Banner towing beach accident

[Heliian]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/world/plane-cr ... -1.3138920

Sounds like only minor injuries but I question the decision making abilities of some of these pilots, low and slow with no suitable landing area. Guy puts it onto crowded beach, its a miracle no one was killed. I saw this type of operation last year in NJ and thought at the time it could be bad news and for what?......to advertise some crappy bar, service or attraction? Maybe this type of operation should be scrutinized more.

[vanNostrum]

I just came back from DAB where there is a lot of banner towing and wonder what are the procedures in case of a forced landing . If I was doing the flying and try to land on the beach I carry a fire truck siren or a magaphone to warn the people in my path

[Johnny#5]

I know someone who had this happen to him and he put it in the water about 8 feet off the shore into about 3 ft of water. He hit nobody and was perfectly unharmed.

This idiot nearly kills a kid....

[TG]

I know someone who had this happen to him and he put it in the water about 8 feet off the shore into about 3 ft of water. He hit nobody and was perfectly unharmed.

This idiot nearly kills a kid....

Landing on a beach !? They do that all the time in Alaska


Here !? never!




Joke aside, I'm not that confident of how well I could spot a bobbing head in 3 or 4 feet of water.

[Johnny#5]

Haha, imagine if you yelled "shark" there??

[Heliian]

I'm saying that a beach with people on it or 3-4 feet of surf is NOT a suitable landing site to cover the "gliding distance" regulation. This all happens in the U.S. though so ya, go merica!

[SuperchargedRS]

I'm saying that a beach with people on it or 3-4 feet of surf is NOT a suitable landing site to cover the "gliding distance" regulation. This all happens in the U.S. though so ya, go merica!

Was anyone harmed no, pilot hurt bad, no

So yeah, let's over regulate stuff, better yet aircraft are dangerous, maybe only our government overlords should be allowed to fly them.


I see nothing wrong with the banner ops, leave it be unless you want to have some euro style anti GA airspace system.

[Diadem]

Roads with cars on them aren't safe places to land, nor are parks, golf courses, or school yards. We should probably make it illegal to fly beyond gliding distance of a properly maintained runway.

[Heliian]

SuperRS did you not read anything else? There was a 12 yr. old injured on the beach.

Roads with cars on them aren't safe places to land, nor are parks, golf courses, or school yards. We should probably make it illegal to fly beyond gliding distance of a properly maintained runway.

tethered would be better but no.

How about not killing some innocent on the ground. You chose to take the job so take some responsibility. Even in a car you wouldn't drive it into a crowd of people to slow down.

[photofly]

I'm saying that a beach with people on it or 3-4 feet of surf is NOT a suitable landing site to cover the "gliding distance" regulation. This all happens in the U.S. though so ya, go merica!

What do you understand the "gliding distance" regulation to be? It might perhaps not be quite what you think.

[Rookie50]

I'm saying that a beach with people on it or 3-4 feet of surf is NOT a suitable landing site to cover the "gliding distance" regulation. This all happens in the U.S. though so ya, go merica!

What do you understand the "gliding distance" regulation to be? It might perhaps not be quite what you think.

What is it then? And curious PF as you are based there, if departing YTZ IFR off 26, are you in gliding distance at all times on their normal departure? If not what do you do? (lets assume you can't depart VFR)

Honestly curious how you handle it there.

[CpnCrunch]

I'm saying that a beach with people on it or 3-4 feet of surf is NOT a suitable landing site to cover the "gliding distance" regulation. This all happens in the U.S. though so ya, go merica!

What do you understand the "gliding distance" regulation to be? It might perhaps not be quite what you think.

Presumably FAR 91.119(a) and CAR 602.14 (2)(a).

[photofly]

What do you understand the "gliding distance" regulation to be? It might perhaps not be quite what you think.

Presumably ... CAR 602.14 (2)(a).

Doesn't say anything about "gliding distance".

There's a "gliding distance to shore" rule (602.62(1)), and a "land without hazard to persons or property on the surface" rule (602.14(2)). There's no rule about "without hazard to persons or property in the aircraft" and no rule that says "glide to shore and then land without hazard to persons".

Moreover, if you're over the water and more than 2000' horizontal distance from the people on the beach and in the water (and therefore away from what could perhaps be described as an open-air assembly of persons) 602.14 doesn't apply. You merely have to be within gliding distance of shore. And if you carry a life-preserver or floatation device then not even that.

[CpnCrunch]

Moreover, if you're over the water and more than 2000' horizontal distance from the people on the beach and in the water (and therefore away from what could perhaps be described as an open-air assembly of persons) 602.14 doesn't apply. You merely have to be within gliding distance of shore. And if you carry a life-preserver or floatation device then not even that.

The FAR rule applies, I believe, as it doesn't mention assembly of persons or built-up areas (those are in a separate section). As for the CARs, I don't know if TC would like the argument that "I was 2000ft horizontally from the assembly of people, but when the engine failed I thought it best to land on top of them".

Anyway, I think most of us would be more concerned about the loss of human life rather than whether or not we busted a rule.

[photofly]

The FAR rule applies, I believe, as it doesn't mention assembly of persons or built-up areas (those are in a separate section).

In fact it does mention an open air assembly of persons: 91.119(b). I don't believe there's any difference between the Canadian regulations and the FARs.

Anyway, I think most of us would be more concerned about the loss of human life rather than whether or not we busted a rule.

Oh I quite agree with you there. But if Heliian is going to start throwing regulations into the mix:

I'm saying that a beach with people on it or 3-4 feet of surf is NOT a suitable landing site to cover the "gliding distance" regulation

then it's best to know what the regulation we're accusing someone of breaking actually says.

[photofly]

What is it then? And curious PF as you are based there, if departing YTZ IFR off 26, are you in gliding distance at all times on their normal departure? If not what do you do? (lets assume you can't depart VFR)

Honestly curious how you handle it there.

Are you asking me how I comply with CAR602.62? I carry life preservers. Don't you?

[CpnCrunch]

In fact it does mention an open air assembly of persons: 91.119(b). I don't believe there's any difference between the Canadian regulations and the FARs.

If you look at my comment you'll see I said 91.119(a), which doesn't mention open air assemblies. The CAR equivalent is within the "open air assembly / built up area" section, so it looks like it is different.

[photofly]

CAR 602.14(2)(a) says:

(2) Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where permitted under section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft
(a) over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons unless the aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the event of an emergency necessitating an immediate landing, it would be possible to land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface, and, in any case, at an altitude that is not lower than
(i) for aeroplanes, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 2,000 feet from the aeroplane,


FAR91.119 says:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.



These are very nearly equivalent.

There is a difference in the meaning of "except when necessary for takeoff or landing" (US) compared to "except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing" (Canada)

There is a difference between "hazard" (Canada) and "undue hazard" (US).

The US regulation refers to "if a power unit fails", the Canadian regulation refers to "an emergency necessitating an immediate landing".

And, in Canada you may operate at an altitude from which it would NOT be possible to land without "hazard" to persons or property on the ground in the event of an emergency requiring an immediate landing as long as you are not over a built up area or open air assembly of persons. While under the US regulations you may not operate at an altitude that creates "undue hazard" in the case of a power unit failure, anywhere.

[niss]

IIRC Nark used to fly that actual aircraft so he would be the best to opine.

[Nark]

Thanks for the heads up Niss,

I have several hundred hours in the plane in question, and I really don't have anything to add.

We operateded at an altitude, with glide distance to the shore, which satisfied the FAA, and was demonstrated by numerous videos.

For those who are advocating ditching a wheeled airplane into the shore, you are an idiot.
The expectation of death is exponentially higher than landing on the beach.

This outcome was only one 12 year old with a fucking cool stories to tell girls later short of a perfect emergency landing.

What caused the engine failure, no idea. I'm curious to know as well. As Niss knows, this specific airplane held a high regard, close to my heart.