I think TC needs a bit more evidence than 'it looked kinda like this plane'. Are you sure you've even got the right plane? It's not anyone living in Ottawa as far as I can see - the markings on those Stinsons don't seem to match. There's no easy way to get a list of the planes based at a particular airport, due to TC's crappy aircraft registration website.AirFrame wrote:Others here said they could find it in about 10 minutes. It took me 20. Someone at TC seriously couldn't do as well?CpnCrunch wrote:Not quite. They chose to investigate, but they haven't got his tail number yet.
Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
That's because her husband keeps telling her 4" is 1' and the only way he gets any is by sneaking up on her blind spoteh3fifty wrote:Ridiculous! I think she doesn't know much about perspectives either. And the airplane definitely was NOT coming straight at them! Geez.
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
If I read it correctly, Fisheries and Oceans Canada says the green navigation light mounted on the bottom of the span under which the plane was flown is 15.9 metres (52’) above the surface of the water. Not that it matters all that much to either side of this argument.
Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing a picture of the aircraft that people here are saying they have identified as the malicious Red Bull wannabe Stinson/Champ/Whateveritis. I wasted a lot longer than 10 or 20 minutes, using a fair range of search tools and angles and could only come up with a number of aircraft looking similar, but none that matched completely. Though, if people really have correctly identified the aircraft, I wouldn't advocate spreading the information on the pilot or his plane around, so no, I'm not actually asking for any proof of anyone's investigative prowess.
Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing a picture of the aircraft that people here are saying they have identified as the malicious Red Bull wannabe Stinson/Champ/Whateveritis. I wasted a lot longer than 10 or 20 minutes, using a fair range of search tools and angles and could only come up with a number of aircraft looking similar, but none that matched completely. Though, if people really have correctly identified the aircraft, I wouldn't advocate spreading the information on the pilot or his plane around, so no, I'm not actually asking for any proof of anyone's investigative prowess.
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
"Green navigation light" ... that doesn't make this any less interesting ..
"52ft" instead of the "42ft"/earlier estimate, not necessariy due to error; it might have more to to do with changing water levels in any river after a rainy season (more-or-less flow at certain times throughout any given year).
That's related to an earlier point I'd attempted to make, that a downstream current encountered .. is always stronger too if the free-flowing river is running higher (increased groundspeed but a lower waterspeed)
EDIT:
Green marks the rightside of a waterway downstream (red is right ... for the return upstream coming back in from the sea).
Taxiing a ways downwind/upstream for this take-off is in slower groundspeed than waterspeed; then turning down-current for take-off increases groundspeed by double the currentspeed. A lot more distance covered in that northbound/downstream take-off run before even getting on the step, and the NE headwind is also not as strong down on the water at that side of the river ... which is part of the reason for a later rotation ...
"52ft" instead of the "42ft"/earlier estimate, not necessariy due to error; it might have more to to do with changing water levels in any river after a rainy season (more-or-less flow at certain times throughout any given year).
That's related to an earlier point I'd attempted to make, that a downstream current encountered .. is always stronger too if the free-flowing river is running higher (increased groundspeed but a lower waterspeed)
EDIT:
Green marks the rightside of a waterway downstream (red is right ... for the return upstream coming back in from the sea).
Taxiing a ways downwind/upstream for this take-off is in slower groundspeed than waterspeed; then turning down-current for take-off increases groundspeed by double the currentspeed. A lot more distance covered in that northbound/downstream take-off run before even getting on the step, and the NE headwind is also not as strong down on the water at that side of the river ... which is part of the reason for a later rotation ...
Last edited by pdw on Sun Oct 05, 2014 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 8:32 am
- Location: CFX2
- Contact:
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
So does that mean to be legal he has to stay to the proper side of the light as long as he is on the water?pdw wrote:"Green navigation light" ... that doesn't make this any less interesting ..
Where is the port in Ottawa? Is he taking off while heading towards the port entrance?
Does the legal definition of takeoff equate to the legal definition of "leaving the port"?
LF
Women and planes have alot in common
Both are expensive, loud, and noisy.
However, when handled properly both respond well and provide great pleasure
Both are expensive, loud, and noisy.
However, when handled properly both respond well and provide great pleasure
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Doesn't have to necessarily as far as the water-way is concerned ... except that way (the way he chose) there's less chance someone will try to cut across his path from the right (his right is also the aircraft's green light/starboard). Any craft encroaching the floatplane's take-off path from the right (from starboard) has the right of way. So the pilot makes sure there's no one that can encroach from that side; even the rowers were still at the dock. Any water-craft approaching the aircraft from the left side are required to yield.LousyFisherman wrote:So does that mean to be legal he has to stay to the proper side of the light as long as he is on the water?
Lets see ..."proper side of the light" (as far as 'water-craft encroaching on each other's path' goes) applies "as long as he is on the water", but still in effect if there's conflict during or after flying under the bridge at 10-15'AGL; ie if he was catching up to traffic in early rotation there, or it was still encroaching him from the right. It applies "as long as he is" in conflict with any boat-traffic, which is obviously possible until the floatplane has climbed clear of the tallest mast in its departure area.
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
I used to take off on the Red River with the Otter all the time. The boaters we had to slalom around sure never gave a carp about getting out of our way. I never did take off under the Bridge but if I'd known it was legal I sure as hell would have
Drinking lots of coffee lately, at a nice safe jungle desk, wishing I were flying......
Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge
Some boaters may not be aware of the limited maneuverability (direction change incapability) the float plane has on a take-off run. For your average boat-pilot, judging the trajectory that a stepping floatplane needs to keep until well after airborne might not be as easy to judge from all vantage points off/of the moving boats ... at the various speeds. Might have to work some better strategy into the boater licensing curriculum in the future, ... if floatplane awareness is lacking. (Do we need a boat license now to land on water in Ontario ?)