Stupid Pilot Tricks

"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

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" 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

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. :-)