Ok, which one of you flew under the Mackinac bridge?

My first thought was EdFred but it was a high wing. :):):)
 
Sigh... where is ADSB when you need it? Popcorn
 
Rats- I didn’t realize people were going to videotape me :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
High winger ... I'm cleared!
 
Not me...

I do know someone who flew under the deception pass bridge in WA years ago....as I recall he got an involuntary 1-year vacation from flying...
 
Evidently no one was tracking the plane on adsb.
 
I don't think he flew under it. Need better proof than that to convince me.

Myself, I've piloted boats under big bridges many times, but no one made a fuss about it.
 
Yawn :D

https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...orce-pilot-bomber-mackinac-bridge/1189683001/

It's one of the most iconic sights to see in Michigan – the mighty Mackinac Bridge stretching across the Straits to link the state's two peninsulas.

Vehicles of all sorts can be found traversing the suspension bridge any time.

But imagine an Air Force B-47 Stratojet bomber zipping underneath the structure.

That's what happened 60 years ago when a pilot had the gall to clear the underside of a suspension bridge, a feat recounted recently by the magazine Popular Mechanics.

Reports found in Detroit Free Press archives offer a deeper look at what led Air Force Captain John S. Lappo to fly a nuclear bomber under the bridge in a daring maneuver.

The Free Press reported on Aug. 26, 1959, that the Strategic Air Command disclosed just the day before that Lappo "piloted a six-jet B-47 medium bomber through the 150-foot clearance between the bridge and the water."

Lappo pleaded guilty at his court-martial. He faced a reprimand and was fined $50/month for six months.

A co-pilot and navigator were also aboard the bomber during the daring swoop but did not face court-martial.

On Aug. 27, 1959, the Free Press reported that the incident "had been kept quiet" until the court-martial.

While Lappo couldn't be reached for comment at the time of the incident, the Free Press caught up with him for an Oct. 17, 1976, article.

Lappo, who had found work as a hospital social worker in Anchorage, recounted what it was like to point the nose of the bomber down and fly under the bridge.

He decided to make his move while peering down at the Straits as "a stiff breeze whipped up the whitecaps" on a clear afternoon, Lappo told the Free Press.

He'd always wanted to fly under a big bridge, and recalled telling the crew: "I'm taking her under."

"When I was flying missions to the Far East, I was a co-pilot, and I wanted to fly under the Golden Gate at night. But I couldn't induce the pilot to do it," he told the paper.

"Lappo leveled out and roared over the water 75 to 100 feet above the ivory spray of the breakers," the paper reported.

"Mighty Mackinac raced up toward the windshield of Lappo's B47."

On that day in 1959, Lappo said there were two vehicles on the bridge — a car and a truck both traveling north.

Lappo insisted everyone else on board the big bomber was excited about his idea to fly under the bridge — except the navigator.

"Yea, the navigator warned against it," Lappo recalled. "Of course, I didn't know at the time that his father was the general and he was gonna go rat on me when we got back."

Lappo died in 2003 at age 83 at his home in Eagle River.
 
Not me. But with 150ish feet between the water and the bridge, seems like there is plenty of room...

Note: 150 AGL seems low in an airplane, but really high on a motorcycle when you are looking down at the waist high guard rails.
 
Funny that according to the article ONLY the Coast Guard and the State Patrol are investigating, not the FAA. If their only evidence is that grainy video, it would be hard to do much about it. Can't ID the aircraft, and isn't terribly clear if he actually went under the bridge.
 
Omalley1537 said:
...I do know someone who flew under the deception pass bridge in WA years ago....as I recall he got an involuntary 1-year vacation from flying...
Click to expand...
Which side?

If you read the Popular Mechanics article on the 1959 B-47 incident you will find that while Captain John S. Lappo was forever grounded, he was retained by the Air Force, received 2 more promotions, and retired a lieutenant colonel.

I wonder if he had any thermonuclear bombs onboard?
 
midwestpa24 said:
Funny that according to the article ONLY the Coast Guard and the State Patrol are investigating, not the FAA. If their only evidence is that grainy video, it would be hard to do much about it. Can't ID the aircraft, and isn't terribly clear if he actually went under the bridge.
Click to expand...

And does either truly have jurisdiction? The plane was not on the water nor did it hit the bridge - so Coast Guard? State regulation of aviation is limited due to federal preemption - so state police?
 
Arnold said:
And does either truly have jurisdiction? The plane was not on the water nor did it hit the bridge - so Coast Guard? State regulation of aviation is limited due to federal preemption - so state police?
Click to expand...

Well apparently all other crimes and problems are solved, so they are left with this.
 
Arnold said:
And does either truly have jurisdiction? The plane was not on the water nor did it hit the bridge - so Coast Guard? State regulation of aviation is limited due to federal preemption - so state police?
Click to expand...

From a prosecution standpoint, what regulations were broken? I doubt the Coast Guard has any regulation that prohibits aircraft from doing much. Same for the state police. There may be a couple of FARs broken, but that is the jurisdiction of the FAA.
 
If they want to charge you, they can ALWAYS find something--ALWAYS.

Reckless endangerment covers a lot of territory.
 
New River Gorge Bridge in West Virginia.

VERY tempting....
header.jpg


(I would not have been the first....)
 
Someone (it may or may not have been my Dad's CFI) flew under this bridge back in the '50s, prompting someone (who may or may not have been my Mom) to refuse to ever get in a plane with said CFI again. But that bridge does look like a tempting target, so I suspect there were more than a few pilots who flew under it.
750px-24TwinFallsPostcard.jpg

The above shot is actually the old Perrine Bridge in Twin Falls, Idaho. The new one looks like this, with the remains of Evel Knievel's jump ramp just out of sight on the right. The new bridge is extremely popular with base jumpers, because in the finest Idaho tradition, it's unregulated. One (not me, but one) can walk out and jump 24/7/365. I believe the boat with the canopy is the shuttle that picks up jumpers at the landing zone (also just out of sight on the right) and brings them back to Centennial park and the road back up to the canyon rim.
unnamed-3.jpg
 
Fake. It's just a clever publicity stunt to remind people the UP is not Canada...
 
Domenick said:
Which side?

If you read the Popular Mechanics article on the 1959 B-47 incident you will find that while Captain John S. Lappo was forever grounded, he was retained by the Air Force, received 2 more promotions, and retired a lieutenant colonel.

I wonder if he had any thermonuclear bombs onboard?
Click to expand...

Not sure, he was a friend of the family and I was young when he did it.
 
What is the big deal about flying under a bridge? I thought the FARs allowed any altitude over uncongested waters?
An Aside, when I used to commute over it I always had the fantasy Of doing a loop under/over the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Just flying under is amateur hour :D .
I wonder what the fine would be?
 
Morgan3820 said:
What is the big deal about flying under a bridge? I thought the FARs allowed any altitude over uncongested waters?
An Aside, when I used to commute over it I always had the fantasy Of doing a loop under/over the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Just flying under is amateur hour :D .
Click to expand...

unsure about the others, but the one I mentioned is often wall to wall boaters.
 
Morgan3820 said:
What is the big deal about flying under a bridge? I thought the FARs allowed any altitude over uncongested waters?
An Aside, when I used to commute over it I always had the fantasy Of doing a loop under/over the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Just flying under is amateur hour :D .
I wonder what the fine would be?
Click to expand...


§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

(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.

Given the bridge clearance is only 155 feet, so...
 
‘except over open water’. We regularly have planes go up the local river at 200ish ft. But no big bridge.
 
Whether you agree or not, 91.13, "careless or reckless" covers it.
 
And then there was the guy that flew under the Eiffel Tower.
 
DoubleD said:
Whether you agree or not, 91.13, "careless or reckless" covers it.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree. I just find the ‘Wrong Way Corrigans’ of the world more entertaining than us dull suburbanites.
 
I don't see the big deal. It's not like he tried to land on the bridge.
 
Pugs said:
"Yea, the navigator warned against it," Lappo recalled. "Of course, I didn't know at the time that his father was the general and he was gonna go rat on me when we got back."
Click to expand...

Wow! You think he'd know who the DB in the crew was and NOT to do it unless the DB wasn't aboard.
 
Morgan3820 said:
‘except over open water’. We regularly have planes go up the local river at 200ish ft. But no big bridge.
Click to expand...

Read that again. The critical part in bold.

(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.

Over open water or sparsely populated areas, you may not operate closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. There is no way to remain 500 feet from the structure when its less than 155 feet over your head.

The only exception would be if for the purposes of landing, which a seaplane could be.
 
I vote for n731nr. Pretty sure he's ballsy enough to pull that off...and he's a high wing.
 
Tim Martin made videos of himself flying his 210 thru some of the arches in Utah. Never bought the videos, and never was tempted to try and duplicate his feat, especially with the thermal and winds in that part of the country.
 
This would have been my logic

Dear FAA, my engine quite, so I was pulling off a Sully and the bridge happened to be there, just before touchdown I remembered to put the carb heat on and the engine roared back to life. That carb heat saved my life just like you guys mentioned it would in one of those handbooks that can be downloaded. I don’t remember the name of the handbook but dear FAA, you guys saved my life.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top