Low and slow?

dans2992

dans2992

En-Route
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
4,059
Display Name
Display name:
Dans2992
I've seen a lot if advertisements out there for "low and slow" planes (for example the AirCam). These advertisement videos often show pilots flying at treetop height. Don't get me wrong, that sure looks fun but it goes against much of what I've been taught regarding low flying - ie, don't do it because you could hit a wire, or some other unexpected obstruction.

Take for example the recent 182 flying samaritans accident in Mexico. That would be considered "reckless flying" by most pilots, but it's exactly what we see in these ads.

So, what's the deal? I'm sure a 182 could be throttled back to fly at lower speeds, would that suddenly make this "safe"?

Dan
 
teaching low flying abstinence doesn't work. when will we learn from teenagers?
 
The one crash I remember that keeps me from doing this is a vintage plane hitting a wire or something and the pilot survived but the pax died and the pilot is/was facing criminal liability. I think it's a state thing, but he's being prosecuted for flying at what I guess was a legal but unsafe height.
 
Works great until you ball it up. Then wherever you are, be it the middle of the Sahara, is a congested area according to the FAA.

Personally, I think if you really want thrills you should race cars or bikes. BASE jump or something. If you're flying airplanes altitude is your friend.

Just my own personal two cents.
 
Even my low pass when departing a fly-in is above 500'. If they wanted to see it up-close they should have done it on the ground.
 
Advertisements also show cars whizzing around wet curves on Hwy 1. That's a bad idea, too. It's not the fall off the cliff, it's the sudden stop at the bottom.
 
I have been known to throttle down, open the windows and fly low and slow in a 182.

Granted low for me is 800-1000AGL
 
docmirror said:
The one crash I remember that keeps me from doing this is a vintage plane hitting a wire or something and the pilot survived but the pax died and the pilot is/was facing criminal liability. I think it's a state thing, but he's being prosecuted for flying at what I guess was a legal but unsafe height.
Click to expand...
What he did is a classic example of how to NOT fly low...
He made a pass down a river, between trees, without doing a proper inspection pass first, at a height where he'd be low enough to see everything, but high enough to avoid hidden obstacles. Probably knew that he had some clear areas beyond the trees where, should he lose power, he could pop over the trees (trading speed for a little altitude) and land there more or less safely. That's good thinking- aside from not hitting stuff, low fliers need to consider what they can do if they lose thrust with zero extra altitude.
But what he didn't account for was a wire strung across the river.:rolleyes2:
 
rottydaddy said:
What he did is a classic example of how to NOT fly low...
He made a pass down a river, between trees, without doing a proper inspection pass first, at a height where he'd be low enough to see everything, but high enough to avoid hidden obstacles. Probably knew that he had some clear areas beyond the trees where, should he lose power, he could pop over the trees (trading speed for a little altitude) and land there more or less safely. That's good thinking- aside from not hitting stuff, low fliers need to consider what they can do if they lose thrust with zero extra altitude.
But what he didn't account for was a wire strung across the river.:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

That sounds great, but does his failure to do that rise to the level of criminal actions? I can't really say, but the line has blurred so much from when I was a kid, anything you do now could be considered criminal. I guess it's reckless endangerment, or something like that, but who decided the line between having a stupid brain fart and actively going out of your way to kill someone else? Sorry, but as tragic as it was, and as stupid as the mistake was, sometimes there is no intent, and the pax wanted a ride in a biplane so of they went. Tragic? Sure. Criminal????
 
docmirror said:
That sounds great, but does his failure to do that rise to the level of criminal actions? I can't really say, but the line has blurred so much from when I was a kid, anything you do now could be considered criminal. I guess it's reckless endangerment, or something like that, but who decided the line between having a stupid brain fart and actively going out of your way to kill someone else? Sorry, but as tragic as it was, and as stupid as the mistake was, sometimes there is no intent, and the pax wanted a ride in a biplane so of they went. Tragic? Sure. Criminal????
Click to expand...

I'll say without comment that level of intent for criminal purposes ranges all the way from "purposeful" (I did that in order to kill him), through "knowing" (I did that fully aware it would kill him), to "reckless" (I knew there was outrageous risk but did it anyway), and finally at "negligent" (I didn't consider the risk a big deal, but a reasonable person would have).

Moving out of the criminal case, civil cases generally operate at the level of "negligent", and again come back to the "reasonable person" standard. When you are a certificate holder, "reasonable person" becomes "reasonable pilot." How on earth do you judge that?

I can tell you how they judge it in medicine: would "the average doctor" with your certifications have made the same "mistake"? Among other things, the "average" language means that 50% of doctors are presumably not living up to the standard (and have to hope the other components of a negligence tort don't align).

What it (possibly) means for the pilot, is that if "the other side" gets a credible expert on the stand to say "50% of the pilots with a [insert your certificate here] wouldn't think of flying at 150' agl for fun in that situation", then chances are the court will decide you shouldn't be either.

I'm not a legal, aeronautical, or medical expert, so take all of this with a grain of salt, but I keep pretty good tabs on all three areas. And I think this kind of policy is a little odd, but it's the system we've got right now.
 
Sad commentary on the state of criminal actions. Mens rea is gone. I'm not trying to minimize the responsibility on a comm pilot carrying a pax for hire, but the situation as I recall was a fun flight in a biplane. That usually means some flitting around, and maybe close to the ground. Anyway, It's what keeps me from doing the NOE kind of flying.
 
Can you really see a wire from a higher-altitude pass prior to a low run?

The whole idea of low flying is very appealing, but seems pretty risky even if you "scout" ahead of time.
 
dans2992 said:
Can you really see a wire from a higher-altitude pass prior to a low run?

The whole idea of low flying is very appealing, but seems pretty risky even if you "scout" ahead of time.
Click to expand...

Look for the towers. Fly over the highest tower of three(static lines sometimes skip the lowest tower.) If this stuff was taught to the biplane guy the world might be a better place. Now back to preaching abstinence.
 
Slow is the key if you are low. More time to spot and react.

The biplane guy apparently was not exactly where he thought he was - IIRC he had intended to fly a different stretch of river that he knew was clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top