Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

[AuxBatOn]

I hope you understand the difference between taking off or landing at an airport and taking off and flying under a bridge in a populated area.

[Shiny Side Up]

The general public doesn't seem to. And I'll point out that the aerodrome we operate out of puts planes in closer proximity to people on a regular basis than did this guy flying under the bridge. Frig, there's a thousand cars per hour that drive in close proximity to airplanes landing at almost every major airport in this country. This guy was no more endangering the public than they are - the only difference is that the general public have learned to put up with the other activity, but this activity was deemed "unusual" and there fore untolerable, unsafe and unwanted. Actually, the same arguments that are made against this floatplane pilot are made against airplanes operating off my runway. Same with other runways - pilots really got to clue into how under fire your right to aviate is.

It doesn't help that pilots like the posters here have offered their expert opinion to limit the activities of their fellows. This also happens at my aerodrome - and from confering with some of my fellow operators, at their homes too. Some pilot condemns another for doing something completely reasonable and TC has the bad judgement to treat anyone with a little booklet as an "expert witness". Suddenly one of our fellows is undergoing the fatigue of defending himself for doing what pilots do.

Had an incident like this happen a little while back. A helicopter landed at the airport. That was considered "unusual" by the neighbors. An "expert pilot withness" even told the masses that it was illegal. Not sure what CAR he was breaking. My phone rang off the hook, the RCMP even showed up due to the complaints, corraled the poor pilot. All for a guy doing aperfectly reasonable thing, perfectly legal - but not in the eyes of the uneducated public. Made too much noise, caused some guys wives to faint, their weak children to cry and have bad dreams.

Later after all that trouble, the pilot asked if he could do some circuits. "You have my blessing". After that for when he had to stay here he made a point of flying a few circuits every time before he landed. After a while the phone calls stopped when the NIMBYs realised they weren't going to get their way. I heard some of them moved away.

[AuxBatOn]

I see that you do not understand the difference..... If it is usual for you for GA or commercial aviation to fly under things in populated areas then we live in different world.

[Shiny Side Up]

Its not usual for me, it might not be usual for you, but then that means we also can't judge this pilot and say that it is unusual for them. If you and I don't do it, neither of us can pass judgement on him. But I'm not passing judgement, you and others are. Usual and unusual aren't what's at issue here though, its whether you feel what he did was safe or unsafe. I don't personally think what he did was unsafe. Maybe unusual for me - but I'm trying to get across the point that what's unusual for you or I doesn't mean "unsafe", and certainly doesn't deserve to be condemned.

[AuxBatOn]

How many bridge under-flyings have you seen or even heard of in your life? How many were in town? Unusual is not only for individuals but also depends on surrounding circumstances. Life is not black and white...

[Shiny Side Up]

How many bridge under-flyings have you seen or even heard of in your life?

Two.

How many were in town?

Both.

Unusual is not only for individuals but also depends on surrounding circumstances. ...

Indeed. It would be different if this wasn't a take off or a landing, and some fellow swooped down from altitude and did a loop around the bridge. Both the ones I saw were take offs where I would say the extra distance gained by starting and lifting off under the bridge were more than good trade off given the circumstances. Personally I step taxiied under the same bridge once, so I'd have a hard time imagining that I would be in substantially more danger (or dangerous to anyone else) if I had just lifted off the water at that point. The amount of clearance one has underneath certainly plays a role in one's discretion, as does the distance between the piers. While it seems scary to a boat club member, I feel he had more than enough room to do what he did in the video. Your opinion may vary - but that's just your opinion. Just like this being a dangerous act is the boat lady's opinion which I would hope amongst the aviating crowd would carry much less weight.

Life is not black and white...

Right, its not. But I'm not the one treating it so here. Ultimately I think what he did was a bit less wise than it could have been, but then I don't know all the factors at play. I'm not about to condemn a fellow pilot based upon some boat lady's personal fears.

So far I'm getting the idea that it was foolish in the opinon so some here, simply because it upset a non-flyer.

edit: So far what this guy did, even if you do consider it unwise, doesn't even crack the top 100 list of stupid pilot tricks I've seen for the month, which is full of things that really were dangerous, stupid and put themselves and the public at risk.

[Cat Driver]

Looking at the video and observing the angle of attack at lift off and the flight path after lift off it could have been dangerous had he / she tried to hit the bridge because it could have stalled trying to climb up to the bridge and smashed back into the water.

That would have been dangerous......but not to the people on the bridge.

[AuxBatOn]

Twice in how many years/hours?

Probably makes it unusual...

Legal? Debatable.
Safe? Probably from people here.
Required? No, again from people here.
Usual? Absolutely not.

If it was required for operational or safety reasons, no issue. Otherwise...

[Cat Driver]

Did TC ever figure out who that was?

[Shiny Side Up]

Twice in how many years/hours?

Probably makes it unusual...

Depends on your perspective. Yeah, it would be unusual for me to see since most of my time is spent on the praries and I don't spend a lot of time these days near bridges on the water. Probably unusual for you to see as well, if you spend most of your time in Bagotville. But in the span of a month where I happened to be where there was the combination of water, floatplanes and a bridge with plenty clearance underneath, I saw it happen twice. I would suspect that in similar places - like possibly Ottawa - it also happens on a semi regular basis. That someone had a camera ready is somewhat suspicious, and in this case possibly indicates that some NIMBY's were already upset about this possibly regular occurence and decided to start making an issue.

[AuxBatOn]

There is a small floatplane base right next to a bridge nearby and people always start their run past the bridge...

[Shiny Side Up]

I guess not always, huh?

[AuxBatOn]

Well, the place I am talking about, yes.

[TeePeeCreeper]

There is a small floatplane base right next to a bridge nearby and people always start their run past the bridge...

That's absolute BS. There is a dock there without pilings to hinder a high wing seaplane but nobody has ever based their airplane there...

All the best,
TPC (Will admit that I haven't operated out of Constance Lake or YRO's river dock in over 5 years)

[pdw]

Through this videoing incident, the rowing club Volks who have produced the Video are expressing a genuine concern about the safe operation of float-planes. This could be the opportunity to request permission from the club for the accommodation of visiting float-planes for example as on this early morning (few rowers are out yet) when the component favored a take-off along/towards their half of the river. Considering that, in the light of this well exposed take-off run, would promote mutual insight to the respective sports of water-aviation and rowing alike. Too much of a stretch ?

For example in checking WX history, the perfect direction for the champ's run at that time was on that diagonal towards the rower's side of the river; and so here is a case for starting the run from right at the bridge near that dock, which would have been much better. Taxiing a floatplane is expensive, and idling at a snails pace among fast-moving boats across their sharp wake to target a take-off point past the bridge isn't the safest thing either for the loaded pontoon plane. High speed taxi is more stable and less chance to conflict with crisscrossing boats; you see an opening .. and full-power GO!

So yes, expediating an exit from the Ottawa river in a clear take-off run shown by this footage is then still defendable as one of the better options, considering the many existing restrictions and potential pitfalls for floatplanes operating in these situations. Detaching from the step well ahead of the bridge displayed that momentary raised angle of attack which so obviously aimed right at the bridge for two seconds (elicits the strongest reaction from nearby observers). No retort heard there whatsoever though ... for the sleek pilot action that quickly follows. It's that gradual and very smooth control input (calm cool and collected) ... the 10-12 degree reduction in pitch which immediately and smartly parallels the float-plane's pitch-axis back with the water-surface, precisely to keep the water separation near while passing well below this particular takeoff's obstruction. From that standpoint, the general consensus seems to be it's OK to let it stand, ... although at the edge of the envelope of being acceptable.

[jeta1]

Did TC ever figure out who that was?

Nope, not yet, according to this news report...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/no ... -1.2775186

[linecrew]

Maybe based on the video evidence TC decided that no further actions was required?

[jeta1]

Maybe based on the video evidence TC decided that no further actions was required?

I doubt that... my take is that TC is simply unable to find anyone to rat on the guy, or it cant identify from the clip. Essentially, it is TC's MH370... it vanished in thin air right across the Prime Minister's breakfast window.

[the424]

Not a pilot here, I was simply trying to get more information on this after I saw it on the news.
Took the time though, to do this, didn't take me long to research it.

1605m = 1 mile. 405m was as close as I could get Google to draw though 402m is closer to a quarter mile.

I'm sure you all (pilots / aviation professionals) can interpret how these no fly zones may have impacted the pilot's decisions.

(Yes, this map was made in two pieces and put back together, couldn't figure out how to have two GPS markers / two measurements active at the same time)

Edit: wasn't aware that attached images would auto-display; removed the IMG tag.

[pdw]

Maybe based on the video evidence TC decided that no further actions was required?

I doubt that... my take is that TC is simply unable to find anyone to rat on the guy, or it cant identify from the clip. Essentially, it is TC's MH370... it vanished in thin air right across the Prime Minister's breakfast window.

When my co-worker got his license he decided to celeberate the same day by flying the warrior underneath the center span of the Garden City Skyway bridge. To do so was merely to make the turn to crosswind departing runway 24 at 50 ft agl (over the Canal) and proceed at that altitude for 3/4 mile. He confided to me that he was on pins and needles waiting for the threat to clear on account of the one individual who witnessed him do it. The license was withheld 30 days to allow for any chance someone else comes forward to complain, ... but got lucky there. A long time ago ... early eighties ...

Probably right, if someone causes a big fuss there ... it becomes a deciding factor.