This was a downstream takeoff. No actual water-speed data, except that the flow is 1400-1500cubic meters per second. The wind for that hour is flowing exactly opposite, which results in a much slower water-speed on the step but already high airspeed; the resulting unexpected instability (the bounciness evident on the rowing club's video) actually makes it a poor option to continue high-speed water taxi (risk of porpoising) under the structure.Rockie wrote:There wasn't a clear shot out into wind, there was a big bridge in the way that he had to fly under with minimal clearance. A float pilot PIC's mandate along with every other type of PIC is to be solely responsible for the safety of the aircraft and everyone in it. To carry out that responsibility correctly requires good judgement. Flying under a bridge when you clearly do not have to does not demonstrate good judgement in anybody's book except a few denizens of AvCanada.pdw wrote:So, if there's a clear shot out into wind (ie no conflicting traffic on the take off run straight out front of his/her windscreen) then the float PIC's mandate is to get it going and get clear of the sporadic and risky traffic that's possible in this area.
The float's wake is probably foremost the issue for these rowers; .. so cruising on by off the step may be worse in this conflict. Lifting off before passing the dock on the other hand eliminated that wake for them and also ensured the speedily manned 2-person shells (check the video) who heard the plane coming ... aren't quick-enough to come sculling across the take-off path in protest. Usually there's more than meets the eye when there is already a conflict ...