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

ebetancourt said:
Reading that, I would guess the R/C airplane owner will wind up losing his airplane AND paying for the damage to the biplane.

Ernie
Click to expand...

I see the guy wearing the "airboss" sticker covered his a$$ nicely. I'll wager your spot on about the money. I'm also sure the RC guys will love this outcome.

Just for future reference to them (not trying to be mean here) if someone tells you to play over a full-size runway tell them to pi$$ off. Oh, and triple-check you have a spotter who knows their job. This was a collection of c*ck-ups that didn't have to happen.

I hope no one has to fork out too much money, and I am further happy no one was injured.
 
ebetancourt said:
Reading that, I would guess the R/C airplane owner will wind up losing his airplane AND paying for the damage to the biplane.

Ernie
Click to expand...
That would seem to be a reasonable take away from the report. While it does not affix blame it sure seems like it paints a picture of a R/C operations that is running outside of published safety guidelines.
 
JesseD said:
I see the guy wearing the "airboss" sticker covered his a$$ nicely. I'll wager your spot on about the money. I'm also sure the RC guys will love this outcome.

Just for future reference to them (not trying to be mean here) if someone tells you to play over a full-size runway tell them to pi$$ off. Oh, and triple-check you have a spotter who knows their job. This was a collection of c*ck-ups that didn't have to happen.

I hope no one has to fork out too much money, and I am further happy no one was injured.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your comment about not flying over a full size runway, in this case it does not apear to be a factor. According to the NTSB report page 2 the "Air Boss" said he gave a safety briefing and specifically told the R/C guys to not fly over the runway but off to one side. Now what was actually said is another story but it apears they were told.
 
ebetancourt said:
Reading that, I would guess the R/C airplane owner will wind up losing his airplane AND paying for the damage to the biplane.

Ernie
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the legal justification would be for confiscation of the R/C airplane, if that's what you mean. As for the money, I've noticed that civil suit outcomes don't necessarily have any relationship to federal regulations.
 
From the NTSB report:


In an interview with the event coordinator, he clarified that the title of airboss was not a formal position.​
Click to expand...

Does anyone know what the difference is between the airboss being a formal position or not?
 
"During his second approach to runway 12, he felt that his approach speed was fast, and the airplane was not aligned properly so he added power, turned his smoke on to increase visibility to the radio controlled airplane operators"


:rolleyes2:
 
I found it interesting that the biplane is only listed in the narrative, and the aircraft information on the report is for the R/C. Weird.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
"During his second approach to runway 12, he felt that his approach speed was fast, and the airplane was not aligned properly so he added power, turned his smoke on to increase visibility to the radio controlled airplane operators"


:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

I liked that part. I'm guessing he was about 70-80kts 'too fast' for landing. It's a good thing he had his 'see and avoid' smoke system installed! ;)
 
I'm very surprised they didn't throw the book at the biplane pilot for the low-approach without a low-level aerobatics waiver, and it's interesting how the story keeps getting written up as if he were "attempting to land".

Wonder which politician he's got in his back pocket...
 
CJones said:
I liked that part. I'm guessing he was about 70-80kts 'too fast' for landing. It's a good thing he had his 'see and avoid' smoke system installed! ;)
Click to expand...

obviously it didn't help
 
denverpilot said:
I'm very surprised they didn't throw the book at the biplane pilot for the low-approach without a low-level aerobatics waiver, and it's interesting how the story keeps getting written up as if he were "attempting to land".
Click to expand...

When did a go around become low-level aerobatics?
 
roncachamp said:
When did a go around become low-level aerobatics?
Click to expand...

Whenever it's done without an "intent to land". As someone else pointed out... 70 knots too fast to land, someone wasn't trying very hard... and then they "turned on smoke" for visibility?

Bwahaha... classic stuff here. All carefully worded by the pilot to avoid being slapped with a suspension. Really.
 
denverpilot said:
Whenever it's done without an "intent to land". As someone else pointed out... 70 knots too fast to land, someone wasn't trying very hard... and then they "turned on smoke" for visibility?

Bwahaha... classic stuff here. All carefully worded by the pilot to avoid being slapped with a suspension. Really.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any actual (ie. non-speculation) estimates of the biplanes speed. Besides the only speed restriction in the area is 200kts for being under the Class Bravo. Otherwise, a pilot is free to fly the approach as fast as he likes, and then go-around when it is clear a landing cannot be accomplished. No one (except the pilot) knows what the ASI said or what the throttle position was.
 
Look I'm not arguing for the guy to get in trouble, I'm just sayin'... anyone with a brain knows he wasn't "approaching to land". Give me a break.

The same scenario at Meadowlake years before, but replace "RC Airplane" with "Ribbon" for "ribbon-cutting event"... the pilot was slapped with enforcement action. Same flight profile. One pilot was smart enough to say he was "on approach and too fast" and the other was scheduled to cut the ribbon by the idiots running the airport's event, even printed flyers... so it made it pretty hard to say he was landing...

But they both DID the exact same thing.

Bottom-line: Buzzing the local airport with as many video cameras are running everywhere these days, is utterly stupid.

Alternative information: You've got about a 50/50 chance of enforcement action out of the Denver FSDO on such buzzjobs, apparently. ;)
 
Or a training flight with a student who is not yet ready to touchdown. In taildraggers where alignment and drift elimination are everything, I have found it very useful to fly down centerline at low altitude (<10ft). It allows a student to see the issues without worrying about touching down. It was very helpful to me in learning to fly the Waco and I just used it to help my granddaughter master a Citabria. She can now nail a wheel landing with direct crosswind 15MPH gusts about 90% of the time. No crosswind landings, 3pt or wheel, are ho hum... at 14. Not aerobatic and don't think I'll get in trouble for doing them. Not a whole lot different than a touch and go.

Ernie
 
Oh, and a tailwheel aircraft, with a few large prop exceptions, can land at most any speed. Give me a long enough runway and I think I could land the Citabria at Vne. I sometimes land the Waco at cruise (~70mph above stall) if there are crosswinds and enough runway. It's much easier to land that way.

Ernie
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
"During his second approach to runway 12, he felt that his approach speed was fast, and the airplane was not aligned properly so he added power, turned his smoke on to increase visibility to the radio controlled airplane operators"


:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
Truth be told, I have been in that situation, minus the smoke. We USED to let some R/C drivers fly aircraft at a little field where I fly on occasion. There's no FAA rule against go-arounds, and with no-one in the cockpit to prove or disprove it, one has to err on the side of the pilot's right to be there... and go-around if necessary. 'sides, if he really did have to go around the first time due to a Cessna on the runway, and an audience watching his landing, he might've wanted to get it just perfect.

Ryan
 
denverpilot said:
Look I'm not arguing for the guy to get in trouble, I'm just sayin'... anyone with a brain knows he wasn't "approaching to land". Give me a break.

The same scenario at Meadowlake years before, but replace "RC Airplane" with "Ribbon" for "ribbon-cutting event"... the pilot was slapped with enforcement action. Same flight profile. One pilot was smart enough to say he was "on approach and too fast" and the other was scheduled to cut the ribbon by the idiots running the airport's event, even printed flyers... so it made it pretty hard to say he was landing...

But they both DID the exact same thing.

Bottom-line: Buzzing the local airport with as many video cameras are running everywhere these days, is utterly stupid.

Alternative information: You've got about a 50/50 chance of enforcement action out of the Denver FSDO on such buzzjobs, apparently. ;)
Click to expand...
What was the regulation cited in the violation. I seriously doubt that it was §91.303 or had anything to do with aerobatics unless he was yanking and/or banking. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...v8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.4.7.2&idno=14
 
I can see justifiable policy/precedent reasons to let the pilot skate and put all the blame on the R/C guy. And yes I agree that it was a technically illegal low pass.
 
ClimbnSink said:
I can see justifiable policy/precedent reasons to let the pilot skate and put all the blame on the R/C guy. And yes I agree that it was a technically illegal low pass.
Click to expand...

I can't read his mind so I won't presume he's lying. In the end it probably came down to the old "manned planes have the right of way, no exceptions", axiom. At least that's my wager on where the FAA placed their cards.

The big thing for me is an active runway, with an RC guy playing on it, without a decent spotter.

I just want both of us (full and rc) to keep enough separation that we're all safe. Oh, and so all of our toys stay in one piece too. ;)
 
ClimbnSink said:
I can see justifiable policy/precedent reasons to let the pilot skate and put all the blame on the R/C guy. And yes I agree that it was a technically illegal low pass.
Click to expand...

What's an illegal low pass??? Anyone have a reg to cite for why a pass down a runway is illegal? It definitely doesn't fit the definition of aerobatics, since there wasn't any extreme roll or pitch attitudes.

Buzz jobs are illegal since they fail the 500' person, vessel or structure distance requirement.

At CO12 you are always within 500' of houses, people, and vessels whenever you takeoff, land or go-around.
 
COFlyBoy said:
What's an illegal low pass??? Anyone have a reg to cite for why a pass down a runway is illegal? It definitely doesn't fit the definition of aerobatics, since there wasn't any extreme roll or pitch attitudes.

Buzz jobs are illegal since they fail the 500' person, vessel or structure distance requirement.

At CO12 you are always within 500' of houses, people, and vessels whenever you takeoff, land or go-around.
Click to expand...
Technically, the exception for the 500' separation (and 1000' lateral separation in congested areas) only applies when "necessary for takeoff or landing" and if you're making a low pass 50 KIAS above a normal approach speed it could be difficult to convince an ALJ that your 20' altitude was "necessary...". And IIRC some pilot's have been on the receiving end of an enforcement action for such behavior. Interestingly, it appears that ATC doesn't have the authority to waive this requirement so when the tower approves or even requests a high speed flyby the pilot could still be on the hook. Equally interesting IMO is that a low pass flown an the conclusion of a practice instrument approach when said low pass was the declared intention of the pilot would also violate the letter if not the spirit of the same rule because there was clearly no "intent to land", just a desire to practice an approach without wasting time with an actual landing and/or to fly a missed approach procedure.
 
gismo said:
Technically, the exception for the 500' separation (and 1000' lateral separation in congested areas) only applies when "necessary for takeoff or landing" and if you're making a low pass 50 KIAS above a normal approach speed it could be difficult to convince an ALJ that your 20' altitude was "necessary...". And IIRC some pilot's have been on the receiving end of an enforcement action for such behavior. Interestingly, it appears that ATC doesn't have the authority to waive this requirement so when the tower approves or even requests a high speed flyby the pilot could still be on the hook. Equally interesting IMO is that a low pass flown an the conclusion of a practice instrument approach when said low pass was the declared intention of the pilot would also violate the letter if not the spirit of the same rule because there was clearly no "intent to land", just a desire to practice an approach without wasting time with an actual landing and/or to fly a missed approach procedure.
Click to expand...
And of further interest in relation to the subject are "go arounds" - which for instance are a required training item for the tailwheel endorsement. While the person flying the aircraft may fully think he is coming in for a landing, the real "PIC" is the CFI, and if he is planning a go-around, this could be construed the same way.
It is interesting how no-one questions IFR guys driving it down to 300' AGL for a low approach, which might be followed my a missed approach, but if a guy has a lot better visual reference situation, and more speed does the same thing, he's in violation. Maybe it's time to see if we can get that amended in some more formal way in case some overzealous inspector decides to use it against someone.

Ryan
 
ClimbnSink said:
I can see justifiable policy/precedent reasons to let the pilot skate and put all the blame on the R/C guy. And yes I agree that it was a technically illegal low pass.
Click to expand...

How was it "technically illegal"?
 
RyanShort1 said:
And of further interest in relation to the subject are "go arounds" - which for instance are a required training item for the tailwheel endorsement. While the person flying the aircraft may fully think he is coming in for a landing, the real "PIC" is the CFI, and if he is planning a go-around, this could be construed the same way.
It is interesting how no-one questions IFR guys driving it down to 300' AGL for a low approach, which might be followed my a missed approach, but if a guy has a lot better visual reference situation, and more speed does the same thing, he's in violation. Maybe it's time to see if we can get that amended in some more formal way in case some overzealous inspector decides to use it against someone.

Ryan
Click to expand...

IFR practice approches, slow flght to learn the visual picture, aborted landings at least involve "the landing process" in some way. Unlike a "high speed, smoke on, low pass to impress the crowd" manuver.

This is a go-around http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPMWGJGMXc it involves climbing back to pattern altitude. If the biplane pilot had done that...

Personally, I would enjoy watching more runway buzz jobs, but for whatever reason, the FAA apparently takes a dim view. And, whatever I man think, if the FAA wants to Bob Hoover you, they are going to find a way no matter what your intent really was.
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
This is a go-around http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPMWGJGMXc it involves climbing back to pattern altitude. If the biplane pilot had done that...
Click to expand...
So if you decide to go around, you may not decide to keep it low, build some speed up, then climb? As long as you don't exceed 30 degrees of pitch up, you've done nothing illegal on a go-around. Materially, there is no difference between that, and having a student fly the Cub 2 ft off the ground down the runway to get his low-speed handling in ground effect better under control, then build some speed back and climb up.
The smoke definitely makes it look more like a stunt, but if you're at a fly-in, some guys use smoke just to be seen. Like this...

http://youtu.be/l7qIQA_FhUA

I've seen other guys use smoke on landing, etc...

In my mind, one of the real kickers on this is that you hear on this version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoZD9pczEVs&feature=related around around 1:05 or 1:06 the controller say "I didn't know you were going around." In my opinion, they apparently DID know that he was going to land, the person with the video camera DID see the plane on approach, and the major issue here is that the pilot SHOULD have called the go-around. They had no business being there right in front of an apparently landing aircraft.

Ryan
 
Am I the only one that thinks "hovering" RC fixed wing aircraft is rather boring to watch and not impressive at all? :goofy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top