Plane dive bombing boaters on north Texas lakes

Cajun_Flyer said:
Sorry, "potential" victims. Better? One slip up and he could have killed them.

You know what... actually, no. I stand by what I said. They were victims of unwanted harassment.

Regarding jet skis - I'm not a water person, so I'm not familiar with the way they could endanger me or my family if they were behaving as irresponsibly as this guy was. So I can't comment on that.

As for the there being little likelihood of the guy returning, so what? The kids were scared, the parents were ****ed - their day was ruined by this jerk (actually, it sounds like it was two jerks). And little likelihood is not the same as no likelihood.
Click to expand...

This is my point. They LET their day be ruined. It could have been a minor blip on their day, but they chose to let it define their trip. What about the other 4-5 boats out there that didn't call it a day afterwards? Were they less-victimized or did they just continue on with their lake weekend? Judging by reading the comments on the Facebook page, most of the others who had video thought is was a bit reckless, but went on about their business when the aircraft departed. Again, it doesn't absolve the offending pilot of any repercussions from his actions, but I don't have to buy-in to the overly dramatic story-telling from the interview.
 
SoonerAviator said:
It doesn't excuse the pilot from anything, it just makes me roll my eyes a bit when I hear them tell their story as if they narrowly escaped death.
Click to expand...

I don't blame them for being scared, nor for even leaving the water for a bit (or the day). I do agree that the manner in which the tale was told was a bit melodramatic and maybe clutching the pearls a bit too tightly.
 
over50 said:
Another pilot doing their best during the holiday to promote goodwill towards general aviation.
Hope the FAA hangs this idiot. They located the aircraft owner who says the airplane is leased to a DFW traffic watch company. The company had no comment.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/FA...ters-on-Fourth-of-July-Holiday-385761381.html
Click to expand...

Last year on the Fourth, a man and his son were buzzing Lake Palestine and dipped a wheel ----- the plane is still at the bottom of the lake; occupants were seriously injured but survived.
 
I got very low once, off-shore, Atlantic. Very, very low. Light wake low. . .mirror smooth day, me and another guy. And it was Fun! Not stupid, not ignorant, not irresponsible; it was fun! We understood and accepted the risks; our airplane, our well-being. Guess what? No one lives forever, and safety is never a goal, just a factor.

All that said, it's rude to mess with other people like that, especially when you can go do it somewhere without bothering folks like that. Yeah, the hand-wringing was over-blown, and more drama was evidenced than warranted. . .as someone said, a jet ski operated badly has about as much potential for carnage - a 172 mass is very spread out.
 
Sundancer said:
I got very low once, off-shore, Atlantic. Very, very low. Light wake low. . .mirror smooth day, me and another guy. And it was Fun! Not stupid, not ignorant, not irresponsible; it was fun! We understood and accepted the risks; our airplane, our well-being. Guess what? No one lives forever, and safety is never a goal, just a factor.

All that said, it's rude to mess with other people like that, especially when you can go do it somewhere without bothering folks like that. Yeah, the hand-wringing was over-blown, and more drama was evidenced than warranted. . .as someone said, a jet ski operated badly has about as much potential for carnage - a 172 mass is very spread out.
Click to expand...
This.

Its neither dangerous nor reckless to fly low provided you know the aircraft and you know your outs. The issue lies when you start to mess with others.
 
I remember when my kids were about that age. As such, the father may have used the scary plane as an excuse to get the hell off the water early so he could find some shade, air conditioning, and a cold drank. :smilewinkgrin:
 
SoonerAviator said:
This is my point. They LET their day be ruined. It could have been a minor blip on their day, but they chose to let it define their trip. What about the other 4-5 boats out there that didn't call it a day afterwards? Were they less-victimized or did they just continue on with their lake weekend? Judging by reading the comments on the Facebook page, most of the others who had video thought is was a bit reckless, but went on about their business when the aircraft departed. Again, it doesn't absolve the offending pilot of any repercussions from his actions, but I don't have to buy-in to the overly dramatic story-telling from the interview.
Click to expand...

Ok, so I'll admit that I didn't watch the family's interview - just the video of the plane buzzing around. The only thing I know about them is what I've seen quoted here and in the news, so I can't tell how dramatic they were being about it. I'll concede to my ignorance there. That said, I won't speculate on how the people on the other 4-5 boats were feeling, or what decisions they made that day, as I've seen nothing posted or in the news about them. Maybe they felt the same way, maybe not. Maybe they didn't have kids who were scared, or maybe they did. No idea.

I do know what it's like to have a child truly terrified of planes and/or loud noises, though - so if their kids were anything like my son, the family didn't "chose" to let it define their trip. It simply defined their trip. I took my son to an airshow last year and it was a disaster :( My daughter was totally game, but my son was physically shaking (and sobbing). I tried ear protectors, but he wouldn't wear them. My husband had to carrying him kicking and screaming to the car while, to my sadness, the Blue Angels buzzed around overhead. (Thankfully, I used to live in Pensacola, so I've seen them perform and practice dozens of times!) I guess you could say we "chose" to leave, but only because we prioritized our son. I'd never seen him react to something so strongly. He's a strong and confident kid in every other way, just completely petrified when it comes to loud noises apparently.

Reading the Facebook comments, I saw one lady who said she was on a boat with a couple of kids who she said were shaking and scared. She said it seemed like the plane was targeting their boat for some reason and "taunting" them. She even posted a very close up picture of the plane from her mother's camera showing the guy either waving at them or giving them the finger. Sounds like harassment to me.

At least we agree that the pilot was an ass.
 
Don't be too hard on the family's interview. I'm sure the interviewer briefed them beforehand and got them to kick it up a notch. The whole report was annoying, overly dramatic. So ignore all that. Just look at the video of the plane instead.

This guy was way out of line. I'd get the heck out of the way too if I saw that. I'd get out of the way of some idiot coming at me with a mower too.

Idiots + machinery too close to people = danger.
 
KFD said:
Don't be too hard on the family's interview. I'm sure the interviewer briefed them beforehand and got them to kick it up a notch. The whole report was annoying, overly dramatic. So ignore all that. Just look at the video of the plane instead.
Click to expand...

That there. Typical media inflationary hype.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I do know what it's like to have a child truly terrified of planes and/or loud noises, though - so if their kids were anything like my son, the family didn't "chose" to let it define their trip. It simply defined their trip..
Click to expand...

Took my grandson to an IndyCar practice at Birmingham a couple of years ago. Only a few cars on the track at a time and it was too loud for him. So we left. Sensitive ears I thought but around a year ago he had surgery on his ear and is better. Maybe something like this affecting your son Cajun?

BTW I don't recall reading if you ever made it out to Catalina and missed it. Update?
 
vontresc said:
Oh and most importantly the 's signifies the possessive, and not a plural. As well trained pilots we should be able to actually use the English language. If such abuse persists we should report the offending pilot to the FSDO to remove the "English Proficient" endorsement from their cert.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? Please explain the difference between "it's" and "its." (Hint: the one without the ' is the possessive.)
 
mscard88 said:
Took my grandson to an IndyCar practice at Birmingham a couple of years ago. Only a few cars on the track at a time and it was too loud for him. So we left. Sensitive ears I thought but around a year ago he had surgery on his ear and is better. Maybe something like this affecting your son Cajun?

BTW I don't recall reading if you ever made it out to Catalina and missed it. Update?
Click to expand...

Anything loud - thunder, fire alarms, planes... he crumples down and starts shaking. Just thought it was a phobia, but can't hurt to mention to doctor. Thanks for the suggestion.

As for beautiful Catalina - her mystery must allude me til I'm back that way next year. I made the stupid mistake of knocking my big presentation at the conference (in front of a modest audience of ~500 government and military officials!) out of the water, so was asked to present again later in the week - unfortunately on the afternoon I was scheduled to go up with Thomas. I did get to do a flight up to Big Bear Lake that Monday, so that was pretty cool.

Sorry to derail.
 
Lachlan said:
You sure about that? Please explain the difference between "it's" and "its." (Hint: the one without the ' is the possessive.)
Click to expand...

Acrodustertoo said:
These are complete jackarse's! What did they think was going to happen?
I could here them in the cockpit screaming carp like " this is extreme!...give me another mountain dew BRO...."
There is most certainly video from the plane as well, moron's like that cannot do anything without filming it for their FB, youtube page.

In the end this is just more bad press for the aviation community.
Click to expand...

Well you got me on that one. I was referring to the use of jackarse's [sic] as the plural of jackarse amongst other transgressions.
 
Lachlan said:
You sure about that? Please explain the difference between "it's" and "its." (Hint: the one without the ' is the possessive.)
Click to expand...

Good job! You found the most common exception to the rule.

Planes = more than one plane; Plane's = something belonging to the plane. (The general rule.)
Its = something belonging to it; it's = contraction for "it is." (The exception.)
 
ETres said:
I remember when my kids were about that age. As such, the father may have used the scary plane as an excuse to get the hell off the water early so he could find some shade, air conditioning, and a cold drank. :smilewinkgrin:
Click to expand...

Haha! I was thinking along the same lines. I was actually thinking momma might have been itching to get out of the wind and sun, and found a good excuse. News spot was a bonus.
 
My understanding is "plane's" doesn't work ether, becuse a plane can't own anything.
 
The 172 pilot clearly did not go low enough. Just a few more feet to go it looked like. So close! Next time, buddy.


Seriously, what a dumb thing to do, considering the proximity to public. Fun looking flying, but the fun factor is removed by the foolishness and poor GA representation to Joe public and their boats. Think any of those kids will go up in a 172 now even if asked? Doubtful.
 
At least I stay at 50 feet when I am snapping pics. I get low in my Cub and boaters love me.cub lake.png cub sun.png
 
James331 said:
And the train just went off the tracks.


I'd also know becuse they historically arnt that great of pilots, and it is HIGHLY unlikely a religious nut job with a couple hours training could pull off those passes.


The how do y'all know he wasn't sucidal, well after the first SUCCESSFUL pass I'd say we knew that.
Click to expand...

How do you explain the number of professional airline pilots that have taken out whole loads of people onboard. These are people that where 100% trained and proficient in flying the plane and then one day for reasons we may never understand, they take everybody out including themselves. As to the how we "know" he wasn't suicidal, well there are plenty of folks that change their minds once certain death is staring them in the face.

Bottom line for me is, I think it's presumptuous to think we really know what was going on.
 
vontresc said:
Good lord. This guy is as much of a hooligan as the kid in the jetski buzzing boaters on a lake. A mid size boat and a 172 probably would do about similar damage in a collision scenario as well.

Don't be an ass and endanger non participants.
Do some risk assessment and be sensible about screwing around for both your sake and especially the others involved.

I am pretty sure most of us have done a buzz job or two. Yes there are risks involved, but you won't immediately die.

Oh and most importantly the 's signifies the possessive, and not a plural. As well trained pilots we should be able to actually use the English language. If such abuse persists we should report the offending pilot to the FSDO to remove the "English Proficient" endorsement from their cert.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I truthfully never have. Why in the hell would I want to do a "buzz job"? Why do people do it? I never did burn outs at green lights or pop wheelies on a motorcycle either in front of strangers. What is it exactly??
 
Dav8or said:
How do you explain the number of professional airline pilots that have taken out whole loads of people onboard. These are people that where 100% trained and proficient in flying the plane and then one day for reasons we may never understand, they take everybody out including themselves. As to the how we "know" he wasn't suicidal, well there are plenty of folks that change their minds once certain death is staring them in the face.

Bottom line for me is, I think it's presumptuous to think we really know what was going on.
Click to expand...

Has that happens yet in the US, or just in countries with 3rd world aviation systems which put greenhorn new CPLs into airliners.

Besides I just looked outside and it ain't raining planes.


Stats say you're more likely to be able to plan your retirement off of winning the lotto, than the likley hood of getting nailed by a airplane.


Are you one of the people who salutes the TSA agent as he groped your bits?
 
Lachlan said:
You sure about that? Please explain the difference between "it's" and "its." (Hint: the one without the ' is the possessive.)
Click to expand...

In grade school, when the teachers would say "i before e except after c," I would always respond with "that's a really weird rule."

I had six older brothers who taught me very early in life how to be a smart ass.
 
Lachlan said:
You sure about that? Please explain the difference between "it's" and "its." (Hint: the one without the ' is the possessive.)
Click to expand...
The trouble with English is all the exceptions! But he's mostly right: the situations where it's correct to form plurals with apostrophes are few and far between, so for people who don't want to bother keeping track of it, it's safer to just not do it.
 
James331 said:
My understanding is "plane's" doesn't work ether, because a plane can't own anything.
Click to expand...
In the wacky world of English, the possessive case is not limited to ownership.
 
pigpenracing said:
At least I stay at 50 feet when I am snapping pics. I get low in my Cub and boaters love me.
Click to expand...
They loved me too, jumping up and down and waving... right up until the one guy didn't and called the FAA. Remember, with the FAA, you're guilty until proven innocent. That's not just me taking a shot at the FAA, it's true. They will take the approach that you were in the wrong and you have to fight them to prove you're not. It didn't cost me any money, but I got calls from them about once a month offering to settle with me if I would accept shorter and shorter suspensions. I refused them all, telling them I was not guilty and wouldn't just agree to a punishment to make them go away. It worked out for me, but with today's video phones it could have been much different.

Be careful and remember this story is now out there and may inspire others to call the FAA. It could be one ****ed off fisherman having a bad day that thinks you scared off his fish.
 
timwinters said:
That's an absolute crock. So if random shots are being fired at Six Flags and you decide to leave then you've decided to LET your day be ruined?

Interesting concept indeed.
Click to expand...

Come on, Tim. That comparison is a crock, and you know it. Now we're likening an egregious but controlled buzz job to discharging a firearm in a densely populated park. You've got a job in the media waiting for you, brother.
 
James331 said:
My understanding is "plane's" doesn't work ether, becuse a plane can't own anything.
Click to expand...

My plane has many parts, all of which belong to it. Plus a few accessories not part of it that also "belong" to it (tow bar, canopy cover, couple cases of oil, a drip tray just in case, a long thin piece of aluminum only used during oil changes, etc.).

"My plane's canopy cover won't fit your plane."

You are trying to make a language fit logical rules without allowing exceptions. But languages weren't designed by a committee with the rules on the wall, they constantly drift and change over time, and all changes are made by maddeningly inconsistent people! Like "i before e except after c," with the already-given example that "weird" doesn't fit.

Do you fly as strictly by the book as you are trying to force the English language? Or rather, do you ignore the book when you fly, since you seem to ignore the general English rules and use the exceptions in all cases?
 
OkieFlyer said:
Come on, Tim. That comparison is a crock, and you know it. Now we're likening an egregious but controlled buzz job to discharging a firearm in a densely populated park. You've got a job in the media waiting for you, brother.
Click to expand...
ummm...no.

Performing aerobatic maneuvers less than 1/2 wingspan from the ground (sure looked to me like his bank exceeded 60*) immediately above people enjoying the day at a densely populated lake.

There's no difference at all IMO. He (she) was a f***ing idiot who recklessly endangered everyone on that lake who wasa in the immediate vicinity...and there were dozens of them.
 
timwinters said:
ummm...no.

Performing aerobatic maneuvers less than 1/2 wingspan from the ground (sure looked to me like his bank exceeded 60*) immediately above people enjoying the day at a densely populated lake.

There's no difference at all IMO. He (she) was a f***ing idiot who recklessly endangered everyone on that lake who wasa in the immediate vicinity...and there were dozens of them.
Click to expand...
You're now comparing this to MURDER???
Reminds me of the people who compare parking tickets to the holocaust.
 
tawood said:
You're now comparing this to MURDER???
Reminds me of the people who compare parking tickets to the holocaust.
Click to expand...

Manslaughter. A review of load factors in 60° banks and the accelerated stall phenomenon is in order here. That guy wasn't too far from killing someone.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Manslaughter. A review of load factors in 60° banks and the accelerated stall phenomenon is in order here. That guy wasn't too far from killing someone.
Click to expand...
Someone has to die for a manslaughter charge.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Manslaughter. A review of load factors in 60° banks and the accelerated stall phenomenon is in order here. That guy wasn't too far from killing someone.
Click to expand...
So, a bit of devil's advocate here: what if the pilot was a very-experienced acro pilot with hundreds of hours of acro time. He would likely be well aware of the accelerated stall characteristics and appropriate control inputs for the maneuvers we witnessed. Does that make a difference in your assessment of being "not too far from killing someone"? What if he was in 60-degree banks but not applying enough elevator to adversely-load the wings? A 60-degree bank is not indicative of imminent danger, and it's awfully difficult to determine the radius of his turns from the video's I've seen.

That being said, the guy was still an idiot for doing it so close to other boaters. If he was out over an unoccupied portion of the lake, then maybe you could make the case that it was just fine.
 
I don't think many here would have a problem if he or she did this over an unpopulated area, or even over people who knew in advance and approved. The problem is that it happened over an unsuspecting and unwilling public who ended up being a captive audience.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Manslaughter. A review of load factors in 60° banks and the accelerated stall phenomenon is in order here. That guy wasn't too far from killing someone.
Click to expand...

From the video I saw, he didn't look every close to a stall in any of it, at no point did my "oh this isn't going to turn out well" spidy sense get triggered.


He was hot dogging around, scared the cattle, over stayed his welcome and had the misfortune of making the news, complete with his international 12" numbers.

Nothing more, nothing less.
 
The guy was a jackass. I don't care if it's the best aerobatic pilot in the world. **** happens, and there was no need for that. Maybe it'd be different if he had permission from each and every boater.
 
tawood said:
You're now comparing this to MURDER???
Reminds me of the people who compare parking tickets to the holocaust.
Click to expand...
Who said many thing about murder? I never said any of those random shots at Six Flags hit and killed anyone, did I?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top