We can all agree -- THIS is a great aviation video...

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:Bmirg.62828$ZW3.25169@dukeread04...
Note that just because you are taking off, you still must
comply with the regulations.

Huh? According to the beginning of 91.119, parts a, b, and c *do not
apply*
during takeoff or landing. If they did apply, then it would be illegal
for
you to land on a runway whenever another plane is holding short less than
500' from your flight path!

key word, necessary... or was the take-off necessary.

No, that's not a sensible parsing of the qualifier "Except when necessary
for takeoff or landing".

A takeoff is virtually never necessary. So if 91.119 meant what you think it
does, then you'd be forbidden to take off from a runway if your flight path
would bring you within 500' of another aircraft that's on the ground near
the runway (on a parallel taxiway, for example). Is that really the rule you
follow when you fly?

--Gary

In the case in question, there was a fishing boat, with two
people and the PBY did in fact take-off directly toward the
boat. I understand that this was a staged movie and it is
possible that they did get a waiver [it is also possible
they didn't]. But the video clearly shows the boat rocking
on the bow wave, which does indicate that this was an actual
take-off toward the boat.

THAT operation is illegal, unsafe and unnecessary. In
crowed harbor, there will often be boat traffic, some being
canoes, small motor boats and most will be operated by
untrained "captains."

Don't confuse normal airport traffic near a runway with boat
traffic on a lake or harbor.On a lake, a take-off or landing
may come closer than 500 feet to a boat, but it should NEVER
be aimed at that boat.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:Bmirg.62828$ZW3.25169@dukeread04...
| Note that just because you are taking off, you still
must
| comply with the regulations.
|
| Huh? According to the beginning of 91.119, parts a, b,
and c *do not
| apply*
| during takeoff or landing. If they did apply, then it
would be illegal
| for
| you to land on a runway whenever another plane is
holding short less than
| 500' from your flight path!
|
| key word, necessary... or was the take-off necessary.
|
| No, that's not a sensible parsing of the qualifier "Except
when necessary
| for takeoff or landing".
|
| A takeoff is virtually never necessary. So if 91.119 meant
what you think it
| does, then you'd be forbidden to take off from a runway if
your flight path
| would bring you within 500' of another aircraft that's on
the ground near
| the runway (on a parallel taxiway, for example). Is that
really the rule you
| follow when you fly?
|
| --Gary
|
|

THAT operation is illegal, unsafe and unnecessary.

If it's the same takeoff I'm thinking of, it was most definately
necessary. How else would it be filmed for the movie?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Filming a movie is not necessary, it is optional. There may
even be alternative ways to film the scene. Those are
things that the FAA will consider before issuing a waiver.

It is possible that the scene was filmed in Mexico or some
other country, but that might make it legal, but it is still
unsafe.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
land and seaplane rated



"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
| THAT operation is illegal, unsafe and unnecessary.
|
| If it's the same takeoff I'm thinking of, it was most
definately
| necessary. How else would it be filmed for the movie?
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Filming a movie is not necessary, it is optional. There may
even be alternative ways to film the scene. Those are
things that the FAA will consider before issuing a waiver.

Flying is not necessary either.

It is possible that the scene was filmed in Mexico or some
other country, but that might make it legal, but it is still
unsafe.

I do not agree that it is unsafe, except inasmuch as breathing causes
death. That's a very long lens on the camera; this compresses
perspective. Just like aerobatics demonstrations (which are
unnecessary), the visual tricks fool the viewer into thinking things are
a lot closer than they are.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Note the time delay is just a few seconds as the airplane
passes overhead and the wake rocks the boat, that was not a
telephoto lens but a real close pass.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Jose" wrote in message
.com...
| Filming a movie is not necessary, it is optional. There
may
| even be alternative ways to film the scene. Those are
| things that the FAA will consider before issuing a
waiver.
|
| Flying is not necessary either.
|
| It is possible that the scene was filmed in Mexico or
some
| other country, but that might make it legal, but it is
still
| unsafe.
|
| I do not agree that it is unsafe, except inasmuch as
breathing causes
| death. That's a very long lens on the camera; this
compresses
| perspective. Just like aerobatics demonstrations (which
are
| unnecessary), the visual tricks fool the viewer into
thinking things are
| a lot closer than they are.
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article kXwrg.62937$ZW3.47903@dukeread04,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Note the time delay is just a few seconds as the airplane
passes overhead and the wake rocks the boat, that was not a
telephoto lens but a real close pass.

And how do you know there was not some special effects contraption out
of sight behind the rowboat to generate those waves?
Remember... it's only a movie!

In article kXwrg.62937$ZW3.47903@dukeread04,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Note the time delay is just a few seconds as the airplane
passes overhead and the wake rocks the boat, that was not a
telephoto lens but a real close pass.

I watched the scene several times last night. Note that the camera
pans down to see the boat "rocked" but by what? The bow wave
doesn't look close to the boat and it seems hard to figure out
the distant between the plane and the boat. Doesn't a long lens
put the background out of focus? (or did I get that backwards?)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Note the time delay is just a few seconds as the airplane
passes overhead and the wake rocks the boat, that was not a
telephoto lens but a real close pass.

It was most definately a telephoto lens. I'm not convinced that the
wave that rocks the boat is the bow wave. We could figure all this out
- what kind of plane was it, what is its dimensions? (hull width, engine
spacing, wingspan). What is its typical approach speed?

It was also a close pass, but nowhere near as close as it looks. That's
how movies work. And remember, right at the end of a regular short
runway is stuff you don't want to hit too, but we take off of short
runways all the time.

It would be reckless for you and I and a few friends to go and do this.
However, Hollywood stunt people are well trained in these kinds of
things, they know, understand, and accept the risks (just like
aerobatics pilots do things that would be reckless for you or I to do
alone).

I have no problem with the flying in the shot.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:l8trg.62919$ZW3.30020@dukeread04...
Don't confuse normal airport traffic near a runway with boat
traffic on a lake or harbor. On a lake, a take-off or landing
may come closer than 500 feet to a boat, but it should NEVER
be aimed at that boat.

Certainly not without the boat occupants' competent cooperation; that would
be reckless. But in this case (assuming the scene was even real), the stunt
performers in the boat *were* cooperating, and presumably had the expertise
to do so safely.

Your assertion that 91.119 prohibits the takeoff can't be correct, because
otherwise 91.119 would also forbid you to take off or land whenever doing so
would bring you within 500' of a person or vehicle. There's nothing in the
wording of 91.119 that addresses whether or not you are "aimed at" the
object you come close to.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:Bmirg.62828$ZW3.25169@dukeread04...
| Note that just because you are taking off, you still
must
| comply with the regulations.
|
| Huh? According to the beginning of 91.119, parts a, b,
and c *do not
| apply*
| during takeoff or landing. If they did apply, then it
would be illegal
| for
| you to land on a runway whenever another plane is
holding short less than
| 500' from your flight path!
|
| key word, necessary... or was the take-off necessary.
|
| No, that's not a sensible parsing of the qualifier "Except
when necessary
| for takeoff or landing".
|
| A takeoff is virtually never necessary. So if 91.119 meant
what you think it
| does, then you'd be forbidden to take off from a runway if
your flight path
| would bring you within 500' of another aircraft that's on
the ground near
| the runway (on a parallel taxiway, for example). Is that
really the rule you
| follow when you fly?
|
| --Gary
|
|