Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

[Arctic.West]

.

[single_swine_herder]

Looks like yet another identity for Hedly/ Colonel Sanders/ The424/ Arctic. West/ etc.

Like a moth inexplicably drawn to a light bulb ..... especially easily enticed by "the CAR 602.01 pheronome" when it comes to any mention of the concept of dealing with recklessness.

[CID]

It's not hard to find a Stinson on the internet with those markings based around Ottawa.

So in your world a Stinson based around Ottawa that looks like the airplane on the video is proof positive that was the airplane in the video?

If you mean " with those markings " to mean they have the C-GXXX or C-FXXX letters then T.C. should be able to locate the owner.

I found out the registration and it took about 10 minutes. TC could do the same using the same tools and could easily approach the owner and ask some questions. Since it's largely circumstantial and the reckless act didn't cause damage or injury, I doubt TC would spend much time pursuing it though.

With respect to the many faces of Hedley, he's having a tough time with his ban. He tried to peddle his unique debating style at Pprune and got thoroughly "owned". So he infiltrates AvCanada when he can and tries to use all manner of his unique logic to defend a pilot who simply did something risky.

[Rockie]

You made this ridiculous statement saying that anyone who even considers a takeoff under a bridge should loose their license,

You forgot to add the word "unnecessarily" in there. If there is no other option - and I can't imagine a situation where actually flying under a bridge is necessary - then go ahead, but maybe you should have taken that into account before you landed there in the first place and found another spot.

Gotta wonder why, my question stands; do you have trouble maintaining +/-50 feet on departure? Do you frequently recontact the ground from 50 feet up? Do you find yourself unexpectedly ballooning 90 feet up from 10 feet off the ground as was posed as a question a few pages back? Is that why you wouldn't trust yourself under a bridge?

The other night me and a long string of cars got passed by a guy doing at least 140 in a 70 kph zone around a blind curve on a two lane road. That kind of thing makes perfect sense to the moron doing it, and since he made it successfully without killing himself or anybody else it was safe right? Anybody else lacking the balls to do that simply must not have the skills and doesn't trust themselves.

Factoid: Any idiot can do something stupid and reckless and get away with it, but getting away with it doesn't validate what he did.

TC could do the same using the same tools and could easily approach the owner and ask some questions.

How do we know they didn't? He could have admitted to very poor judgement showing the right amount of contrition and promised to never do it again so they let it go. We don't know.

[Rockie]

Thats the thing about catch alls, often quoted, never used; Name the last time you ever heard of a 602.01 being cited? ever?

http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... 1&lang=eng
http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... n&dc_id=76
http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... n&dc_id=95
http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... n&dc_id=96
http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... &dc_id=357

This was in the first 20 cases out of 189 listed on the tribunal's website. I could have searched the remaining 169 but I think your question has been sufficiently answered.

[jeta1]

I guess, according to the majority who support the under the bridge take-off as safe and legal, that I could take off from Runway 24 in Quebec City and fly right between the turrets of the nearest Church because I am in the process of taking off and I have the hands and feet skills to do so safely (who knows, maybe I'm an ex-Red Bull pilot and the tower asked me to follow the Ancienne-Lorette Church departure...).... Or perhaps I could buzz the CN Tower on my way down to Toronto Island because I'm in the process of landing, and I am good enough to actually not hit it.

Common sense seems to have escaped most of the majority view in a group effort to try to rationalize the offender's dumb move. It was unnecessary, it was reckless and in all probability, would be considered as such if tabled at the civil aviation tribunal. It had nothing to do about skills. Since Artic Char mentioned in is post #8 or 9 the need to retain the "God Given right to do as we please in Canada", or something like that anyway, it is stupid stunts such as this under the bridge take-off in downtown Ottawa that will risk making changes to those rights. Thankfully for all who prefer chaos to structure, the current management at TC and the Tories have paralyzed the rulemaking and oversight processes, so essentially, it's a giant free-for-all for years to come.

[single_swine_herder]

edited .....

The other night me and a long string of cars got passed by a guy doing at least 140 in a 70 kph zone around a blind curve on a two lane road. That kind of thing makes perfect sense to the moron doing it, and since he made it successfully without killing himself or anybody else it was safe right? Anybody else lacking the balls to do that simply must not have the skills and doesn't trust themselves.

Factoid: Any idiot can do something stupid and reckless and get away with it, but getting away with it doesn't validate what he did.

Yes Rockie ..... there is a sizable group who still function at the state of the art where ..... "Nobody was hurt, so why are you making such a big deal about it?" is the standard they maintain is just fine for the industry..... yesterday, today, and decades into the future.

[pdw]

It's clear IMO from the video the aircraft was likely on the step a lot longer than normal, so it may have evolved also as the run elongated going above the bridge got out of the question, ... so maybe not so dumb ... just was the second more-inviting option than wasting time and fuel while dodging Saturday boat traffic ...keeping it going to where it was all clear and lots of room.

[AirFrame]

The other night me and a long string of cars got passed by a guy doing at least 140 in a 70 kph zone around a blind curve on a two lane road. That kind of thing makes perfect sense to the moron doing it, and since he made it successfully without killing himself or anybody else it was safe right? Anybody else lacking the balls to do that simply must not have the skills and doesn't trust themselves.

You're right, that sounds dangerous. But it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

1. The airplane wasn't doing anything "blind".
2. The airplane wasn't manoeuvering within a car lane width of anything but the water.
3. The airplane wasn't even turning, just flying a straight line.
4. I suppose he may have been going 140 kph.

Keep bringing up random dangerous things that aren't relevant, they only make you look sillier.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Thats the thing about catch alls, often quoted, never used; Name the last time you ever heard of a 602.01 being cited? ever?

http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... 1&lang=eng
http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... n&dc_id=76
http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... n&dc_id=95
http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... n&dc_id=96
http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... &dc_id=357

This was in the first 20 cases out of 189 listed on the tribunal's website. I could have searched the remaining 169 but I think your question has been sufficiently answered.

I think it is interesting that of the 5 examples provided only one conviction that included a contravention of CAR 602.01 was upheld.

[Rockie]

Keep bringing up random dangerous things that aren't relevant, they only make you look sillier.

I'll explain the relevance to you then...

I was responding to the poster who implied I think it was dangerous because I lacked the skill to do it myself. Skill is not the issue. In my youth I did things that were well within my skill level but were stupid in the time, place and conditions under which I did them. Lucky me I survived and so did the people with me.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's ok to do it.

[Shiny Side Up]

Yes Rockie ..... there is a sizable group who still function at the state of the art where ..... "Nobody was hurt, so why are you making such a big deal about it?" is the standard they maintain is just fine for the industry..... yesterday, today, and decades into the future.

I think you're making a mistake here in making that assumption. Its not nobody was hurt therefore its safe, Its no body was hurt and there was a extremely low probability that someone was going to get hurt, therefore it was reasonably safe to do. In this case, a large percentage of the risk (into the +99% range) was borne by the pilot, so as a hazard to the general public, there was no more risk here than any other water take off. From his take off position, I think we could agree that under was probably safer than over, though neither of us have any on his performance capabilities at the time.

No one here also knows what other considerations may have been at play here either, and I would be loath to pass judgement on my fellow aviator based solely on what I have seen, much less pass it based on the verdict of some boaters.

Ultimately, in my opinion there are far riskier things that pilots - some here - are doing on a regular basis, which maybe has blinded them to the risks given the regularity of taking them on. I can think of somethings I do on a regular basis, which are still for the most part mitigated, but still have potential, that have a higher chance of disaster than what this fellow did.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's ok to do it.

But also just because you can't do something doesn't mean its not OK for someone else to do it. Also just because you assess for you to do it is too risky, doesn't mean that its too risky for someone else. This guy doesn't deserve to be hung solely on your opinion.

Would I have done it? Sure, if the circumstances warranted it. I don't know this fellow's circumstance, so I'm not going to judge whether he should have done it.

[CID]

How do we know they didn't? He could have admitted to very poor judgement showing the right amount of contrition and promised to never do it again so they let it go. We don't know.

True 'dat.

[Arctic.West]

.

[Rockie]

I think you're making a mistake here in making that assumption. Its not nobody was hurt therefore its safe, Its no body was hurt and there was a extremely low probability that someone was going to get hurt, therefore it was reasonably safe to do.

So it would be ok for somebody to take off from Gatineau in a C172 and fly under the bridge since it's reasonably safe to do?

In this case, a large percentage of the risk (into the +99% range) was borne by the pilot, so as a hazard to the general public, there was no more risk here than any other water take off.

Assuming of course he doesn't hit the bridge in a way that strews flaming debris and aviation fuel across four lanes of traffic. You do realize he flew under a bridge? Since when did that become normal?

I think we could agree that under was probably safer than over, though neither of us have any on his performance capabilities at the time.

Under wasn't necessary and neither was over. Past the bridge is what good judgement would dictate and you can't tell me there was something past the bridge in that very wide, very long river that made flying under the bridge the safer option. Utterly ridiculous.

But also just because you can't do something doesn't mean its not OK for someone else to do it.

This pilot wasn't demonstrating special skill by flying under the bridge, anybody could do it with a high likelihood of surviving it. Rather he was demonstrating decidedly poor judgement and decision making by doing it in the first place. There might be someplace in this world where it is normal and completely safe for people to fly under bridges, but under a heavily trafficked bridge in downtown Ottawa isn't it to anybody with two functioning brain cells. Transport Canada and the FAA are really big fans of good judgement and decision making, and have produced some good material. Here is an excerpt of what they consider good judgement:

"Judgement is the process of recognizing and analyzing all available information about oneself, the aircraft, and the flying environment, followed by the rational evaluation of alternatives to implement a timely decision which maximizes safety. Pilot-judgement thus involves one's attitudes toward risk-taking and one's ability to evaluate risks and make decisions based upon one's knowledge, skills, and experience. A judgment decision always involves a problem or choice, an unknown element, usually a time constraint, and stress."

Rockie was cherry picking those as well,

No, I just looked at page one of the tribunal website but I admit I did only choose the ones where 602.01 was cited since that's what you asked for. BTW, this may or may not be a complete list from the beginning of the tribunal and it bears mentioning that these are only the violations that got challenged. I have no idea how many TC issued that weren't.

[CpnCrunch]

I don't think the river constitutes a built up area.

Are you sure about that? It's certainly a built-up area on either side of the river, and I'm fairly sure TC would argue that the bridge over the river (and the vehicles on it) constitute a built-up area.

You're not allowed to take off over (or presumably under) a built-up area except if you're taking off from an airport. As far as I can tell, the waterdrome is at Rockliffe (CTR7), which is north of the bridges. It looks like the pilot might have deliberately taxied south under the *two* bridges, just so he could take off under the second bridge.

If I had to put money on it, I would say that TC would whip his ass with a violation of take-off over a built-up area, as well as the reckless and dangerous (and I'm too lazy too look up the CARs).

Still, it's probably only a $1000 fine or 30 day license suspension, so maybe it was worth it to be an avcanada hero.

[single_swine_herder]

The good Capt Crunch has it cased.

Thank-you.

[Arctic.West]

.

[Rockie]

So having looked thru a bunch more of those 189 decisions you allege are all 602.01 violations;

You have the reading comprehension skills of another former poster here. Where did I allege all 189 decisions are 602.01 violations? If anything most are PPC failures that the pilots decided to challenge at the Tribunal that have nothing to do with 602.01. You also failed to note that these are only violations that were challenged. Since the vast majority of PPC failures go unchallenged at the tribunal it's reasonable to assume a large number of the 602.01 violations go unchallenged too. Unfortunately I don't have statistics for those.

So they list skill or lack there of as a part of determining negligence,

"and prudence in the circumstances"

That's the judgement part you keep ignoring.

The ruling then goes on to basically say that the "expert witness" should have known better and if anything created the situation. This is one of those heartwarming examples where the system actually worked... Minus the fact that this poor guy had to go to tribunal to get some semblance of intelligence in the argument and had to defending himself against a trumped up sorta "I Didn't Like That" charge. This would be how any 602.01 complaint in this specific example trying to stand on its own would most likely go.

I don't know what specific case you're referring to here, but how is it relevant to flying under the MacDonald Cartier bridge?

[Arctic.West]

.

[Shiny Side Up]

You people need to read the CARs more closely.

602.12
(2) Except at an airport, heliport or military aerodrome, no person shall conduct a take-off, approach or landing in an aircraft over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons, in a manner that is likely to create a hazard to persons or property.

First, It would be tough to argue that the pilot was over the built up area. Second, its debateable that it was in a manner that was likely to "create a hazard to persons or property" we're only at this moment operating under the opinion of the avcanada experts that it was, even if it was considered "over" a "built-up area".

Note that the take off as conducted also adheres to 602.14 more strictly than one that might be over any bridges, and it might be argued that any seaplane take offs must be conducted under bridges (where they obstruct waterways) rather than over them in the interests of adhering to the CARS, but I digress.

The main point of contention where a possible CARs violation could stick is the whole whether a hazard was created - most notably in the CARS is critical to others on the surface, it cares not a lot for those in the airplane. I personally think you'd have to be really creative to argue that what was done created a hazard any greater than a normal seaplane take off to the general citizenry. Statistically there are way more ways seaplanes have grief on take offs than hitting bridges.

Note also that the CARS, while referencing "built-up area" in at least 35 of the CARS, do not give a definition of one. The water most definitely isn't a built up area, its debateable if the bridge constitutes one, but the CARS only prohibit flying over one.

Again there would be a strong arguement that the pilot was doing his best to obey the CARS by not flying over any built up areas...

[Cat Driver]

You still haven't really stated why the judgement was so impaired; he took off under a structure that as some posters have pointed out he may not have been able to climb to hit if he tried.

[AuxBatOn]

Note also that the CARS, while referencing "built-up area" in at least 35 of the CARS, do not give a definition of one. The water most definitely isn't a built up area, its debateable if the bridge constitutes one, but the CARS only prohibit flying over.

Jesus lack of common sense... Tell that to the guys that flew a Griffon under the confederation bridge a couple years back and ask them if it made a difference in the outcome of their disciplinary process.

I guess that's why you have 602.01.... For guys trying to "stick it to the man" because rules don't explicitely say it is prohibited...

[CpnCrunch]

CAR 602.13 might also be relevant here:

(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.

The water most definitely isn't a built up area, its debateable if the bridge constitutes one, but the CARS only prohibit flying over one.

Again there would be a strong arguement that the pilot was doing his best to obey the CARS by not flying over any built up areas...

That's precisely the kind of argument that the Colonel uses when he has a run-in with TC

[Shiny Side Up]

Jesus lack of common sense... Tell that to the guys that flew a Griffon under the confederation bridge a couple years back and ask them if it made a difference in the outcome of their disciplinary process.

I guess that's why you have 601.01.... For guys trying to "stick it to the man" because rules don't explicitely say it is prohibited...

Was he found in violation of the CARS? Lets be clear here, we have a lot of posters who are determined that there was a clear violation, but I would say that their CARS-fu is in question. And just to be nitpicky, its 602.01.

You still haven't really stated why the judgement was so impaired; he took off under a structure that as some posters have pointed out he may not have been able to climb to hit if he tried.

+1

As of yet, the only reason that people have been to come up with that he showed impaired judgement was that he has hurt some feelings with his actions. The discussion of how much we should not violate Hedley's one guideline of flying is a lot of grey area.

That's precisely the kind of argument that the Colonel uses when he has a run-in with TC

And sometimes he's right. Remember, you're talking to someone else who's had to defend one's self and company from just the same accusations that would be levied to this pilot in this thread. Successfully I might add.