Stupid Pilot Tricks

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/archive...ll.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/archive...ll.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/artic...st artImage=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....1.3.10.2.4.12

"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

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

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?

Looks like an ultralight or similar...

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?

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

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

The legality of what, landing on the sandbar?

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.

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.

On Jul 9, 6:05 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:27:42 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
. com:

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