Stupid Pilot Tricks

[Larry Dighera]

While I have little sympathy for the alleged reckless and dangerous
aircraft operation by the pilot in this case, I do wonder just how
safe it is for a the sheriff to force a landing on a sand bar in the
Sacramento River?

I also wonder by what authority the sheriff was authorized to order
the aircraft down off-airport.

If the allegation is true, what charge would the pilot be facing?

And I'm a bit concerned by the judicial precedent that action may set.
Are aircraft subject to local authorities dictates?

What if the sheriff's demands should happen to be contrary to ATC
instructions? Who's authority should be followed by airmen faced with
such a hypothetical conflict? Has ATC relinquished its authority
granted by § 91.123* to local police?



WATER SKIMMING PLANE SCARES TUBERS
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/903-full.html#195584)
The Sheriff's office in Butte County, Calif., is investigating an
impromptu Fourth of July air show that reportedly scared people
tubing on the Sacramento River and resulted in a small aircraft
being forced to land on a gravel bar after pursuit by a police
helicopter. According to the Chico Enterprise-Record
(http://www.chicoer.com/newshome/ci_6318768), Sgt. Dave Lilygren
of the neighboring Glenn County Sheriff's department was
patrolling the river when he saw the aircraft drop its wheels in
the water and skim the river for about a half mile, crossing under
the Gianella Bridge.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/903-full.html#195584



http://www.chicoer.com/newshome/ci_6318768
Glenn County sheriff's Sgt. Dave Lilygren said he was patrolling
the river July 4 when he saw a small, homemade plane approach the
bridge from the north, flying low enough to drag its wheels in the
water.

Lilygren said it skimmed along for at least a half-mile before
flying under the bridge.

The plane reportedly made several low passes over the river,
raising safety concerns.

Shortly after it flew under the bridge, around 2:30 p.m., a Butte
County sheriff's helicopter was in pursuit.

The plane was forced to land on a gravel bar, where the helicopter
pilot made contact with two people in the plane.

Butte County sheriff's Capt. Jerry Smith, who directs the
department's air operations division, said Friday that he hadn't
heard about the incident, but promised he would investigate.

At the very least, Smith said the pilot violated a Federal
Aviation Administration rule against flying within 500 feet of a
structure.

"The pilot's either good, or crazy, or both," Smith said.

As he watched the plane fly with its wheels in the water, Lilygren
said he was "waiting for this to turn into a rescue."
No one on the river was injured, Lilygren said.

Photo:

http://www.chicoer.com/portlet/article/html/render_gallery.jsp?articleId=6318768&siteId=135&startImage=1



Has it been established whether the aircraft was operating under part
91 or part 103? To which regulation is Sheriff Smith referring:

CFR Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 103—ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES
Subpart B—Operating Rules

§ 103.9 Hazardous operations.
(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that
creates a hazard to other persons or property.

Or:

CFR Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
§ 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.




*
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=430547ec890562c91baeacae82507827&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.12

[Gatt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> While I have little sympathy for the alleged reckless and dangerous
> aircraft operation by the pilot in this case, I do wonder just how
> safe it is for a the sheriff to force a landing on a sand bar in the
> Sacramento River?
>
> I also wonder by what authority the sheriff was authorized to order
> the aircraft down off-airport.

If he perceives an emergency, he may be no more bound to get FAA
authorization than the military might be to intercept a hostile aircraft.
Flying under a bridge and putting citizens at risk probably qualifies.
Also, was the landing on the sand bar "forced" or would the helicopter have
followed to the nearest airfield. Sounds like a pilot like that could land
on a freeway or somewhere and say "Well, gee, they FORCED me to."

-c

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 9, 8:51 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> While I have little sympathy for the alleged reckless and dangerous
> aircraft operation by the pilot in this case, I do wonder just how
> safe it is for a the sheriff to force a landing on a sand bar in the
> Sacramento River?

I used to fly out of a small grass field near there. Most of the
pilots there landed on the sand bars as normal course. Of course many
of them also found it fun to fly below the level of the levy and play
chicken with the cargo ships coming up the channel. Those guys pretty
much disowned me when I got my instrument rating (real airplanes don't
have instruments). In the end, the legality relates to who owns that
land (I believe its the county).

-Robert, CFII

[Dana M. Hague]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:51:54 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

> ....he saw the aircraft drop its wheels in
> the water and skim the river for about a half mile, crossing under
> the Gianella Bridge...

If the wheels were touching the water, was he legally "flying"? Or
just "taxiing"? But then one might inquire if the pilot had a
seaplane rating...

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?

[Blueskies]

Looks like an ultralight or similar...

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:13:38 -0700, "Gatt" > wrote
in >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> While I have little sympathy for the alleged reckless and dangerous
>> aircraft operation by the pilot in this case, I do wonder just how
>> safe it is for a the sheriff to force a landing on a sand bar in the
>> Sacramento River?
>>
>> I also wonder by what authority the sheriff was authorized to order
>> the aircraft down off-airport.
>
>If he perceives an emergency, he may be no more bound to get FAA
>authorization than the military might be to intercept a hostile aircraft.

I'd be interested in seeing the law that leads you to that conclusion.

>Flying under a bridge and putting citizens at risk probably qualifies.

Who judges if citizens were put at risk?

What regulation specifically forbids flying under bridges?

>Also, was the landing on the sand bar "forced" or would the helicopter have
>followed to the nearest airfield.

The news account used the word 'force.'

>Sounds like a pilot like that could land
>on a freeway or somewhere and say "Well, gee, they FORCED me to."
>

What leads you to that conclusion?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:27:42 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
om>:

>In the end, the legality relates to who owns that
>land (I believe its the county).

The legality of what, landing on the sandbar?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:38:11 -0400, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>:

>
>Looks like an ultralight or similar...
>

Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?

I know the overweight ones are registered Experimental, and are
subject to Part 91. It's difficult to discern any 'N' number in the
photograph.

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
> pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?

Yes and no, respectively. The section 91.1, applicability, of Part 91
indicates it does not include anything covered by Part 103 (or part 101).

It doesn't take all that long to read through all of Part 103.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 9, 6:05 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:27:42 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote in
> om>:
>
> >In the end, the legality relates to who owns that
> >land (I believe its the county).
>
> The legality of what, landing on the sandbar?

Yes. There are no FAA regulations that say where you can and cannot
land. In fact FAR 1 defines an airport as a place of intended landing.

-Robert, CFII

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:43:57 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
. com>:

>On Jul 9, 6:05 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:27:42 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
>> > wrote in
>> om>:
>>
>> >In the end, the legality relates to who owns that
>> >land (I believe its the county).
>>
>> The legality of what, landing on the sandbar?
>
>Yes. There are no FAA regulations that say where you can and cannot
>land. In fact FAR 1 defines an airport as a place of intended landing.
>
>-Robert, CFII

I wasn't questioning the legality of the landing spot, but being
forced to land off-airport.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:33:37 -0700, Richard Riley
> wrote in
>:

>If there were 2 people on board, it can't be a 103 ultralight.

Unless it's a training flight, right?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:46:09 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
>> pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?
>
>Yes and no, respectively.

So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable
rendering the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
structures incorrect, no?

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 02:46:09 -0000, Jim Logajan >
> wrote in >:
>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
>>> pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?
>>
>>Yes and no, respectively.
>
> So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable
> rendering the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
> structures incorrect, no?

If all parts of Part 103.1 "Applicability" (including the "intended" part
of 103.1(a) regarding single occupant) were satisfied, then it is my
understanding that no aspect of Part 91 is applicable. But there is always
103.9(a) "Hazardous operations", which is rather subjective. Then I suspect
it's a matter of the facts of the case and the persuasiveness of the
arguments the opposing lawyers make to the judge.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:41:49 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >:

>But there is always
>103.9(a) "Hazardous operations", which is rather subjective. Then I suspect
>it's a matter of the facts of the case and the persuasiveness of the
>arguments the opposing lawyers make to the judge.

If it's an FAA administrative action, the "pilot" won't be afforded
the benefit of a judge, unfortunately. And because Part 103 operators
needn't hold an airmans certificate, he wouldn't be grounded (I
wouldn't think), but the FAA could impose a fine, I suppose.

If the Sheriff files civil charges against him, it would seem that the
DA would have to prove there was a hazard. Lacking any evidence of
injury or damage, that may be difficult for the DA to prove.

[Gatt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

>>> I also wonder by what authority the sheriff was authorized to order the
>>> aircraft down off-airport.

>>If he perceives an emergency, he may be no more bound to get FAA
>>authorization than the military might be to intercept a hostile aircraft.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing the law that leads you to that conclusion.

Me too. Notice I said "may."

>>Flying under a bridge and putting citizens at risk probably qualifies.
>
> Who judges if citizens were put at risk?

Well, if I buzz an airshow in a C-152, who do you suppose judges if
citizens were put at risk?

> What regulation specifically forbids flying under bridges?

Were there people on the bridge? Is it (public) property? If so,
14CFR91.13a:

"No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
so as to
endanger the life or property of another.

>>Also, was the landing on the sand bar "forced" or would the helicopter
>>have
>>followed to the nearest airfield.
>
> The news account used the word 'force.'

Is the news account suddenly authoritative on aviation terminology?


-c

[Gatt]

>>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
>>> pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?
>>
>>Yes and no, respectively.
>
> So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable
> rendering the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
> structures incorrect, no?

Somewhat, but they can still stick the pilot.
Sec. 103.9 Hazardous operations.

(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that
creates a
hazard to other persons or property.-c

[Gatt]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...

>>I know the overweight ones are registered Experimental, and are
>>subject to Part 91. It's difficult to discern any 'N' number in the
>>photograph.
>
> If there were 2 people on board, it can't be a 103 ultralight.

Specifically,

Sec. 103.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight
vehicles
in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle
is
a vehicle that:
(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a
single occupant;
And (e) If powered:
(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and
safety
devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic
situation;

[Gatt]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .

>> So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable rendering
>> the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
>> structures incorrect, no?

I'm not a CFI or anything, but I'd not recommend testing this out in
practice. If you buzz a crowd with an ultralight, you're probably going to
get in trouble.

During the filming of "The Hunted", an ultralight pilot at Scappoose joked
about flying into a building. F-15s were scrambled (like, three hours
later. You can hear them in the war scene in The Hunted because they weren't
informed that the scene was being filmed, and as they were looking around
for the suspicious aircraft the saw a giant fireball rising from the set,
which was next to University of Portland and the Swan Island shipyards.

>But there is always 103.9(a) "Hazardous operations", which is rather
>subjective. Then I suspect
> it's a matter of the facts of the case and the persuasiveness of the
> arguments the opposing lawyers make to the judge.

If it's anything like traffic court it'll end up being the pilot's word
against the sheriff (and any offended witnesses.) If you've ever sat in a
traffic court and hear driver after driver say "I wasn't speeding" or "I
didn't run the stop light...", you'd know which way to place any wagers as
to the outcome.

-c

[El Maximo]

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...

>
> If it's anything like traffic court it'll end up being the pilot's word
> against the sheriff (and any offended witnesses.) If you've ever sat in a
> traffic court and hear driver after driver say "I wasn't speeding" or "I
> didn't run the stop light...", you'd know which way to place any wagers as
> to the outcome.
>

I was watching a baseball games a few years ago. At one point the manager
came out of the dugout to argue with the umpire. After a few minutes, the
station ran the following graphic across the screen:

Who will win this argument?

A) The Umpire
B) The Umpire
or
C) The Umpire

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:12:36 -0700, "Gatt" >
wrote in >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>Flying under a bridge and putting citizens at risk probably qualifies.
>>
>> Who judges if citizens were put at risk?
>
> Well, if I buzz an airshow in a C-152, who do you suppose judges if
>citizens were put at risk?

The FSDO inspector.

>> What regulation specifically forbids flying under bridges?
>
> Were there people on the bridge? Is it (public) property? If so,
>14CFR91.13a:
>
> "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner
> so as to endanger the life or property of another.
>

If it was a Part 103 flight, 14CFR91.13a wouldn't apply.

There is no _specific_ provision against flying under bridges in the
regulations of which I am aware.

>>>Also, was the landing on the sand bar "forced" or would the helicopter
>>>have followed to the nearest airfield.
>>>
>>
>> The news account used the word 'force.'
>
> Is the news account suddenly authoritative on aviation terminology?
>

Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is in this discussion, IMO.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:20:36 -0700, "Gatt" >
wrote in >:

>
>
>>>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>> Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
>>>> pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?
>>>
>>>Yes and no, respectively.
>>
>> So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable
>> rendering the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
>> structures incorrect, no?
>
>Somewhat, but they can still stick the pilot.
> Sec. 103.9 Hazardous operations.
>
> (a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that
> creates a hazard to other persons or property.
>

While the FSDO inspector might initiate an administrative action
against a certificated airman under that regulation, I'm not sure what
would be appropriate for an unlicensed ultralight operator.

[Al G[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:20:36 -0700, "Gatt" >
> wrote in >:
>
>>
>>
>>>>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>> Are ultralights only subject to FAA Part 103, or must ultralight
>>>>> pilots meet Part 91 regulations also?
>>>>
>>>>Yes and no, respectively.
>>>
>>> So, if it was a Part 103 ultralight, Part 91 is not applicable
>>> rendering the sheriff's mention of remaining 500' from persons and
>>> structures incorrect, no?
>>
>>Somewhat, but they can still stick the pilot.
>> Sec. 103.9 Hazardous operations.
>>
>> (a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that
>> creates a hazard to other persons or property.
>>
>
> While the FSDO inspector might initiate an administrative action
> against a certificated airman under that regulation, I'm not sure what
> would be appropriate for an unlicensed ultralight operator.
>

Might be workable against the Helicopter pilot who "forced" the landing.

Al G

[Gatt]

"El Maximo" > wrote in message
...
> "Gatt" > wrote in message

> I was watching a baseball games a few years ago. At one point the manager
> came out of the dugout to argue with the umpire. After a few minutes, the
> station ran the following graphic across the screen:
>
> Who will win this argument?
>
> A) The Umpire
> B) The Umpire
> or
> C) The Umpire

Ha! That's hilarious!

-c

[Gatt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

> There is no _specific_ provision against flying under bridges in the
> regulations of which I am aware.

In 1990 an amphibeous single flew under a bridge in downtown Portland and
the FAA and the police were all over the place looking for it.

Later that afternoon, I saw a conspicuously similar amphib in an open hangar
at nearby Troutdale. Were you in my position, would you have notified the
police? (They didn't exactly come forward and say "I did it, everybody.
It was totally legal.")

>>> The news account used the word 'force.'
>>
>> Is the news account suddenly authoritative on aviation terminology?
>>
> Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is in this discussion, IMO.

Fair enough. But I wonder: How does one "force" an airplane to the ground?

-c

[Gatt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>> (a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that
>> creates a hazard to other persons or property.

> While the FSDO inspector might initiate an administrative action
> against a certificated airman under that regulation, I'm not sure what
> would be appropriate for an unlicensed ultralight operator.

Me either, but the issue is probably a bit different since there's
significant doubt that it's legally an ultralight.
So then it becomes an issue of a potentially unlicensed pilot in an
unregistered aircraft.

*thwap thwap thwap* Here comes DHS...

-c

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>
> What regulation specifically forbids flying under bridges?
>


§ 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.<<<<

Note "Structure" here. The bridge is a structure, and unless it was over 500' above the water, the pilot was in
violation.



(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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:24:54 -0700, "Gatt" >
wrote in >:

>But I wonder: How does one "force" an airplane to the ground?

I would imagine through the use of hand signals, radio communications,
or in the case of a JetRanger vs an ultralight, judicially applied
rotor wash. :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:03:10 -0400, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>:

>(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.<<<<
>
>Note "Structure" here. The bridge is a structure, and unless it was over 500' above the water, the pilot was in
>violation.

That's a reasonable interpretation. So it may be within FAA
regulations to fly under high bridges.

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:03:10 -0400, "Blueskies"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>(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.<<<<
>>
>>Note "Structure" here. The bridge is a structure, and unless it was over 500' above the water, the pilot was in
>>violation.
>
> That's a reasonable interpretation. So it may be within FAA
> regulations to fly under high bridges.

Unless there were people lining the banks of the river less than 1000' wide. ;-)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:03:10 -0400, "Blueskies"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> (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.<<<<
>>
>> Note "Structure" here. The bridge is a structure, and unless it was
>> over 500' above the water, the pilot was in violation.
>
> That's a reasonable interpretation. So it may be within FAA
> regulations to fly under high bridges.

We had a local pilot land at a sandbar down at a the river. While he was
there the wind shifted 180 deg. So he had to take off in the other
direction. This required him to fly under a bridge. (Pretty high bridge). A
Sherriff's Deputy saw this and he was met at the airport by another deputy.
He as he was pushing the plane into the hanger the deputy was talking about
giving him a ticket. Our hero just asked, "For what?" The deputy mumbled and
left.

A week or so later our hero gets a call from the FSDO and was asked about
the flight. The first words out of his mouth were, "I was taking off..." The
FAA guy said thank you for your time and try next time to not upset the
local peace officers.

The moral to the story is that at least around here that little part about
"except during take-off and landing" seems to pull some weight with the FAA.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:03:48 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:03:10 -0400, "Blueskies"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> (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.<<<<
>>>
>>> Note "Structure" here. The bridge is a structure, and unless it was
>>> over 500' above the water, the pilot was in violation.
>>
>> That's a reasonable interpretation. So it may be within FAA
>> regulations to fly under high bridges.
>
>We had a local pilot land at a sandbar down at a the river. While he was
>there the wind shifted 180 deg. So he had to take off in the other
>direction. This required him to fly under a bridge. (Pretty high bridge). A
>Sherriff's Deputy saw this and he was met at the airport by another deputy.
>He as he was pushing the plane into the hanger the deputy was talking about
>giving him a ticket. Our hero just asked, "For what?" The deputy mumbled and
>left.
>
>A week or so later our hero gets a call from the FSDO and was asked about
>the flight. The first words out of his mouth were, "I was taking off..." The
>FAA guy said thank you for your time and try next time to not upset the
>local peace officers.
>
>The moral to the story is that at least around here that little part about
>"except during take-off and landing" seems to pull some weight with the FAA.
>

Thanks for the information.

That would be this part:

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

It also may explain why there used to be (late '90s?) a note on the
Los Angeles TCA chart warning pilots of ropes hanging below the
Vincent Thomas Bridge in LA harbor not too far from where HR Hughes
flew the Spruce Goose on its only flight.

[Gatt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

>>Note "Structure" here. The bridge is a structure, and unless it was over
>>500' above the water, the pilot was in
>>violation.
>
> That's a reasonable interpretation. So it may be within FAA
> regulations to fly under high bridges.


Somebody could make a list of bridges in America under which it's legal to
fly. Boy, that would ruffle some feathers! Reminds me of that great
Spitfire/bridge scene from the "Piece of Cake" miniseries.

-c

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Gatt" > wrote:

> >>Note "Structure" here. The bridge is a structure, and unless it was over
> >>500' above the water, the pilot was in
> >>violation.
> >
> > That's a reasonable interpretation. So it may be within FAA
> > regulations to fly under high bridges.
>
>
> Somebody could make a list of bridges in America under which it's legal to
> fly. Boy, that would ruffle some feathers! Reminds me of that great
> Spitfire/bridge scene from the "Piece of Cake" miniseries.

Here is one for you...
The Millau viaduct is part of the new E11 expressway connecting Paris
and Barcelona and features the highest bridge piers ever constructed.
The tallest is 240 meters (787 feet) high and the overall height will be
an impressive 336 meters (1102 feet), making this the highest bridge in
the world.

GOOGLE "Millau viaduct" for lots of pictures and more information.

[Gatt]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...

>> Somebody could make a list of bridges in America under which it's legal
>> to
>> fly. Boy, that would ruffle some feathers! Reminds me of that great
>> Spitfire/bridge scene from the "Piece of Cake" miniseries.
>
> Here is one for you...
> The Millau viaduct is part of the new E11 expressway connecting Paris
> and Barcelona and features the highest bridge piers ever constructed.
> The tallest is 240 meters (787 feet) high and the overall height will be
> an impressive 336 meters (1102 feet), making this the highest bridge in
> the world.

No kidding...that bridge is a masterpiece. I'd fly under it!

-c

[Blueskies]

"john smith" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> "Gatt" > wrote:
>
>> >>Note "Structure" here. The bridge is a structure, and unless it was over
>> >>500' above the water, the pilot was in
>> >>violation.
>> >
>> > That's a reasonable interpretation. So it may be within FAA
>> > regulations to fly under high bridges.
>>
>>
>> Somebody could make a list of bridges in America under which it's legal to
>> fly. Boy, that would ruffle some feathers! Reminds me of that great
>> Spitfire/bridge scene from the "Piece of Cake" miniseries.
>
> Here is one for you...
> The Millau viaduct is part of the new E11 expressway connecting Paris
> and Barcelona and features the highest bridge piers ever constructed.
> The tallest is 240 meters (787 feet) high and the overall height will be
> an impressive 336 meters (1102 feet), making this the highest bridge in
> the world.
>
> GOOGLE "Millau viaduct" for lots of pictures and more information.


How far between the piers? Less that 1000' ?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:34 -0700, "Gatt" >
wrote in >:

>Somebody could make a list of bridges in America under which it's legal to
>fly.

Glen Canyon Dam bridge is 1,271 feet long, and about 700 feet over the
Colorado River.