Sandbar touch and go. Bad idea. But legal?

exncsurfer said:
I must be blind, I'm not seeing a lighthouse, are you talking about this dude, he does appear to be mid flee. (sarcasm) Actually he looks bored.

View attachment 56358
Click to expand...
The lighthouse is well away. Not a factor. There are airport control towers at commercial airports closer to the runway than that lighthouse is to the sandbar. It's across the channel, for crying out loud.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Let's think about it from a runway standpoint. At an airport designed specifically for Cessna 172s, the runway would be 60 feet wide and you could have mowers and equipment within 90 feet of the edge of the runway. So ... are the folks on the beach 100 feet away? Looks to me like they are.
Click to expand...
I'm sort of expecting an airplane to land on a runway and am going to stay off and keep my kids / dogs away from it. I'm not expecting that on a sand bar.

This is a sad thread. If there's nobody there, go for it. But if there are people that close that do not know about airplanes and did not agree to having airplanes land near them, this is downright rude and reckless behavior.
 
Ken Ibold said:
The lighthouse is well away. Not a factor. There are airport control towers at commercial airports closer to the runway than that lighthouse is to the sandbar. It's across the channel, for crying out loud.
Click to expand...
The point was NOT that the lighthouse was in danger. Criminy. The point was that people said they didn't even see the lighthouse, but they saw that nothing was wrong, so I doubted they actually saw what I saw.
 
I suspect there's a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
 
Salty said:
The point was NOT that the lighthouse was in danger. Criminy. The point was that people said they didn't even see the lighthouse, but they saw that nothing was wrong, so I doubted they actually saw what I saw.
Click to expand...
I don't have any dog in this hunt, but you've really got me curious, could you post a screenshot and circle the lighthouse, why am I not seeing it, ugh! :)
 
There are some other angles now including cockpit video , those birds looked pretty sketchy to me:

http://abcnews4.com/news/local/vide...unsure-if-any-federal-regulations-were-broken

Yea, i'd think a fly over and spotting of the pedestrians would've precluded the stunt. You don't know what people are going to do.

maybe its the same link , but i don't recall seeing the other video's the first time, maybe my pc is acting up. I was wondering why it said 'a third video, blah blah blah' when I never saw a 2nd.

Still don't see a stinking lighthouse though.
 
exncsurfer said:
I don't have any dog in this hunt, but you've really got me curious, could you post a screenshot and circle the lighthouse, why am I not seeing it, ugh! :)
Click to expand...
It looks like the lighthouse is about 1/2 mile away and to the right of the upwind track. Not even a factor.

Now the guy who runs across the plane's path on final, that looked a little closer than I would like. Safe to say that isn't something I would do. That doesn't mean that I think the pilot was careless/reckless, just means that I wouldn't do that in those circumstances.
 
The crazy thing here is, without prior coordination, there were three (3) camera angles. So just beware, if you do something even slightly questionable to other people, there's a good chance you'll be on camera. Maybe multiple cameras.
 
F01LA said:
The crazy thing here is, without prior coordination, there were three (3) camera angles. So just beware, if you do something even slightly questionable to other people, there's a good chance you'll be on camera. Maybe multiple cameras.
Click to expand...

The action doesn't even need to be slightly questionable. Just need someone to make a big deal out of it.

But yes, there are cameras everywhere in phones.
 
F01LA said:
The crazy thing here is, without prior coordination, there were three (3) camera angles. So just beware, if you do something even slightly questionable to other people, there's a good chance you'll be on camera. Maybe multiple cameras.
Click to expand...
LOL, move out west. Maybe someone has seen my "interesting" training and currency flights but they weren't worth their time to make a stink about it.
 
Salty said:
I'm sort of expecting an airplane to land on a runway and am going to stay off and keep my kids / dogs away from it. I'm not expecting that on a sand bar.

This is a sad thread. If there's nobody there, go for it. But if there are people that close that do not know about airplanes and did not agree to having airplanes land near them, this is downright rude and reckless behavior.
Click to expand...
Well, I was not offering an opinion on the safety of the maneuver, only providing a data point on what FAA standards require in terms of separation from runways and people.

So now I will offer my viewpoint. I think a lot of pilots do not appreciate the level of detail to which FAA regulates the runway/taxiway environment. My day job is as an airport planner and Safety Management Systems specialist, and many people on POA are familiar with my previous work in general aviation safety. So from that standpoint let me say this. FAA has an entire division -- AVS -- whose purpose is to ensure the other departments -- Airports (aka ARP), Air Traffic (aka ATO), Flight Procedures, Tech Ops, Commercial Space -- meet logical safety standards and that those standards more or less align with each other. So the setbacks FAA requires of airports (see AC 150/5300-13A Change 1) represent the minimum separation FAA considers safe for aircraft operations as well as airport operations. Sounds to me like your perspective is more conservative than what FAA considers the minimum, and that's OK. Minimums are minimums and most people would generally like a greater margin of safety than the "minimum". But don't think that everyone will agree with your acceptable level, because personal mins are by definition subjective.
 
For the record, I live on an airport and have planes landing within a couple hundred feet of my house at least 20 times a day. But I'm expecting that because it's an airport. Not a public "beach".
 
This is clearly an event which is worthy of intense media investigation, as millions of lives could be put at risk by such activity. If the event might seem even slightly questionable, the media should work nonstop to ensure that those involved receive the maximum penalty allowed by law, right after they have been completely destroyed and their careers ruined on social media.

After that fire is lit, on to the next story.


JKG
 
Wow, you guys will argue about anything. This pilot didn't do anything wrong or dangerous. Learn to relax. You don't have to police everyone else's behavior.

Talking to some of the the people at my airfield on beer fridays, they certainly miss the old days. The old days before cell phones and cameras, where they could go out and have fun without 40 people taking video of them flying under a bridge and calling the police. Well, they still used to call the police, but didn't have the proof... :)
 
I want to do this and I know I will some day and I'm asking that when I do people don't record it!
 
I get it; from the top, it looked kinda close. From the side perspective, it didn't look as bad... the plane was well off the ground before the people.

Still, it was close enough that we're discussing it. Different backgrounds, experiences, etc will have us feeling differently about various situations, and that's OK. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. I'm probably overly cautious on cliffs, freaking out where others let their kids go closer to the edge. I'm OK being "wrong" and getting my panties in a bunch, because I feel strongly about not getting too close at their ages.
 
It was either safe, or it wasn't. Nobody hurt, so... there you go.

Everyone's opinions about it are absolutely useless other than the pilot's as PIC, and the FAA's as regulator.
 
denverpilot said:
It was either safe, or it wasn't. Nobody hurt, so... there you go.

Everyone's opinions about it are absolutely useless other than the pilot's as PIC, and the FAA's as regulator.
Click to expand...
This seems to be one of the few realms where safety culture has fermented into unqualified, non-stop arm chair quarterbacking and claiming anything but vanilla missionary-style operations are unsafe and worthy of a felony conviction and jail time.
 
UngaWunga said:
Wow, you guys will argue about anything. This pilot didn't do anything wrong or dangerous. Learn to relax. You don't have to police everyone else's behavior.

Talking to some of the the people at my airfield on beer fridays, they certainly miss the old days. The old days before cell phones and cameras, where they could go out and have fun without 40 people taking video of them flying under a bridge and calling the police. Well, they still used to call the police, but didn't have the proof... :)
Click to expand...

You can't fly under bridges anymore?
Crap.
What I meant to say was no one I know would be so irresponsible as to fly under a bridge.
 
denverpilot said:
It was either safe, or it wasn't. Nobody hurt, so... there you go.
Click to expand...
I don't think the outcome is a determinant of safe or unsafe...you can have extremely unsafe operations that don't result in an accident or personal Injury. In fact, I'd venture that MOST unsafe operations end successfully.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I don't think the outcome is a determinant of safe or unsafe...you can have extremely unsafe operations that don't result in an accident or personal Injury. In fact, I'd venture that MOST unsafe operations end successfully.
Click to expand...

However what may be unsafe for one person may not be unsafe for another person.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I don't think the outcome is a determinant of safe or unsafe...you can have extremely unsafe operations that don't result in an accident or personal Injury. In fact, I'd venture that MOST unsafe operations end successfully.
Click to expand...

Flying isn't safe and usually ends successfully. The PIC determined the landing was safe enough, for all circumstances, and executed it. If outside the regulations, FAA will chat. The statement still stands. Literally none of our business.
 
denverpilot said:
Flying isn't safe and usually ends successfully. The PIC determined the landing was safe enough, for all circumstances, and executed it. If outside the regulations, FAA will chat. The statement still stands. Literally none of our business.
Click to expand...
My statement wasn't about this operation...it was simply about your statement.

For example, a twin engine pilot who flies successfully every day, but can't manage an engine failure if it happens is not conducting safe operations...he's just lucky that engines don't quit very often.

A pilot who flies in the clouds on autopilot because he can't control the airplane on instruments himself is generally successful, but not safe.
 
UngaWunga said:
Wow, you guys will argue about anything. This pilot didn't do anything wrong or dangerous. Learn to relax. You don't have to police everyone else's behavior.

Talking to some of the the people at my airfield on beer fridays, they certainly miss the old days. The old days before cell phones and cameras, where they could go out and have fun without 40 people taking video of them flying under a bridge and calling the police. Well, they still used to call the police, but didn't have the proof... :)
Click to expand...
Ah, the good ol' days.
 
This is how idiotic oppressive rules end up being created. If we don't think about others and just say "it's safe for me" we will end up having more laws passed that are stupid restrictive.

The fact is, the guy did not know who was on the beach, and what there situation was. There could have been disabled or elderly people. Those people did not agree to having someone land near them, and they had no option to avoid the situation. Bad judgement that may be perfectly legal, but still perfectly rude, thoughtless, and selfish.

I say this thread is hypocritical, because I can almost guarantee that the people saying it's perfectly fine would have issue with someone else doing something that they couldn't opt out of that you dislike or fear. Like guns, or horses, or motorcycles, or smoking, or whatever you personally have no interest in and find annoying or dangerous.
 
Salty said:
I say this thread is hypocritical, because I can almost guarantee that the people saying it's perfectly fine would have issue with someone else doing something that they couldn't opt out of that you dislike or fear. Like guns, or horses, or motorcycles, or smoking, or whatever you personally have no interest in and find annoying or dangerous.
Click to expand...

Actually no. I leave other free people alone to their own lives because I'm an adult and not part of the modern entitlement mentality. I may say someone is doing something wrong but I don't need any stupid useless regulations placed on them for false fears and bad risk analysis.
 
denverpilot said:
Actually no. I leave other free people alone to their own lives because I'm an adult and not part of the modern entitlement mentality. I may say someone is doing something wrong but I don't need any stupid useless regulations placed on them for false fears and bad risk analysis.
Click to expand...
Enough people do this sort of stunt often enough and we will see new legislation. Guaranteed.
 
When I was growing up the population, statewide and nationwide, was roughly half what it is now, and we had a lot more freedom.

With the population twice as dense (in every sense of the word), it's much harder to swing your arms without somebody's nose getting in the way.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
Enough people do this sort of stunt often enough and we will see new legislation. Guaranteed.
Click to expand...

You're going to see more legislation anyway on everything. The entitlement groupthink is that they "deserve" to never be bothered by anything anyone else does or says.

They think laws fix that. The right laws will make them happy. They're adults but never learned to control their own anxiety. And they're never happy.

Whether FAA panders to them or not, we shall see, but we hope they've got better adult coping mechanisms compared to the half-children who think an airplane landing on a sandbar is a real problem.
 
Sidewalks are intentionally built immediately adjacent to 50 mph+ traffic lanes, and we're worried about someone landing an airplane many times that distance from people?

C'mon.
 
Last edited:
Code90 said:
This sandbar is off the beach of Sullivan's Island, SC. Touch and go shown on video. Curious to hear the thoughts of what the rules say. Seems pretty clear it's not a good idea (takeoff roll past pedestrians walking dogs)...

http://abcnews4.com/news/local/vide...unsure-if-any-federal-regulations-were-broken
Click to expand...
Where do you see a takeoff roll past pedestrians? The airplane was already airborne well before reaching the only pedestrian I can find (In the third video).
 
Our Salty friend has a point. I believe most FAA regulations were written in blood.

How this could have ended up as an FAA regulation would have been like this. The plane blows the right main on the takeoff roll. The plane veers suddenly towards the nearby people. It's a near-miss, or hit and/or plane ends up in the water right next to them. Makes the Nightly News. Now the FAA gets involved, and to appease the public outcry, the new regulation is born.
 
StevieTimes said:
Our Salty friend has a point. I believe most FAA regulations were written in blood.

How this could have ended up as an FAA regulation would have been like this. The plane blows the right main on the takeoff roll. The plane veers suddenly towards the nearby people. It's a near-miss, or hit and/or plane ends up in the water right next to them. Makes the Nightly News. Now the FAA gets involved, and to appease the public outcry, the new regulation is born.
Click to expand...

Most GA accidents that involved people on the ground have not resulted in new regulations.

Also, can you post a screen shot of the nearby people during the takeoff roll? I can't find them in any of the three videos.
 
I'm pretty sure that pilot is also a really aggressive driver. Now we can all get mad! I mean madder! Grrrr!

If he had an AOA indicator and logged that T&G as "off airport" then I think he needs to see a HIMS doc and get an SI for his BasicMed sign off. I'm so ****ed off about this.
 
kyleb said:
Sidewalks are intentionally built immediately adjacent to 50 mph+ traffic lanes, and we're worried about someone landing an airplane many times that distance from people?

C'mon.
Click to expand...

Hey, we won't be having any of that logic nonsense here,
think about the children, the chiiilllldddrrreeennnnn! Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top