|
Post by briangladden on Apr 13, 2009 20:45:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Apr 13, 2009 20:56:18 GMT -5
Woah, pardner!
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Apr 13, 2009 22:16:12 GMT -5
Of course that violates a few FARs ...concerning the need to fly high enough to be able to glide to a safe landing site being one of them ;D ;D And the FAA has recently begun enforcement action against another YouTube pilot (that one was seen flying around with a "nude or partially nude" porn actress in the front seat...for something like allowing a passenger to interfere with safe operation of cockpit controls ;D ;D ;D) But that all aside....what a cool video
|
|
|
Post by capflyer on Apr 14, 2009 7:02:59 GMT -5
Sorry, but I have to disagree that they violated any FARs. As long as the flight was being conducted under FAR 91, then they complied with all of the pertinent regulations. The biggest problem with your argument is that you are incorrectly defining "Safe Landing Site". Per the FAR and several FAA circulars and opinions issued, a "Safe Landing Site" is simply a location where you have a reasonable chance of surviving the forced landing. In addition, you are not taking into account that 195 knots is sufficient airspeed that should they have a complete failure of all 4 powerplants, they can still climb to well over 1000 feet AGL before even thinking about starting to glide or look for a landing spot.
Was the altitude smart or advisable? No. Was it legal? Without any information to the contrary regarding the type of operation being conducted on the flight videoed - yes.
You're comparing apples and oranges with the other pilot. Flying low and having someone in the front seat who is not being a "good passenger" are two different things with different risks and ramifications. They must be kept separate and the FAA does a pretty good job of it.
|
|
|
Post by briangladden on Apr 14, 2009 9:37:47 GMT -5
Also ad in the fact that if you read the FAR's, in many instances they state "... is prohibited. Except in Alaska..."
You can get away with things in Alaska as normal operations that would get you busted in the lower 48...
Brian
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Apr 14, 2009 22:04:39 GMT -5
Sec. 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. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator. They have recently deemed 4 cars or 4 houses as "congested area" and fined a pilot for flying too low. The crew in the DC-6 on second look may not have violated a rule...I thought I saw a vehicle at 1:25 or so in the video. But at the same time they had no way to determine if there was anyone or anything in the area infront of them early enough to not violate section C if someone or something was there. The starlet actually did nothing more than not have a top on. She did not touch anything of prevent the pilot from doing anything. But I am not going to argue this any more. It's a cool video...and given a chance I would be in the right seat myself. Run it by the ever more aggressive FAA and they would have without a doubt a completely different opinion.
|
|