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 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" 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

"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.

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.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message news
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. ;-)

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.