This can't be legal...

Sac Arrow

Sac Arrow

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
20,775
Location
Charlotte, NC
Display Name
Display name:
Snorting his way across the USA
So I was Arrowing down to Half Moon Bay (KHAF) over the San Pablo Bay when I see some V tailed Bonanza below me, very low flying South. He proceeds to fly between the two suspension towers of the Bay Bridge, clearing the lowest point of the cable by a few feet! (I honestly thought he was going to try to fly under it at first.)

Then, he turns West and flies right over the North Beach area of SF at about 100-200 feet over the tops of the buildings. And I mean the low buildings - he's much lower than the high rises in the downtown area and probably within 2000 lateral feet of them. Then he heads out to sea and takes off to the North.

Don't know if he was talking to Norcal or not, it was all under the 3000 foot shelf of SFO's bravo. Probably not.
 
Sac Arrow said:
So I was Arrowing down to Half Moon Bay (KHAF) over the San Pablo Bay when I see some V tailed Bonanza below me, very low flying South. He proceeds to fly between the two suspension towers of the Bay Bridge, clearing the lowest point of the cable by a few feet! (I honestly thought he was going to try to fly under it at first.)

Then, he turns West and flies right over the North Beach area of SF at about 100-200 feet over the tops of the buildings. And I mean the low buildings - he's much lower than the high rises in the downtown area and probably within 2000 lateral feet of them. Then he heads out to sea and takes off to the North.

Don't know if he was talking to Norcal or not, it was all under the 3000 foot shelf of SFO's bravo. Probably not.
Click to expand...

Has anyone seen Henning????? :lol:
 
Sac Arrow said:
So I was Arrowing down to Half Moon Bay (KHAF) over the San Pablo Bay when I see some V tailed Bonanza below me, very low flying South. He proceeds to fly between the two suspension towers of the Bay Bridge, clearing the lowest point of the cable by a few feet! (I honestly thought he was going to try to fly under it at first.)

Then, he turns West and flies right over the North Beach area of SF at about 100-200 feet over the tops of the buildings. And I mean the low buildings - he's much lower than the high rises in the downtown area and probably within 2000 lateral feet of them. Then he heads out to sea and takes off to the North.

Don't know if he was talking to Norcal or not, it was all under the 3000 foot shelf of SFO's bravo. Probably not.
Click to expand...


I've flown under the span, over the span between between the towers whose tops were in the clouds, multiple times often on flight following. Never heard a word of grief.:dunno: I know I'm not the Lone Ranger on that either.
 
I've been under all those bridges in a helicopter, SOP round there. Going under is way safer then splitting between the towers, but otherwise meh.
 
ClimbnSink said:
I've been under all those bridges in a helicopter, SOP round there. Going under is way safer then splitting between the towers, but otherwise meh.
Click to expand...

Plenty of room either way, I think they don't say anything when you head out to Half Moon Bay that way because it's way easier and safer IMO than to go IFR, not to mention a hell of a lot faster. I went from Hayward once and they took me all over God's creation, it was over an hour. That was the last time I did that.
 
All right. Forget I brought it up. Lets get back to drinking and gratuitous sex.

(I'm about to start the first, doubt Ill be able to swing the second on such short notice.)
 
Sac Arrow said:
All right. Forget I brought it up. Lets get back to drinking and gratuitous sex.

(I'm about to start the first, doubt Ill be able to swing the second on such short notice.)
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the old joke about the guy sitting at the bar and the bartender notices he's occasionally filling the sipstic with drink and dripping it over his hand.
After a while he asks the fellow why he was doing that. The fellow replies:" I'm getting my date for tonight drunk..."


Luck on your Quest

Chris
 
When you are looking down on aircraft, they look a lot lower than they really are.
 
Hiperbiper said:
That reminds me of the old joke about the guy sitting at the bar and the bartender notices he's occasionally filling the sipstic with drink and dripping it over his hand.
After a while he asks the fellow why he was doing that. The fellow replies:" I'm getting my date for tonight drunk..."


Luck on your Quest

Chris
Click to expand...

I was thinking it, you said it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

hahahahahahaha

:D
 
Hiperbiper said:
That reminds me of the old joke about the guy sitting at the bar and the bartender notices he's occasionally filling the sipstic with drink and dripping it over his hand.
After a while he asks the fellow why he was doing that. The fellow replies:" I'm getting my date for tonight drunk..."


Chris
Click to expand...


Was that guy in the bar Henning? :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
ClimbnSink said:
I've been under all those bridges in a helicopter, SOP round there. Going under is way safer then splitting between the towers, but otherwise meh.
Click to expand...
Helicopters have different rules than airplanes, and the OP is correct -- doing that stuff in a Bonanza is not legal, as it violates of 91.119 in several respects, as well as (I have no doubt the FAA would charge if they caught the pilot) 91.13.

I'll leave the prorpriety of that stunt and the chances of getting caught to others, but point out that more than one pilot has been busted for things posted on YouTube which the FAA would never have known about had they not been posted.
 
The thing I don't understand is why the FAA wouldn't know in that airspace.

It's under the lowest KSFO shelf, so a transponder is required. And surveillance radar from KOAK has line of sight. When you sit on KOAK rwy 27R, you're looking directly at San Francisco. The Transamerica Pyramid makes a decent VFR target to keep out of the way of 27L right after takeoff.

I don't see how anyone can call downtown San Francisco anything but a "congested area," so the regs say to be at least 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally.

We all feel the urge to buzz Coit Tower, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
 
Ron Levy said:
Helicopters have different rules than airplanes, and the OP is correct -- doing that stuff in a Bonanza is not legal, as it violates of 91.119 in several respects, as well as (I have no doubt the FAA would charge if they caught the pilot) 91.13.

I'll leave the prorpriety of that stunt and the chances of getting caught to others, but point out that more than one pilot has been busted for things posted on YouTube which the FAA would never have known about had they not been posted.
Click to expand...

Everything is illegal. Stop being ******* or you will all be grounded.:wink2:
 
MAKG1 said:
I don't see how anyone can call downtown San Francisco anything but a "congested area," so the regs say to be at least 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally.
Click to expand...
well if you want to split hairs, is the bridge over the city or is it over the ocean? Can you fly between the spans and stay 500ft away from any point on the bridge?
 
BillTIZ said:
When you are looking down on aircraft, they look a lot lower than they really are.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. I was judging heights relative to other objects on the ground. The viewing angle when the Bonanza was over the Bay Bridge and the City was pretty shallow.

Ron Levy said:
Helicopters have different rules than airplanes, and the OP is correct -- doing that stuff in a Bonanza is not legal, as it violates of 91.119 in several respects, as well as (I have no doubt the FAA would charge if they caught the pilot) 91.13.

I'll leave the prorpriety of that stunt and the chances of getting caught to others, but point out that more than one pilot has been busted for things posted on YouTube which the FAA would never have known about had they not been posted.
Click to expand...

MAKG1 said:
The thing I don't understand is why the FAA wouldn't know in that airspace.

It's under the lowest KSFO shelf, so a transponder is required. And surveillance radar from KOAK has line of sight. When you sit on KOAK rwy 27R, you're looking directly at San Francisco. The Transamerica Pyramid makes a decent VFR target to keep out of the way of 27L right after takeoff.

I don't see how anyone can call downtown San Francisco anything but a "congested area," so the regs say to be at least 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally.

We all feel the urge to buzz Coit Tower, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
Click to expand...

See, that's just the thing. It's not one of those "this guy is dangerous and I need to turn him in" kind of thing, more of a "this is a stupid area to do this in and by the way it doesn't help the image of GA either."
 
Sac Arrow said:
Yes, I know that. I was judging heights relative to other objects on the ground. The viewing angle when the Bonanza was over the Bay Bridge and the City was pretty shallow.





See, that's just the thing. It's not one of those "this guy is dangerous and I need to turn him in" kind of thing, more of a "this is a stupid area to do this in and by the way it doesn't help the image of GA either."
Click to expand...

You can't make the image of GA worse in SF:hairraise:
 
bbchien said:
Enjoy her, and the ranch country, Henning :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Bruce, the only her I've been around is a wild mare I got to come up to me this morning, there are some beautiful wild painted horses on the field.:yesnod:
 
JHW said:
well if you want to split hairs, is the bridge over the city or is it over the ocean? Can you fly between the spans and stay 500ft away from any point on the bridge?
Click to expand...
That is rather busy highway over that bridge, and the FAA and NTSB have held that a highway with "moderate traffic" is a "congested area" for the purposes of 91.119, so the 1000 above/2000 horizontal rule would apply.
 
MAKG1 said:
The thing I don't understand is why the FAA wouldn't know in that airspace.

It's under the lowest KSFO shelf, so a transponder is required. And surveillance radar from KOAK has line of sight...
Click to expand...

My understanding is that controllers don't like to fill out paperwork on a pilot unless he or she does something that causes a loss of separation, or something like that.

Also, since he might not have been talking to ATC, they might not have known who it was, and if he headed north off shore at low altitude, they might have lost radar contact on him and been unable to track him to his destination even if they had wanted to.
 
I've driven vessels with 130' of air draft under both the Bay Bridge and GG with a hell of a lot of clearance, if I can't safely fly a plane under them, I should just hang up my flying shoes.
 
Henning said:
I've driven vessels with 130' of air draft under both the Bay Bridge and GG with a hell of a lot of clearance, if I can't safely fly a plane under them, I should just hang up my flying shoes.
Click to expand...
The question wasn't safety, it was legality. And flying a plane under those San Francisco bridges isn't legal.
 
Ron Levy said:
The question wasn't safety, it was legality. And flying a plane under those San Francisco bridges isn't legal.
Click to expand...

So? Why should I worry about legal? Legal and safe aren't synonymous. I've been in trouble before, I'll be in trouble again, the FAA nor any other entity governmental or private dictates how I live my life or fly. I prefer to keep my own ball between my own legs and accept responsibility for my own life.
 
Henning said:
So? Why should I worry about legal? Legal and safe aren't synonymous. I've been in trouble before, I'll be in trouble again, the FAA nor any other entity governmental or private dictates how I live my life or fly.
Click to expand...

Gotta wonder, why did you even bother getting a pilot's license? Just read a book, take a few lessons, buy a plane and go for it. Alaska style. You ought to put the above quote on your website's home page.
 
Dav8or said:
Gotta wonder, why did you even bother getting a pilot's license? Just read a book, take a few lessons, buy a plane and go for it. Alaska style. You ought to put the above quote on your website's home page.
Click to expand...

Because you need one if you want to work flying. Had I known then what I know now about the state of the industry I likely would have just bought a plane and learned to fly as many others have. There are more unlicensed pilots in the US than you can possibly imagine. Not everyone is scared of the government.
 
What. My plastic license doesnt create a force field of safety? But but it must, I had to take a govt test to get it.:goofy:
 
It's fairly handy for opening cheap door locks. I could never do that with my paper certificate.
 
Dav8or said:
Gotta wonder, why did you even bother getting a pilot's license? Just read a book, take a few lessons, buy a plane and go for it. Alaska style. You ought to put the above quote on your website's home page.
Click to expand...
Good idea. It would be interesting to see who would let him fly their airplane if they knew that was his attitude toward the regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top