low flight over river....

W

WBI Flyer

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
202
Location
Nashville, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Groundhog
watched a 172 fly low over the tennessee river today - about 150-200AGL right down the river. (over water). It climbed, turned 180, and came right back. this area is an active MOA. - not to mention he/she wouldn't clear the tree line if the fan quit. He/She may learn the lesson someday, but it won't matter if they do. we see apache groups flying the basin all the time. .... at that exact same altitude.
 
I've flown from Decatur, AL all the way up the Tennessee river to Kentucky Lake low level, although it was a twin engine helo. Not a place I'd want to be in a ASEL. There are a few sets of wires along that route IIRC. Beautiful flight though, and the people at the camp grounds were digging it as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
WBI Flyer said:
watched a 172 fly low over the tennessee river today - about 150-200AGL right down the river. (over water). It climbed, turned 180, and came right back. this area is an active MOA. - not to mention he/she wouldn't clear the tree line if the fan quit. He/She may learn the lesson someday, but it won't matter if they do. we see apache groups flying the basin all the time. .... at that exact same altitude.
Click to expand...

Well I agree, flying at those altitudes in a Cessna isn't the smartest thing, depending on the area, they could very well be within regs. Also, MOA really wouldn't matter. As 47 pointed out, unless those Apaches have a restriction in their SOPs, they can fly as low as they want in or out of a MOA.
 
It is a beautiful stretch of earth, and I'm sure flying at tree top level is exhilarating. I wouldn't worry so much about restrictions as I would rounding a corner at 110 knots - staring down a group of 4 warbirds screaming toward me.
 
So we shouldn't fly in MOAs? That is where your argument goes. Sad.
 
Easy Tiger. You are reading something that I am not writing, I have no argument whatsoever about MOAs. None. I do believe that low flight (150AGL) in a restricted basin with blind corners - at altitudes where you would make two way traffic with no exit - in a piston single.... is bad risk management.
 
Majority of people think any flight in GA airplanes is bad risk management. I be laughing when they ground you all(I'll still fly by night.):lol:
 
We all take risks.
Some may not be acceptable to others.
jesazype.jpg
 
ClimbnSink said:
So we shouldn't fly in MOAs? That is where your argument goes. Sad.
Click to expand...


Nobody said anything about not flying in MOA's. If anything, be extra vigilant. I don't want to run over you any more than you want me to run over you. If we meet unfortunately in an MOA, it'll be a bad day for all of us.
 
10247414_10201978228997808_1917771745137831235_n.jpg
See any good spots to land?
 
150-200' over a river is a dangerous altitude for wires, you're much safer at 10'. If you're zipping along and the fan quits just use your excess energy to get you to the shore to ditch.

Flying pipeline in TX through MOAs and such I tried never to bust through 100' and even in the hard maneuvering in the collection fields I'd keep the top of the turns to 150'. The fast movers were supposed to all have a hard deck of 200', (the guys out of Sheppard were supposed to be 500' except in the pattern) so I pretty much stayed out of their way, and down that low they all smoke like bastards so you can see them a ways off. There were a few instances though where the B-1Bs and F-16s would come N out of Dyess and 'fly a shallow departure' right over a major pipeline 'highway' (7 parallel pipes along I-20) at 100', after ducking them a few times I took to flying that stretch on the deck.
 
WBI Flyer said:
watched a 172 fly low over the tennessee river today - about 150-200AGL right down the river. (over water). It climbed, turned 180, and came right back. this area is an active MOA. - not to mention he/she wouldn't clear the tree line if the fan quit. He/She may learn the lesson someday, but it won't matter if they do. we see apache groups flying the basin all the time. .... at that exact same altitude.
Click to expand...

Where is there an MOA on the Tennessee a River to the surface? I can't find it.

I fly up and down the Mississippi all the time in my area at anywhere from 50' to 250' AWL. I know where all the bridges, power lines, and aerial pipeline crossings are and fly appropriately in those areas, or avoid them. It's a blast. Some of my favorite flying.

There is always a bottom field on one side or the other and at 250' I could easily make it over to one if the fan quit, at 50' not so much.

The ONLY thing I don't like about low level river flying is all the bugs I have to clean off of my leading edges afterwards. Definitely bug infested trips.

Low level flying over a river? Just another "to each his/her own" type of flying just like over mountains, over cities, at night, over desolate areas, over wide expanses of uninterrupted trees, etc. Don't do it if you don't like it, but don't ridicule others who accept those risks and enjoy the ride.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Where is there an MOA on the Tennessee a River to the surface? I can't find it.

I fly up and down the Mississippi all the time in my area at anywhere from 50' to 250' AWL. I know where all the bridges, power lines, and aerial pipeline crossings are and fly appropriately in those areas, or avoid them. It's a blast. Some of my favorite flying.

There is always a bottom field on one side or the other and at 250' I could easily make it over to one if the fan quit, at 50' not so much.

The ONLY thing I don't like about low level river flying is all the bugs I have to clean off of my leading edges afterwards. Hey are definitely bug infested trips.

Low level flying over a river? Just another to each his/her own segment of flying.
Click to expand...

Collenite Insulator Wax...;) If you know the bugs will be heavy, just leave a thin coat on the leading edges before flight. Most everything will wipe right off, and what doesn't you get with a fresh coat of wax after the flight. Never sit there and rub dry hard wax when fresh wax removes it in a swipe.;)
 
I keep a good coat of wax on the plane, especially the leading edges, and the bugs come off easily with water and a rag...there's just a lot of them after a tour up/down the Big Muddy!
 
The Missouri river from Jefferson City to near Spirit of St. Louis airport make a great river route. Bluffs are on one side, but on the other is level farm land, usually right up to the river (no trees). When flying the Missouri for the first time, I first flew it above any possible obstructions, noting the obstructions (and checking to see if they were on the moving map sectional GPS), then flew it again, but lower, over the level side, once again noting the obstructions, and then finally low along the river. It's an amazing sight to see the bluffs going by above your head.

It may not be for everybody, but for me it is but one of the many ways I enjoy flying.
 
WBI Flyer said:
watched a 172 fly low over the tennessee river today - about 150-200AGL right down the river. (over water). It climbed, turned 180, and came right back. this area is an active MOA. - not to mention he/she wouldn't clear the tree line if the fan quit. He/She may learn the lesson someday, but it won't matter if they do. we see apache groups flying the basin all the time. .... at that exact same altitude.
Click to expand...


Are you saying you didn't like what you saw so it must be wrong? It might not be the safest way to look at a river, but its not inherently dangerous as long as you know what you are doing.

Great picture David, really brings back memories of flying out of Bethel. I have some serious low level time in Alaska at seriously low altitudes.

I was doing a charter from Nome to Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island. On the return leg, empty, I was flying at about 250 feet looking for Beluga whales. I looked to my right and about a mile away I saw a DC-6 or C-54 at about 100 feet off the water.
 
Zeldman said:
Are you saying you didn't like what you saw so it must be wrong? It might not be the safest way to look at a river, but its not inherently dangerous as long as you know what you are doing.
Click to expand...



Ha! sheesh. I really just opened a point of discussion. I fully expect us all to have different opinions and risk profiles. It struck me as severely "non-conservative" move, and I was curious what everyone thought of it. ... for the sake of discussion I went ahead and put my opinion in first. Maybe we were just due a "Hang the OP for no good reason" thread?

I don't know many older 172s that have 5 point harnesses. This guy was at or below the tree line, so if anything happened he would've been in the water in no time. How does a water ditching in a 172 (tricycle) with just a lap belt usually go?

-
hyre2ypa.jpg


Never said it was wrong - just that I thought it was hideous risk management and opened it for discussion. Above is a pic of the stretch of river if it helps.
 
Why would you suspect the 172 had no shoulder strap? :dunno:They work just fine at most survivable speeds. Ditching the people usually get out wet.:D there is more to risk management than saying "I won't do that", in fact, that's poor risk management, it's just risk avoidance. Risk management is the fine art of getting to do what you want to do and eliminating as many risks as possible doing it so you have a reasonable chance of survival. It doesn't mean don't do something because it's risky. BTW, that bank is landable.
 
Last edited:
WBI Flyer said:
Easy Tiger. You are reading something that I am not writing, I have no argument whatsoever about MOAs. None. I do believe that low flight (150AGL) in a restricted basin with blind corners - at altitudes where you would make two way traffic with no exit - in a piston single.... is bad risk management.
Click to expand...


Then, don't do it.
 
Henning said:
Why would you suspect the 172 had no shoulder strap? :dunno:They work just fine at most survivable speeds. Ditching the people usually get out wet.:D there is more to risk management than saying "I won't do that", in fact, that's poor risk management, it's just risk avoidance. Risk management is the fine art of getting to do what you want to do and eliminating as many risks as possible doing it so you have a reasonable chance of survival. It doesn't mean don't do something because it's risky. BTW, that bank is landable.
Click to expand...

Sure and part of eliminating as much of the risks as possible, is putting controls on the operation. You can still do said operation but you limit yourself to an acceptable risk by limiting an altitude to say, 500 ft agl.

Not that people flying part 91 are filling out a RA matrix these days but that's what management is about. Once you reach a certain level of risk, those responsible for the operation, in this case the individual pilot, modifies the original plan to make it acceptable. Apparently the OP believes the pilot didn't properly mitigate the risks to an acceptable level. Obviously the pilot in question has a differing view of unnecessary risk.
 
What greater risk am I at flying 25' than 500' there? The reality is, not much because I am not at much risk at 25' and 500' doesn't really expand my options that much more. The key is managing your excess energy appropriately, know what you want to accomplish should the engine go out. Will my best option to be just lose airspeed and settle or to haul back for 3G and pop up a couple hundred feet for a half mile glide? The main risk mitigation factor you have is airspeed, that is your store of excess energy. The issue is it will dissipate quickly when the engine dies, so you have to have a plan to react with quickly.

I have over 1000 hrs flying below 100' occupationally, it can be done reasonably safely.
 
Well said V173. Henning, you are making an anecdote out of your own assumptions of what I haven't said. thanks for that. I have no delusion that I know much at all. I'm glad to learn from you all.

Whomever was flying here yesterday was low enough that they never would've made the bank without power. BTW: I'm sitting on that bank. It is not "landable". not even in a carbon cub. saying any different without being here is goofy.
 
WBI Flyer said:
Well said V173. Henning, you are making an anecdote out of your own assumptions of what I haven't said. thanks for that. I have no delusion that I know much at all. I'm glad to learn from you all.

Whomever was flying here yesterday was low enough that they never would've made the bank without power. BTW: I'm sitting on that bank. It is not "landable". not even in a carbon cub. saying any different without being here is goofy.
Click to expand...

I can put any GA plane on that bank and walk away from it. Will the plane be broken? Landable doesn't mean the plane will remain flyable. Planes are actually very well designed for crash worthiness if you just keep the energy under control going strait and forward and the angle of impact shallow with 300' of clear ahead to slow on, you're gonna walk away. That is a relatively smooth and soft bank with no obstructions or protrusions visible. It is a fine spot to set down at the waters edge, even in the shallow water.
 
I think the hostile reaction is due to too many people sticking their nose into other people's business when it comes to risk. Nobody wants any more rules telling them they can't take a chance if they want to...
 
cowman said:
I think the hostile reaction is due to too many people sticking their nose into other people's business when it comes to risk. Nobody wants any more rules telling them they can't take a chance if they want to...
Click to expand...

Our 'safety society' is derailing evolution and overpopulating the planet.
 
Well if you keep locking everything down, paint all the walls grey, force us all into idealistic suburbia and remove anything even potentially dangerous or offensive then the suicide rate will probably skyrocket.

Well, mine would.
 
Hey Groundhog...I'll ask again...where is there an MOA that extends to the surface on the Tennessee River? I don't see one.
 
Refreshing when a self righteous sissy safety rant gets sacked. Carry on gentlemen.
 
timwinters said:
Hey Groundhog...I'll ask again...where is there an MOA that extends to the surface on the Tennessee River? I don't see one.
Click to expand...


I apologize it wasn't clear. I never said what altitude the MOA covers. - just that it was here and they operate at tree top level quite often in this stretch. Seriously. I don't think I know any more than anyone. Most of you guys flaming would've thought the same thing I did had you seen it. I don't want any more laws or rules than any of the rest of you.

-guessing you guys would rather poo on my head than help me learn something or simply disagree. ok. No wonder GA is headed for the cliff. sheesh. Lesson learned.

Flame on...
 
WBI Flyer said:
I apologize it wasn't clear. I never said what altitude the MOA covers. - just that it was here and they operate at tree top level quite often in this stretch. Seriously. I don't think I know any more than anyone. Most of you guys flaming would've thought the same thing I did had you seen it. I don't want any more laws or rules than any of the rest of you.

-guessing you guys would rather poo on my head than help me learn something or simply disagree. ok. No wonder GA is headed for the cliff. sheesh. Lesson learned.

Flame on...
Click to expand...

I hope you don't think I'm flaming you, I'm trying to give you the perspective of a pilot who occupationally flew that low for over 1000 hrs and how I handled the risk management through an understanding of energy management both in flight and in the crash. When you spend 8-13 hrs a day flying along at low altitude over various terrain (including some you just accept will be unsurvivable and if the engine cuts there, well, it's 'times up') you have a lot of time to consider these things.:lol: when you look at it from a perspective of, "Well, I have to be here, what can I make of it?" you do some energy management experiments with trading airspeed for altitude vs distance and figure out what your envelope of options is like and you keep those parameters in mind as you fly along.

I was also serious in my first comment, you're safer at 10' than 150'. At 10' you will be under any wire and most bridges on navigable waterways. When you learn Ag flying, one of the first things you learn is 'don't climb for wires'. If you can see horizon under the wire (or bridge) you're going to fit under it, never look at the wire again at that point you shift your focus back on the ground and your swath path maintaining you height over the crop. If you watch the wire, you will hit the wire. Your body will take you to wherever your eyes are leading.
 
Last edited:
WBI Flyer said:
I never said what altitude the MOA covers.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes you did.

WBI Flyer said:
this area is an active MOA.
Click to expand...

If the 172's altitude was well beneath the floor of the MOA (which I suspect is 10,000') then, no, "this area" is not an active MOA.

If you come here making false claims then, yes, you'll likely get flamed. Especially when someone is simply out having fun in a manner that is quite likely completely legal but that you just don't happen to agree with.

FWIW
 
Last edited:
WBI Flyer said:
-guessing you guys would rather poo on my head than help me learn something or simply disagree. ok.
Click to expand...
Actually, just about the entire first page of posts (20) were simply people trying to help you learn or disagreeing with you...and one or two even agreeing with you. Then, the more you tried to defend your indefensible position with even more outrageous statements, the more others "pooed on your head."

That's kinda the way the internet works.

FWIW
 
Zeldman said:
Are you saying you didn't like what you saw so it must be wrong? It might not be the safest way to look at a river, but its not inherently dangerous as long as you know what you are doing.

Great picture David, really brings back memories of flying out of Bethel. I have some serious low level time in Alaska at seriously low altitudes.

I was doing a charter from Nome to Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island. On the return leg, empty, I was flying at about 250 feet looking for Beluga whales. I looked to my right and about a mile away I saw a DC-6 or C-54 at about 100 feet off the water.
Click to expand...


I can't say I've ever dipped below 500' :D

I sorta like bethel in a really weird way. It grows on you, sort of like a tumor, or perhaps a hemmorhoid.
 
DavidWhite said:
I can't say I've ever dipped below 500' :D

I sorta like bethel in a really weird way. It grows on you, sort of like a tumor, or perhaps a hemmorhoid.
Click to expand...

Yeah... the bush villages can do that to a person. I was in Bethel for 10 months. I have spent time in Tok, Fairbanks, Deadhorse, King Salmon, Nome, Aniak, Kantishna and Barrow. I liked Kotzebue most of all. I spent 4 years there. I really hated to leave, but it was time to move on and upwards. I could not see myself in Carhartts and beaver skins for the rest of my life. Regrets? Yeah, a little. Your pictures really make me yearn to head north again.

I remember moving to Bethel in spring of 1998. There was as sign on an empty lot near the airport:

Coming in Spring of 1996, Subway and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
 
Ask Bob Hoover about snagging wires. Years ago while flying a show at Reading, he dipped down into a riverbed and clipped wires in a Mustang. One the "old & bold" but would probably say he's damn lucky to still be alive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top