Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

[Lotro]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new ... ier-bridge

I don't know what to say. I suppose it could have gone either way. Maybe s/he's got lots of time and does this all the time, or maybe it was a good heads up move for getting off the water late.

No idea.

[Colonel Sanders]

People in Ottawa are easily frightened.

They would poop their pants if they knew
what happened elsewhere in the world:



That's Peter Besenyei, taking off from (on top)
of a bridge in Budapest. He'd probably be
considered "arrogant" in Ottawa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cw5OWK1Oxc


He's what the self-proclaimed anonymous
experts here would call an "old, bold pilot".

[bmc]

Seriously, what's the big deal? Is is the concern for the natural habitat for the Canadian beaver?

[Broken Slinky]

We were discussing something similar to this here in Windsor. It was with regards to the few occasions where a pilot buzzed under the Ambassador Bridge. The group opinion was that if the float plane was still in the water as it passed under the bridge, it was considered a boat and no issue. If the aircraft was in the air then all the CARs dealing with minimum distances would be applied. I was told that one pilot's license was suspended after going under the Ambassador Bridge and another was just fined (both were in a non-float plane). Doing the Google hasn't revealed if this is true or old pilot tales.

[Mark Rose]

Apparently TC is involved now: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/fl ... -1.2730641

[Tom H]

This certainly seems to be getting blown wildly beyond proportion in my mind.

I've watched the video (3) times now, back and forth and looking less at the aircraft and more at the surroundings.

1) The take off patch was clear
2) There were no boats in the takeoff path or even close to being less than 500 feet away and none on a path that would have taken them into the take off path
3) The pilot was well clear of the bridge supports at what appears to be the centre of the archway.
4) The pilot stayed safely close to the water until well clear of the bridge.
5) I see no reason to think anyone was at risk

I am missing something?

Or is this just NIMBYism at it's finest?

Tom H

[Cat Driver]

Same here, I do not see anything that even comes close to risk to property or persons.

It will be interesting to see what TC does.

If it was the Colonel he will be shot at dawn.

[GyvAir]

NIMBYism at it's finest?

I agree. There wasn't even a slight adrenaline moment in that video. Does she assume that float planes are directionally controlled similarly to Quassam rockets and it was pure luck that it didn't end up splattered all over the side of the bridge or cutting a scull in two? This just sounds like someone who doesn't like having to share the space. Sort of like the spats between the horse people and the trail bike riders.

[Colonel Sanders]

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.

He was taking off. It's not like he dove
down and looped the bridge, for Christ's
sake.

They can try to nail him with "one size fits all"
CAR 602.01 ... in which case, we can put together
an "amicus curiae" which states that we, as a
group of professional pilots, did not find that
to be anything that a reasonable and prudent
pilot would do.

That is the litmus test for 602.01 - "reasonable
and prudent".

[PostmasterGeneral]

When I was up working in YVT, Barry used to takeoff and land under the bridge there 10x a day. And there is only about 30' of clearance under that one.... Don't see the big deal here.

[xysn]

Probably the spectators didn't expect the pilot to go under the bridge, which caused them to over-react. Didn't look too dangerous to me either, but it is unusual (for the area), and people all react differently (usually poorly) to the unusual, especially when airplanes are involved.

[Colonel Sanders]

Bingo. CAR 602.01 doesn't stick, regardless
of whatever hysteria the CBC manufactures
on a slow news day.

[RatherBeFlying]

It would have been really dangerous if he tried to overfly the bridge from where he lifted off.

[Tom H]

Thanks all for confirming I wasn't blind or nuts (well the nuts could be debatable)

Tom H

[chilly]

Lana Burpee should be fined for wasting everyones time.

[flyinthebug]

What a joke this has become. This pilot did nothing wrong, illegal, or even dangerous.

Transport "should" look at the video and find that nothing wrong was done here.

[pdw]

Yup, hopefully water under the bridge ...

[single_swine_herder]

The issue will likely turn out to be that he/she landed and took off within the built-up area of the city which wasn't an airport, nor was it for the purpose of saving human life.

[Charles the Equestrian]

I had to google NIMBY...I learned something new today and will have forgotten it by breakfast.

NIMBY means a cloud with precipitation. Dammit, it's getting worse.

[AuxBatOn]

Was there a legitimate need to do this or was it purely for showboating? This would be the first questing I would ask. Because it is legal doesn't mean it is smart.