Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

[Cat Driver]

O.K.

The use of the word specious was not the correct word to use.

Accidents generally fall into two main categories, pilot error and mechanical failure.

The pilot error accident can be mitigated by good training in the task being performed followed by sound decision making.

Where does one draw the line when deciding what type of flying is to dangerous?

[DonutHole]

Where they are comfortable, or where they are legal, whichever comes first

[Rockie]

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?

That is an excellent question. For many things there are hard numbers and absolute "don't go there's", but in this business especially there are countless other situations where you have to rely on experience and judgement. Personally when I reach a level in my mind where I no longer want to be "there" I call endex (military term).

Flying under a bridge? Why the hell would I want to do that unless I had absolutely no other choice or I was satisfying some primal urge to do something risky? In this case this fellow had absolutely no need to fly under that bridge, ergo he either screwed up or did it deliberately. It is very difficult to respect a decision to deliberately fly under a bridge and I would not trust the judgement of someone who would do that outside the realm of sanctioned stunt flying.

And that's the point. In many and most cases, what's risky or hazardous for people is different.

Well, I am what you might call very experienced in the kind of flying most people don't get to do, and have flown truly risky profiles as part of my job at one time. As a consequence I have a very refined sense of what risk is necessary and what isn't. I also know from experience that what I at one time used to consider not very risky actually is. What this guy did is not an acceptable risk because nobody was shooting at him, no sharks were chasing him, his engine wasn't going to catch fire and his plane wasn't going to sink. All he had to do was taxi a little ways farther north before starting his takeoff run.

The fact that he didn't makes it either extremely stupid if it was unintended which warrants an uncomfortable interview in front of the authorities, or reckless if he did it deliberately.

Enough people die in this business without doing stupid stuff like that.

[Shiny Side Up]

That is an excellent question. For many things there are hard numbers and absolute "don't go there's", but in this business especially there are countless other situations where you have to rely on experience and judgement. Personally when I reach a level in my mind where I no longer want to be "there" I call endex (military term).

But we can acknowledge that for some things there are no numbers?

I also know from experience that what I at one time used to consider not very risky actually is.

You and me both, though I doubt you'd believe that. There's somethings I've merely grown to appreciate the risk more than I used to, but then I've also become more aware of where they are more acute and means of mitigating them. But that's beside the point really, that only applies to me and those I can enforce it upon (my peons and customers).

What this guy did is not an acceptable risk because nobody was shooting at him, no sharks were chasing him, his engine wasn't going to catch fire and his plane wasn't going to sink. All he had to do was taxi a little ways farther north before starting his takeoff run.

That sounds like there may be a list of things where in spite of the risk it warrants doing it. Though I'm not sure what you would imagine a threat sharks might posess, that's a little out there. Not important.

The comparison to crop dusting here might be the most accurate or at least the closest that's applicable. I don't do aerial application. It would be risky for me to do without training. That, however, doesn't mean its too risky for others to do, or that the risks can't be mitigated. The reasons for doing it after all seem absurd on the face of it, crops can be sprayed by other means after all, so its pure profit motive. So if we are to take the CARS as our reference, doing hazardous flying is "acceptable" if we want to make more money per acre of crop - amongst other things - all defined under "aerial work". Other missions also may seem the same way. Its not ok to fly low in a built up area unles you're chasing a stolen SUV then its ok? The things that legally we deem are acceptable risks really seem strange when you really think about them.

Or could it be that such activity isn't that risky when we take all the precautions necessary, and we leave otherwise a wide margin for everything else to make the public feel safe?

[DonutHole]

Shiny

There's lots of debate in crop dusting circles about these types of things on a regular basis.

Get a bunch in a room and ask them about wires

[Rockie]

But we can acknowledge that for some things there are no numbers?

I just said that.

That sounds like there may be a list of things where in spite of the risk it warrants doing it.

I once knew a guy who did a 3 engine takeoff in a Herc from some dark and dangerous place in Africa. His superiors didn't think it was warranted, but they were sitting in their office in Trenton at the time and he didn't think their opinion counted for much since they weren't there. So he went anyway as for him it was the lesser of two risks.

That's the kind of risk that is warranted. What possible kind of risk was the guy in this video facing besides actually flying under a large bridge with no room for error?

[Shiny Side Up]

Shiny

There's lots of debate in crop dusting circles about these types of things on a regular basis.

Get a bunch in a room and ask them about wires

I only make the comparison, since like this topic, there's probably room for debate.

[Cat Driver]

Get a bunch in a room and ask them about wires

Excellent example.

I was taught to fly over them and then do headlands, however that was in tobacco country with real small fields and lots of wires.

We also had maps of every farm we flew with the wires well drawn on them.

I never ever flew under a set of wires and never ever hit one either.

[Shiny Side Up]

That's the kind of risk that is warranted. What possible kind of risk was the guy in this video facing besides actually flying under a large bridge with no room for error?

I don't know, neither do you. All either of us can see is that he did the take off. Maybe he was sinking and needed to get off the water. Maybe he had sharks after him.

[Rockie]

Maybe he was sinking and needed to get off the water.

Yeah that sounds likely. Much better to do that with flooding floats and land back on the water than make a beeline to shore.

[Shiny Side Up]

Doesn't look like a lot of places along that shore that would be suitable to beach, and certainly the near shore to the camera had unfriendlies. Not to mention that given the Ottawa River's apparent off limits to float planes, he probably didn't want to stick around. I'm sure you can appreciate the need to get a troubled airplane out of hostile territory.

[Rockie]

Well, I'm not sure the nation's capital qualifies as hostile territory but there are certainly people occupying the Parliament building who don't have this country's best interests at heart.

[Shiny Side Up]

Well, I'm not sure the nation's capital qualifies as hostile territory.

As an Albertan, that's like the belly of the beast.

[iflyforpie]

All..... you.... guys... need to just calm..... down... man...

Come out to BC where we don't fly under bridges... bridges fly over us.

It's all relative......... .....man!!

[DonutHole]

All..... you.... guys... need to just calm..... down... man...

Come out to BC where we don't fly under bridges... bridges fly over us.

It's all relative......... .....man!!

Dude, we don't worry in bc because we get higher faster.... why you think we put bc in the mountains?

[iflyforpie]

Oh man....

[AirFrame]

That's the kind of risk that is warranted. What possible kind of risk was the guy in this video facing besides actually flying under a large bridge with only 50' vertically and a couple of hundred feet horizontally of room for error?

There, I fixed that for you.

You keep talking like this was so close to being fatal to the pilot, his passenger, and half the population of Toronto, but it really wasn't. If you've done all the different kinds of flying you claim to, then you understand that certain operations do increase risk. At the same time you have to realize that some situations *don't* increase risk anywhere near as high as some people might think.

Lots of pilots have told me that mountains are scary. Mostly pilots who have no experience flying over or near mountains. A mountain check, and a few summers towing gliders and dropping them off reeeeeally close to the mountain face, taught me that they're not a huge deal. Your experience dictates what you consider "normal", "usual", "risky", and "reckless". The grey area allows Transport leeway in interpreting every situation that doesn't have it's own specific prohibition.

In this case, Transport chose not to pursue. That in itself says a lot.

[CpnCrunch]

In this case, Transport chose not to pursue. That in itself says a lot.

Not quite. They chose to investigate, but they haven't got his tail number yet.

[Rockie]

Airframe.

You don't know that TC chose not to pursue it, and even if they do choose not to you won't know why.

It isn't 50 feet of clearance either, the best info I could find from marine sources is 42 feet. From that you have to subtract the vertical dimensions of the airplane and then divide that number by 2. That's what I call "no room for error". I also have a lot of time flying in very close proximity to mountains in BC and I never got anywhere near that close to them because the winds can be very unpredictable and without vegetation it was much more difficult to tell distance. And here's the really important part - I ALWAYS had a clear area left, right or up through which to bail if I needed to.

In fact, at no time since I began flying professionally have I ever put myself in that kind of position because it is foolish. the only people who deliberately put themselves into that kind of corner are adrenalin junkies with a thirst for danger.

If this fellow wants to get Red Bull to sponsor him, paint up his airplane, get permission from the authorities to fly under the bridge with ALL the appropriate safety measures in place then I say go right ahead. But this kind of nonsense has no place in day to day aviation.

[AirFrame]

Not quite. They chose to investigate, but they haven't got his tail number yet.

Others here said they could find it in about 10 minutes. It took me 20. Someone at TC seriously couldn't do as well?

It isn't 50 feet of clearance either, the best info I could find from marine sources is 42 feet. From that you have to subtract the vertical dimensions of the airplane and then divide that number by 2. That's what I call "no room for error". I also have a lot of time flying in very close proximity to mountains in BC and I never got anywhere near that close to them because the winds can be very unpredictable and without vegetation it was much more difficult to tell distance. And here's the really important part - I ALWAYS had a clear area left, right or up through which to bail if I needed to.

I thought I saw 46' mentioned earlier and just rounded up, but it's neither here nor there. Say 40' if you like. It's still 4x the height of the airplane. It's not divided by two, when the pilot could have taxied under the bridge. He wouldn't want to get close to the upper limit, but the lower limit is usable. Engine problem? Land on water. No problem.

Just curious, how do you factor in experience and practise to this situation? A float pilot in an area with bridges probably gets some experience taxiing under bridges. Regularly doing it would give you experience seeing that sight picture. Your comfort level with being close to the underside of a bridge would go up. And on a day when the tide was out, water level was low, whatever, maybe you'd decide that even a few feet off the water on takeoff, you'll have as much clearance as you would taxiing on a high-water day?

What it comes down to in the end here is that what *you* consider dangerous, reckless, risky, idiotic, stupid, etc. isn't what others lump into the same category. Float pilots here have said it's not that unusual. Others have said they'd never do it. On the face of it, as a non-float pilot, I wouldn't be all too worried by it if I were onboard. You would. We'll have to agree to disagree, as nobody has been violated for it to set a precedent with regards to legality.

[CpnCrunch]

Not quite. They chose to investigate, but they haven't got his tail number yet.

Others here said they could find it in about 10 minutes. It took me 20. Someone at TC seriously couldn't do as well?

I think TC needs a bit more evidence than 'it looked kinda like this plane'. Are you sure you've even got the right plane? It's not anyone living in Ottawa as far as I can see - the markings on those Stinsons don't seem to match. There's no easy way to get a list of the planes based at a particular airport, due to TC's crappy aircraft registration website.

[rigpiggy]

Ridiculous! I think she doesn't know much about perspectives either. And the airplane definitely was NOT coming straight at them! Geez.

That's because her husband keeps telling her 4" is 1' and the only way he gets any is by sneaking up on her blind spot

[GyvAir]

If I read it correctly, Fisheries and Oceans Canada says the green navigation light mounted on the bottom of the span under which the plane was flown is 15.9 metres (52’) above the surface of the water. Not that it matters all that much to either side of this argument.

Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing a picture of the aircraft that people here are saying they have identified as the malicious Red Bull wannabe Stinson/Champ/Whateveritis. I wasted a lot longer than 10 or 20 minutes, using a fair range of search tools and angles and could only come up with a number of aircraft looking similar, but none that matched completely. Though, if people really have correctly identified the aircraft, I wouldn't advocate spreading the information on the pilot or his plane around, so no, I'm not actually asking for any proof of anyone's investigative prowess.

[pdw]

"Green navigation light" ... that doesn't make this any less interesting ..

"52ft" instead of the "42ft"/earlier estimate, not necessariy due to error; it might have more to to do with changing water levels in any river after a rainy season (more-or-less flow at certain times throughout any given year).

That's related to an earlier point I'd attempted to make, that a downstream current encountered .. is always stronger too if the free-flowing river is running higher (increased groundspeed but a lower waterspeed)

EDIT:
Green marks the rightside of a waterway downstream (red is right ... for the return upstream coming back in from the sea).

Taxiing a ways downwind/upstream for this take-off is in slower groundspeed than waterspeed; then turning down-current for take-off increases groundspeed by double the currentspeed. A lot more distance covered in that northbound/downstream take-off run before even getting on the step, and the NE headwind is also not as strong down on the water at that side of the river ... which is part of the reason for a later rotation ...

[LousyFisherman]

"Green navigation light" ... that doesn't make this any less interesting ..

So does that mean to be legal he has to stay to the proper side of the light as long as he is on the water?
Where is the port in Ottawa? Is he taking off while heading towards the port entrance?
Does the legal definition of takeoff equate to the legal definition of "leaving the port"?

LF