Full scale biplane takes out giant scale R/C at event

[Steve Foley]

IMO, then you're reading it wrong.

It seems to me that a both a low pass and missed approach violate the letter of the law. The missed approach does not violate the spirit of the law, so nobody is violated for it.

 

[PittsDriver]

But if a low pass is a violation of FAR 91.119 because it doesn't come under the exception for takeoff or landing then a go-around or a missed approach where there was no intention to land must be a violation for the same reason.

If you're asserting that as something you believe to be true, perhaps reading through this NTSB case would be enlightening?

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/5263.PDF

This is an especially good read for those that ever thought that if I get any hassle from The Man, I'll just say I was on a go-around because something didn't look right.

 

[PittsDriver]

I don't understand. When asked what rule prohibits a maneuver not required for take-off or landing you responded with FAR 91.119, where the only exception is for takeoff or landing. Purposely missing an ILS approach would put the aircraft about 200' above the ground with no intention to land. Is that not a maneuver not required for take-off or landing?

I responded with both because apparently the NTSB and FAA think they both apply. See the case I posted. The way I read this case is that if you fly low over a runway at an altitude and speed from which a landing is not possible, The Man could drop his bricks on you. Those of us that know people that have been violated for this don't do it. If you want to be an air show pilot then go get the low altitude waiver and fly in waivered airspace. Otherwise, you're risking your ticket.

I wish the situation were different because there's nothing particularly dangerous or requiring any skill to perform and hey, pilots wouldn't do them if it wasn't fun. And I'm all about the fun in anti-gravity machines. I just write it off to the old adage that "FAA - we're not having fun until you're not having fun."

 

[roncachamp]

If you're asserting that as something you believe to be true, perhaps reading through this NTSB case would be enlightening?

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/5263.PDF

This is an especially good read for those that ever thought that if I get any hassle from The Man, I'll just say I was on a go-around because something didn't look right.

Are you sure you cited the right case? There's a whole lot more there than a low pass.

 

[roncachamp]

I responded with both because apparently the NTSB and FAA think they both apply. See the case I posted. The way I read this case is that if you fly low over a runway at an altitude and speed from which a landing is not possible, The Man could drop his bricks on you. Those of us that know people that have been violated for this don't do it. If you want to be an air show pilot then go get the low altitude waiver and fly in waivered airspace. Otherwise, you're risking your ticket.

Well, purposely missing an ILS approach could put you low over a runway at an altitude and speed from which a landing is not possible. I'll make a note to do that no more.

 

[ebetancourt]

Just to add fuel...

I know instructors (and I am one) that teach pre-solo students to fly the traffic pattern and make a low approach/low pass over the runway to teach directional control without adding the stress of trying to touch down. No smoke and flown at approach speed, but several of the opinions here would make that illegal.

And BTW many tail draggers can touch down at any speed up to Vne (wheel landing of course). In my early landings in my Waco I found it easier to touchdown at 100-110 which happens to be cruise IAS (or close) instead of the 70 or so I am using now. Unless there is a prop clearance problem wheel landings can be made at just about any speed if the runway is long enough. So what speed is intent to land speed?

Ernie

 

[bdlarkin]

Video is gone now

 

[PittsDriver]

Well, purposely missing an ILS approach could put you low over a runway at an altitude and speed from which a landing is not possible. I'll make a note to do that no more.

It's relatively easy to distinguish between a high speed low pass and the other maneuvers you mention and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that a FSDO guy on the ramp would be able to do so. Me personally, when I go missed on a practice approach I'm usually doing what one does on a missed - climbing and navigating and not buzzing the runway.

You keep arguing with me like you want me to defend the FAA/NTSB's position on the matter and I'll say it again - I think they're wrong and wish it was different. And actually, there wasn't anything that Melissa did that wasn't a just a plain ol' vanilla low pass with the smoke on. Oh yeah, she rocked her wings too. If what she did sounds a lot like maybe what goes on at every fly-in you've ever been to then you'll be in lots of company. You can read the case and go ahead and make whatever you want out of it. It was not my intention to post any opinion different than anything in that case or others you can go find. Read it yourself and see if you can reconcile it with what you think is or should be right - realizing that those may be two different things.

 

[roncachamp]

It's relatively easy to distinguish between a high speed low pass and the other maneuvers you mention and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that a FSDO guy on the ramp would be able to do so. Me personally, when I go missed on a practice approach I'm usually doing what one does on a missed - climbing and navigating and not buzzing the runway.

Why would it matter if one was climbing or level or what speed? In each case the pilot is less than 500' above the surface while not taking off or landing.

You keep arguing with me like you want me to defend the FAA/NTSB's position on the matter and I'll say it again - I think they're wrong and wish it was different.

I'm not arguing with you at all.

And actually, there wasn't anything that Melissa did that wasn't a just a plain ol' vanilla low pass with the smoke on. Oh yeah, she rocked her wings too.

The report indicates she did a bit more than that:

4. For example, these maneuvers included … pitching upward and downward … rolling the left wing and rolling the right wing … turning rapidly and/or in an abnormal attitude … accelerating and diving toward the runway surface … [and] flying at approximately 50 feet above the runway surface although not taking off or landing.

5. During the flight described above, you operated the aircraft in aerobatic flight … below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface … when it was not necessary for normal flight … [and] while the wing tanks were not empty, which was not in compliance with the aircraft operating limitations.

6. Further, you performed right-hand turns contrary to the requirements of FAR section 91.126 in that all your turns in the traffic pattern were not made to the left.

7. Further, you operated on Runway 26 in a direction opposite to the traffic flow at the airport.

And the incident a year earlier of "passes and aerobatic stunts over a golf course, neighborhood and church where a wedding was being held, at an altitude of 200 feet or less above the ground" certainly didn't help.

 

[PittsDriver]

The report indicates she did a bit more than that:

4. For example, these maneuvers included … pitching upward and downward … rolling the left wing and rolling the right wing … turning rapidly and/or in an abnormal attitude … accelerating and diving toward the runway surface … [and] flying at approximately 50 feet above the runway surface although not taking off or landing.

All of these are matters of perception and someone flying a very maneuverable aerobatic aircraft might look to the casual observer like they were hot dogging when in fact it was a normal climb out or turn but otherwise nothing you wouldn't do when flying a normal pattern - except for the accelerating as you "dive" toward the runway.

5. During the flight described above, you operated the aircraft in aerobatic flight … below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface … when it was not necessary for normal flight … [and] while the wing tanks were not empty, which was not in compliance with the aircraft operating limitations.

None of this matters unless the presumption is that she was in aerobatic flight. A presumption that stands on the (I think) faulty interpretation we've been discussing.

6. Further, you performed right-hand turns contrary to the requirements of FAR section 91.126 in that all your turns in the traffic pattern were not made to the left.

I would assert that if this is was just piling on and not relevant to the issue we're discussing or that the NTSB was reviewing. It never would have been there if just for this.

7. Further, you operated on Runway 26 in a direction opposite to the traffic flow at the airport.

So what? It's an uncontrolled field with no one else in the pattern as far as we know. I can operate downwind off the runway all I want and no FAR would say otherwise. I suspect this was an attempt to pile on more evidence to the reckless charge when no such recklessness was happening. Again, none of that would have been an issue without the primary charge of the low pass and all the FARs they claim that violated.

And the incident a year earlier of "passes and aerobatic stunts over a golf course, neighborhood and church where a wedding was being held, at an altitude of 200 feet or less above the ground" certainly didn't help.

I have to agree with you there. They were not impressed with her obvious legal maneuvering and her recidivism.

 

[Everskyward]

I watched an airplane do at least two low passes down a runway on national TV this morning. Do you think someone will be out to bust the pilot?

On another note it was actually a positive piece on GA and the light sport industry from CBS Sunday Morning.

http://www.iconaircraft.com/video-icon-on-cbs-sunday-morning.html

 

[roncachamp]

6. Further, you performed right-hand turns contrary to the requirements of FAR section 91.126 in that all your turns in the traffic pattern were not made to the left.

I would assert that if this is was just piling on and not relevant to the issue we're discussing or that the NTSB was reviewing. It never would have been there if just for this.

7. Further, you operated on Runway 26 in a direction opposite to the traffic flow at the airport.

So what? It's an uncontrolled field with no one else in the pattern as far as we know. I can operate downwind off the runway all I want and no FAR would say otherwise. I suspect this was an attempt to pile on more evidence to the reckless charge when no such recklessness was happening. Again, none of that would have been an issue without the primary charge of the low pass and all the FARs they claim that violated.

Wind isn't mentioned at all in the narrative. "Opposite to the traffic flow" suggests other aircraft were present.

 

[PittsDriver]

I watched an airplane do at least two low passes down a runway on national TV this morning. Do you think someone will be out to bust the pilot?

Not necessarily nor IMO should they. Here's the punch line as I understand it from cases that the FAA has prosecuted and that the NTSB has ruled upon - If you do a high speed low pass that obviously looks like you're hot dogging*, that you've opened yourself to a violation if someone** should choose to press it.

* hot dogging; highly technical and esoteric bit of jargon meaning any maneuver that some rectal itch standing around thinks you shouldn't be doing.

**someone; said rectal itch who probably wasn't loved by their parents and who probably never knew at least one of them.

Most people wouldn't complain about it and if you're obviously on a go-around, missed approach, or heck, just practicing your runway alignment skills at some reasonable speed it's not going to invoke anyone's jealous ire about your obviously superior flying skills as would a hot dogging episode.

Go read the case for yourself and tell me what might happen if someone from the FSDO showed up at Gaston's and decided to be, well, a someone.

 

[Everskyward]

Not necessarily nor IMO should they. Here's the punch line as I understand it from cases that the FAA has prosecuted and that the NTSB has ruled upon - If you do a high speed low pass that obviously looks like you're hot dogging*, that you've opened yourself to a violation if someone** should choose to press it.

* hot dogging; highly technical and esoteric bit of jargon meaning any maneuver that some rectal itch standing around thinks you shouldn't be doing.

**someone; said rectal itch who probably wasn't loved by their parents and who probably never knew at least one of them.

Most people wouldn't complain about it and if you're obviously on a go-around, missed approach, or heck, just practicing your runway alignment skills at some reasonable speed it's not going to invoke anyone's jealous ire about your obviously superior flying skills as would a hot dogging episode.

If you view the video it's obvious that it wasn't a go-around, a missed approach or someone practicing their runway alignment skills. It was a low pass over the runway for the cameras.

Go read the case for yourself and tell me what might happen if someone from the FSDO showed up at Gaston's and decided to be, well, a someone.

I did read that case and I've read it before. It seems like the pilot did a whole lot more than a low pass over the runway and she was also a second-time offender. Do you have any other examples?

 

[AcroBoy]

Can anyone cite an FAR regarding creation of a hazard to flight?

 

[AcroBoy]

The RC guy should not have been on an active runway. There was no NOTAM or waiver, and he therefore created a hazard to flight, intentionally, that resulted in substantial damage to an airplane. The pilot may be cited under the catchall careless and negligent operation. Can anyone find the pertinent FAR regarding creation of a hazard to flight?

To me, this is no different from deciding to drive your car down an active runway and causing a crash.

 

[Steve Foley]

I did read that case and I've read it before. It seems like the pilot did a whole lot more than a low pass over the runway and she was also a second-time offender. Do you have any other examples?

FWIW, I found a few examples of actions taken for low passes over the runway, but they all involved something else. In Hawaii, two low passes over surfers in the water followed by a low pass over the runway, and another with three low passes over snowmobilers on the runway. The last one claimed he was doing it in the course of landing to insure the runway was safe.

This is the HI case:
www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/5353.PDF

This is the snowmobile case:
www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/5083.PDF

 

[wsuffa]

The RC guy should not have been on an active runway. There was no NOTAM or waiver, and he therefore created a hazard to flight, intentionally, that resulted in substantial damage to an airplane. The pilot may be cited under the catchall careless and negligent operation. Can anyone find the pertinent FAR regarding creation of a hazard to flight?

To me, this is no different from deciding to drive your car down an active runway and causing a crash.

Next thing you know someone will be calling it "terrorism".....

 

[PittsDriver]

The RC guy should not have been on an active runway. There was no NOTAM or waiver...

From what I read on the RC forum, the guy was invited there by the event organizer and the airport owner. The RC guys probably had a system they've used other places that worked for them but understandably didn't appreciate the rules by which full scale aircraft operate. Certainly they should share some responsibility for understanding those rules if they operate at a real airport but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were told that they had nothing to worry about because their "air boss" had it under control. The event organizer and airport owner are ultimately at fault here for not making sure that proper safe guards and procedures were in place that included someone coordinating the action of the RC guys that understood full scale aviation, our practices, and rules.

From what I understand the airport was not "closed" and no NOTAM was issued. Not that it would have made any difference. I may be wrong but it's my understanding that a part 91 flight can land at a closed airport and not break any rule but possibly 91.13 and that'll only be enforced if something bad happens. And, the NOTAM would have just be advisory in nature and can't deny access to the airport. That would require a real FAA ATC facility on the field issuing instructions - like a temporary control tower in the manner of AirVenture.

 

[AcroBoy]

Not sure I agree with the assessment that the organizers are responsible, solely. It's like the PIC standard- a person is responsible for their own actions, like creating a hazard to flight.

This is no different than if someone decided to drive up and down an active runwaynin their car. They cannot claim someone else said it was OK, so they are not responsible.

They were negligent in failing to file a NOTAM, and in doing so created a hazard to flight. Of course, the acro sport pilot will likely get cited for careless and negligent operation. The primary fault should lie with the RC guy, who created the hazard to flight.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Would a NOTAM be issued for a private airport that is not a public-use airport? Isn't it implicit in a private-use airport?

 

[chucky]

This is no different than if someone decided to drive up and down an active runwaynin their car. They cannot claim someone else said it was OK, so they are not responsible..

If told by the owner or operator of the airport that it was safe to do so, I would think a driver would be covered.

 

[ScottM]

interesting article on this incident.

http://jalopnik.com/5617310/video-crash-of-rc-plane-into-real-one-sparks-dogfight-over-air-rights

The writer brings up FAA AC 91-57 and references it in his article.

Looks like the RC person was not following Paragraph 3d and that will cause him some problems. In reference to para 3c I wonder if the fly-in operator attempted to comply at all. We know there was no NOTAM, but was there even a call to FSS?

FYI the video can be found on this link too.

 

[Everskyward]

In Hawaii, two low passes over surfers in the water followed by a low pass over the runway,

...in a Gulfstream GII.

That had to be noisy.

 

[shenanigans]

I'm curious why the demo was done on the runway in the first place.
Is there some reason this could not have been done a couple hundred feet off to one side, and thus out of the flight path of runway traffic?

 

[ScottM]

This is already becoming an Internet meme event. If only the acroduster would have said "ATITAPA"

 

[Steve Foley]

This is already becoming an Internet meme event. If only the acroduster would have said "ATITAPA"

My guess is that the "airboss" said that.

 

[AcroBoy]

I think the question will be to the rc pilot: would a reasonable and prudent person fly a very large model airplane over an active airport runway? Private or public use, no notam, this will come down on the rc pilot. Plus, he did the plaintiff's job for them by posting the video as well as his initial comments, admitting he was there, it was his plane, and he was the one flying.

 

[shenanigans]

I think the question will be to the rc pilot: would a reasonable and prudent person fly a very large model airplane over an active airport runway?

I think that'll be a major question too. That's why I was wondering if there was any reason the demo couldn't be done just as effectively off to the side of the runway.

I think it'd look really bad for him and the organizers if it turns out that they could have done it in a perfectly safe location instead of the middle of an active runway. But I don't know enough about RC planes to know if that was an option.

 

[ScottM]

I think that'll be a major question too. That's why I was wondering if there was any reason the demo couldn't be done just as effectively off to the side of the runway.

I think it'd look really bad for him and the organizers if it turns out that they could have done it in a perfectly safe location instead of the middle of an active runway. But I don't know enough about RC planes to know if that was an option.

There are AMA guidelines for flying RC models that the RCer did not adhere to.

There is also the low pass issue that needs to be sorted out.

As I said earlier all three will share some responsibility, but IMHO the majority of this should lay at the feet of the organizers. They are after all, the ones that created the environment in which this happened and appear to also be the ones with titles such as 'airboss' that would lead a reasonable person to believe they were in charge and on top of issues.

 

[COFlyBoy]

There are AMA guidelines for flying RC models that the RCer did not adhere to.

There is also the low pass issue that needs to be sorted out.

As I said earlier all three will share some responsibility, but IMHO the majority of this should lay at the feet of the organizers. They are after all, the ones that created the environment in which this happened and appear to also be the ones with titles such as 'airboss' that would lead a reasonable person to believe they were in charge and on top of issues.

I've attended many fly-ins at CO12 and I'm pretty sure there has never been anyone with the title of 'airboss' at any of them. There is usually someone with a handheld radio providing traffic info and parking information. All of the traffic is expected to follow standard operating procedure.

I will agree that the fault here is shared among the organizer, pilot, and R/C guy. The organizer for allowing incompatible activities in the same area (apparently simultaneously); The pilot for doing a low pass (though I have yet to attend a fly-in anywhere where several low passes did not take place); and the R/C guy for flying a little plane where he shouldn't have been.

It will be interesting to see what the courts/Feds make of this.

 

[jesse]

I've attended many fly-ins at CO12 and I'm pretty sure there has never been anyone with the title of 'airboss' at any of them. There is usually someone with a handheld radio providing traffic info and parking information. All of the traffic is expected to follow standard operating procedure.

I will agree that the fault here is shared among the organizer, pilot, and R/C guy. The organizer for allowing incompatible activities in the same area (apparently simultaneously); The pilot for doing a low pass (though I have yet to attend a fly-in anywhere where several low passes did not take place); and the R/C guy for flying a little plane where he shouldn't have been.

It will be interesting to see what the courts/Feds make of this.

I really think the low-pass is irrelevant. Had the pilot decided to just do a go-around the result could/would have been very similar.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Why do RCers have to fly model airplanes at real airports, anyway? They don't need that sort of room and they just present a hazard to aviation. Are they trying to pretend they're flying real airplanes?

I have nothing against RC. I did it with my son when he was young. I just don't like to see it happening at an airport. There's just too much risk involved, not just to full-scale airplanes and their occupants but to real airplanes and other property on the ground at the airport. Loss of radio control could mean a runaway model inflicting some very expensive damage to aircraft or buildings. RCing should be done where the chance of such conflict is minimal.

Dan

 

[COFlyBoy]

I really think the low-pass is irrelevant. Had the pilot decided to just do a go-around the result could/would have been very similar.

I tend to agree, though I'm not sure the FAA will take that view.

I probably would have gone around if I'd seen that thing over the runway (if I hadn't been specifically told it was there)

 

[ScottM]

I've attended many fly-ins at CO12 and I'm pretty sure there has never been anyone with the title of 'airboss' at any of them. There is usually someone with a handheld radio providing traffic info and parking information. All of the traffic is expected to follow standard operating procedure.

If you watch the video the dude in the shirt withe handheld has a nametag on that clearly says "Airboss" on it.

 

[ScottM]

I've attended many fly-ins at CO12 and I'm pretty sure there has never been anyone with the title of 'airboss' at any of them. There is usually someone with a handheld radio providing traffic info and parking information. All of the traffic is expected to follow standard operating procedure.

If you watch the video the dude in the shirt withe handheld has a nametag on that clearly says "Airboss" on it.

He is the guy at the beginning of the video standing behind the RCer talking on the radio just prior to the collision.

You can hear him after the collision talking on the radio again. It sounds like he says "I did not know you were going to do a low pass"

Later in the video he can be seen doing crowd control, talking on the radio to other aircraft, etc.

He appears to be The Man and is spreading his attention on far too many things at once.

 

[COFlyBoy]

If you watch the video the dude in the shirt withe handheld has a nametag on that clearly says "Airboss" on it.

Gotcha. I know him. I guess if you're going to claim the title, you also get the responsibility. Though, I will still say he may have taken the title, but things are far from formal at a private airpark for a private (semi-private?) fly-in. I'll bet none of the folks flying in knew that he was "controlling" traffic.

 

[jestertoo]

Why do RCers have to fly model airplanes at real airports, anyway? They don't need that sort of room and they just present a hazard to aviation. Are they trying to pretend they're flying real airplanes?

Dan

Wow. Think a bit more about it.

Models don't normally fly at real airports. Model airplanes are normally flown at model airplane fields. This was by invitation of the fly-in organizer, not because he just showed up and started hovering over the runway trying to impress the crowd.

I've flown model airplanes at a real airport during an airshow. We were given the chance to demonstrate our hobby in front a huge crowd, and it made a great impression. The big difference was the tower had the airport shut down for the airshow and we had the airspace for 20 minutes.

 

[Walt]

I read on another board that the feds in Denver decided that they needed to monitor more airshows. They showed up at a show near Denver last week and observed many violations. If you are planning to attend any of the many airshows that are remaining, better practice your best behavior while the prop is turning. Do not forget the FAA motto - We aren't happy till your not happy.

 

[AcroBoy]

The FAA's primary mission is to improve flying safety, not necessarily making someone's life more miserable, although the lines can get blurred at times.

In the case being discussed, the RC pilot chose to disregard AMA as well as FAA guidelines regarding RC flying in relation to real aircraft. The pilot of the Acrosport also showed questionable judgment in doing his low approach, but it is something seen at nearly every fly in, without consequence.

All of the blather about the "airboss" means nothing to full scale pilots, who know that two way radio communication is not required at uncontrolled fields. A guy with a handheld, which have limited range even under the best of circumstances, is not an FAA controller. Was there adequate notification of all of the pilots that RC models would be on the runway, and that people would be standing on or adjacent to the active runway? Was there a NOTAM issued, and were all of the tenants and all of the pilots with permission to land at the private airport also notified of this hazard? Did the flyers say: use caution, model aircraft will be on the active runway during the flyin?

Also, A plane attempting a full stop landing could also easily have met the same fate, since the RC demo appeared to be at or close to midfield. The issue of the low pass is less when this is taken into consideration. The RC demo could easily have occurred at any number of places a lot safer than over an active runway, or with a crowd close by, which also goes against the basic safety tenets of the AMA.

A true airshow, with performers, requires reams of paperwork, land plats, 500 foot dead lines for safety, fencing, coordination with fire rescue, etc, and takes months to plan. The FSDO almost always has someone in attendance at these events.

If you meant fly ins and not airshows, I do not think there are as many, if not any, restrictions.

I would like to see the final results of the investigation- would they be available under the Freedom of Information Act to any interested party?