Kodiak amphib takeoff Willamette River-flies under bridge...

As long as he keeps the channel markers red right returning I don't see anything wrong.
 
I actually sent the guy an email suggesting he do a little research before he publishes.

Also mentioned that if he hasn't heard back from the FAA, he will find out it's okay for a seaplane to land or takeoff under a bridge. Not that they can do it under any bridge, but here are a lot that they can.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Why is everyone an over-reactive wannabe policeperson these days??
Click to expand...
The person that send in the video just simply didn't understand. But the "journalist" not taking two seconds to do a search or as the AI tool that I'm sure their newspaper has is where the poor judgement comes in.
 
I don’t believe there is a violation for takeoff and likely safer to pass under the bridge that to attempt max performance climb over it.
§ 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.
 
That’s a short bridge. The clearance to the river is 49 feet. Kodiak 100 wingspan is 45 feet. I can’t find the pontoon to top of vertical stabilizer height. Anyone know? Guess?

1791802486601.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Looks sketchy to me but I’m not a float pilot.
Do other float planes use that area?
 
bonefishpete said:
Looks sketchy to me but I’m not a float pilot.
Do other float planes use that area?
Click to expand...
I was raised in Portland, lived there more than 20 years and visit a lot because I still have family there. I’ve never seen or heard of it. There is a seaplane base about 5 miles of there.
 
For those questioning the take-off... look at the video again, or for the first time if you didn't really look before (I didn't at first).

What you basically have is a BOAT passing under the bridge. Then AFTER crossing a more than safe distance past the bridge, the seaplane lifts off. And from what I can see (and I'm assuming the pilot confirmed) there is not other boat traffic that would have caused a conflict.

ADDED: Apparently there are two videos. I saw one where he started his takeoff run under a bridge and then it stopped after he took off. The other one I'm told he flew under a second bridge. So I don't know how high or what the distance was between the two bridges. So I don't know if it is still a so what moment or if even other "floatplaners" :D would wonder what was going on there.
 
Last edited:
M20K said:
For those questing the take-off... look at the video again, or for the first time if you didn't really look before (I didn't at first).

What you basically have is a BOAT passing under the bridge. Then AFTER crossing a more than safe distance past the bridge, the seaplane lifts off. And from what I can see (and I'm assuming the pilot confirmed) there is not other boat traffic that would have caused a conflict.
Click to expand...
Yes, you should definitely watch the video again because, after it takes off, the seaplane very clearly flies under the bridge that the camera person is standing on.
 
He or she is a federal registered vessel once on the water and is treated just like any other floating vessel as long as there was not a maritime speed limit, no issue. No different than an outboard planing under the bridge. No wake zones and manatee zones are all over Florida and one must be cognizant, no notams for that. Many times step taxied my Lakes under bridges just making sure that I was not airborne. Florida Marine Patrol was educated several times that my airship was subject to the constraints of any maritime vessel and after they made sure I had all the marine requirements, life jackets, fire extinguisher, horn, flares etc they acquiesced and I was on my way. They always seemed disappointed I had the equipment. Had to straddle the nose where the bumper was to talk with them as they were always trying to put their bow next to cockpit and I had fear of the bow piercing the wing.
 
IMO seems like sketchy ADM to take off from the middle of a section of river that has 8 bridges within a 3 mile stretch, when there are long unobstructed sections of river to the north or south.

Will be interesting to see what the FAA says. By the letter of 91.119 he's good, but just because you can does not mean you should.
 
Ed Haywood said:
IMO seems like sketchy ADM to take off from the middle of a section of river that has 8 bridges within a 3 mile stretch, when there are long unobstructed sections of river to the north or south.

Will be interesting to see what the FAA says. By the letter of 91.119 he's good, but just because you can does not mean you should.
Click to expand...
Me thinks 91.13 is gonna be the one that’s gonna matter
 
Stemme said:
He or she is a federal registered vessel once on the water and is treated just like any other floating vessel as long as there was not a maritime speed limit, no issue. No different than an outboard planing under the bridge. No wake zones and manatee zones are all over Florida and one must be cognizant, no notams for that. Many times step taxied my Lakes under bridges just making sure that I was not airborne. Florida Marine Patrol was educated several times that my airship was subject to the constraints of any maritime vessel and after they made sure I had all the marine requirements, life jackets, fire extinguisher, horn, flares etc they acquiesced and I was on my way. They always seemed disappointed I had the equipment. Had to straddle the nose where the bumper was to talk with them as they were always trying to put their bow next to cockpit and I had fear of the bow piercing the wing.
Click to expand...
What about when airborne?
 
Seems a lot safer than launching a spacecraft with people on it, X degrees below freezing when the only data you have that indicates it might work is extrapolated.

Too soon?

No idea if it the seaplane thing is safe. Willing to bet lunch money that whomever posted the video has no idea, either. Would be cool if the FAA investigates, determines it's safe, and the guy recovers his cost from whomever put up the video...but I get that's unlikely.
 
kyleb said:
Because they are upset when you have fun and they don’t. Or when you do something they don’t understand.
Click to expand...
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Then the bad publicity starts, and negative public opinion regarding GA mounts, and politicians move to close airports, and insurance rates increase, and regulations tighten, and lawsuits are filed and settlements reached, and the cost to the rest of us just keeps climbing. And let's not forget those who get hurt or killed, some of whom merely because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time when a pilot's negligence led to an accident.

Ed Haywood cut right to the chase in #17. Fortunately, this time no one lost an eye.
 
M20K said:
For those questing the take-off... look at the video again, or for the first time if you didn't really look before (I didn't at first).

What you basically have is a BOAT passing under the bridge. Then AFTER crossing a more than safe distance past the bridge, the seaplane lifts off. And from what I can see (and I'm assuming the pilot confirmed) there is not other boat traffic that would have caused a conflict.
Click to expand...
Stemme said:
He or she is a federal registered vessel once on the water and is treated just like any other floating vessel as long as there was not a maritime speed limit, no issue. No different than an outboard planing under the bridge. No wake zones and manatee zones are all over Florida and one must be cognizant, no notams for that. Many times step taxied my Lakes under bridges just making sure that I was not airborne. Florida Marine Patrol was educated several times that my airship was subject to the constraints of any maritime vessel and after they made sure I had all the marine requirements, life jackets, fire extinguisher, horn, flares etc they acquiesced and I was on my way. They always seemed disappointed I had the equipment. Had to straddle the nose where the bumper was to talk with them as they were always trying to put their bow next to cockpit and I had fear of the bow piercing the wing.
Click to expand...
Well, it's pretty easy to see who didn't watch the entire video.
 
Dave Theisen said:
Are you trying to say that he didn’t go under the bridge while airborne? From the video in post #9, it’s pretty obvious that he did.
Click to expand...
My sense is that his plan was to go over the bridge, then realized that wasn't gonna work, so he flew under. Either way, probably not the best idea.
 
Lindberg said:
Yes, you should definitely watch the video again because, after it takes off, the seaplane very clearly flies under the bridge that the camera person is standing on.
Click to expand...
Oh... The one I saw stopped after they lifted off.
 
kyleb said:
My sense is that his plan was to go over the bridge, then realized that wasn't gonna work, so he flew under. Either way, probably not the best idea.
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought when I saw the abruptness of the level off. Good chance they would ding him for just barely clearing the bridge as well.
 
kyleb said:
My sense is that his plan was to go over the bridge, then realized that wasn't gonna work, so he flew under. Either way, probably not the best idea.
Click to expand...
It does look that could have been. If so, I think the best decision would have been to pull the throttle and land.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yeah. Try again. Very easy to see that you did not watch THE WHOLE VIDEO. The bridge he went under doesn't appear until about the last 3-4 seconds. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I apologize I did not see you in my den monitoring how long I was Watching the video. If I had I would have known I would have turned around and introduced myself. Pretty presumptuous on your part how long I watched the video. Were YOU in the den or were YOU at the bridge? My post was about my personal experiences flying amphibs on the water and around and under bridges. Have a pleasant night.
 
Wagondriver said:
Is there some rule that says you can't fly under a bridge?
Click to expand...

FAR 91.119 for starters. If the bridge is less than 500 feet high, it is physically impossible to fly under it without getting closer than 500 feet. And that assumes it is open water and not a congested area, in which case the reg says 1000 feet ABOVE.

This guy may have found the one exception, depending on how the FAA interprets the phrase "except when necessary for takeoff or landing."

But was it necessary to fly under the bridge in order to take off? Or could the pilot have water taxied a mile up river to a section without bridges?

Like I said, it will be interesting to see what the FAA says.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
This guy may have found the one exception, depending on how the FAA interprets the phrase "except when necessary for takeoff or landing."
Click to expand...
Friend of a friend used to always land and takeoff under (I think) the Throgs Neck in Long Island Sound all the time. But it was the same as I thought when I only saw the beginning of the video where he apparently took off or landed as he was going under the bridge. (His house was somewhere just on the other side.)
 
Ed Haywood said:
FAR 91.119 for starters. If the bridge is less than 500 feet high, it is physically impossible to fly under it and remain 500 feet away. And that assumes it is open water and not a congested area.

This guy may have found the one exception, depending on how the FAA interprets the phrase "except when necessary for takeoff or landing."

Was it necessary to fly under the bridge in order to take off? Or could the pilot have water taxied a mile up river to a section without bridges?

Like I said, it will be interesting to see what the FAA says.
Click to expand...
Sincere question, Do AG pilots have different rules, or does the FAA just look the other way. I've watched them cross under power lines with much less clearance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top