Martha Lunken has privileges revoked

The zip line operator has called local airports on several occasions to describe and report planes flying in close proximity to, and possibly under the zip line. I've seen the notices on the bulletin board.

Very most likely they never knew it was there. And quite possibly they had tried the same "under the bridge" stunt.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
The zip line operator has called local airports on several occasions to describe and report planes flying in close proximity to, and possibly under the zip line. I've seen the notices on the bulletin board.

Very most likely they never knew it was there. And quite possibly they had tried the same "under the bridge" stunt.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the zip line should be declared a hazard to navigation and removed. :D
 
X3 Skier said:
An ultralight is NOT an aircraft per the FAA. It is a vehicle, powered or unpowered.
Click to expand...
An Ultralight Vehicle is definitely an aircraft as defined in 14 CFR 1.1.

But part 91.119 doesn't apply to ultralight vehicles because 91.1(e) says part 91 doesn't apply to aircraft and vehicles governed by part 103.
 
Lindberg said:
Or at the very least clearly marked.
Click to expand...

Other than the attractive nuisance of the bridge, there really isn't any legal way to be flying at or below zip line level. Unless one is hunting womp rats.

It is a narrow, 250' deep, wooded river valley dotted with homes, cabins, cars, and kayakers.

Plus, I'm visualizing zipliners crashing into those red high tension marker balls on their line.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I disagree. Her statement that it isn’t dangerous is her determining that there was no risk and therefore it was ok to do it. It is her saying that the while the act was illegal, it wasn’t dangerous for HER, according to HER. What she fails to understand is that while ultimately she might feel empowered to make the decision in that moment being alone in the cockpit with a wild hair up her six and with no one to stop her, she has no legal right or privilege to do so.

And as many folks seem to look up to her, she is setting a poor example to follow. And that is the sad part of all of this. Her hero status. Her cult icon status. Whatever it is. It is undeserved. And with her attitude, I see her performing some sort of encore in the future. I just hope she doesn’t hurt anyone.
Click to expand...

I have followed this thread from afar. I am still failing to grasp why it is bad to fly under a bridge. Ship go under bridges. Sometimes they hit them and do damage, yet the action remains legal. A plane hitting a bridge would barely scratch the paint. How is flying under a bridge as or more dangerous than driving my boat under a bridge? I can fly down to water level, but not if there is a bridge over that water. How does it hurt anyone? Too much logic?
 
Morgan3820 said:
I have followed this thread from afar. I am still failing to grasp why it is bad to fly under a bridge. Ship go under bridges. Sometimes they hit them and do damage, yet the action remains legal. A plane hitting a bridge would barely scratch the paint. How is flying under a bridge as or more dangerous than driving my boat under a bridge? I can fly down to water level, but not if there is a bridge over that water. How does it hurt anyone? Too much logic?
Click to expand...

Boat's generally aren't going 100+ mph so there's much more chance to avoid an issue. Also generally, the mass of the boat isn't going to hit the road surface of the bridge, it would just hit the towers, which would be designed to withstand such abuse. A mast striking the road at 15 knots isn't going to do a lot of damage compared to a plane at 100 knots.
 
Lindberg said:
An Ultralight Vehicle is definitely an aircraft as defined in 14 CFR 1.1.

But part 91.119 doesn't apply to ultralight vehicles because 91.1(e) says part 91 doesn't apply to aircraft and vehicles governed by part 103.
Click to expand...

Part 103 defines an ultralight thusly

“Subpart A-General

103.1 Applicability

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle ……”

note, “is a vehicle”, not “is an aircraft”. If they wanted to call it an aircraft, they would have done so.

In any event, since Part 91 doesn’t apply to an ultralight, whatever it is, can an ultralight legally fly under a bridge?

Again, asking for a friend:cool:

Cheers.
 
Salty said:
Boat's generally aren't going 100+ mph so there's much more chance to avoid an issue. Also generally, the mass of the boat isn't going to hit the road surface of the bridge, it would just hit the towers, which would be designed to withstand such abuse. A mast striking the road at 15 knots isn't going to do a lot of damage compared to a plane at 100 knots.
Click to expand...
Usually we are in sync, but that still doesn't work for me. Were planes hitting bridges a big problem? I guess that I think differently than most others. No surprise there.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Usually we are in sync, but that still doesn't work for me. Were planes hitting bridges a big problem? I guess that I think differently than most others. No surprise there.
Click to expand...
It is not actually against the regs to fly under a bridge. That has been stated multiple times in the thread.
 
Palmpilot said:
Can they? Yes.
Is it legal? No.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
​
It doesn't even say "pilot."
Click to expand...

Ultralights are "vehicles" not aircraft as they have no certification and are subject to part 103.

Edit: I see Half Fast already corrected this.
 
§ 91.1 Applicability...
(e) This part does not apply to any aircraft or vehicle governed by part 103 of this chapter, or subparts B, C, or D of part 101 of this chapter.

X3 Skier said:
In any event, since Part 91 doesn’t apply to an ultralight, whatever it is, can an ultralight legally fly under a bridge?
Click to expand...

If they decide it's "hazardous".

§ 103.9 Hazardous operations.
(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property.

There are youtube videos of paramotors flying under bridges. The FAA doesn't seem to be going after them.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Usually we are in sync, but that still doesn't work for me. Were planes hitting bridges a big problem? I guess that I think differently than most others. No surprise there.
Click to expand...
I really don’t care one way or another about the regs on this one. I do think it’s dangerous and foolish to fly under that type of bridge. I think it’s dangerous and foolish to fly down a riverway below the tree line, even without a bridge being there, but that’s just me.
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
Other than the attractive nuisance of the bridge, there really isn't any legal way to be flying at or below zip line level. Unless one is hunting womp rats.

It is a narrow, 250' deep, wooded river valley dotted with homes, cabins, cars, and kayakers.

Plus, I'm visualizing zipliners crashing into those red high tension marker balls on their line.
Click to expand...
As long as you stay 500' away from the homes, cabins, cars, and kayakers, it's legal to fly down a 250' river valley.

And they can put the little red balls on a line strung adjacent or above the zip line.
 
X3 Skier said:
Part 103 defines an ultralight thusly

“Subpart A-General

103.1 Applicability

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle ……”

note, “is a vehicle”, not “is an aircraft”. If they wanted to call it an aircraft, they would have done so.

In any event, since Part 91 doesn’t apply to an ultralight, whatever it is, can an ultralight legally fly under a bridge?

Again, asking for a friend:cool:

Cheers.
Click to expand...
It's not an accident that that 14 CFR 103.1 is titled "Applicability" and 14 CFR 1.1 is titled "General definitions." It has to do with the fact that one part has definitions for all of Chapter 14 and the other doesn't. If an ultralight vehicle flies, it's an aircraft. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. But at least read the definition:

Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.
Click to expand...

That definition is, in fact, as broad as it appears to be. Are there any ultralight vehicles that don't fit that definition?

There's only one reason 91.119 doesn't apply to ultralights, and it isn't because they're not aircraft (which also includes drones, rc planes, helicopters, and model rockets).
 
Last edited:
Daleandee said:
Ultralights are "vehicles" not aircraft as they have no certification and are subject to part 103.

Edit: I see Half Fast already corrected this.
Click to expand...
Ultrlights are ultralight vehicles and also aircraft. They may also be helicopters, airplanes, or gliders.

Just as helicopters are helicopters and also rotorcraft and aircraft. So an ultralight helicopter would be an ultralight vehicle, a helicopter, a rotorcraft, and an aircraft.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
As an aside, I've been over (planes and cars) and under (on foot) those twin bridges many times. I would believe that a student pilot that was ready for a solo cross country would be qualified to fly under them. Heck, I'd make it a low-altitude air route.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the total body count on 71 was from that construction project a few years ago. Clinton-Warren and Chester Twp FD's were kept busy scraping up accident victims for those years. I think Turtlecreek too. As a resident of the 380/22 area, every 71 wreck shutdown was hell here.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Hey, The thread still isn't locked. Guess you were wrong.
Click to expand...
Obviously not... even if the lock never comes, he's technically correct.

I mean, since the thread has basically devolved to arguing about anything and everything, why not add this to the list?
 
Lindberg said:
Ultrlights are ultralight vehicles and also aircraft. They may also be helicopters, airplanes, or gliders.

Just as helicopters are helicopters and also rotorcraft and aircraft. So an ultralight helicopter would be an ultralight vehicle, a helicopter, a rotorcraft, and an aircraft.
Click to expand...

The FAA says that ultralights are not certified aircraft and it goes to great lengths in naming them as "ultralight vehicles."

From the AC:

3 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this advisory circular, the following definitions apply:

a. Ultralight Vehicle. This term refers to ultralights meeting the applicability for operations under Part 103.
Click to expand...

But it ain't worth squabbling over any further ...
 
Daleandee said:
The FAA says that ultralights are not certified aircraft and it goes to great lengths in naming them as "ultralight vehicles."
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure what the difficulty here is, but everything that flies is an aircraft. Even if it also fits in some subcategory of aircraft. Some aircraft are certified, some aren't. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are not certified aircraft, but they are still aircraft. Model rockets aren't certified aircraft, but they're still aircraft. Ultralight vehicles aren't certified aircraft, but they're still aircraft.

Where has the FAA said ultralight vehicles are not aircraft?
 
I’m curious - what if instead of flying under a bridge, she had flown under a natural arch out in the middle of a desert?

If it’s not a man-made structure, and there are no people, vessels, or vehicles about, would there be a violation?

(This scenario isn’t fanciful, by the way. My Dad once was tempted to fly under an arch when he came upon one, but he didn’t do it).
 
NoHeat said:
I’m curious - what if instead of flying under a bridge, she had flown under a natural arch out in the middle of a desert?

If it’s not a man-made structure, and there are no people, vessels, or vehicles about, would there be a violation?
Click to expand...

Without commenting on the actual laws that might be relevant, I see that as more problematic. Natural arches tend to have less clearance, vertically and horizontally, than the man-made bridges under discussion, and the big ones in the US tend to be in National Parks and National Monuments, where there generally are people around. Sure, there are exceptions, but I also view natural arches as treasures of the natural world, not to be endangered for a cheap thrill. It's only a bit of an exaggeration to say that if I saw a pilot clip a man made bridge and crash on the riverbank, I'd lend whatever assistance i could. But clip a natural bridge and crash in the desert beyond, my first impulse would be to beat the pilot about the head and shoulders for being SO...FRIGGIN...STUPID.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm really not sure what the difficulty here is, but everything that flies is an aircraft. Even if it also fits in some subcategory of aircraft. Some aircraft are certified, some aren't. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are not certified aircraft, but they are still aircraft. Model rockets aren't certified aircraft, but they're still aircraft. Ultralight vehicles aren't certified aircraft, but they're still aircraft.

Where has the FAA said ultralight vehicles are not aircraft?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
Palmpilot said:
I suppose kites could be considered devices, but I doubt that the other things would qualify. ;)
Click to expand...
The very large ones I worked on and have posted about here were not considered aircraft by the FAA, they were considered obstructions.

Nauga,
lit
 
Palmpilot said:
§ 1.1 General definitions.

...

Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.​
Click to expand...
origami-paperplane-white-toy-psd_280-181.jpg

I am getting worried that my aircraft may require ADS-B Out, now :)
 
Sifossifoco said:
origami-paperplane-white-toy-psd_280-181.jpg

I am getting worried that my aircraft may require ADS-B Out, now :)
Click to expand...
Don't take my word for it, here's what the NTSB had to say when a defendant made similar argument about why a "model aircraft" shouldn't be considered an "aircraft" and subject to part 91 (before part 107):

https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/5730.pdf

An aircraft is “any” “device” that is “used for flight.” We acknowledge the definitions are as broad as they are clear, but they are clear nonetheless.
Click to expand...
They're all aircraft, but they're not all subject to the same regulations. Doesn't change the fact that they're aircraft.
 
Lindberg said:
Fortunately 101.1(a)(3) excludes aerial fireworks.
Click to expand...

Don't care ...

BTW ... does that include footballs?

Oh! the humanity!

Edit: Need a reg to assisit me in determining the difference between a model rocket and a bottle rocket. You know .., the ADSB thingy and all. :D
 
Last edited:
Daleandee said:
Don't care ...

BTW ... does that include footballs?

Oh! the humanity!

Edit: Need a reg to assisit me in determining the difference between a model rocket and a bottle rocket. You know .., the ADSB thingy and all. :D
Click to expand...
Hey, we didn't write the regs!
 
Daleandee said:
... and you didn't read he AC either. I still need a reg I asked you for.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the FAA is consistent in the way they interpret their regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top