Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by pdw »

Rockie wrote:
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.
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.
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.

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 ...
---------- ADS -----------
 
cgzro
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1735
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:45 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by cgzro »

On a slightly related note why dont the rowers wear PFDs? often see them without any help nearby and rowing with no life jackets.. Is that even legal?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by Rockie »

Shiny Side Up wrote:That's because what he did, isn't that much riskier than if he was on the step under the bridge,
On the water you maneuver in two dimensions instead of three, and you don't have to worry about hitting the bridge above you or the water below you. Furthermore turning a float plane in the water, even while on the step doesn't require you to bank the aircraft which while flying under a bridge reduces the clearance even more. I'm not sure why you can't differentiate between the risks of those two things.
Shiny Side Up wrote:As has been said, it might have been impossible to climb to hit the bridge given his performance for the day, but a lot easier to hit the bridge if you're descending under it.
Speculation on whether he had the energy to climb into the bridge or not is irrelevant to his decision making in the first place. Do you really think he considered that when he pushed the throttle up? And if you're going to be dumb enough to fly under something from a higher altitude hopefully you would at least have the brains to descend before you got there and fly through level. Stupid even talking about it.

He didn't take off under the bridge. He leveled off and "flew" under it making it no different than if a wheel airplane did it. The only difference is you think it's ok for a float plane.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by Rockie »

pdw wrote: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.
You have got to be kidding with this nonsense....

Take another look at that video.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by pdw »

The rowing dock is slightly on the lee side so water is smoother there; the takeoff is on a diagonal towards that side of the river. Waters aren't as calm (including other boat wake) farther out towards the middle.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by AirFrame »

Rockie wrote:Speculation on whether he had the energy to climb into the bridge or not is irrelevant to his decision making in the first place. Do you really think he considered that when he pushed the throttle up?
A Stinson? On floats? You're kidding, right? I'm sure his climb performance (or rather, lack thereof) was foremost in his mind as he added power.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by Rockie »

AirFrame wrote:A Stinson? On floats? You're kidding, right? I'm sure his climb performance (or rather, lack thereof) was foremost in his mind as he added power.
Why would climb performance be foremost in his mind with 50 miles of unobstructed takeoff path in front of him? Oh...right...there wasn't 50 miles of unobstructed takeoff path in front of him...

But then that would mean he deliberately flew underneath a 42' high, 6 lane wide, heavily trafficked bridge in the middle of Ottawa. Of course that's perfectly acceptable as long as there's a pair of floats hanging underneath your airplane...right?
---------- ADS -----------
 
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by pdw »

Foremost is launching the path clear of conflicting watercraft, or a fear of dallying around for riskier options ... which always includes concern for precious contingency fuel (the W&B-acceptable minimum) in arriving/departing the pax to/from the chosen dock.
Rockie wrote:But then that would mean he deliberately flew underneath a 42' high, 6 lane wide, heavily trafficked bridge in the middle of Ottawa.
To be fair it's in the middle of the very wide river ...
Of course that's perfectly acceptable as long as there's a pair of floats hanging underneath your airplane...right?
(nicely framed argument)

If not for the floats still dripping water for the next half mile on the take-off course, then maybe not. Without them this debate might have been more suited for the aerobatic interests ...

EDIT ... just to add (on that note) that any wheels-only aircraft under normal circumstances have no business anywhere near that part of the Ottawa river where general watercraft and pontoon-aircraft ARE permitted.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pdw on Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by AirFrame »

Rockie wrote:Why would climb performance be foremost in his mind with 50 miles of unobstructed takeoff path in front of him? Oh...right...there wasn't 50 miles of unobstructed takeoff path in front of him...

But then that would mean he deliberately flew underneath a 42' high, 6 lane wide, heavily trafficked bridge in the middle of Ottawa. Of course that's perfectly acceptable as long as there's a pair of floats hanging underneath your airplane...right?
Feelings...

(sorry, the Colonel isn't here, someone has to say it)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by Rockie »

AirFrame wrote:Feelings...(sorry, the Colonel isn't here, someone has to say it)
The double standard that appears to exist between (some) float pilots and the land variety still hasn't been effectively addressed or even acknowledged by any of you. Instead you resort to this kind of baseless and irrelevant comment as a diversion perhaps?

This is a very simple and direct question Airframe that should be well within your capability to answer. Why is it ok for a float pilot to fly under that bridge when he doesn't have to but not a wheel pilot? Same amount of skill required.

Edit: Here is a quote from the TSB study on float accidents that I posted on the other thread:

"Given this operating milieu, it is perhaps not surprising that a distinct operating culture seems to have evolved. There is a romantic mystique with respect to remote or wilderness flight operations from the water. Some have written about the "bush pilot" syndrome, and a bush pilot folklore has evolved in Canada. Such folklore is not always consistent with safe flight operations."

This is an issue the TSB takes seriously and I suggest is also appropriate to seriously discuss on this forum and this thread particularly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tedcuthbert
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:37 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by tedcuthbert »

Back to the question of what qualifies a built-up area, I'll quote from a post I made on this site a few years ago

There is a documented case of TC action against a Montreal based float operator who was using the Welland river near Niagara falls to land and drop off passengers.
In that case, “built up areas” were defined as the yellow areas on the VFR chart, and the decision was, if there is yellow on both sides of the river it’s a no go (unless it's a documented seaplane base).
A more common situation would be if there is yellow on only one side of the river or lake, in that case (in my opinion), you should be ok as long as you do not conduct the arrival or take-off portion of your flight (under 1000 AGL) over the built up area.

More importantly, if you land somewhere, and someone complains, and you are warned, don’t do it again (as the operator in the example did) unless you are sure you are within your legal right to do so."

link to the TC write-up, for those with the time to read.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca- ... delcoa.doc
---------- ADS -----------
 
CID
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3544
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:43 am
Location: Canada

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by CID »

I like to drive my car on two wheels. Is it illegal? Is it smart? If I am highly trained is it OK? All good questions but at the end of the day, it's just a dumb thing to do.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4158
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by CpnCrunch »

tedcuthbert wrote: In that case, “built up areas” were defined as the yellow areas on the VFR chart, and the decision was, if there is yellow on both sides of the river it’s a no go (unless it's a documented seaplane base).
It's a bit of a long read, but from skimming it it appears that they looked at the VFR charts as well as aerial photos, and both confirmed that it was a built-up area. Pretty much the same as for this part of Ottawa - it is yellow on both sides, and an aerial view shows dense housing either side of the bridge.

It's pretty funny watching all you people wasting you time trolling Rockie, as it's patently obvious that the pilot is f*!?ed if TC catches him :)
---------- ADS -----------
 
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by pdw »

tedcuthbert wrote:A more common situation would be if there is yellow on only one side of the river or lake, in that case (in my opinion), you should be ok as long as you do not conduct the arrival or take-off portion of your flight (under 1000 AGL) over the built up area.
There is more than likely also some consideration that applies there for width. The Welland river is quite narrow, 100meters and winding; the Ottawa 600meters at the bridge ...
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by Shiny Side Up »

CpnCrunch wrote: It's pretty funny watching all you people wasting you time trolling Rockie, as it's patently obvious that the pilot is f*!?ed if TC catches him :)
Well it has been a way to pass the time with some of this crummy weather lately. Actually I'd tend to agree that in this instance the pilot acted foolishly, it was somewhat more risky to take off under the bridge. I do however think its debateable whether it was illegal, especially since the grounds that most here would say its illegal upon should ban float planes operating off the Ottawa River entirely, or in some cases ban float flying altogether. They should think a bit more about what side they want to be on, and that especially unthinkingly agreeing with the assessment of non-flyers really hurts their position.

But then it wouldn't surprise me, or be the first time, that I've seen pilots really push for less aviation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4158
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by CpnCrunch »

I think the guy flying under the bridge is doing more to get floatplanes banned on the Ottawa river than any avcanada poster.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by Shiny Side Up »

CpnCrunch wrote:I think the guy flying under the bridge is doing more to get floatplanes banned on the Ottawa river than any avcanada poster.
Don't be so certain of that.

Hence why it must be very clear what he's in trouble for, or if the needs of flying in general is better served by him being prosecuted. From a wider picture of how these things work, if the NIMBY's are able to push a case against this guy, it sets the precedence for the rest of us to have a fight on our hands on the larger stage. After all, just the act of being airborne under a bridge isn't inherently dangerous, and currently not illegal. The size of the plane, the size of the bridge, the size of the river are all relevant factors, amongst a long list.

Many here aren't aware of how the NIMBY's of this world are consistently pushing to shrink the boundaries of what we as aviators do. We have to be careful about hanging our own, we might be measuring our own rope at the same time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by Rockie »

Shiny Side Up wrote:Well it has been a way to pass the time with some of this crummy weather lately.
Truth be told I do it mostly for the mental exercise as well. Coherently presenting a rational, logical argument is a skill that needs to be developed and maintained. It doesn't hurt to present said rational view point on an aviation forum either since there are plenty of irrational ones to waylay the young and impressionable. Listening to some here (even if they are trolling), someone looking for advice or mentoring might actually think flying under a low bridge isn't an incredibly stupid thing to do.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4158
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by CpnCrunch »

What I find interesting is that none of the floatplane pilots seem to know where it's actually legal for them to takeoff or land within a built-up area. Whenever I'm flying I kinda like to know whether I'm doing something illegal or not.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by Shiny Side Up »

CpnCrunch wrote:What I find interesting is that none of the floatplane pilots seem to know where it's actually legal for them to takeoff or land within a built-up area.
Actually no, what's debateable is not whether its legal to take off or land in a built up area, its debateable whether where this fellow took of is a built up area. Amongst other specifics as worded in the CARS. Crux of the issue. If what you define in this case is indeed a built up area, the precedence is now set to expand on that significantly with whole swaths of water now under your new definition of "built-up area" now off limits, prime for any other unhappy boaters who don't like to share teh space with float planes. Remember, built up area is not defined in the CARS so at this point that part of the issue is pure opinion of the debaters here, myself included.

I don't think us as aviators want the NIMBYs to be able to redefine that term especially in their favour.
Rockie wrote:someone looking for advice or mentoring might actually think flying under a low bridge isn't an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Well, hopefully they have the brains to read further into this discussion. If one learns anything really important from something as drawn out as this on avcanada, is that stupid and illegal aren't necessarily the same things, just like reasonable and legal aren't.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by pdw »

"bush pilot" syndrome ...
Is this a syndrome with similarities to what the 'Killinger Theory' has attempted to outline within the last ten years ?
...not always consistent with safe flight operations.
This TSB statement is the evidence that it has already been considered as a potential safety issue.
Rockie wrote:This is an issue the TSB takes seriously ...
If a pilot's tendency for adrenalin rushes (ie: an addiction) contributes to the decision-making for a questionable take-off (ie the many questions in this case) you could be onto something.

Watching it again ... if the original intent is climbing over, then yes there's also lots of opportunity here to pull power / come off the step and walk it under. Why not is a valid question if the pilot is not sure if it is perfectly legal or not ...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by Rockie »

If taking off under a bridge were considered legal and normal Transport Canada would have no problem with wheel airplanes flying under an overpass just off the far end of a runway. Strangely enough there are strict limits on what kind of obstacles can be built off the end of airfields because they are considered an obstacle from top to bottom. It doesn't matter if there happens to be a gap under it.

Float planes are no different...or are they? Could there be a different set of air regulations just for float planes given the superior skill it must take to fly them?
---------- ADS -----------
 
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by pdw »

Not "skill" so much as 'discretion'. This became obvious during instruction of my first lesson long ago, and that here was a new way to go many more places. I didn't know at the time there's lots of places where locals started hating the loud noises the old float-plane's engines made as a busy-season progressed. (still not sure if that's the case here)

I heard something like 400,000 legit locations to land in Ontario with a float equipped aircraft; but not hearing of that many where it's prohibited. When it comes to landing spots, the wheels-only aircraft is very limited in comparison.

Water is the float-plane's domain. Huge spans that accommodate land traffic across larger waterways are automatically higher to accomodate boat traffic that uses the bigger marine-use areas. The wheels-only aircraft is at a disadvantage in this case. Land bridges are just high enough accommodate the tallest trucks (usually), and on land there are general obstructions in the way of any attempt at low-level flight.

Nothing "superior" about it though .... just using discretion wisely ...
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by Shiny Side Up »

If taking off under a bridge were considered legal and normal Transport Canada would have no problem with wheel airplanes flying under an overpass just off the far end of a runway.
Technically speaking they wouldn't, but of course overpasses and bridges over water ways are two different things. Part of your problem is that you equate things that aren't the same. In the case of an over pass - obviously we have other human beings in close proximity who are probably also in the same space as the aircraft, not to mention consideerably less clearance than the bridge. As has been stated before, whether you're creating a hazard, also isn't defined in the CARS and is somewhat of one's own opinion.

Part of the operative bit of this arguement is that the float plane is engaged in a take off, which makes it exempt from the clearance from obstacles. It would not be exempt if it was also operating from a built up area - but that also isn't defined and debateable in this instance. Note that in general a land plane in this case wouldn't be taking off the water.

But if we were to imagine a sufficiently high bridge (again sufficiently high is a point of opinion) where someone not in a built up area was to initiate a take off path that took him under a bridge, I imagine its out there, though there's not many fields that have been bridged in such a fashion, that it would also be legal.

Safe and Legal are two different things.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Ottawa RIver Departure under the Bridge

Post by Rockie »

Shiny Side Up wrote:Technically speaking they wouldn't, but of course overpasses and bridges over water ways are two different things.
Really? They're both made of concrete and steel and have a gap underneath them. In fact the overpass clearance may be the same as the bridge in Ottawa of 42 feet. Would that make it ok then?
Shiny Side Up wrote: In the case of an over pass - obviously we have other human beings in close proximity who are probably also in the same space as the aircraft,
Looked to me like an awful lot of human beings crossing that Ottawa bridge in the video. And since one of the more popular arguments postulated here is the danger in extended water operations with other craft around it seems quite likely a pleasure boat could occupy the same space as the aircraft under the bridge at a really inconvenient time.

In the TSB summary of float accidents the most common contributing factor was "Failed to obtain/maintain flying speed" (161 cases). The second most common cause was "Selected unsuitable area for take-off, landing, taxiing" (137). Do you think maybe...just maybe...Transport Canada, the TSB and pretty much anybody with an ounce of common sense might consider taking off under the bridge like this fellow did as "unsuitable"?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”