Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

[Rockie]

Rigpiggy

I have sufficient float time to know better than to take off with a concrete bridge standing in the way of my takeoff path. I have sufficient overall flying time to respect, and be wary of obstacles in my takeoff path, and I have sufficient spare brain cells in my head to usually avoid doing something stupid like like endangering motorists and possibly my passengers by doing what this person did.

You might very well have more float time than me, but if you're using that to defend this stupidity it isn't worth much is it?

[GyvAir]

Someone said they thought it was a supercub... Looks like a J-3 to me given it's TO performance...

Looks a little girthy and wrong tail for a Cub... more like a Maule, or a Stinson with STOL tips. What colour is CS's Maule?

[all_ramped_up]

Seems his only violation was having any sort of fun in Ottawa! lol

[pdw]

...to know better than to take off with a concrete bridge standing in the way of my takeoff path.

The bridge opening would appear even larger from the view down in the water / at water level while still off the step looking straight ahead with a view clear of boats. The exchange between pilot and TC will likely determine no danger except an unusual optical anxiety of onlookers opining from quite far away, so public opinion might rule. The exclamations on the camera wielding person's footage (the onshore party) show that feathers seemed to be quite ruffled there, yet also the admission of one complainant of simply never having seen a float-plane there before.

[AuxBatOn]

Did it endanger people's lives? I don't know. What kind of risk assessment was done?

Was it legal? Perhaps. Probably debatable and TC will soon tell I imagine.

Was it required? From other people here, I gathered it wasn't somehing that brought anything useful to the flight.

Was it a smart decision? I don't think so. We are ambassadors to aviation. We lobby to be able to do more. When you do something, think about the optics of it keeping in mind that most people don't know anything about aviation and while something could be safe and legal, but is not required and will (and there was no question about that) cast a bad light onto aviation, it will piss people off. And if enough people are pissed, rules could change, not in our favour. If you need to do something in order to safely and effectively operate the aircraftyou fly then by all means do it. But if it is purely for showboating and is considered something way out of he ordinary then think twice.

[single_swine_herder]

If the guy was on wheels and decided to land in a soccer field in the built-up area of Ottawa, then depart within a couple of hundred feet of John and Joan Q. Public, would everyone still be running to the fellow's defence saying "Nobody was hurt, so what's the big deal?"

If our industry functions at the level of "Nobody was hurt," we're in big trouble with the travelling public.

If we kept the business at 99.9% safe, we'd lose a wide-bodied aircraft every week in the US .... a real confidence builder for people lined up at the counter paying for a ticket to grandma home after a visit.

http://www.alansee.com/quality-check-is ... od-enough/

The root question here isn't was the public placed in any increased level of danger, it is what was the guy doing there in the first place?

[Cat Driver]

To be perfectly clear about this I would have kept the airplane on the step until I had passed under the bridge to prevent people from complaining about flying under it.

Did it endanger the public?

[Troubleshot]

I dunno, no one hurt etc...However if this guy mis-judged the length needed to get airborne (by a lot) and I would figure that would be somewhat "day 1" float training...so what else will he mis-judge next time that is basic stuff ?, fuel required?

Either this pilot is a complete idiot, or he did it on purpose.

[5x5]

I would say of course he did it on purpose, but what was the danger? The simple fact there was a bridge there does not, in and of itself, constitute a danger. Watching the video and seeing the amount of clearance from the pilings on both sides and the bridge deck above, the only way there could possibly have been a collision would have been a wildly dramatic, sudden and continued deviation to the left or right or an equally dramatic, sudden and continued pitch up. Neither of those things was at all likely to happen given the weather conditions, the low performance nature of the airplane or the smoothness with which it was being operated.

This certainly seems to be a case of a completely normal flight situation being taken completely out of context by non-aviation onlookers.

What I find much more disconcerting is the number of aviation(?) posters here who seem to have fallen into the "what if" mode of safety evaluation where if you can imagine any possible scenario , no matter how farfetched, where something could go wrong then it must have been dangerous.

[pdw]

It's true (troubleshot), sometimes a float run takes a lot longer if choice of direction is limited, ... a little lighter load and then into wind suddenly it lifts pops up / lifts of so much sooner. On another day might take at least twice as long or far on the step, even well past that bridge as in this case. With a steep climbout with an emptyweight aircraft ... clearing above the bridge by 1000ft might be possible too from that distance.

To be perfectly clear about this I would have kept the airplane on the step until I had passed under the bridge to prevent people from complaining about flying under it.

That would have been the safest bet to avoid scrutiny; of course there, when you're at step speed there's that greater chance to hit something with a much greater force; considering the flooding lately, who knows what all entering that waterway, .. esp bad are logs partly submerged. I don't think ordinary litter would really hurt a float though ...

It was a clear run in front of the plane's take-off space, as the video clearly showed. And then it becomes correct to maintain the take-off in that straight inline where boating the plane was OK, no higher than the mast on an average sailboat.

It should technically be O.K. to stay low over water / just out of ground effect, esp if after becoming airborne unintentional / prematurely ahead-of the bridge and if completely OK to do it with touching pontoons. After all, isn't it easier to watch that you're well enough below the span instead of peering in futility at water to spot for a log or other floating debris ?

[oldtimer]

I think the only hazard would be to motorists who, spotting the airplane taking off, would drop their cell phones and in an attempt to retrieve said phone, would spill hot coffee on their testicals/beaver, lose control and ended up either on the sidewalk, striking pedestrians or into the oncoming lane, stiking another car and interupting that persons phone call.

[beaverbob]

Rigpiggy

I have sufficient float time to know better than to take off with a concrete bridge standing in the way of my takeoff path. I have sufficient overall flying time to respect, and be wary of obstacles in my takeoff path, and I have sufficient spare brain cells in my head to usually avoid doing something stupid like like endangering motorists and possibly my passengers by doing what this person did.

You might very well have more float time than me, but if you're using that to defend this stupidity it isn't worth much is it?

It did not seem to me that the bridge was standing in his way. No more than a hill on an IFR departure with a safe procedure to avoid.

[beaverbob]

I don't see any danger to anyone. But: to bad in was just a supercub; and not a 185, a Beaver or a mighty Norseman. That would have gotten everyone's attention cause of the noise, but still no danger. [maybe a local noise ordinance] he he!

BH

It would have been better in a loaded Beaver with a two bladed, square tip, Ag prop. That way it would have been heard in the parliament buildings Prime Minister's chambers. Then he would have been entertained as well.

[AuxBatOn]

I'll try to explain my point with an example. Let's say my buddies have a party at someone's place and the place is within a populated area. Let's say I am coming back from a night sortie and my route takes me right on top. It is 11PM. I decide to fly over at 1000 feet AGL in max afterburner.

Is it legal? Yes
Is it unsafe? No
Is it required? No
Is it something out of the ordinary? Absolutely.

Because it was not required for the completion of the flight and it was something out of the ordinary, it makes it a bad judgement call, even though it was perfectly safe and legal.

[Shiny Side Up]

Because it was not required for the completion of the flight and it was something out of the ordinary, it makes it a bad judgement call, even though it was perfectly safe and legal.

I don't think that's good litmus test for what's considered good judgement. After all, what's "not ordinary" is purely your opinion, and "required for the completion of the flight" is again someone's opinion. I'd almost never fly if I had to depend on the opinions of others for these two criteria.

Personally I've taken off under a bridge before - though technically it would have been the same as Cat suggests where we remained on the step until we were clear of it, but I see no functional difference here. In this case, "necessary" and or "ordinary" seems to be the opinion of the rowing club members. If this would have happened and no one had an iPhone would we even have heard about it? I think we have some manufactured outrage here, and being Canadians, we're all too much in a hurry to wring our hands and apologize.

While in some cases pilots do need to be better ambassadors of aviation, sometimes we also need to make sure Joe Q. Public gets told to screw off and we're not giving ground so he "feels" safe. If we give ground on this fellow doing something that is reasonable and safe, but maybe not entirely "ordinary" enough for the bed-wetting public, then they're just going to keep pushing the line until we can't do anything at all.

[DHQ]

If the aircraft was in the air then all the CARs dealing with minimum distances would be applied.

Read the first sentence of CAR 602.14:

Minimum Altitudes and Distances

602.14 (2) Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where permitted under section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft

(b) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a), at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

Although that's true, I think what he did is technically illegal and they're going to get him on this one:

602.13 (1) Except if otherwise permitted under this section, section 603.66 or Part VII, no person shall conduct a take-off, approach or landing in an aircraft within a built-up area of a city or town, unless that take-off, approach or landing is conducted at an airport, heliport or a military aerodrome.

I don't think he did anything dangerous, so I hope he doesn't get in too much trouble.

[Cat Driver]

and they're going to get him on this one:

How?

No one here seems to be able to tell what kind of airplane it is never mind what airplane.

[Shiny Side Up]

Sure we can Cat, its a ******** ****** with the registration C-****.

[rigpiggy]

Rockie, I think in about the 10ish years on here we have agreed on 2 things.... Good to see things haven't changed

[J31]

Sure we can Cat, its a ******** ****** with the registration C-****.

With a fire breathing, smoke snorting ** HP!