Full scale biplane takes out giant scale R/C at event

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Too funny.

My money is on the FAA finding both pilots (Acroduster and R/C) violated regulations and are at fault.

The Acroduster pilot's claim that he was "going around" aint gonna hold water - not with the high speed, low altitude, smoke on, length of the runway, done hit something in front of a crowd, pass being on youtube - no way the FAA is going to let him get away with that.

And the R/C pilot apparently A: declined the use of a spotter, and B: was flying (and walking) on a not-closed runway for an extended time and never once looked around to see if there was any 1:1 scale traffic. And, given that there was a collision, no way he is going to get a pass from the FAA. His claim that he was "cleared" to fly there??? You gotta be kidding.

But, what can/will the FAA do to a R/C pilot? The Acroduster guy could end up with a suspension / check ride / etc. But what kind of penalties can the FAA apply to a R/C pilot?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that regulatory bodies are apt to react to unfortunate incidents with additional regulations. Look for new RC regulations and enforcement. Then continue watching gnashing of teeth and rending of sackcloth of the sort we have been experiencing in the GA community lately when certain unnamed individuals went about their business in a thoughtless way.
 
AuntPeggy said:
I'm thinking that regulatory bodies are apt to react to unfortunate incidents with additional regulations. Look for new RC regulations and enforcement. Then continue watching gnashing of teeth and rending of sackcloth of the sort we have been experiencing in the GA community lately when certain unnamed individuals went about their business in a thoughtless way.
Click to expand...

Correct. In today's Washington, it's prohibit first, then ask questions or do the investigation...... then reconsider the prohibition.
 
wsuffa said:
Correct. In today's Washington, it's prohibit first, then ask questions or do the investigation...... then reconsider the prohibition.
Click to expand...

Sorry, we lost the funding for the study by the committee to reconsider. Maybe next year.
 
wsuffa said:
Correct. In today's Washington, it's prohibit first, then ask questions or do the investigation...... then reconsider the prohibition.
Click to expand...
It's that lat part they never get around to.
 
Aren't there already rules against operating RC aircraft in such a manner as to endanger aircraft, and rules against operating aircraft in such a way as to risk damage to persons or property? Not that I'm saying that would stop further regulation, but this seems more like a matter of one or two parties breaking existing regulations, not that they weren't in place to begin with.
 
The fact that they had someone hovering a big ass RC airplane WHILE they knowingly had a full-size Pitts Special *LANDING* on that same runway demonstrates the ignorance of the group. There really isn't any point in mentioning all their other mistakes. That one right there is just ridiculous.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
The Acroduster pilot's claim that he was "going around" aint gonna hold water - not with the high speed, low altitude, smoke on, length of the runway, done hit something in front of a crowd, pass being on youtube - no way the FAA is going to let him get away with that.
Click to expand...
The pilot didn't do anything that unreasonable. He didn't break the aerobatic regulations as he didn't exceed 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank - therefore a low-altitude waiver need not be required.

He flew his airplane down a runway with the smoke on. Big deal? The fault simply was not his. If the FAA did try to nail him with something it would be a rather ridiculous claim (not saying they don't make ridiculous claims). They could try to claim that he was operating within 500 ft of people without doing so for the necessity of landing but whatever.

IMO the RC airplane pilot should sue the event organizers for damages and the Pitts pilot should probably sue both of them. I don't care if the event organizers told him to fly it on the runway - that doesn't make him immune to the fact that he knowingly was operating a RC aircraft on a runway where full-sized occupied aircraft were operating.
 
Last edited:
I've been trying to put myself in the place of the pilot and put the most favorable spin on it. Here's what I've come up with.

Pilot is returning to home field with wife when he sees people walking all over the taxiways and the runway.

One guy is out there in the center of the runway next to a RC model that is about 4-5 feet long with its nose at about 10 feet AGL. For the moment, let's assume the pilot is busy observing all the people on his runway and doesn't notice the vertical RC model.

Pilot decides that he won't land with all this going on, but wants to let the pedestrians know that he is there and that he intends to land. What he does is make as much noise as he can by flying a low pass full-throttle. Since he has it, he puts on the smoke, too. That ought to get people's attention so that they get off the runway.

You will notice that the videographer swung the camera toward the airplane and followed his trajectory. It got his attention.

The guy in the center who has been concentrating on his RC, keeping it dancing at shoulder height for quite awhile gets distracted too, and lets the RC shoot up into the path of the aircraft. You will notice on the video that the RC model is much higher in the sky than it was the last time we were viewing it.

Actually, you can't notice these things since the video has been pulled from YouTube. But that's how I remember them.

Going back to the assumption that the pilot didn't notice the RC model, if we assume he did notice it originally, is it reasonable for him to expect that the RC model will suddenly gain altitude? Well, of course, the pilot should always expect the worst.
 
AuntPeggy said:
I've been trying to put myself in the place of the pilot and put the most favorable spin on it. Here's what I've come up with.

Pilot is returning to home field with wife when he sees people walking all over the taxiways and the runway.

One guy is out there in the center of the runway next to a RC model that is about 4-5 feet long with its nose at about 10 feet AGL. For the moment, let's assume the pilot is busy observing all the people on his runway and doesn't notice the vertical RC model.

Pilot decides that he won't land with all this going on, but wants to let the pedestrians know that he is there and that he intends to land. What he does is make as much noise as he can by flying a low pass full-throttle. Since he has it, he puts on the smoke, too. That ought to get people's attention so that they get off the runway.

You will notice that the videographer swung the camera toward the airplane and followed his trajectory. It got his attention.

The guy in the center who has been concentrating on his RC, keeping it dancing at shoulder height for quite awhile gets distracted too, and lets the RC shoot up into the path of the aircraft. You will notice on the video that the RC model is much higher in the sky than it was the last time we were viewing it.

Actually, you can't notice these things since the video has been pulled from YouTube. But that's how I remember them.

Going back to the assumption that the pilot didn't notice the RC model, if we assume he did notice it originally, is it reasonable for him to expect that the RC model will suddenly gain altitude? Well, of course, the pilot should always expect the worst.
Click to expand...

I'd want Peggy to represent me as my attorney. ;-) Good arguments.

And I can check the video--I downloaded a copy while I could, knowing it would likely get pulled.
 
jesse said:
They could try to claim that he was operating within 500 ft of people without doing so for the necessity of landing but whatever.
Click to expand...

That is a big "whatever." The video makes it more than obvious that he did that very thing and people receive certificate actions for stupid low passes on a regular basis. The only people I've ever seen pop smoke for the purpose of landing were those on the ground hoping to be landed upon :wink2:
 
alaskaflyer said:
That is a big "whatever." The video makes it more than obvious that he did that very thing and people receive certificate actions for stupid low passes on a regular basis. The only people I've ever seen pop smoke for the purpose of landing were those on the ground hoping to be landed upon :wink2:
Click to expand...
It's pretty chicken-**** IMO to try to nail anyone who was flying over a RUNWAY at an AIRPORT and never once exceeded 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank.
 
jesse said:
It's pretty chicken-**** IMO to try to nail anyone who was flying over a RUNWAY at an AIRPORT and never once exceeded 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank.
Click to expand...
Yeah, considering that nothing bad happened :rolleyes:
 
alaskaflyer said:
That is a big "whatever." The video makes it more than obvious that he did that very thing and people receive certificate actions for stupid low passes on a regular basis. The only people I've ever seen pop smoke for the purpose of landing were those on the ground hoping to be landed upon :wink2:
Click to expand...
I am not apologizing for what happened for this acroduster guy, but at the airport I am based out there are a lot of acrobatic guys flying, even professional ones. I have seen them pop smoke on landing and take offs before.
 
I think they'll probably nail him on the FAR, and probably be right to do so, but consider the flip side... if he HAD chosen to land, there would be no doubt that R/C guys were clearly in the wrong. If there's an active runway, or even an inactive runway with an aircraft approaching to land, they need to get off NOW even if they the right to be there; if the pilot's just ignorant of the runway being closed, I still don't want to be there, or it might an aircraft in distress, in which case he absolutely has right-of-way.
We all make assumptions about a runway environment being safe for flight, landings, go-arounds, etc... and personally, while a FAR was probably violated by strict definition, I'd give this guy no more than a slap on the wrist in the spirit of what a runway situation is supposed to be. Also, IFR traffic regularly flys an approach down to 200' or before going "missed" - are they violating a FAR if they get closer than 500' while making the approach even though they don't actually land? I don't think so. I'd treat this the same way.

Ryan
 
jesse said:
It's pretty chicken-**** IMO to try to nail anyone who was flying over a RUNWAY at an AIRPORT and never once exceeded 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more but the FAA sees it differently. The definition you cited was for wearing a parachute and not a definition of aerobatic flight. It's been ruled that an intentional low pass constitutes a maneuver not required for normal flight nor for take-off or landing. The only place you'll ever see most knowledgeable acro pilots do a low pass will be in a waivered box. Nor would they want to because of something all experienced acro pilots know: anyone with no knowledge of the skill required won't be able to appreciate what you're doing and those watching with all the experience and skill to appreciate it will know how dumb it was for you to do it. Come to an aerobatic contest sometime and you'll see a ramp covered in the hottest aerobatic aircraft and the best stick and rudder acro pilots in the land. What I haven't seen in 6 years of attending nearly every contest on the east coast is a single low pass on arrival or departure.
 
Was the runway closed by the airport manager or was it just NOTAM'd that there would be RC activity? And, if it was closed with X's on the runway, is any FAR broken in conducting a part 91 flight that lands there?
 
PittsDriver said:
I couldn't agree more but the FAA sees it differently. The definition you cited was for wearing a parachute and not a definition of aerobatic flight. It's been ruled that an intentional low pass constitutes a maneuver not required for normal flight nor for take-off or landing.
Click to expand...

Okay, so what rule prohibits a maneuver not required for normal flight nor for take-off or landing?
 
PittsDriver said:
Was the runway closed by the airport manager or was it just NOTAM'd that there would be RC activity?
Click to expand...

In another forum it was reported by a user of that airport that the runway was not closed and no NOTAMs issued.
 
roncachamp said:
Okay, so what rule prohibits a maneuver not required for normal flight nor for take-off or landing?
Click to expand...

Sec. 91.303

Aerobatic flight.

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight--
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
 
roncachamp said:
Okay, so what rule prohibits a maneuver not required for normal flight nor for take-off or landing?
Click to expand...

Sec. 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.
[ (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface--
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.]


Those two are the one's I've seen cited.
 
PittsDriver said:
Sec. 91.303

Aerobatic flight.

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight--
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
Click to expand...

So flight is either "aerobatic" or "normal"?
 
PittsDriver said:
Sec. 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.
[ (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface--
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.]


Those two are the one's I've seen cited.
Click to expand...

So if you fly a practice ILS with intentions to execute the missed approach procedure you've busted FAR 91.119?
 
PittsDriver said:
Sec. 91.303

Aerobatic flight.

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight--
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
Click to expand...

Nothing about a low pass falls into those categories. Look at the commas.
 
PittsDriver said:
Was the runway closed by the airport manager or was it just NOTAM'd that there would be RC activity? And, if it was closed with X's on the runway, is any FAR broken in conducting a part 91 flight that lands there?
Click to expand...
As was mentioned before there was no NOTAM of any kind. There were fliers and announcements of a fly-in.

The organizer of the event invited the RC display and demos without closing the runway. In the video a person with a handheld, who was titled 'airboss, can be seen and heard giving directions to the Acroduster and the RC pilot. His attention is split. To me it looks as though it is split unevenly as well, with him watching the display far more than watching for traffic.
 
PittsDriver said:
Sec. 91.303

Aerobatic flight.

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight--
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
Click to expand...
What aerobatic maneuver do you think think was being made by the manned aircraft?
 
PittsDriver said:
I couldn't agree more but the FAA sees it differently. The definition you cited was for wearing a parachute and not a definition of aerobatic flight. It's been ruled that an intentional low pass constitutes a maneuver not required for normal flight nor for take-off or landing. The only place you'll ever see most knowledgeable acro pilots do a low pass will be in a waivered box. Nor would they want to because of something all experienced acro pilots know: anyone with no knowledge of the skill required won't be able to appreciate what you're doing and those watching with all the experience and skill to appreciate it will know how dumb it was for you to do it. Come to an aerobatic contest sometime and you'll see a ramp covered in the hottest aerobatic aircraft and the best stick and rudder acro pilots in the land. What I haven't seen in 6 years of attending nearly every contest on the east coast is a single low pass on arrival or departure.
Click to expand...
Oh I know they might see it different - some FAA ******* might try to come up with something. I really don't think the regulations support their opinion though. "abrupt" is the key word - he didn't do anything that was abrupt. It was all very smooth with very reasonable attitudes.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Yeah, considering that nothing bad happened :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Steve Foley said:
Well, he did strike some FOD.
Click to expand...
Which had absolutely nothing to do with his low-pass. It was because some idiot was flying an RC airplane over a runway where full-size airplanes were KNOWN to be landing.

A long landing, a go around, etc -- would have all resulted in him hitting the RC airplane.

There is no way I'm going to blame a pilot for hitting a R/C airplane that was hovering off the deck of a freaking runway.
 
Steve Foley said:
That's how I read it.
Click to expand...

Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
Click to expand...

You have to be low to takeoff or land... the rule does not address INTENT (to go missed without landing, for example). I'm not breaking the rule when I'm over the runway and given "the option" (whether I actually decide to land land or not), so why would I be breaking the rule when I'm over the runway for "an inspection pass" or even a planned go-around?

The Acroduster Too pilot was based at that airport, and did in fact come back around to land... maybe he WAS doing an inspection pass after turning final and seeing people around the end of the runway.

As far as his distance from said people, am I violating an FAR if I land and somebody's mowing the infield grass? Or taxiing by in another airplane, or holding short 100' away?

I'm with Jesse on this one; I don't think the biplane pilot is in the wrong.
 
roncachamp said:
So if you fly a practice ILS with intentions to execute the missed approach procedure you've busted FAR 91.119?
Click to expand...

No. Though I think you knew that. I'm not posting opinion - or at least not mine. There are NTSB cases you can look up for yourself.
 
ScottM said:
What aerobatic maneuver do you think think was being made by the manned aircraft?
Click to expand...

What I think is that the FAA's rulings on this have been a crock. I personally think the FAA and NTSB have been overzealous in their interpretations on how they've prosecuted these cases - that's what I think.
 
PittsDriver said:
No. Though I think you knew that. I'm not posting opinion - or at least not mine. There are NTSB cases you can look up for yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. When asked what rule prohibits a maneuver not required for take-off or landing you responded with FAR 91.119, where the only exception is for takeoff or landing. Purposely missing an ILS approach would put the aircraft about 200' above the ground with no intention to land. Is that not a maneuver not required for take-off or landing?
 
Steve Foley said:
Yup. That's how I read it.
Click to expand...

IMO, then you're reading it wrong. Again, I'm with you that this is horse scat but the pilots that have been busted are those that came in way too hot to land with the smoke on (or not), flew the length of the runway without any attempt to land and climbed out at the departure end; i.e. a low pass. That's not the same thing as a go-around or a missed approach. You don't really think a FSDO guy standing on the ramp can't tell the difference do you?
 
PittsDriver said:
IMO, then you're reading it wrong. Again, I'm with you that this is horse scat but the pilots that have been busted are those that came in way too hot to land with the smoke on (or not), flew the length of the runway without any attempt to land and climbed out at the departure end; i.e. a low pass. That's not the same thing as a go-around or a missed approach. You don't really think a FSDO guy standing on the ramp can't tell the difference do you?
Click to expand...

But if a low pass is a violation of FAR 91.119 because it doesn't come under the exception for takeoff or landing then a go-around or a missed approach where there was no intention to land must be a violation for the same reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top