Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

[Rockie]

The bottom line is when they issue you an air display authority based on passing recurrent rides that are designed to ensure you can fly accurately then it becomes the same as flying a perfect ILS.

Well...no. Flying an air display of any kind in close proximity to people always entails a greater degree of risk which is why there are normally much more stringent controls both from a regulatory standpoint and real time monitoring. If there wasn't a greater degree of risk nobody would show any interest in watching it. Red Bull doesn't sponsor ping pong tournaments for a reason...

[Cat Driver]

Rockie, my point is to hold an air display license you must demonstrate you can accurately fly a profile...every time.

We are tested by government flight examiners who have very narrow allowances for error.

Flying in close proximitity to the ground or any other object is no different than flying a precise ILS.....if you maintain a safe profile you will not hit anything.

Air show flying sometimes goes terribly wrong, but people also get hit by cars crossing the street.

Should we outlaw air shows?

[AuxBatOn]

I don't believe Air Displays are the topic of this thread or that anyone suggested Air Displays be banned....

[Rockie]

Flying in close proximitity to the ground or any other object is no different than flying a precise ILS.....if you maintain a safe profile you will not hit anything.

Flying an air display performing maneuvers approaching or at the limits of the airplane in close proximity to the ground and people is nothing like flying a 3 degree constant descent to a landing surface using extremely accurate navigation aids.

And no, they shouldn't ban airshows anymore than they should ban car races, ski races, motocross events etc.

[Colonel Sanders]

TC tried to ban airshows back in 2002 when they
argued that CAR 602.27 prohibited aerobatics
below 18,000 feet. With no cloud below 36,000
feet.

The judge actually laughed out loud at that silliness.

[DHC2eater]

I believe it to be an Aeronca Sedan..... Or the outside chance a Cessna 170.....

Eater

[eh3fifty]

I'm surprised at the people here who think flying under a steel and concrete structure with less than 100 feet of clearance is not a risk.

Everything is a risk, Rockie.

You seem to think this is more of a risk than others in this thread. That's all. The pilot thought at the time that, what he assessed as the risk, was acceptable to carry when he did that takeoff. Some pilots are more cautious than this pilot, and some are less cautious. I don't see any blatantly obvious safety concern. It may be 'abnormal' in someone's view but being abnormal is not a crime. If it was, many people on this forum would be locked up!

[5x5]

If the pilot DOES NOT fly under the bridge then none of the above is a real problem. Therefore, the pilot should not have done it.

Thanks Sasquatch, you've illustrated perfectly the problem with SMS and the "what ifs" you postulated. Apply the same thinking to any airplane that flys over a town/city/village. Think of all the things that could go wrong - engine failure, pilot incapacitation, passenger suddenly forcing the controls - and the aircraft plunges into the houses below. The same conclusion could be reached - If the pilot DOES NOT fly over the houses then none of the above is a real problem. Therefore, the pilot should not have done it.

And that's the only true way to eliminate any accidents, injuries or deaths in aviation - stop performing aviation.

[Meatservo]

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.

I'm sorry, I have nothing to add to this conversation, but this post right here^ is very funny and deserves repeating. Extra points for the casual use of the term "beaver". Comedy gold right here chaps. Gold.

[andyl]

yes - in fact there are still 2-3 planes docked just on the east side of the bridge.

Now help me out...

Just to the North East of the bridge is Rideau hall and 24 sussex drive - I haven't looked but I'm guessing there's an airspace restriction there... The approach for 09 at Rockcliffe is right there too isn't it?

What I remember from watching in my teens - they'd takeoff northbound clear under the bridge, hold 40-50' above the water, gain speed for a km or two then make a climbing left hand turn roughly at 24 sussex - heading up the gatineau river.

With the airspace restriction and Rockcliffe approach; plus the residential areas lining the rivers - sure seems to be a logical and safe way to depart from the congested downtown ottawa area - Don't you think?

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Ottawa ... 5da0a6d566

Sorry don't mean to interrupt the lynching with facts and details. Go back to your pitchforks and torches.

[ragbagflyer]

Flying into Montague Harbour on Galiano Island I'd approach and take off under the power lines almost every single time. This isn't really any different. Nothing to see here folks. Certainly not the wisest move from a PR perspective though.

[TeePeeCreeper]

Flying into Montague Harbour on Galiano Island I'd approach and take off under the power lines almost every single time. This isn't really any different. Nothing to see here folks.

That's what I was thinking as well... No different than ducking under the lines at the narrows by YBL..

SOP's in that neck of the woods... Interesting that it's common on the west coast (it truly is the safest course of action) but in Onterrible the mere thought of such would be "taboo"...

All the best,
TPC

[pdw]

"Honestly I thought he was suicidal. I thought he was lifting and taking off right into the bridge," said rowing club president Lana Burpee.

It is edging a bit closer toward to their side of the river but still well off shore, in passing by to go under the Ontario side of the bridge. As for an investigation, for starters, there is a bit of extreme yelling by one onlooker right when there's a fairly high angle of attack where this plane, with its audibly laboring engine is passing perpendicular to the dock .. and appears visibly to angle itself right at the bridge. That particular optic would likely freak anyone who's watching ... just a bit ... for a second or two (from that perspective). The pitch is however quickly lowered to parallel the water surface right after that ... what looks to be a 10-15 ft altitude .. very stable pitch axis ... well clear of any danger to anything or anyone.

At the point of lift-off / breaking free off the step it looks like a fairly aggressive pitch-up, which is where the guy (on the video) starts yelling as the aircraft's climb-angle very briefly appears to be angling itself at the bridge. Just a brief illusion of this. This yell however, is what looks like gets everyone else's adrenalin going to escalate the anxiety over this pilot's choice in a take-off run.

[timel]

There is no issue at all here. The bridge is huge, there is more than enough space to fly under with the float plane... it might have been more dangerous to fly over. As long as you know what is behind.

The only problem here is the iPhone and people perception.

http://youtu.be/_txdqnVP3-c. <--------- This is reckless behaviours!

[Rockie]

Flying into Montague Harbour on Galiano Island I'd approach and take off under the power lines almost every single time. This isn't really any different. Nothing to see here folks.

Never been there so can't comment, however I have a few questions: How high are the power lines? Are you on the water when you pass under them or airborne? Is it necessary to go under them or is there another way? And finally - do you see the difference between doing that under wires on Galiano Island and under a heavily trafficked bridge in downtown Ottawa?

Everything is a risk, Rockie.

Correct. Determining if a risk is necessary, appropriate, and when it becomes excessive is what's called "judgement". Something we are all expected to use in order to exercise the privileges on our license. That license is issued and regulated by Transport Canada who is ultimately responsible to the public. To protect the public they issue regulations that to a large degree would be unnecessary if everybody exercised that thing called "judgement".

We have all had lapses in judgement for which I am as guilty as anyone, but usually after thinking about it I recognize when I've had that lapse and try and remember to not do that again. Some people on this forum appear incapable or unwilling to see the lapse in judgement demonstrated by this particular pilot in Ottawa, and in failing to do so justify the existence of Transport Canada and all the regulations they develop.

[Rockie]

SOP's in that neck of the woods... Interesting that it's common on the west coast (it truly is the safest course of action) but in Onterrible the mere thought of such would be "taboo".

Looking at google earth the next obstacle crossing the river after that bridge is in Hawkesbury Ontario - about 100 kilometers further up the river. So tell me, was flying under the bridge the safest course of action or could he have waited a few seconds and had nothing in his way for another 30 minutes?

[cgzro]

. Looking at google earth the next obstacle crossing the river after that bridge is in Hawkesbury Ontario - about 100 kilometers further up the river. So tell me, was flying under the bridge the safest course of action or could he have waited a few seconds and had nothing in his way for another 30 minutes?

Its a major playground on the east side of that bridge. boaters, seadoos, sail boats etc. people tend to slow down and behave to the west of that bridge because it is patrolled more. I boat regularly around there and one side is leisurly sight seeing stuff and the other is us Quebecers in power boats having fun:) i would imagine unknown moving water based obstacles are also a consideration.

Also nobody has asked how the pilot landed.. Presumably they landed, picked up or dropped off a passanger and left.

[ragbagflyer]

Flying into Montague Harbour on Galiano Island I'd approach and take off under the power lines almost every single time. This isn't really any different. Nothing to see here folks.

Never been there so can't comment, however I have a few questions: How high are the power lines? Are you on the water when you pass under them or airborne? Is it necessary to go under them or is there another way? And finally - do you see the difference between doing that under wires on Galiano Island and under a heavily trafficked bridge in downtown Ottawa?

Here's the lines at both ends. One take of and one landing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps0-K9fToC4

http://vimeo.com/6045623

The lines are about 100 feet off the water I believe, depending on tides and line sag. High enough that taking off in a loaded beaver and clearing them would require more effort and attention then simply gently climbing out underneath them. No big deal though. Nothing to get excited about. Besides, when flying from Galiano to a couple of the nearby harbours there's no reason to get much about 100 feet to begin with.

The same people freaking out about the bridge would probably freak out about the wires, the sail boats we take off and land around, and any number of things that are normal for seaplanes. Perhaps instead of apologizing and continually restricting what we consider normal aircraft operation we should just educate the public instead.

The pilot in Ottawa could have extended the slide for optics, but as far as safety there's no issue and this is being blown way out of proportion. The climb profile of that aircraft in the video suggests there wasn't an excess of performance available.

[Rockie]

Departing under the bridge isn't any more dangerous than departing over a heavily trafficked area. You could actually argue it's safer because in the event of any malfunction nobody below is at risk.

No you can't argue that. Flying over inhospitable terrain immediately after takeoff is normal, and in a transport category aircraft the performance is based on clearing obstacles by a mere 15 feet in the event of an engine failure. It's normal because the pilot only has to worry about going up, not threading the needle over and under obstacles. Flying between a bridge and the water is not normal especially when it's in a downtown urban area and not necessary. If you really think it is I invite you to take a few runs under that bridge yourself after calling Transport Canada, the Ottawa police and maybe the RCMP telling them what you're about to do.

Then let's see if it's considered normal and safe.

[CID]

It seems like “risk” and “danger” are being used interchangeably in this discussion when they two very different things. There absolutely was risk in this takeoff. At very least there was a risk that the aircraft contacts the bridge and places it out of commission.

Some will argue that the airplane could have crashed into the bridge after it took off even if the airplane became airborne in open water. Sure…..but the chances (the risk) would be greatly reduced.

Why do something with this potential risk when an easy alternative was available?

In all likelihood this was a legal takeoff but many here continuously remind me that just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s safe or even smart.

At most this pilot should get a notice from TC that they received a complaint and that although it wasn’t against the law, perhaps he should avoid risky takeoffs like this in the future. Next time he may not be so lucky.