Beach Runs?

[Nik]

While surfing in 2003, when I lived in Wilmington, NC saw a Pitts
flying about 20 feet high and 200-300 feet from the shore, probably
doing around 100kts. How legal was he? Do have any nice experiences
about Beach Runs?

-Nik

[Peter Duniho]

"Nik" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> While surfing in 2003, when I lived in Wilmington, NC saw a Pitts
> flying about 20 feet high and 200-300 feet from the shore, probably
> doing around 100kts. How legal was he? Do have any nice experiences
> about Beach Runs?

100 knots can be perfectly legal.

200-300 feet from shore can be perfectly legal.

20 feet high can be perfectly legal.

The speed is entirely irrelevant here. Given that he was over water, his
height is probably irrelevant, unless he came within 500' of any boats or
people on the water. The biggest question is whether at 200-300 feet from
the shore, he came within 500' of an object on the land (and of course, a
related question is whether you have any good reason for trusting your
estimate of 200-300 feet).

Pete

[Peter R.]

Nik > wrote:

> While surfing in 2003, when I lived in Wilmington, NC saw a Pitts
> flying about 20 feet high and 200-300 feet from the shore, probably
> doing around 100kts. How legal was he? Do have any nice experiences
> about Beach Runs?

Back in spring 2003 I rented a C172 out of Palm Springs, California, then
took my father for a ride over to San Diego, California. In addition to
flying the VFR corridor over the San Diego International airport and into
the bay, I also dropped below the San Diego class B airspace, which
mandated altitudes of less than 500 feet msl, and flew along Mission Beach,
about 1,000 feet from the shore.

Flying relatively low over the water is legal, assuming no airspace
restrictions and one remain at least 500 feet from any person, craft, or
building in the water or on land. It can also be exhilarating, assuming
the pilot understands the risks and manages them accordingly.

--
Peter

[Jim Logajan]

"Nik" > wrote:
> While surfing in 2003, when I lived in Wilmington, NC saw a Pitts
> flying about 20 feet high and 200-300 feet from the shore, probably
> doing around 100kts. How legal was he? Do have any nice experiences
> about Beach Runs?

When I lived near Santa Cruz in California, a fair number of pilots
would fly low just off shore. There were times I knew they were
violating the FARs - there are houses actually on the beach and often
surfers in the water, and planes on rare occasions sometimes flew so low
you had to look _down_ at them from the cliff top - a typical cliff
height is shown here:

http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=200507250&mode=sequential&flags=0&year=current

Here's where houses sit on the water (this looks to be at low tide):

http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=200507242&mode=sequential&flags=0&year=current

I think the biggest problem with buzzing the shoreline in that area is a
higher risk of bird strikes. When schools of fish are just off shore,
the number of birds in the air goes way up.

[John Godwin]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=20050725
> 0&mode=sequential&flags=0&year=current
>
> http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=20050724
> 2&mode=sequential&flags=0&year=current

Slightly off-topic, I had to chuckle to myself when I went to the
California Coastal Records Project Website. As a public service,
Kenneth and his wife Gabrielle (both Angel Flight Pilots) wanted a
record made of the entire California coastline so, apparently, there
is comprehensive "stake in the ground" showing coastline conditions
for research and environmental enforcement.

No surprise when Mr and Mrs Barbra Streisand claimed invasion of
privacy concerning their beachfront home.

See <http://makeashorterlink.com/?H28762BCD>

--

[Larry Dighera]

On 18 Sep 2006 17:01:08 -0700, "Nik" > wrote in
om>:

> How legal was he?

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1de74710b574072d8d35f1c6c7a7f4e8&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

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.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the
surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those
cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums
prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is
conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In
addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any
routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the
Administrator.

[Skywise]

John Godwin > wrote in
. 3.50:

> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=20050725
>> 0&mode=sequential&flags=0&year=current
>>
>> http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi-bin/image.cgi?image=20050724
>> 2&mode=sequential&flags=0&year=current
>
> Slightly off-topic, I had to chuckle to myself when I went to the
> California Coastal Records Project Website. As a public service,
> Kenneth and his wife Gabrielle (both Angel Flight Pilots) wanted a
> record made of the entire California coastline so, apparently, there
> is comprehensive "stake in the ground" showing coastline conditions
> for research and environmental enforcement.
>
> No surprise when Mr and Mrs Barbra Streisand claimed invasion of
> privacy concerning their beachfront home.
>
> See <http://makeashorterlink.com/?H28762BCD>

I especially like the picture of the big fat check Streisand
had to write to the project when she lost the case, for the
legal fees incurred in their defense.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[mike regish]

All those seagulls make me nervous in that zone.

mike

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Flying relatively low over the water is legal, assuming no airspace
> restrictions and one remain at least 500 feet from any person, craft, or
> building in the water or on land. It can also be exhilarating, assuming
> the pilot understands the risks and manages them accordingly.
>
> --
> Peter

[cjcampbell]

Nik wrote:
> While surfing in 2003, when I lived in Wilmington, NC saw a Pitts
> flying about 20 feet high and 200-300 feet from the shore, probably
> doing around 100kts. How legal was he? Do have any nice experiences
> about Beach Runs?

How else would you land on the beach? :-)

Actually, Copalis in Washington has a designated a section of beach as
an airport. Otherwise, it is probably a real good idea to make sure you
are not violating any state of local ordinances by landing on a beach.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

The main reason I don't like to fly low over the beach is because I own my
own airplane. The salt spray for the surf can and does often extend above
500 feet. I just don't need all the rust, corrosion and maintenance.

But if I were a typical renter, I'd be smoking, spilling Coke, climbing in
with dirty boots, spitting, bouncing, skidding tires and flying in the salt.
What RENTER cares? That's why the rental fleet is so ugly...........ugly
pilots that don't give a damn about anything but CHEAP!


Karl

[DaveB]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:52:35 -0700, "karl gruber"
> wrote:

>The main reason I don't like to fly low over the beach is because I own my
>own airplane. The salt spray for the surf can and does often extend above
>500 feet. I just don't need all the rust, corrosion and maintenance.
>
>But if I were a typical renter, I'd be smoking, spilling Coke, climbing in
>with dirty boots, spitting, bouncing, skidding tires and flying in the salt.
>What RENTER cares? That's why the rental fleet is so ugly...........ugly
>pilots that don't give a damn about anything but CHEAP!
>
>
>Karl
>
>
>
>
Karl, you sound like a real dickhead
Daveb

[cjcampbell]

(DaveB) wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:52:35 -0700, "karl gruber"
> > wrote:
>
> >The main reason I don't like to fly low over the beach is because I own my
> >own airplane. The salt spray for the surf can and does often extend above
> >500 feet. I just don't need all the rust, corrosion and maintenance.
> >
> >But if I were a typical renter, I'd be smoking, spilling Coke, climbing in
> >with dirty boots, spitting, bouncing, skidding tires and flying in the salt.
> >What RENTER cares? That's why the rental fleet is so ugly...........ugly
> >pilots that don't give a damn about anything but CHEAP!
> >
> >
> >Karl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Karl, you sound like a real dickhead

Karl is right. I have known him for several years, and can vouch for
the fact the either he is not a dickhead, or we both are. (Maybe it is
something in Puget Sound.) We don't always agree on everything, but I
think he is always worth listening to.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Dave,

You sound like a renter.



<DaveB> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:52:35 -0700, "karl gruber"
> > wrote:
>
>>The main reason I don't like to fly low over the beach is because I own my
>>own airplane. The salt spray for the surf can and does often extend above
>>500 feet. I just don't need all the rust, corrosion and maintenance.
>>
>>But if I were a typical renter, I'd be smoking, spilling Coke, climbing in
>>with dirty boots, spitting, bouncing, skidding tires and flying in the
>>salt.
>>What RENTER cares? That's why the rental fleet is so ugly...........ugly
>>pilots that don't give a damn about anything but CHEAP!
>>
>>
>>Karl
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Karl, you sound like a real dickhead
> Daveb

[DaveB]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:46:09 -0700, "karl gruber"
> wrote:

>Dave,
>
>You sound like a renter.
>
>
>
><DaveB> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:52:35 -0700, "karl gruber"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>The main reason I don't like to fly low over the beach is because I own my
>>>own airplane. The salt spray for the surf can and does often extend above
>>>500 feet. I just don't need all the rust, corrosion and maintenance.
>>>
>>>But if I were a typical renter, I'd be smoking, spilling Coke, climbing in
>>>with dirty boots, spitting, bouncing, skidding tires and flying in the
>>>salt.
>>>What RENTER cares? That's why the rental fleet is so ugly...........ugly
>>>pilots that don't give a damn about anything but CHEAP!
>>>
>>>
>>>Karl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Karl, you sound like a real dickhead
>> Daveb
>


LOL, but I dont spill cokes, smoke,no dirty boots,spitting, however I
have farted in a pa-28-140.

Best

Daveb

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

<DaveB> wrote in message ...
> Karl, you sound like a real dickhead

Or someone who once had their aircraft on leaseback with a flight school...

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Bingo"

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> <DaveB> wrote in message ...
>> Karl, you sound like a real dickhead
>
> Or someone who once had their aircraft on leaseback with a flight
> school...
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:31:12 +0000, Grumman-581 wrote:

> Or someone who once had their aircraft on leaseback with a flight
> school...

It occurs to me that this should be an easily solved problem. As a
result of some work that needs to be done on my car, I just picked up a
rental for a few days. We did a walk-around before I accepted it, and I
expect the same will occur when I return it.

Why cannot *plane* rentals be treated so carefully?

- Andrew

[Jose[_1_]]

> Why cannot *plane* rentals be treated so carefully?

Typically a car is rented for a few days, a plane is rented for a few hours.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:03:37 +0000, Jose wrote:

>> Why cannot *plane* rentals be treated so carefully?
>
> Typically a car is rented for a few days, a plane is rented for a few
> hours.

So?

I think you're making an economic argument, the counter to which is
"the cost of the plane rental is higher". But I'm just guessing at what
you mean here, so this may be unrelated to your actual point.

An alternative to what I described is to put the responsibility on the
pilot. We do this already for squawks, no? If the pilot fails to report
a problem that is squawked by the next pilot's preflight, then this is
presumed to have occurred on the first pilot's flight.

The new aspect to this is that this would include not just airworthiness
items but "treatment" items (ie. spilled coffee, trash, etc.).

It's not perfect, of course. How can you tell that the pilot
overstressed the gear with a nasty landing or put the flaps down well
above the deployment speed. But it's *something*.

While this might seem unpleasant at first, if it improves the market for
leasebacks - and therefore increases the size of the fleet of rentals
available - isn't that a Good Thing?

- Andrew

[John Clear]

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:03:37 +0000, Jose wrote:
>
>>> Why cannot *plane* rentals be treated so carefully?
>>
>> Typically a car is rented for a few days, a plane is rented for a few
>> hours.
>
>So?

Another issue is the difference in time a car spends as a rental
as compared to a plane. A rental car is usually less then a year
old, and dumped at ~10,000miles. The average rental plane is
probably ~30 years old. Even well cared for, 30 years of renters
takes its toll.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> The new aspect to this is that this would include not just airworthiness
> items but "treatment" items (ie. spilled coffee, trash, etc.).

A lot more things to check on an aircraft than on a car... I had my aircraft
on leaseback at one time... The students (or instructors) seemed to have a
habit of stripping the gears on the radio controls... Eventually, I replace
the radios with ones that did not seem to be succeptible to this problem and
cut down my repair bills quite a bit... I also had a problem with them
grabbing the wrong part of the canopy to slide it forward and cracking the
plastic... Factoring in the fact that my plane seemed never available for me
to fly it on a weekend trip, I decided around 7 years ago that it wasn't
really worth it having it on leaseback... Unfortunately, I didn't learn this
until a lot of wear and tear had been done on my plane which had been
completely refurbished prior to the leaseback... If you're an A&P and can do
the 100 hour inspections yourself, a leaseback can be profitable... When
you're still having to pay nearly the shop rate for your inspections, it is
not all that profitable...

[cjcampbell]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> <DaveB> wrote in message ...
> > Karl, you sound like a real dickhead
>
> Or someone who once had their aircraft on leaseback with a flight school...

Yes, and he has also seen what happened to others who leased aircraft
to flight schools, including my planes.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I think you're making an economic argument, the counter to which is
> "the cost of the plane rental is higher".

I suppose it's economic; it's more a "pain in the ass to the FBO" argument. If somebody has to come out of the office and do a walkaround with every pilot both before and after they rent the aircraft, the time required can add up quickly. It is not inconceivable that an extra full time employee would be required at some outfits just to do these inspections. Yes, the price will be higher, and the availability will be lower, since the pilot will have to wait for an inspection before getting the aircraft, and on return, before going home. This would be unpopular.

> [as an alterntive] If the pilot fails to report
> a problem that is squawked by the next pilot's preflight, then this is
> presumed to have occurred on the first pilot's flight.

As you point out, the problem may well have occured four flights ago and manifested itself two flights ago.

> While this might seem unpleasant at first, if it improves the market for
> leasebacks - and therefore increases the size of the fleet of rentals
> available - isn't that a Good Thing?

Yes, all things being equal. But they seldom are. It will mean a diminishment in rental pilots going to that FBO, and the ones that leave may not be the ones you'd prefer to leave.

The FBO knows its pilots and its leaseback owners. They can restrict aircraft rental, and they can talk to the leaseback owners too, who can do the same. But that's money that goes to another FBO.

You may not get what you pay for, but you sure pay for what you get. :)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Yes, and he has also seen what happened to others who leased aircraft
> to flight schools, including my planes.

As in most things in life, you tend to learn your best lessons from bad
experiences... You gain experience in life by making bad decisions and
managing to survive them... It's like you don't remember the restaurant 20
years ago where you had the great steak, but you definitely remember the
restaurant where you ended up with food poisoning... The bad experiences
burn themselves into our memory cells considerably better than the good
experiences... Quite often, leasing back and aircraft to a flight school is
like ****ing on an electric fence -- it's an "experience" that you
definitely will remember... Looking back at it, I wouldn't do it again... Oh
well, hindsight is 20/20, right?