Stupid Pilot Tricks

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news
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

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 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 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

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
. 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

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

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 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 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?