Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

[Prairie Chicken]

I've missed you too Cat.

[Cat Driver]

I've missed you too Cat.

Your not focusing on all those dick measuring posts BPF got going about me are you?

[Prairie Chicken]

Nah, but I'm sure BPF wouldn't lie on this here forum.

[Cat Driver]

[cgzro]

As ive said before there are 3-4 float planes that are docked a little to the east of that bridge and which use the river east. There was previously a few docked west of the bridge but ive not seen any lately.

I grew up in victoria and the float plane operations were 'interesting' to say the least so this does not seen that unusual to me but you could not pick a worse crowd to scare than the rowing club.

[Shiny Side Up]

Pushing back against the man is IMO, not in itself a good enough reason to do something......

I'd disagree, sometimes its the best reason to do something.

[andyl]

I'm still stuck on this clubs had seaplane neighbours for - what 50+ years?

They've been docked right beside the club for decades... And that particular takeoff was common in my recollection.

Suddenly video and complaints to media? Can we say nimbyism?

[Sasquash]

Andyl;

nimbyism is appropriate, but only if you're a neighbor.

[AuxBatOn]

Pushing back against the man is IMO, not in itself a good enough reason to do something......

I'd disagree, sometimes its the best reason to do something.

So, you are an instructor and you advocate doing silly things that are legal for the sake of pissing people off? Interesting...

If you were new to aviation, I could understand such immaturity but you are not...

[Shiny Side Up]

Pushing back against the man is IMO, not in itself a good enough reason to do something......

I'd disagree, sometimes its the best reason to do something.

So, you are an instructor and you advocate doing silly things that are legal for the sake of pissing people off? Interesting...

If you were new to aviation, I could understand such immaturity but you are not...

No, lets be clear. I advocate doing normal things that are perfectly legal for the point of enabling one to continue doing normal things. If they make some people unhappy, that's their problem. Its time to start making those people back down.

Lets be really clear. As an instructor, and as an airport manager, I'm continually bombarded by requests to stop what we're doing. These things seem unusual, some of them seem scary, but that's to the uneducated public who know nothing about the business we're in. For example, recently I've had complaints that flying at 1000' agl is now, unusual, not necessary, and scares some people and makes them unhappy. So has just doing landings at my home aerodrome. So I would say that some aviators need to step up and stop backing down and rolling over when it comes to them impacting [/b] us.

So yes, sometimes we need to push back. They don't like the airplanes, they move, not us. Don't give the pricks the satisfaction of getting their way because their illusion of "safety" in the world doesn't line up all the time.

I know its all Canadian to rush to apologise and wring our hands when someone's feelings are hurt or feels uncomfortable, but not for this. If people think that this is dangerous and needs to come to a stop, they have no idea what passes for normal everywhere else in the world, and in Candada.

[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.