Stupid Pilot Tricks

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:12:36 -0700, "Gatt"
wrote in :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Flying under a bridge and putting citizens at risk probably qualifies.

Who judges if citizens were put at risk?

Well, if I buzz an airshow in a C-152, who do you suppose judges if
citizens were put at risk?

The FSDO inspector.

What regulation specifically forbids flying under bridges?

Were there people on the bridge? Is it (public) property? If so,
14CFR91.13a:

"No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to endanger the life or property of another.


If it was a Part 103 flight, 14CFR91.13a wouldn't apply.

There is no _specific_ provision against flying under bridges in the
regulations of which I am aware.

Also, was the landing on the sand bar "forced" or would the helicopter
have followed to the nearest airfield.


The news account used the word 'force.'

Is the news account suddenly authoritative on aviation terminology?


Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is in this discussion, IMO.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:20:36 -0700, "Gatt"
wrote in :



Larry Dighera wrote:
Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?

Yes and no, respectively.

So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable
rendering the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
structures incorrect, no?

Somewhat, but they can still stick the pilot.
Sec. 103.9 Hazardous operations.

(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that
creates a hazard to other persons or property.


While the FSDO inspector might initiate an administrative action
against a certificated airman under that regulation, I'm not sure what
would be appropriate for an unlicensed ultralight operator.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:20:36 -0700, "Gatt"
wrote in :



Larry Dighera wrote:
Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?

Yes and no, respectively.

So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable
rendering the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
structures incorrect, no?

Somewhat, but they can still stick the pilot.
Sec. 103.9 Hazardous operations.

(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that
creates a hazard to other persons or property.


While the FSDO inspector might initiate an administrative action
against a certificated airman under that regulation, I'm not sure what
would be appropriate for an unlicensed ultralight operator.


Might be workable against the Helicopter pilot who "forced" the landing.

Al G

"El Maximo" wrote in message
...
"Gatt" wrote in message

I was watching a baseball games a few years ago. At one point the manager
came out of the dugout to argue with the umpire. After a few minutes, the
station ran the following graphic across the screen:

Who will win this argument?

A) The Umpire
B) The Umpire
or
C) The Umpire

Ha! That's hilarious!

-c

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

There is no _specific_ provision against flying under bridges in the
regulations of which I am aware.

In 1990 an amphibeous single flew under a bridge in downtown Portland and
the FAA and the police were all over the place looking for it.

Later that afternoon, I saw a conspicuously similar amphib in an open hangar
at nearby Troutdale. Were you in my position, would you have notified the
police? (They didn't exactly come forward and say "I did it, everybody.
It was totally legal.")

The news account used the word 'force.'

Is the news account suddenly authoritative on aviation terminology?

Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is in this discussion, IMO.

Fair enough. But I wonder: How does one "force" an airplane to the ground?

-c

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that
creates a hazard to other persons or property.

While the FSDO inspector might initiate an administrative action
against a certificated airman under that regulation, I'm not sure what
would be appropriate for an unlicensed ultralight operator.

Me either, but the issue is probably a bit different since there's
significant doubt that it's legally an ultralight.
So then it becomes an issue of a potentially unlicensed pilot in an
unregistered aircraft.

*thwap thwap thwap* Here comes DHS...

-c

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...

What regulation specifically forbids flying under bridges?



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

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or
property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of
persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(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.

Note "Structure" here. The bridge is a structure, and unless it was over 500' above the water, the pilot was in
violation.



(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person
operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the
Administrator.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:24:54 -0700, "Gatt"
wrote in :

But I wonder: How does one "force" an airplane to the ground?

I would imagine through the use of hand signals, radio communications,
or in the case of a JetRanger vs an ultralight, judicially applied
rotor wash. :-)

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:03:10 -0400, "Blueskies"
wrote in
:

(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.

Note "Structure" here. The bridge is a structure, and unless it was over 500' above the water, the pilot was in
violation.

That's a reasonable interpretation. So it may be within FAA
regulations to fly under high bridges.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message news
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:03:10 -0400, "Blueskies"
wrote in
:

(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.

Note "Structure" here. The bridge is a structure, and unless it was over 500' above the water, the pilot was in
violation.

That's a reasonable interpretation. So it may be within FAA
regulations to fly under high bridges.

Unless there were people lining the banks of the river less than 1000' wide. ;-)