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

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:GTgrg.62820$ZW3.17380@dukeread04...
"gatt" wrote in message
...
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:L5drg.62804$ZW3.40846@dukeread04...
I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the FAA and
USCG laws are OK?

How is it a violation?

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation.
No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless
manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Even assuming that the scene was filmed without special effects, a
meticulously planned and executed stunt--carefully coordinated with the
stunt performers in the boat--would not have endangered anyone. (Since there
are no clear rules as to what counts as reckless, the FAA could conceivably
try to invoke 91.13a anyway; but that's true regarding *any* flight, and in
any case they apparently haven't done so.)

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air
navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than
for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the
surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce
(including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or
discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless
manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

No airport surface was involved.

§ 91.115 Right-of-way rules: Water operations.
(a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the water
shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and
avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any
vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way by
any rule of this section.

The aircraft kept clear, and it had right of way according to 91.115b (the
plane was to the boat's right).

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

The aircraft was taking off, so the altitudes in 91.119 don't apply.

Note that just because you are taking off, you still must
comply with the regulations. Read this again...

[91.119](c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet
above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure.

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!

--Gary

Jim Macklin wrote:

Yes, but I didn't see a waiver.

You wouldn't, it's not like it's a billboard planted so everyone can see
it. It's a piece of paper allowing someone to deviate from certain
FAR's and under what conditions they may do so.


Do you know whether there
was a waiver?


I wouldn't have any idea but I don't go jumping off half cocked assuming
there wasn't one. I assumed there was. They are easy to get and are
given every day for a whole host of reasons.


The point I was making is that we shouldn't
be laughing at fat people being thrown from horses, kids on
skate boards crushing their jewels or pilots making an
unsafe take-off.

If it's funny I'll laugh. I don't care if you're fat, retarded, black,
whatever. If it's funny, it's funny.

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



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:GTgrg.62820$ZW3.17380@dukeread04...
| "gatt" wrote in message
| ...
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote in message
| news:L5drg.62804$ZW3.40846@dukeread04...
| I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the
FAA and
| USCG laws are OK?
|
| How is it a violation?
|
| § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
| (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air
navigation.
| No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or
reckless
| manner so as to endanger the life or property of
another.
|
| Even assuming that the scene was filmed without special
effects, a
| meticulously planned and executed stunt--carefully
coordinated with the
| stunt performers in the boat--would not have endangered
anyone. (Since there
| are no clear rules as to what counts as reckless, the FAA
could conceivably
| try to invoke 91.13a anyway; but that's true regarding
*any* flight, and in
| any case they apparently haven't done so.)
|
| (b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of
air
| navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other
than
| for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the
| surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce
| (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or
| discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless
| manner so as to endanger the life or property of
another.
|
| No airport surface was involved.
|
| § 91.115 Right-of-way rules: Water operations.
| (a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the
water
| shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels
and
| avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to
any
| vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way
by
| any rule of this section.
|
| The aircraft kept clear, and it had right of way according
to 91.115b (the
| plane was to the boat's right).
|
| § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
| Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person
may
| operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
|
| The aircraft was taking off, so the altitudes in 91.119
don't apply.
|
| Note that just because you are taking off, you still
must
| comply with the regulations. Read this again...
|
| [91.119](c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude
of 500 feet
| above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
| populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
| operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
| vehicle, or structure.
|
| 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!
|
| --Gary
|
|

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

Takeoffs are optional. Landings are mandatory.

Jokes aside, the key word "necessary" does not require that the takeoff
be necessary, but that once the takeoff is happening, the altitudes and
such be necessary.

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: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.