surrounded by a built-up area, then the takeoff did in fact occur *within* a built-up area. The CAR's are written slightly differently now in that they don't mention 'surface', but they do still use the word 'within'.

So the pilot did take off *within* a built-up area, and therefore he violated CAR 602.13.

I was hoping to avoid spending my Sunday afternoon navigating TC's piece-of-crap website hunting down CARs...

[Shiny Side Up]

Is the river surrounded by the built up area? Seems to me that there are two open ends to it. Given the rest of TC's methodology, the built up area ends at the water's edge. In this case, unless there is a specific ban on float operations off the Ottawa river, the river is the only place an aircraft can safely plan to operate, take off and climb to sufficient altitude as to not violate the CARs I've mentioned above.

You'll have to try harder.

[CpnCrunch]

If you read that Brookes Tribunal you'll see that he also argued that the park was not 'within' a built-up area as it wasn't surrounded by built-up areas on all 4 sides. However the tribunal determined that it was in fact within a built-up area due to the Webster dictionary definition (“In the inner or interior part or parts of; inside of; opposed to; "without"; in the limits, range, reach or compass of not beyond; inside or comprehended by the scope, limits, reach of influence of, not exceeding, not overstepping, etc. - adv. In the interior or center; inwardly; internally; in the mind, heart or soul; in the house or dwelling; indoors; at home.”)

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be willing to bet an hour's hobbs time that a tribunal would conclude that the river is 'within' the built-up area.

[Cat Driver]

We have been flying off the river in Vancouver ever since the dawn of aviation and for sure it is " within " a builtup area.

This whole discussion is becoming so circular we soon will all disapear where the sun don't shine

[AuxBatOn]

We have been flying off the river in Vancouver ever since the dawn of aviation and for sure it is " within " a builtup area.

This whole discussion is becoming so circular we soon will all disapear where the sun don't shine

It is an aerodrome though and there are approved procedures in place. Not quite the same thing we are discussing here.

If it is so normal do take off from under that bridge, why don't other people take off under the bridge more often?

[Cat Driver]

I have landed in every conceivable part of the river system in and around Vancouver doing log boom inspections, no one ever complained that I was landing and taking off at non airdrome locations.

Mind you I taxied under any bridges that we had to go under.

[iflyforpie]

In Nelson BC there have been more than a few float planes taking off under the orange bridge. Never heard of any violations. The Nelson airport I believe is only registered so mabye the town doesn't count as a built up area.... considering it is right adjacent to it.

[Shiny Side Up]

In Nelson BC there have been more than a few float planes taking off under the orange bridge. Never heard of any violations. The Nelson airport I believe is only registered so mabye the town doesn't count as a built up area.... considering it is right adjacent to it.

That was actually where I'd seen it happen a few times. Back when PJU was still around.

[CpnCrunch]

In Nelson BC there have been more than a few float planes taking off under the orange bridge. Never heard of any violations. The Nelson airport I believe is only registered so mabye the town doesn't count as a built up area.... considering it is right adjacent to it.

It's not "within" a built-up area (just next to one), so it satisfies 602.13. Also, 602.12 isn't a problem either as long as you don't take off or land "in a manner that is likely to create a hazard to persons or property."

[Rockie]

You still haven't really stated why the judgement was so impaired;

I've stated it plenty of times. He chose to takeoff and fly under a busy downtown bridge when he didn't have to. He placed himself and any passengers, plus anybody crossing the bridge at the time under unnecessary risk.

Statistically there are way more ways seaplanes have grief on take offs than hitting bridges.

Could that be because taking off under bridges isn't common you think? Most people are smarter than that.

As of yet, the only reason that people have been to come up with that he showed impaired judgement was that he has hurt some feelings with his actions.

No, for the 20th time he chose to do something risky when he didn't have to placing the people on the bridge and any passengers at risk. For people who assess risk everyday on the job choosing to fly under a bridge when you don't have to is an unnecessary risk and therefore shouldn't be done. People with those kinds of jobs don't use arguments like "there's nothing in the CAR's specifically telling me I can't fly under a bridge", because it's a juvenile argument that completely misses the big grown up picture. I say "juvenile" because I have a nephew who used to argue that way when he was 12, but has since grown up and doesn't anymore. When I asked him about this he couldn't understand why people were defending flying under bridges. He's able to see the big picture now.

I personally think you'd have to be really creative to argue that what was done created a hazard any greater than a normal seaplane take off to the general citizenry.

Ask the people on the bridge at the time. Even non-pilots have the smarts to know flying under a low, heavily trafficked bridge is riskier than not doing so, and a great deal dumber.

Mind you I taxied under any bridges that we had to go under.

Ah.

[single_swine_herder]

I'm just going out the door, so will just do a copy & paste of the applicable regulation.

Assuming the aircraft didn't depart from a "floatplane base" ..... discuss how the act of taking off and flying under a bridge in the City of Ottawa isn't prohibited under CAR 602.13 (1) .....

The defences of .... nobody was hurt, we did it all the time, its not in the core of downtown, etc are specious arguments.

Take-offs, Approaches and Landings within Built-up Areas of Cities and Towns

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.

(2) A person may conduct a take-off or landing in an aircraft within a built-up area of a city or town at a place that is not located at an airport, heliport or a military aerodrome where

(a) the place is not set apart for the operation of aircraft;

(b) the flight is conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface; and

(c) the aircraft is operated

(i) for the purpose of a police operation that is conducted in the service of a police authority, or

(ii) for the purpose of saving human life.

[pdw]

Assuming the aircraft didn't depart from a "floatplane base" ..... discuss how the act of taking off and flying under a bridge in the City of Ottawa isn't prohibited under CAR 602.13 (1) .....

The defences of .... nobody was hurt, we did it all the time, its not in the core of downtown, etc are specious arguments.

Any dock becomes the "base"; dropping in from appropriate circuit height is still possible there without infringing on the built up areas inland from the shores. Now this float plane is in process of rotation off the water way, becoming suddenly airborne from a bouncy step where it detaches from the water surface abruptly ... but not yet in climb from its level near-surface position. If it was taking off across the river width-wise, which is likely also long enough if winds permit, of course that would be prohibitited under it ... you'd be buzzing houses then. It's marine rules that apply there down on the waterway ...

[AirFrame]

People with those kinds of jobs don't use arguments like "there's nothing in the CAR's specifically telling me I can't fly under a bridge", because it's a juvenile argument that completely misses the big grown up picture. I say "juvenile" because I have a nephew who used to argue that way when he was 12, but has since grown up and doesn't anymore. When I asked him about this he couldn't understand why people were defending flying under bridges. He's able to see the big picture now.

Keep in mind how the laws in Canada work... If the law doesn't specifically exclude an activity, then the activity is not excluded. This fact applies across all aspects of law in Canada and is used by many grown-ups to ensure they pay the minimum amount of tax needed in any calendar year.

In simple terms, as there is no law prohibiting takeoff under a bridge, you can take off under a bridge. The catch-all rule is intended as a stop-gap to adding new rules, when some crazy nutball comes up with something new that nobody considered before but may warrant a new rule. Given the large number of times people have flown under bridges (both floatplane and other) and the lack of any specific additions to the rules, i'd say nobody considers it a large enough problem to bother with. Unusual, yes. Reasonable and prudent, debatable. Unlawful, no.

[Shiny Side Up]

No, for the 20th time he chose to do something risky when he didn't have to

And for the twentieth time, that's your opinion. As of yet in this country we don't convict people based on opinion. I'm sorry that what this fellow did offends you

Even non-pilots have the smarts to know.

No they don't. If we relied on the "smarts" of non flyers, we'd all been grounded a long time ago. Ask me how I know. You should think twice before siding yourself with their opinion.

The defences of .... nobody was hurt, we did it all the time, its not in the core of downtown, etc are specious arguments.

You do a good job of misdirection by claiming arguments that aren't being made are specious.

There is no defense "nobody was hurt", there is the opinion that a hazard was created or not.

There is no defense that "it was done all the time" but rather given the times that it has happened, it presses the point of low risk. Again, lets have some evidence that flying under the bridge created a hazard. All we have now is that it scared you and some boaters.

There is no defense that it "was not in the core of downtown" but rather that it was not within the confines of a built-up area. Since built-up area is not defined within the CARS, you're having trouble making this one stick, since whether the aircraft took off within the built-up area (here's a hint - the built up area of a city does not extend to its city limits. Again, ask me how I know this).

Incidentally I recall something similar to this when a fellow used to operate a floatplane off of Chestermere Lake - which by the standards of many here is surrounded by built up area. Very similar to the Ottawa river. Lots of hurt feelings people tried to make violations of the CARS stick much like (disappointingly so) the pilots here. Since they couldn't, the neighbors resorted to harassing the owner in other ways, the plane was vandalized I think, which I suppose some here would think was acceptable since you know, non flyers have some "smarts" when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Actually thinking about it, when I was learning to fly floats in the lovely town of Nelson, there were a lot of hippies who thought that the float plane operating "so dangerously close to town" should be stopped.

[CpnCrunch]

Since built-up area is not defined within the CARS, you're having trouble making this one stick, since whether the aircraft took off within the built-up area (here's a hint - the built up area of a city does not extend to its city limits. Again, ask me how I know this).
...Incidentally I recall something similar to this when a fellow used to operate a floatplane off of Chestermere Lake - which by the standards of many here is surrounded by built up area. Very similar to the Ottawa river. Lots of hurt feelings people tried to make violations of the CARS stick much like (disappointingly so) the pilots here. Since they couldn't, the neighbors resorted to harassing the owner in other ways, the plane was vandalized I think, which I suppose some here would think was acceptable since you know, non flyers have some "smarts" when it comes to this sort of stuff.

You can get a fair idea by seeing where the yellow areas are on the VNC. Chestermere lake has no yellow anywhere near it and is mostly surrounded by fields (although there are a lot of houses around it). It doesn't really surprise me that the residents there would vandalise a plane. Chestermere has a very high homicide rate higher even than Edmonton. It's pretty much a ghetto.

Interestingly the two waterdromes nearby this bridge in Ottawa (CTR7 and CTL3) are not certified airports, so they don't satisfy 602.13 either. There's a fair amount of yellow around them, but it's not completely built-up (unlike Winnipeg).

[Shiny Side Up]

You can get a fair idea by seeing where the yellow areas are on the VNC. Chestermere lake has no yellow anywhere near it and is mostly surrounded by fields (although there are a lot of houses around it).

Actually, the yellow on most maps is way behind where it should be in most cases, especially around the Calgary area. Chestermere is completely surrounded by housing at this moment, so if that doesn't constitute built-up area in your opinion, then certainly the Ottawa river doesn't since there is, at least in the video, substantially less buildings in proximity to the shore.

Either way, it illustrates my point that "built up area" just isn't as well defined as everyone seems to think. Either way, if you think that yellow areas contitute the built up areas, then the pilot isn't in one, he's over a blue area on the map.

[CpnCrunch]

Chestermere is completely surrounded by housing at this moment, so if that doesn't constitute built-up area in your opinion, then certainly the Ottawa river doesn't since there is, at least in the video, substantially less buildings in proximity to the shore.

I was looking at google satellite, and it shows no houses at all on the south side, just fields. It could be out of date though.

[Rockie]

Once again, this pilot did not have to takeoff under the bridge since there is over 50 miles of unobstructed takeoff surface just beyond it. So he either chose to do it or did it inadvertently. Either way the takeoff argument is completely illegitimate and specious. It was no different than if he took off from CYOW and decided to fly under the bridge.

What I find most unpleasantly surprising is the amount of people here who think float pilots are somehow endowed with special gifts and are not only capable, but should by rights operate under a different set of standards than wheel pilots do. This was either an anomaly, or float pilots in general really do think it's absolutely within the bounds of normalcy to fly under a 6 lane wide, heavily trafficked bridge in the middle of a city that only has 42 feet of clearance between water and concrete.

If that is the case, there is a real problem in the float community.

[Shiny Side Up]

It was no different than if he took off from CYOW and decided to fly under the bridge.

Actually it is different, I'm not sure why you guys are having a hard time with that. He didn't have to dive under the bridge - a somewhat different manuever, which if you don't know the differences in risk inherent within, now that's depressing.

What I find most unpleasantly surprising is the amount of people here who think float pilots are somehow endowed with special gifts and are not only capable,

No, you're the one who's assuming you need to be so endowed as to not run into a bridge. Are you saying what he did somehow required superhuman skill? If you had to do it you're saying there would be a high probablility of you running into the bridge? Personally I think anyone with a fresh float rating could have did that take off and not hit the bridge, I'm nt sure where its coming from that this pilot did something exceedingly difficult.

If that is the case, there is a real problem in the float community.

Doesn't sound like you're a float pilot. Can we safely assume that the above is your opinion on how float flying should be conducted?

[pdw]

This was either an anomaly, or float pilots in general really do think it's absolutely within the bounds of normalcy ...

The chance to land a float-plane on the Ottawa river is an anomaly all on its own; few pilots get to do this. Dodging the water traffic for a take-off is a big concern, and to find a suitable runway length in that process. Then there's also the fact that once with pax, the floats have a limit to what they hold, and also time on the water if any bilge concerns exist.

Float taxi is not as safe as it looks for at least those reasons. Floats are a vulnerable tool, ... not the same as the buoyancy capacity of a boat where weight is less important for lack of the airborne capability. Sitting out there putterring/rocking for any length of time at weight capacity (ie idling to a distant take-off spot) is not all that desire-able either. So, if there's a clear shot out into wind (ie no conflicting traffic on the take off run straight out front of his/her windscreen) then the float PIC's mandate is to get it going and get clear of the sporadic and risky traffic that's possible in this area. This is why IMO there is also some empathy on this pilot's behalf by the float crowd.

[KK7]

Interesting discussions. I'm not going to argue one way or the other, but wanted to address a couple of things brought up:

As of yet in this country we don't convict people based on opinion.

If the law doesn't specifically exclude an activity, then the activity is not excluded.

Neither of these statements apply to this case.

Being penalized by a tribunal or the Federal Court by receiving a fine or licence suspension is not a criminal conviction. Opinion can very much come into play when the tribunal or judge is deciding what is considered to be normal practice in aviation. Each of the parties may bring in respective expert witnesses to testify what is considered to be safe practice. It is also worth noting that tribunals, unlike regular courts of law, are not bound by precedents.

Unfortunately there is a catch-all regulation that can exclude any activity in aviation that is deemed to be unsafe, in the event that there is no specific regulation against that specific activity: CARS 602.01. So in Canadian aviation you can never say there isn't a law that excludes any specific activity. It would be up to the TATC, then the Federal Court if applicable, to determine if the activity falls under 602.01 if TC decided to go that route.

602.01 No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regu ... l#s-602.01

[Rockie]

Actually it is different, I'm not sure why you guys are having a hard time with that. He didn't have to dive under the bridge - a somewhat different manuever, which if you don't know the differences in risk inherent within, now that's depressing.

I do have some float time, and know a thing or two about low level flying from the job I had after that. Because of that it's obvious to me you pulled that argument out from someplace better left unmentioned and is completely without merit. Since you have a thing about "opinions", yours appears to be that it's ok for a float plane to fly under a 42 foot high bridge but not a wheel plane.

If yours is a typical "opinion" amongst float pilots then there is a serious problem in the float community.

So, if there's a clear shot out into wind (ie no conflicting traffic on the take off run straight out front of his/her windscreen) then the float PIC's mandate is to get it going and get clear of the sporadic and risky traffic that's possible in this area.

There wasn't a clear shot out into wind, there was a big bridge in the way that he had to fly under with minimal clearance. And if you look at the video again aside from a couple of rowing sculls next to the shore (not known for their erratic maneuverability or tendency to dart out sideways into the path of floatplanes) there is no other traffic on the river during his takeoff run or as far as the eye can see north of the bridge. Nor does he appear to be in imminent danger of sinking from water flooding into his floats. If he is under those conditions then that definitely is a subject for a whole new thread.

A float pilot PIC's mandate along with every other type of PIC is to be solely responsible for the safety of the aircraft and everyone in it. To carry out that responsibility correctly requires good judgement. Flying under a bridge when you clearly do not have to does not demonstrate good judgement in anybody's book except a few denizens of AvCanada.

[Cat Driver]

Once again I watched the video a few times.

The take off would not have produced so much hand wringing if the pilot had stayed on the step until he / she was past the bridge.

As to the actual danger he / she posed for the people crossing the bridge that is debatable, just prior to lift off the heels of the floats were dragging resulting in several skips before actually becoming airborne, once airborne the pilot allowed the speed to increase in ground effect, by the time he / she reached the bridge it is debatable if he / she had enough energy built up to climb high enough to get over the bridge railings to smash into the traffic on the bridge.

[Shiny Side Up]

yours appears to be that it's ok for a float plane to fly under a 42 foot high bridge but not a wheel plane.

That's because what he did, isn't that much riskier than if he was on the step under the bridge, which if you want, you can also contest that a step taxi under the bridge is also posing a hazard. A wheeled airplane to get under the bridge can't have lifted off the water (or if it did, that's getting into airshow territory) so now had to descend to the surface of the water - as opposed to rise off of it. I'm not sure why you can't differentiate between the risks of those two things. Just like landing under the bridge would be a greater risk than taking off under it. As has been said, it might have been impossible to climb to hit the bridge given his performance for the day, but a lot easier to hit the bridge if you're descending under it. Different perspectives.

As I've said before, there are take offs that happen by the thousands per day in this country that put the public at more risk than this fellow did. The whole legal vs safe argument. But that's not even what's at stake here. What this fellow did was both legal and reasonably safe. Nothing is completely safe. The judgement of some boaters as to what is safe for aviation, is completely irrelevant. If you asked most of them, nothing in GA is safe - hence why they don't do it.

And you're right, that's my opinion. You don't have to like it, but you're also not going to regulate me based on yours.