Another Philly fiasco

[Richard Russell]

Well, as if the drunk Pottstown pilot busting Philly's Bravo wasn't
enough to thouroughly embarrass the local flying community, now we
have another incident. Last night, a local news chopper had to
perform evasive maneuvers to avoid a single engine plane that was,
according to the news report, flying at an illegal altitude and
without lights. The pilot was forced to land at Camden County Airport
and is currently under investigation by the FAA and local law
enforcement officials. Video is available at www.cbs3.com. I'd love
to know what he was up to.

Rich Russell

[Maule Driver]

The video link didn't say anything about an illegal altitude. The a/c had
lights but not sure if any were missing. It looked low. The Cherokee could
have performed an evasive manuever to miss the chopper for that matter.

Actually it looked like responsible reporting that was unavoidable since
they had video. Not sure much happened here except 2 low VFR aircraft
surprised each other.

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> Well, as if the drunk Pottstown pilot busting Philly's Bravo wasn't
> enough to thouroughly embarrass the local flying community, now we
> have another incident. Last night, a local news chopper had to
> perform evasive maneuvers to avoid a single engine plane that was,
> according to the news report, flying at an illegal altitude and
> without lights. The pilot was forced to land at Camden County Airport
> and is currently under investigation by the FAA and local law
> enforcement officials. Video is available at www.cbs3.com. I'd love
> to know what he was up to.
>
> Rich Russell

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Maule Driver > wrote:
>Actually it looked like responsible reporting that was unavoidable since
>they had video. Not sure much happened here except 2 low VFR aircraft
>surprised each other.

Time to coin an expression -- don't have a near midair with someone who
buys ink by the barrel!

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Richard Russell]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:41:57 GMT, "Maule Driver"
> wrote:

>The video link didn't say anything about an illegal altitude. The a/c had
>lights but not sure if any were missing. It looked low. The Cherokee could
>have performed an evasive manuever to miss the chopper for that matter.
>
>Actually it looked like responsible reporting that was unavoidable since
>they had video. Not sure much happened here except 2 low VFR aircraft
>surprised each other.
>

I went back to watch the video again because I was absolutely certain
that they accused the pilot of flying at an illegal altitude. Well,
they didn't, this time but I noticed that the time on the video was
6:33 this morning and the time on the clip that I saw was 5:02 A.M. I
don't know if there is any significance to the fact that the altitude
was not mentioned in the updated report. I noticed this time around
that the beacon and strobes were on but not the nav lights.

Rich Russell

[Gene Seibel]

Richard Russell > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 05 May 2004 14:41:57 GMT, "Maule Driver"
> > wrote:
>
> >The video link didn't say anything about an illegal altitude. The a/c had
> >lights but not sure if any were missing. It looked low. The Cherokee could
> >have performed an evasive manuever to miss the chopper for that matter.
> >
> >Actually it looked like responsible reporting that was unavoidable since
> >they had video. Not sure much happened here except 2 low VFR aircraft
> >surprised each other.
> >
>
> I went back to watch the video again because I was absolutely certain
> that they accused the pilot of flying at an illegal altitude. Well,
> they didn't, this time but I noticed that the time on the video was
> 6:33 this morning and the time on the clip that I saw was 5:02 A.M. I
> don't know if there is any significance to the fact that the altitude
> was not mentioned in the updated report. I noticed this time around
> that the beacon and strobes were on but not the nav lights.
>
> Rich Russell


I like there new classification of aircraft - "small engine plane." ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Guy Elden Jr.]

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't an airplane have right of way over a
helicopter? (Less maneuverable vs more maneuverable?)

--
Guy Elden Jr.


"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> Well, as if the drunk Pottstown pilot busting Philly's Bravo wasn't
> enough to thouroughly embarrass the local flying community, now we
> have another incident. Last night, a local news chopper had to
> perform evasive maneuvers to avoid a single engine plane that was,
> according to the news report, flying at an illegal altitude and
> without lights. The pilot was forced to land at Camden County Airport
> and is currently under investigation by the FAA and local law
> enforcement officials. Video is available at www.cbs3.com. I'd love
> to know what he was up to.
>
> Rich Russell

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
...
> If I'm not mistaken, doesn't an airplane have right of way over a
> helicopter? (Less maneuverable vs more maneuverable?)
>

Perhaps, but I think the issue was that it was a rather low altitude over a
densely populated area.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Guy Elden Jr." wrote:
>
> If I'm not mistaken, doesn't an airplane have right of way over a
> helicopter? (Less maneuverable vs more maneuverable?)

But he shouldn't be flying below 1,000' AGL (and it looks like he was), and he really
needs to have his nav lights on (and, IMO, every other light on the plane burning).

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
>
>
> I like there new classification of aircraft - "small engine plane." ;)

It's not the size, it's how you use it. :~?

[James Robinson]

Richard Russell wrote:
>
> I went back to watch the video again because I was absolutely certain
> that they accused the pilot of flying at an illegal altitude.

In an interview this AM, the helicopter pilot suggested the plane was
flying at 700 feet.

[David Megginson]

Guy Elden Jr. wrote:

> If I'm not mistaken, doesn't an airplane have right of way over a
> helicopter? (Less maneuverable vs more maneuverable?)

I don't know the U.S. rules, but in Canada, that would be true only if the
airplane were towing something like a banner or a glider. Here are the
Canadian rules for right of way (AIP/RAC 1.10):

(a) a power-driven, heavier-than-air aircraft shall give way to airships,
gliders, and balloons;

(b) an airship shall give way to gliders and balloons;

(c) a glider shall give way to balloons; and

(d) a power-driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft that are seen to be
towing gliders or other objects or carrying a slung load.

There are lots more pickier details following -- for example, a balloon at
lower altitude has right of way over a balloon at higher altitude, etc.


All the best,


David