Interesting flight to NC today...

Thanks for the explanation. Now that you mentioned it, my squawk codes did start with a 0, at least 2 out of 3 started with a zero I think. Next time I may mention that I am on a flight plan.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Oh don't be jealous. I am not that fun to talk to on the phone. Though it was interesting to "crank call" Henning just to be sure he was real and not a myth. And I even got to talk about aviation and stuff. It was great.
Click to expand...

Hah. Henning. The man, the myth, the legend. :)
 
Richard said:
Plane hits sailboat mast. Plane lands on airport property. Sailboat skipper says he often sees airplanes pass overhead when sailing past airport.

Skipper has some 'splaining to do.
Click to expand...

Not really, he would be considered to have ROW as the sailboat is less maneuverable than the airplane. He's no different than trees on final, you clear them, you should clear the boats as well.
 
When he got a briefing before the flight he shouldn't have declined the information about unlit sailboats within the vicinity of the airport.
 
Henning said:
Not really, he would be considered to have ROW as the sailboat is less maneuverable than the airplane. He's no different than trees on final, you clear them, you should clear the boats as well.
Click to expand...
Just as under the "Law of Gross Tonnage" (he who weighs the most wins), being right is still being wrong. My thinking was if the skipper was aware of the hazard previous to this encounter he had the responsibility to mitigate the risk.
 
Richard said:
Just as under the "Law of Gross Tonnage" (he who weighs the most wins), being right is still being wrong. My thinking was if the skipper was aware of the hazard previous to this encounter he had the responsibility to mitigate the risk.
Click to expand...

No where in maritime law will you see that represented, same as there is no "Law of Gross Tonnage". Tonnage has nothing to do with ROW. The sailboat has right of way over the airplane, simple as that. If he is in unrestricted navigable waters, he holds no liability. It is up to the aircraft to see and avoid.
 
Henning said:
No where in maritime law will you see that represented, same as there is no "Law of Gross Tonnage". Tonnage has nothing to do with ROW. The sailboat has right of way over the airplane, simple as that. If he is in unrestricted navigable waters, he holds no liability. It is up to the aircraft to see and avoid.
Click to expand...
Off course there is no official LOGT. It's wholly made-up. But you tell me, in the real world, who's gonna' be burdened, the 65' sloop fouled with a poorly set spinny or the car carrier?

Whether on coastal or international waters, that "steamer" aint gonna give way to me regardless my activities. Even the friggin NOAA R/V cut my stern while hauling back a purse seine.

Anyway, the whole basis of LOGT is that one could be materially 'right' but in practice that will get them dead.

Back to the case at hand; from previous experience, the skipper knew of the risk. He also probably knew he was within the law although that is SPECULATION. He had to know the implied risk of his actions. He continued, right to the scene of the accident.

There are many pertinent facts missing here and I am too lazy to try to find them. Was the plane below GS? Did the FAA blunder in designing this instrument arrival? Did the vessel have adequate room to maneuver? Was the vessel even in a marked channel? Were their other hazards to air or water navigation which would confine or restrict safe transit? and so it goes....
 
Richard said:
Off course there is no official LOGT. It's wholly made-up. But you tell me, in the real world, who's gonna' be burdened, the 65' sloop fouled with a poorly set spinny or the car carrier?

Whether on coastal or international waters, that "steamer" aint gonna give way to me regardless my activities. Even the friggin NOAA R/V cut my stern while hauling back a purse seine.

Anyway, the whole basis of LOGT is that one could be materially 'right' but in practice that will get them dead.

Back to the case at hand; from previous experience, the skipper knew of the risk. He also probably knew he was within the law although that is SPECULATION. He had to know the implied risk of his actions. He continued, right to the scene of the accident.

There are many pertinent facts missing here and I am too lazy to try to find them. Was the plane below GS? Did the FAA blunder in designing this instrument arrival? Did the vessel have adequate room to maneuver? Was the vessel even in a marked channel? Were their other hazards to air or water navigation which would confine or restrict safe transit? and so it goes....
Click to expand...

Yes, to hit that sail boats mast, he was well below glideslope for that runway.

In your first paragraph, the car carrier will do what it is within his ability to do as he knows if he hits the sailboat, he will be in the wrong and unless he shows proper action he is about to experience a career ending accident. I used to push a big dredging set of 3 big and 2 little barges all around the SF Bay and CA Delta, and you bet I had to give way to small sailboats. That said, a small sailboat pressing their luck may very well end up "dead right".
 
I bow to your superior knowledge of maritime law (zero sarcasm in saying that) but I will remain interested in this case.

Do you have the particulars?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top