What makes a pilot do this?

More fuel for this fire:
e3731e2c774fb39985f1eacfc7fe94ee.jpg





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
gsengle said:
I didn't. You kept disagreeing :) or violently agreeing. I'm not sure which...
Click to expand...

She was saying a great many Private pilots used to stumble into people, share expenses, and head somewhere without a care in the world what the other people in the aircraft wanted to see or do in the remote location.

Really nobody gave much thought to it until the Internet made it easier to find Chief Counsel letters, and folks started talking about it.

Nowadays it's a "focus item" for CFIs and DPEs but back in the 90s when I got my Private? Nobody talked about "common purpose" unless they were buying an aircraft to fly for work and dug in with a lawyer and accountant to see what they could legally deduct, etc.

My DPE typed up my first cert on a typewriter. He didn't give a rat's ass who I flew where, as long as he deemed I could get them there safely. And there weren't any websites to look up Chief Counsel letters back then, nor any particular concern on anyone's part that someone getting in my airplane (or my rental) didn't know I wasn't trained to Commercial standards and therefore taking their life at additional risk.

Frankly none of my friends are that stupid, but some people's friends might be, I suppose. They knew it wasn't a scheduled airline flight.

But plenty of them got in the rental airplane after calling up and saying, "Want to go to Cabella's?" and off we'd go to KSNY. I don't think I ever bought a single item other than a bison burger at Cabella's, but I sure hauled a bunch of fishing gear home back then for friends who wanted to go.

Even back then, I rarely bothered to split costs. THAT was a pretty well known requirement and pushed pretty hard in the 90s and I decided my life would be a whole lot simpler if I just paid the airplane bill.

But then again, I don't think I paid for that bison burger. Or the steak dinner later that night. On my friend's back porch. Probably got some free bowling out of it too, at least once. Damn.

Nowadays? Got "compensated". Crap. I'd better file a NASA form. (No not really.)

The general "feel" back then was if someone wanted to go somewhere and you were a pilot and had a plane, then go. You're rated and safe enough to do it. It isn't as safe as boarding an airliner but your friends probably picked up on that from the whole fact that they were sitting in a 1970s vintage spam can with David Clark headclamps on their head.

I never really had to (nor did) "hold out" either. Folks would just call up and ask if we could go to Cabella's. Or wherever.

Nowadays I think I'd explain "common purpose" to them and make sure they understood that we really would have taken the trip anyway. But since we have a solid history of just taking trips in the airplane for no damned real reason at all, I don't think that'd be too hard to prove. I'll fly anywhere.

Nowadays I'd just give them a damned flight lesson. They might as well log it and do something over there in the other seat. Slacker. Make 'em work for it. (Well after the SE add on is done, anyway...)

"You're doing the takeoff and then flying us to Cabella's. Here's a first logbook. See this thing over here? It's called a Hobbs meter. It'll be counting up how much you should be paying for be airplane and me. Ha. Now, let's talk about how to start this thing and how we steer on the ground. And there's your first training endorsement. How about that? Call me if you want to do more. Here's a copy of the syllabus outline I use."

"Oh by the way, let me take a photo of your driver's license, sorry, it's a terrorist thing. It'll be in my filing cabinet and then my safety deposit box for five years, thanks to TSA. No, I'm not going to use it to steal your identity."

LOL. You just went places in airplanes back then. Nobody ever said the words "common purpose". But there also wasn't the Internet for people who didn't know you to figure out you were a pilot with an airplane either.

There were, however, bulletin boards hanging on walls. At the aviation college. "Anybody want to go to Vegas?" wasn't exactly an uncommon site on same.

Hell, the newsletters from that aviation fraternity could have been considered "holding out" by today's standards. Big time. I wasn't a member but they'd happily put you on their mailing list for "fly outs". Cram twenty college kids into five airplanes and go somewhere with a bunch of aviation major strangers. Wasn't uncommon at all.
 
denverpilot said:
She was saying a great many Private pilots used to stumble into people, share expenses, and head somewhere without a care in the world what the other people in the aircraft wanted to see or do in the remote location.

Really nobody gave much thought to it until the Internet made it easier to find Chief Counsel letters, and folks started talking about it.

Nowadays it's a "focus item" for CFIs and DPEs but back in the 90s when I got my Private? Nobody talked about "common purpose" unless they were buying an aircraft to fly for work and dug in with a lawyer and accountant to see what they could legally deduct, etc.
Click to expand...
This. The first time I heard about cost-sharing without a common purpose being verboten was when I started reading internet boards. That would have been in the early or mid 2000s. I got my PPL in 1977 and my CFI in the early 1980s. No one ever mentioned it. Nate is correct in that there were bulletin boards for ride sharing at every FBO. My first reaction upon finding out the interpretation was YGBSM...

All it's done is cause some people not to talk about doing it in a public forum, or passengers reciprocate in a different way. They're never going to be able to stop that.
 
Zackly. . .unenforceable ink stains; and likely of little interest to the FAA, unless you start a mini "black" charter operation.
 
zaitcev said:
So you were wrong, then. And your estimation of his altitude is several times off as well.
Click to expand...

Nope. Look at the shadow...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Being a student in training, I can't help my impulse of trying to figure out his ground roll for the Cherokee.

In this case, meaning his ground roll after the plane smashes into the creek and he flies out of it.

Let's see nowwwwww... speed -unknown, temp- unknown, pressure - unknown ...... hmmm, well, let's just call it a sh-it ton.

Unless it's over a 50lb obstacle. In which case it will me much shorter.
 
If you think this guy's flying doesn't affect YOU in any way, you are very wrong. When he inevitably crashes, the cost of the plane and the proceeds of the lawsuit(s) will be tacked on to the numbers that calculate YOUR insurance rates and mine. That's why I hate seeing this crap happen. As far as the insurance company is concerned, I'm no better of a pilot than he is.

Every single person reading this thread should read this article - it is excellent and on point, and I really like that Rick is willing to tackle the issues that the FAA "just says no" to: https://www.avweb.com/news/features/Buzz-Jobs-A-Frank-Discussion-225833-1.html

As to the video in the OP: There are parts of the video where he looks closer to the ground than he is, and you can tell by the shadow. There was another part of the video later on where you can tell he IS very close to the ground, close enough that the slightest misstep would have caused him to catch a wingtip and crash. Really stupid. When you get out of ground effect, we can have a conversation about whether or not he scouted the route and such, but at 5' AGL, it's dumb regardless of preparation - There's just no margin for *anything* to go wrong.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If you think this guy's flying doesn't affect YOU in any way, you are very wrong. When he inevitably crashes, the cost of the plane and the proceeds of the lawsuit(s) will be tacked on to the numbers that calculate YOUR insurance rates and mine. That's why I hate seeing this crap happen. As far as the insurance company is concerned, I'm no better of a pilot than he is.
Click to expand...

Pffft on the insurance thing. I'm paying 1/3 the cost of liability only auto insurance on the airplane. The pool is vastly safer and cheaper than driving now, with the need to carry uninsured motorist coverage here... of which it's a significant problem in a "Sanctuary City" than in Wisconsin, I know... but still... airplane insurance is hella-cheap.

The rest, I agree with. Durden did a good article.

But y'all can go do stupid crap in your airplanes all you like, and the insurance on the 182 isn't going to go up compared to the operating costs in any significant way, even if you hit a school bus full of kids and nuns. The numbers just aren't there.

What's your insurance running on the Mooney? The 182 went down to the cheapest we've ever seen it this year... under $800 annually. It's literally peanuts. That's two full tank fuel loads at KAPA 100LL prices.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If you think this guy's flying doesn't affect YOU in any way, you are very wrong. When he inevitably crashes, the cost of the plane and the proceeds of the lawsuit(s) will be tacked on to the numbers that calculate YOUR insurance rates and mine. That's why I hate seeing this crap happen. As far as the insurance company is concerned, I'm no better of a pilot than he is.

Every single person reading this thread should read this article - it is excellent and on point, and I really like that Rick is willing to tackle the issues that the FAA "just says no" to: https://www.avweb.com/news/features/Buzz-Jobs-A-Frank-Discussion-225833-1.html

As to the video in the OP: There are parts of the video where he looks closer to the ground than he is, and you can tell by the shadow. There was another part of the video later on where you can tell he IS very close to the ground, close enough that the slightest misstep would have caused him to catch a wingtip and crash. Really stupid. When you get out of ground effect, we can have a conversation about whether or not he scouted the route and such, but at 5' AGL, it's dumb regardless of preparation - There's just no margin for *anything* to go wrong.
Click to expand...
Price of freedom, or at least some reasonable amount of freedom . . .if you hate this crap, then don't do it; you will have done your part to reduce the global effect a bit, and still leave room for others to judge things differently. He wasn't speeding like a jerk on a shared road, or firing rounds into the night sky, or smoking in an elevator. He was flying low, for fun I imagine, apparently with low-no risk to anyone outside his airplane (other than his family and friends, of course).

Gets my knickers in a knot - I know people who rock climb, hang glide, off-road, sky dive, race cars, and vote for liberals . . .I don't do any of that, and although the folks that do affect me to some degree, I think they should go ahead and follow their passions.
 
First, the inventor of the flying squirrel suit died using the offspring of his creativity. Says more than enough for me.

Second, I hope to never ben the subject of an interesting aviation video. Most are really boring. In an interesting aviation video I'm either doing something I shouldn't at my skill level, or have suffered to consequences of so doing. I've had enough consequences for one lifetime as it is.
 
denverpilot said:
What's your insurance running on the Mooney? The 182 went down to the cheapest we've ever seen it this year... under $800 annually. It's literally peanuts. That's two full tank fuel loads at KAPA 100LL prices.
Click to expand...

$2200 and change. Probably due to higher hull value, faster, and retract. But it'd still be lower if the loss rate was lower.
 
steingar said:
Second, I hope to never ben the subject of an interesting aviation video. Most are really boring. In an interesting aviation video I'm either doing something I shouldn't at my skill level, or have suffered to consequences of so doing. I've had enough consequences for one lifetime as it is.
Click to expand...

How's the phrase go? I'm sure glad I grew up in the era before camera phones? Got to do all my stupid stuff without having to rehash It forever on YouTube? LOL...
 
denverpilot said:
What's your insurance running on the Mooney?
Click to expand...
$1¸880 for the first year on a $50k hull, ancient M20E. Can't say it's very cheap, but everyone promises it goes down with time in type. Liability component is small.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
$2200 and change. Probably due to higher hull value, faster, and retract. But it'd still be lower if the loss rate was lower.
Click to expand...

zaitcev said:
$1¸880 for the first year on a $50k hull, ancient M20E. Can't say it's very cheap, but everyone promises it goes down with time in type. Liability component is small.
Click to expand...

Mooney parts must be expensive when they get dinged up. You guys are literally paying more than twice what we're paying. Ouch. Actuaries are mean to y'all.

(My iPad once again made a funny with autocorrect. It changed Mooney to Money... LOL!)
 
Rebel Lord said:
Do you think this person woke up and thought "Hey, know what. I'm going to fly 2' AGL where there is 0 margin for error for fun." I'm young and a new pilot, and thus inexperienced so help me understand. from a legal stand point things like this might be ok but from a safety standpoint where do most people draw the line from calculated risk to down right risky?

Maybe some poeople would be ok with this but from my stand point this is way beyond what I feel is safe.

No, it's not legal because it is conducted at an altitude below 500' above the surface. There is an exception for sparsely populated areas, but you must still maintain 500' from and person, structure, vehicle, etc. In this incidence, you have no way of knowing if you will encounter such as person, vehicle, etc. until you are already on to of it. This is clearly careless and reckless operation of an aircraft. One would hope that there was no one but the moron flying on board.
Click to expand...
 
zaitcev said:
$1¸880 for the first year on a $50k hull, ancient M20E. Can't say it's very cheap, but everyone promises it goes down with time in type. Liability component is small.
Click to expand...

I pay about that much for a 180k hull and a million in liability. So no, Mooneys aren't particularly expensive to ensure. Unless you're a new pilot to a complex/high performance plane....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
I pay about that much for a 180k hull and a million in liability. So no, Mooneys aren't particularly expensive to ensure. Unless you're a new pilot to a complex/high performance plane....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You saw what I'm paying, right? My hull is lower than yours, obviously, but we're under $800 a year for one Private pilot with lots of hours, and one newbie CFI. And it's been falling significantly since years before I did the Commercial or MEI stuff. Every year almost, it has been dropping. Highest ever was $1300.

Our liability isn't smooth, and we should probably change that. But it won't pop up anywhere near $2000.

That is why I said I suspected your parts costs are higher for whatever sorts of non-totaling accidents Mooneys have. Which I assume the largest percentage are gear-ups. Just assumption, but it's the only thing that makes economic and numbers sense.

I doubt many payouts are made on high speed low altitude maneuvering anyway... the insurer is just going to wait for FAA/NTSB to say the pilot was violating the altitude rules, and then deny the claim anyway. Probably settle out of court for funeral costs for pilot and passengers, plus a little more as show of good faith, and so the lawyer can get on to other things.

I doubt crashes doing something like this make much of a dent in the insurance money pool. Doing anything where FAA tosses in "careless and reckless" posthumously is a golden ticket to the negotiation table for the insurer.
 
Perfectly safe....I was the one video taping :popcorn::cheers:
 
My insurance went up from 600 on my Cherokee to 1600 on the Mooney. I fully expect it to go up more still. Might come down if I get the IR, which I would very much like to do.
 
denverpilot said:
You saw what I'm paying, right? My hull is lower than yours, obviously, but we're under $800 a year for one Private pilot with lots of hours, and one newbie CFI. And it's been falling significantly since years before I did the Commercial or MEI stuff. Every year almost, it has been dropping. Highest ever was $1300.

Our liability isn't smooth, and we should probably change that. But it won't pop up anywhere near $2000.

That is why I said I suspected your parts costs are higher for whatever sorts of non-totaling accidents Mooneys have. Which I assume the largest percentage are gear-ups. Just assumption, but it's the only thing that makes economic and numbers sense.

I doubt many payouts are made on high speed low altitude maneuvering anyway... the insurer is just going to wait for FAA/NTSB to say the pilot was violating the altitude rules, and then deny the claim anyway. Probably settle out of court for funeral costs for pilot and passengers, plus a little more as show of good faith, and so the lawyer can get on to other things.

I doubt crashes doing something like this make much of a dent in the insurance money pool. Doing anything where FAA tosses in "careless and reckless" posthumously is a golden ticket to the negotiation table for the insurer.
Click to expand...

But you're in a 182. What's cheaper to ensure than a 182! Fixed gear, docile, not too fast, good load. What do you pay per 1000, or what's your hull? Also you have advanced ratings...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
But you're in a 182. What's cheaper to ensure than a 182! Fixed gear, docile, not too fast, good load. What do you pay per 1000, or what's your hull? Also you have advanced ratings...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well that was my point. My hull is less than half of yours, so it shows mathematically the real risk to the insurer is easily covered by the premiums.

Kent's assertion that rates will rise significantly if all the hoardes of dangerous pilots go out and crash, doesn't hold mathematical water. The insurer is just slowly having you self-insure inside their risk pool over a fixed period of time. It'd take a LOT of nimrods crashing at low level to move the needle much on the pool's need to cover cash risk.

If we run the numbers on ours, we've probably paid in roughly 1/5 of the hull value since the aircraft was purchased a decade ago. To get to a loss rate of 1 in 5 totaled aircraft or out court settlements, would take an awful lot of crashes. And even then, the risk pool would still be break-even.

I know that's an overly simplistic look at it, but it'd take tons of people doing what the video shows AND crashing doing it, to move the pool's risk of running short to pay claims needle very much.

It's pretty obvious looking at those numbers the insurers consider the hull payouts a much larger risk than the liability risk, too. Their actuaries definitely trust their lawyers.
 
Wow...times have changed. When I was a young pilot, if online forums, indeed online, period, had existed, the comments would have been "Hell, I fly lower than that on my way to church. What a pansy." and similar. I can't decide if I'm happy or sad that today's pilots are smarter and safer...although I have to say, we were probably better stick and rudder pilots- those of us that survived, anyway. :eek:
I soloed at 9 in our family Champ, over our ranch. I used to lower the Champ over the river until the wheels touched, and "ski". It was actually quite common, I didn't know anyone who hadn't done that. I snap rolled, barrel rolled, and aileron rolled the Champ, as well as loops and cloverleafs and cubans. I did the same thing in C150's and C172's. I have barrel rolled C310's, Lears, Citations...I'll barrel roll just about anything, it's a 1 G maneuver.
I once won $250 from a guy by flying a C414 from San Antonio to Houston without ever getting over 100' AGL on the radar altimeter. I flew a C210 with a queen mattress strapped to it up to a buddy's hunting cabin.
There's a lot more, over 40 years of flying. We were a crazy bunch, and that was a big part of what drew us into aviation. We were expected to land on the Interstate for a donut, or fly under bridges, because they were there. (Not expected to by the FAA of course- although they were pretty lenient with pilot hijinks back then.)
You also have to be careful when you judge. I have spent a lot of time at 500 knots, nap of the earth flying, in the F-15C...flying like this in a Cherokee feels like a sad joke. It's similar to when I fly formation with CAF pilots who were not military pilots. They get incredibly nervous and keep asking me if I don't think I'm too close...their idea of formation is two planes in the same sky going the same direction on the same day. Mine is more like 3' or so. I am very comfortable and safe there, I have spent many, many hours flying in that position- but he has no experience or training other than a short course the CAF offers, and his safety margin and mine are worlds apart.
While I appreciate the safety and knowledge and maturity that today's pilots bring to the table, I do miss the "cowboy" days. They were stupid...but they were mine.

The airport was my favorite place to go for a beer. :)
 
John Wayne Jones said:
Wow...times have changed. When I was a young pilot, if online forums, indeed online, period, had existed, the comments would have been "Hell, I fly lower than that on my way to church. What a pansy." and similar. I can't decide if I'm happy or sad that today's pilots are smarter and safer...although I have to say, we were probably better stick and rudder pilots- those of us that survived, anyway. :eek:
I soloed at 9 in our family Champ, over our ranch. I used to lower the Champ over the river until the wheels touched, and "ski". It was actually quite common, I didn't know anyone who hadn't done that. I snap rolled, barrel rolled, and aileron rolled the Champ, as well as loops and cloverleafs and cubans. I did the same thing in C150's and C172's. I have barrel rolled C310's, Lears, Citations...I'll barrel roll just about anything, it's a 1 G maneuver.
I once won $250 from a guy by flying a C414 from San Antonio to Houston without ever getting over 100' AGL on the radar altimeter. I flew a C210 with a queen mattress strapped to it up to a buddy's hunting cabin.
There's a lot more, over 40 years of flying. We were a crazy bunch, and that was a big part of what drew us into aviation. We were expected to land on the Interstate for a donut, or fly under bridges, because they were there. (Not expected to by the FAA of course- although they were pretty lenient with pilot hijinks back then.)
You also have to be careful when you judge. I have spent a lot of time at 500 knots, nap of the earth flying, in the F-15C...flying like this in a Cherokee feels like a sad joke. It's similar to when I fly formation with CAF pilots who were not military pilots. They get incredibly nervous and keep asking me if I don't think I'm too close...their idea of formation is two planes in the same sky going the same direction on the same day. Mine is more like 3' or so. I am very comfortable and safe there, I have spent many, many hours flying in that position- but he has no experience or training other than a short course the CAF offers, and his safety margin and mine are worlds apart.
While I appreciate the safety and knowledge and maturity that today's pilots bring to the table, I do miss the "cowboy" days. They were stupid...but they were mine.

The airport was my favorite place to go for a beer. :)
Click to expand...

Those are the stories that put a smile on my face! You pushed your limits but are now safer for it! I'm just a young buck, but I hope to be HALF as confident in my flying abilities as your are!

Locally there are some super high hour pilots that look in the poh, see "not recommended for spins", and do it anyway. One ended up in an inverted flat spin. Pulled out eventually after a ton of sweating and I'm sure is a better pilot for it!

One thing I've loved about aviation rules is, if the only person you'll kill is you, do what you want. Otherwise, fly nice! Example is landing light, not needed if you're the only person in the plane, take a passenger, it BETTER be functioning!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
John Wayne Jones said:
Wow...times have changed. When I was a young pilot, if online forums, indeed online, period, had existed, the comments would have been "Hell, I fly lower than that on my way to church. What a pansy." and similar. I can't decide if I'm happy or sad that today's pilots are smarter and safer...although I have to say, we were probably better stick and rudder pilots- those of us that survived, anyway. :eek:
I soloed at 9 in our family Champ, over our ranch. I used to lower the Champ over the river until the wheels touched, and "ski". It was actually quite common, I didn't know anyone who hadn't done that. I snap rolled, barrel rolled, and aileron rolled the Champ, as well as loops and cloverleafs and cubans. I did the same thing in C150's and C172's. I have barrel rolled C310's, Lears, Citations...I'll barrel roll just about anything, it's a 1 G maneuver.
I once won $250 from a guy by flying a C414 from San Antonio to Houston without ever getting over 100' AGL on the radar altimeter. I flew a C210 with a queen mattress strapped to it up to a buddy's hunting cabin.
There's a lot more, over 40 years of flying. We were a crazy bunch, and that was a big part of what drew us into aviation. We were expected to land on the Interstate for a donut, or fly under bridges, because they were there. (Not expected to by the FAA of course- although they were pretty lenient with pilot hijinks back then.)
You also have to be careful when you judge. I have spent a lot of time at 500 knots, nap of the earth flying, in the F-15C...flying like this in a Cherokee feels like a sad joke. It's similar to when I fly formation with CAF pilots who were not military pilots. They get incredibly nervous and keep asking me if I don't think I'm too close...their idea of formation is two planes in the same sky going the same direction on the same day. Mine is more like 3' or so. I am very comfortable and safe there, I have spent many, many hours flying in that position- but he has no experience or training other than a short course the CAF offers, and his safety margin and mine are worlds apart.
While I appreciate the safety and knowledge and maturity that today's pilots bring to the table, I do miss the "cowboy" days. They were stupid...but they were mine.

The airport was my favorite place to go for a beer. :)
Click to expand...
Bless you . . .I'm pretty sure today's pilots aren't smarter. They might be safer, but that never was the point, was it? The ranks have filled in quite a bit with technoids and Clydes, and others for whom the thrill of flying is a fearsome thing, to be avoided.
 
Dana said:
If the engine quit he had plenty of speed for a zoom climb
Click to expand...
Just enough speed to zoom-climb into an accelerated stall and fall back down into the river. You must be smoking crack -- he can't zoom-climb because he's not in an RV :D

I saw his comment on YT about this being the least dangerous of his hobbies. His other videos look like paragliding, which my coworkers were into for a time, and to me this all paints the picture of a person who is addicted to an adrenaline rush and for whom sane flying is too boring. Looks like a great way to get yourself killed.
 
John Wayne Jones said:
While I appreciate the safety and knowledge and maturity that today's pilots bring to the table, I do miss the "cowboy" days. They were stupid...but they were mine. The airport was my favorite place to go for a beer. :)
Click to expand...

First, thank you so much for your service to our great nation. Second, one has to wonder how many died engaging in such antics. In my youth I knew lots of spirited motorcycle riders. Motorcycles are actually much safer than aircraft, what kills the statistics is alcohol. These guys were sober, but spirited. Bunch of them died, bunch more got hurt. I'm the last one still on a bike from that era.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top