Sandbar touch and go. Bad idea. But legal?

Some states have laws restricting off airport takeoffs and landings, but it doesn't look like he violated any FARs. Nowadays people get their panties in a wad any time an airplane does anything unexpected.
 
Didn't look to be 500 feet from the folks at the end of the bar to me.
 
Note that FAR 91.119 begins, "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes..."

So, the 500' stipulation might not apply.

Of course, 91.13 "Careless or reckless" is always an option, poorly defined as they are.
 
FastEddieB said:
Note that FAR 91.119 begins, "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes..."

So, the 500' stipulation might not apply.

Of course, 91.13 "Careless or reckless" is always an option, poorly defined as they are.
Click to expand...
I don't think that applies when you clearly have no intention to land. JMO

now we can argue about the definition of landing.
 
I guess we'd have to define what a landing is!

I would venture that a touch-and-go is still a landing. I think language in other FAR's would support that.
 
Never had seen it,if not for the drone guy,hope he was licensed.
 
Brad Z said:
Perhaps the FAA should investigate the drone pilot and see what regulations he was violating while filming the incident.
Click to expand...
The drone sitting in the lighthouse?
 
If it had been a tailwheel aircraft (or after dark), then it would have had to been a stop and go instead of a touch and go for currency. But given a nosewheel, a touch and go is fine.
 
What were those people doing on an active runway?

The beach became a runway when the pilot decided to land, or do a touch and go.

Who says you can only land and take off from a FAA approved runway? Unless there were local ordnances or regulations in place, nothing to see here.
 
Salty said:
I don't think that applies when you clearly have no intention to land. JMO

now we can argue about the definition of landing.
Click to expand...
We can argue about anything, but whether that was a landing is not really arguable.

The ICAO definition, also used by NTSB:

From the beginning of the landing flare until aircraft exits the landing runway, comes to a stop on the runway, or when power is applied for takeoff in the case of a touch and go landing. Landing is a phase of flight.
Click to expand...

From this definition, we know a number of things, including that a touch and go is a type of landing. We also know that landing begins at the flare. So if you start to flare, you are in the landing phase of flight, even if you then go around.
 
The argument is whether it's a landing when the pilots intentions are not to land.
 
Lindberg said:
The pilot did land. How could it not be a landing if he landed?
Click to expand...
Ok. So, then let's move to the "takeoff". Is it ok to take off with people that close to your path of takeoff run?
 
Nice touch and go. Nobody in danger. Nothing careless or reckless. Unless local rules/laws were broken, all looked legal to me. However, I'm not an attorney and don't play one on television.
 
Sandbar touch and go. Bad idea. But legal?

Why is it a bad idea..??? I have many beach and off airport landings.

At one time I found it harder to land on a huge 3000X50 paved runway.
 
Zeldman said:
Sandbar touch and go. Bad idea. But legal?

Why is it a bad idea..??? I have many beach and off airport landings.

At one time I found it harder to land on a huge 3000X50 paved runway.
Click to expand...

Especially if you are on tundra tires.
 
If I was standing on the beach shooting an AR-15 in the direction the airplane took off and you were the people just a couple hundred feet off to the right, would you feel it was ok?
 
people didn't see the lighthouse, I suspect you didn't see the people that were closest to the plane on takeoff either.
 
Salty said:
If I was standing on the beach shooting an AR-15 in the direction the airplane took off and you were the people just a couple hundred feet off to the right, would you feel it was ok?
Click to expand...
You are implying that an aircraft is equal to a bullet? Hmmm...not gonna agree on that one.
 
Clark1961 said:
You are implying that an aircraft is equal to a bullet? Hmmm...not gonna agree on that one.
Click to expand...
Nope, not even close to equal. I'd far prefer to get hit by a bullet than a propellor or even a wing strut at takeoff speed.
 
The answer lies with whoever has jurisdiction over the land that the plane landed on. The FAA does not have jurisdiction on where a pilot lands except at airports. So if its not an airport, its whoever owns the land or the government entity that controls it and makes rules about who can access it and how.
 
Last edited:
Meh, nothing to see here.
 
It looks like it should qualify as shoreline access right of way. It should be legal to operate a plane, at least in most states. I do sandbar ops all the time. Proximity to people has never been an issue. Flying floats on and off of salmon streams during fishing season brings airplanes and people a whole lot closer than sandbar ops.
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
Nope, not even close to equal. I'd far prefer to get hit by a bullet than a propellor [sic] or even a wing strut at takeoff speed.
Click to expand...
LOL. I can see and avoid an aircraft. Not so much a bullet. Try harder there Bub, you're fresh out of an arguing position.
 
Clark1961 said:
LOL. I can see and avoid an aircraft. Not so much a bullet. Try harder there Bub, you're fresh out of an arguing position.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can, but the average child or woman with a large dog, not so much. Again, I don't think you saw how close the people were on the right side.

So, your logic is that it's ok to force people to run for their lives, as long as they can see and avoid you.
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
Nothing to be upset about to me. I did see the people on the beach. Didn't think it was an issue
Click to expand...
on the right side of the airplane? Not the left. Did you see the lighthouse?
 
Didn't see the light house. The closest people I noticed were aircraft right just past where the plane lifted off. Their dog appeared to be chasing the plane.
 
Zeldman said:
What were those people doing on an active runway?

The beach became a runway when the pilot decided to land, or do a touch and go.

Who says you can only land and take off from a FAA approved runway? Unless there were local ordnances or regulations in place, nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Salty said:
If I was standing on the beach shooting an AR-15 in the direction the airplane took off and you were the people just a couple hundred feet off to the right, would you feel it was ok?
Click to expand...
How do you get hit by a plane or a bullet that's a couple hundred feet away?
 
Salty said:
on the right side of the airplane? Not the left. Did you see the lighthouse?
Click to expand...
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.

upload_2017-9-14_16-25-14.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top