Plane dive bombing boaters on north Texas lakes

[mscard88]

The problem is that it happened over an unsuspecting and unwilling public who ended up being a captive audience.

Wouldn't make any difference if the public accepted it or not. This pilot broke at least two FARs (altitude, careless operation) to start with. Once the FAA investigates they'll likely find a few more violations. As I mentioned, he kept on buzzing numerous times and apparently at least one person probably filmed it w/ a camera phone. Easy to get the N number.

 

[timwinters]

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.

Go to 1:50 in the video. He does a low pass in level flight at less than one wingspan above the water then goes into a steep turn (appears to be 60* or more) while maintaining his altitude.

How does one do this without "adversely loading the wing?"

 

[172andyou]

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.

The best aerobatic pilot in the world wouldn't have pulled this stunt, ergo, this guy wasn't the best aerobatics pilot in the world.

 

[Everskyward]

Wouldn't make any difference if the public accepted it or not. This pilot broke at least two FARs (altitude, careless operation) to start with. Once the FAA investigates they'll likely find a few more violations. As I mentioned, he kept on buzzing numerous times and apparently at least one person probably filmed it w/ a camera phone. Easy to get the N number.

I know it was probably a violation, but that is not what makes him a real jerk, in my opinion anyway.

 

[Palmpilot]

...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?

That seems a little harsh. I admit to being troubled by the fact that many things seem to be gotten wrong more often that right these days, but I try not to go overboard on taking people to task over it.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Go to 1:50 in the video. He does a low pass in level flight at less than one wingspan above the water then goes into a steep turn (appears to be 60* or more) while maintaining his altitude.

How does one do this without "adversely loading the wing?"

Isn't that a required maneuver for Private pilot PTS? Granted it's done at 45-degrees and not 60, but I don't understand how that would necessitate that an accelerated stall was imminent. We're talking 2G's in an aircraft certified for just shy of 4G's in the Normal category, correct? As long as he's got 60kts or better, he isn't at stall speed at 60-degrees of bank if I'm remembering correctly (something like 40% increase in stall speed). Yes, we all know you can stall at any speed, but assuming he was at an AoA just enough to maintain altitude in a 60-degree bank, I don't think claiming an accelerated stall was at risk unless we have better data than a video shot from a ways out.

 

[Palmpilot]

Someone has to die for a manslaughter charge.

I believe his point was that *if* the pilot had killed someone, it would have been manslaughter rather than murder.

 

[Shopshirt]

You sure about that? Please explain the difference between "it's" and "its." (Hint: the one without the ' is the possessive.)

Ha! I was just about to post something similar...then realized that I used the wrong "its" in my post...I'll chalk it up to a cell phone typing fail.

 

[jmp470]

Someone should have thrown a doughnut inflation device in front oh him. If he hit it, he is to low.

Sorry for typos. Texting and driving is hard

 

[Dan Thomas]

Isn't that a required maneuver for Private pilot PTS? Granted it's done at 45-degrees and not 60, but I don't understand how that would necessitate that an accelerated stall was imminent. We're talking 2G's in an aircraft certified for just shy of 4G's in the Normal category, correct? As long as he's got 60kts or better, he isn't at stall speed at 60-degrees of bank if I'm remembering correctly (something like 40% increase in stall speed). Yes, we all know you can stall at any speed, but assuming he was at an AoA just enough to maintain altitude in a 60-degree bank, I don't think claiming an accelerated stall was at risk unless we have better data than a video shot from a ways out.

60 degree bank increases the load factor to two and the stall rises by 1.41. A 55-knot stall becomes a 78-knot stall. If he also tries to enter a climb, he increases the load factor further as the airplane's path diverts upward.

This sort of thing regularly kills buzzers. I can't understand anyone making excuses for this guy, experienced or not.

 

[SoonerAviator]

60 degree bank increases the load factor to two and the stall rises by 1.41. A 55-knot stall becomes a 78-knot stall. If he also tries to enter a climb, he increases the load factor further as the airplane's path diverts upward.

This sort of thing regularly kills buzzers. I can't understand anyone making excuses for this guy, experienced or not.

Who made excuses? I was simply stating that I didn't see enough evidence from the video that would tell me with any accuracy how close to entering an accelerated stall he was. I'm certainly no seasoned-pilot, nor have I done any buzzing. Hell, I don't drop below 1,000' AGL except when landing. Without knowing the radius of his turns, rates of climb, true angles of attack/bank, it just seems like pointless speculation. The clean stall in a 172, is something like 43kts, so roughly 60kts is the speed I was using.

 

[BigBadLou]

Yeah, this guy sure gives GA a black eye, no doubt about it. Violated several regulations. I hope the news follows up with the FAA's investigation and penalties.
But the news segment is also hyped up with a family with dumba** daughters who can't say anything without using the word "like" and helicopter parents who won't return to the lake due to fear that he might come back.
C'mon, people, this isn't Jurassic Park or Nightmare on Elm Street. But then again, how do you sell the news these days without overreacting and causing fake fear?

A friend of mine has a SeaRey amphib. It is a slow flying boat. We take it to the lake sometime, fly around, not too low, not buzzing any boats. Usually we get thumbs up from boaters and jetskiers, we haven't pi**ed anyone off so far. (or haven't seen anyone shake a cane at us)
Fun can be had in an airplane without making a jacka** out of oneself.

Looking fwd to hearing/reading follow-up on this buzz job. Keep us posted.

 

[MAKG1]

The clean stall in a 172, is something like 43kts, so roughly 60kts is the speed I was using.

Then, you would have stalled unless your CG were at the aft limit if you tried this.

Stall speeds should not be guessed at. Nor should they be calculated using KIAS. Calibration error is large near the stall.

C172 (N) clean stall speed is 50-53 KCAS at zero bank. Not 43. At 60 deg bank, it's 71-75 KCAS (59-66 KIAS).

 

[Lowflynjack]

A friend of mine has a SeaRey amphib. It is a slow flying boat. We take it to the lake sometime, fly around, not too low, not buzzing any boats. Usually we get thumbs up from boaters and jetskiers, we haven't pi**ed anyone off so far. (or haven't seen anyone shake a cane at us)

Unless they have video of you buzzing someone intentionally in a SeaRey, you can break the 500' rule in an amphibious plane according to the rules. The very first line says "except when necessary for takeoff or landing". The lake is your runway in that plane. My interpretation may be different than the FAAs. If I got a call after flying that plane, my intention was to land and that's why I was so slow. After looking around, I decided the lake was too crowded and I went around!

Or you could buy a trike or powered parachute and then it just says they may be operated at less than the minimums.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(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.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Then, you would have stalled unless your CG were at the aft limit if you tried this.

Stall speeds should not be guessed at. Nor should they be calculated using KIAS. Calibration error is large near the stall.

C172 (N) clean stall speed is 50-53 KCAS at zero bank. Not 43. At 60 deg bank, it's 71-75 KCAS (59-66 KIAS).

Jesus, man. I was using a rough estimated speed, not calculating the precise speed at which he falls out of the sky. 60KIAS is between 59-66 is it not?! Quit being intentionally argumentative over such a minor point. The overall fact still holds: we don't have any data that says he was at or dangerously close to exceeding the critical AoA or that his speed dropped below "71-75KCAS". It still remains as speculation.

 

[Silvaire]

The world is full of douche-bags, some of them are pilots. I see more peril on a daily basis driving to work on the freeways and the statistics revealing the carnage that occurs on the nation's highways bare that out.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Jesus, man. I was using a rough estimated speed, not calculating the precise speed at which he falls out of the sky. 60KIAS is between 59-66 is it not?! Quit being intentionally argumentative over such a minor point. The overall fact still holds: we don't have any data that says he was at or dangerously close to exceeding the critical AoA or that his speed dropped below "71-75KCAS". It still remains as speculation.

The older pilots among us know that this sort of guy is very likely to kill himself with stuff like this. We've seen it before, will see it again. Speculation? Sure. But how many times do we need to hear of or read about or see some crash due to reckless operation before we recognize a developing situation?

 

[LongRoadBob]

You don't have to be a pilot even to know how wrong that was. My first thought was wondering if he was sober because it is not something a sober, rational, pilot should do.

 

[BigBadLou]

Unless they have video of you buzzing someone intentionally in a SeaRey, you can break the 500' rule in an amphibious plane according to the rules. The very first line says "except when necessary for takeoff or landing". The lake is your runway in that plane.

Agreed.

Maybe this idiot was using the same rule as an excuse?
"But FSDO officer, every time I came in for a landing on the lake, I realized I didn't have floats so I went around, FOR SAFETY".
"Can I see your pilot's license?"
"Sure ... wait ... what are those hole punchers for?!?"

 

[LongRoadBob]

I think the biggest problem with the pilot's actions was his decision to make several low passes over boaters and docks/structures. If he had just been making some low passes over the water, away from any vessels, I don't think he would be violating any FARs. The fact that he did it over boaters and made repeated passes is what makes it reckless.

Side note: the family that was interviewed was a bunch of pansies. "Not going back out on the lake due to fear of the aircraft coming back" is a load of crap. Probably scared of their own shadow. If I came in because of the aircraft, I'd wait until they departed the area, then I'd be right back out on the water. Way too dramatic.

It was reckless. But even if you disagree, think about this, your local airport is up for a vote on possibly closing (which has been happening for years, my father was an AOPA representative, and he told me flat out most of his job consisted of trying to keep small airports open) and these folks, (they aren't pansies, they are not familiar with airplanes, as most people are not, and also...for all they knew there were terrorists piloting...these are different times) and these and other folks bend the ear of the local council.

Airport closed, because this jerk gave a bad name for pilots everywhere.

Pilots at small airports are dependant on the goodwill, and often non pilots see no need to keep municipal and small private airports supported, and running.

You maybe can buzz your own family, my father used to do it when he came up to our cabin, so we would know to go pick him up at the local airport. Which was a grass field with a cow at one end and a wind sock at the other. Even then he scared the crap out of my mom by flying close to treetop height. I was never scared because I was a little kid and had total faith in his flying abilities, but we were a pilots family in any case. People that are not have different viewpoints, whether you see them as legitimate or not, they can vote to close airports, and they can get others to vote also. He was being a hotshot, and shouldn't have shown off and scared mom (she wasn't wrong, he was close to the treetops, but I was sure he knew what he was doing) even, but for people not used to GA planes, you would wonder what this pilots intentions were and why he was being so aggressive in his flying. Hell, I wonder about it, and also how sober the guy was.

And even after that, you have to wonder about this pilots intentions. Seems to me it is either "I'm gonna scare the hell out of these folks because it's the Fourth of July" or else "I'm gonna show them what a REAL pilot can do with a plane" either way, it spells idiot.

If he wanted to show off so bad, he should join an air show, if he wanted to scare folk, shame on him.

 

[OkieFlyer]

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.

Tim, we all agree on the idiocy of what the pilot did. Your comparison with gunfire is simply not reasonable. I don't know any other was to put it. If you can't see any difference between shooting firearms in an amusement park and a dumb pilot screwing around, then trying to reason with you is obviously a fruitless endeavor. Astounding! I yield.

 

[forsonsinc]

Though it's prob not right to jump up and down on anyones back, this is a pilot forum..
Getting stall speed estimates wrong even if off by a single digit is sure to receive some heated responses.

 

[Sundancer]

I once flew an airplane that would stall at any airspeed. . .the vicious bee-otch stalled almost everytime I exceeded 17 degrees AOA. I began to suspect the airplane was oblivious to TAS, and maybe the wing shape had something to do with the bad behaviour. . .