Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

[Rockie]

Pages have been written how since this was during a takeoff it's perfectly safe and acceptable to fly under the bridge, and there's been no shortage of testimonials on how normal and necessary it is out in the boonies. But it clearly was not necessary here, making the "takeoff" argument entirely specious.

So the question is, at what point does this kind of activity cross the "stupid" line to all you defenders out there? I'd really like to know where good judgement overrides excuse making.

[single_swine_herder]

Well Rockie, I'll venture the opinion that to many, the state of the art of aviation safety where they function is "Nobody was hurt, so why are you wet blankets making such a big deal out of somebody having a bit of fun? If I want to just plop the plane down anywhere that feels right at any moment, its my God-given right to do so, and only a moronic party-pooper would think otherwise."

[the424]

From what I've seen in this thread:

1) He should have stayed in the water until clearing the bridge
2) He should have picked a different take-off path
3) There's restricted airspace nearby
4) The longer you're in the water with a float plane, the higher chance you hit something (and have a catastrophic result)
5) Could have hit the bridge injuring / killing himself
6) Could have hit cars on the bridge and injured / killed a motorist
7) Didn't want to waste time /fuel on a long taxi to a different starting point
Didn't want to slowly idle across the water so as to avoid high speed boats / etc
9) Pilots in general consider ducking under a structure reasonable in some situations
10) Rowboat people gasped when he pulled out of the water
11) The attitude of the plane demonstrated a clean, quality takeoff by a good pilot
12) Small planes have hit bridges with no damage to the bridge

I hope I didn't miss any; this took me quite a while to compile.

I think, as a non-aviator, the questions at hand are:
1) Was it safer for the general public (including boats) to taxi across / up / down the river to choose a takeoff vector that didn't involve being out of the water under the bridge
2) Was it safer for the pilot to be in or out of the water while under the bridge
3) Considering #2, did being out of the water while under the bridge place any extra risk on the humans on the bridge vs being in the water
4) Is the boat club trying to make this into something other than it is; they may have a long standing problem with anything motorized in "their" river (this is a hypothetical, hence asked as a question, not suggesting that the rowing club actually considers it "their" river - but this isn't an unreasonable question considering how many motorists consider the road "theirs" even though it equally belongs to cyclists)
5) Was the pilot intentionally show-boating?

In the grand scheme of things, unless 1-3 are "pilot had other safer options for both him/her and his/her aircraft, then only #5 matters; excepting the possibility that this happens regularly, and only now did someone at the boat club have a camera up to video tape something they could use as a complaint; see #4.

Sorry, not passing any judgement either way, just reflecting from a purely logical point of view.

[jeta1]

I hope I didn't miss any; this took me quite a while to compile.... ... Sorry, not passing any judgement either way, just reflecting from a purely logical point of view.

Nice if not off-the-wall commentaries the424... Let me wrap-up on a few of your theories...

- A knucklehead who recklessly and intentionally showboats under a bridge for a thrill, when he absolutely does not need to, does not care one bit about restricted airspace nearby... in fact, he likely does not even know about them two little CYRs.

- No, pilots in general DO NOT consider ducking under a structure reasonable in some situations..

- Yes , the pilot was intentionally show-boating.

and finally, don't ever think what you read here will educate you in proper aviation practices... even from veterans who think this was no big deal. It sets a horrible example to others. The argument suggesting it was legal because it occurred during take-off is totally flawed, and so is the argument that bush pilots do it all the time in the boondocks. There was plenty of room east of the bridge for the plane to wait and apply take-off power as he went under it. The take-off (and landing) rule has common sense provisions which are meant to consider the obvious need to be closer to the ground as you leave it or approach it. Farthead here threw every bit of common sense out the window.

[the424]

I hope I didn't miss any; this took me quite a while to compile.... ... Sorry, not passing any judgement either way, just reflecting from a purely logical point of view.

Nice if not off-the-wall commentaries the424... Let me wrap-up on a few of your theories...

Good sir, with all due respect, I don't feel I was theorizing in any way, simply re-capping the opinions of others.
(I honestly believe, that if you consider every post by others, especially "professionals" (sorry if one of my points was made by a non-professional), each and every one of the 12 points (and most of the 5) were actual pilots or connected to the aviation industry in some way)

I refuse to pass judgement. I am not only not educated in on this topic enough to make a judgement, but I'm simply not willing to do it unless I'm an authority, on any subject, in any forum (whether it be online or not).

I, as someone who binds himself by logic, listed the arguments for and against, hoping that I would solicit a response that was based, not on an unfounded opinion, but on the actual facts at hand. I apologize if I offended you, sir. That was not my attention.

All this said, I still maintain that I have not said anything that could be, in any way, interpreted as my having an opinion.

Thanks for actually reading and responding to my (second) post though! (Intended as a respectful smiley, not a sarcastic one)

Edit: And, I created an account after researching the news story, had the know-how to build the map of the restricted airspace that is likely 99% accurate, at least good enough for an online board. I am not here to "learn" anything from "anyone". I just, as someone who relies on logic in every day life to a very high degree, saw, what looked like a pissing match of opinion. My apologies for summarizing the opinions into one post. Again, I have no theories, I wasn't on the plane, I wasn't in the rowboat, I wasn't on the bridge, and again, not a pilot or a professional in the aviation field with the education or experience to have an opinion or theory, or pass judgement.

Edit 2: I'm not his wife/friends that might or might not be worried about him performing this maneuver, I'm not his company that might or might not be pissed off, I'm not Nav Canada.

[single_swine_herder]

424 .... you and many others missed the fact that aircraft cannot land and takeoff from within the built-up area except from a licensed aerodrome ("airport" in common language.)

You can't just pick out some spot in the city and decide "Oh, that looks like great place to pop in for a quick visit, it's close to grandma's house, she always has some nice baking, and I'd like a few bites," and use that area for an operating surface.

All arguments past that point are a waste of breath.

[the424]

424 .... you and many others missed the fact that aircraft cannot land and takeoff from within the built-up area except from a licensed aerodrome ("airport" in common language.)

Understood, again, not a pilot, not NavCan, not an instructor, not a professional in the aviation field (just occasionally enjoy a nice comfy flight on a domestic WestJet flight).

I left "13) cannot take off / land here" due to the fact there were multiple comments about a float-plane dock nearby, now / past / etc
Perhaps, I should have added, "13) We don't know if this pilot/plane had permission to take off here"

Would you be less annoyed with me if I add an additional edit to my original post? I'm more than willing to do so, if you feel this will bring LESS (not more) static to my overview of the thread (that overview was mostly intended on soliciting some logical responses, not to solicit flames)

[single_swine_herder]

Annoyed?

No, I'm not annoyed.

[the424]

Annoyed?
No, I'm not annoyed.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the following:

you and many others missed the fact

After I tried to clearly state that I have no knowledge. Because of that, I approached this thread from a logical standpoint. Tried to decipher the random BS from the opinions / points from people who actually might know. Paraphrased them, and used logic to break it down to a few questions that I asked the forum. You chose to call me out on the fact that I may have missed a "point" from the other posts. Not all that constructive, sir. I freely admitted that I am not an authority on the subject. At no point did I present an opinion. At no point did I suggest this pilot was right or wrong. I'm simply interested in learning, so I summarized what I read into some straight forward points that didn't involve any BS bickering, and asked a few questions.

Perhaps you're over-sensitive? Perhaps you've had too many disagreements online (or IRL) to respond to a question without trying to cause an argument? Perhaps, even if you are 100% right, you do not know how to handle a disagreement.

All due respect, of course.

[jeta1]

424... I thought I recognized you, Spock!

[the424]

424... I thought I recognized you, Spock!

Tower to enterprise...



Edit:
I think I screwed that up, their call sign first, then message, then mine:
Catch their attention so they know it's directed to them
Message
My call sign so they know who was sending them the message.

Right?

[single_swine_herder]

Yup .... I spend a lot of time under my bed in the fetal position sucking my thumb because someone has hurt my feelings throughout the day.

In addition, I keep a ready supply of "Hurt Feelings Reports" to turn in to my supervisor..... and two pens just in case one begins to skip during the completion of the document.

For some reason, I sense traits displayed by the Colonel / Hedly in this new arrival to the forum.

[Shiny Side Up]

424 .... you and many others missed the fact that aircraft cannot land and takeoff from within the built-up area except from a licensed aerodrome ("airport" in common language.)

I don't think the river constitutes a built up area.

[pdw]

Looks all clear around the take-off path and once airborne there's nothing conflicting below the flightpath (the floatplane appeared to be well-clear of anything to either side).

[Napoleon So Low]

[YYZSaabGuy]

And..........he's baaaaaaaaaaaaaackkkkkkkkkk...............

[Pop n Fresh]

Did you lose that colonel pic I gave you?

[pdw]

For some reason, I sense traits displayed by the Colonel / Hedly in this new arrival to the forum.

I think you were close ... (the analytical presentation of the bridge discussion) ... nice try

[Wraith5]

"Alright! Ya! Woooh" doesn't sound like "OMG he is going to kill us all! Ahhhh!!!"

Haha

I think this lady is just a bit mad because her quiet little regatta was buzzed.

[single_swine_herder]

Yes folks ...... the greatest pilot the world has ever known has taken on a new identity as "Chicken Man." Now fighting aviation crime as The Greatest Crime Fighter The World Has Ever Known ...... Chicken Man ........ He's everywhere, he's everywhere!

http://youtu.be/XcQfy1SavdQ