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

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.
Either you didn't watch the whole video or you're blind. Your post said "perspective and camera angles", nothing about your personal experiences. What part of perspective/camera angles or your personal experience flying amphibs explains how a plane is flying above a bridge when the cameraman is on the bridge filming the plane disappearing behind the bridge, then emerging from the other side?
1791891345568.png
1791891408645.png
1791891482504.png
 
I'm not one to support the Karens of the world, but I gotta admit it looks pretty sketch and I'm guessing this guy gets rail-roaded by the FAA.
 
Because they are upset when you have fun and they don’t. Or when you do something they don’t understand.
Yeah, some folk do come across that way. But there is another aspect to this. Pilots doing things that make the public mad and add fuel to the fire of wanting GA restricted, including getting airports closed. This guy got some ‘splainin to do.
 
Plane takes off.
No one hurt.
No damage to anything.
Not even a close call.

Mind your own business.
We have more important problems than this nothingburger.

We need to reset the sensitivity of the average American mind to something more reasonable.
I’d say another 20’ higher and his tail might of hit then the bridge would close for inspection and repair? Guess the costs on that?

Do crazy stuff in the backcountry have at it.
Downtown no.
 
That leaves about 33’ of space. Say about 16 over and 16 under. Or 10 under and 22 over, etc etc. Seems kinda close to me

Not even a close call.
I'm curious what you would consider a close call.

It looks to me, and others, that he thought he was going to go over the bridge, and then ducked under at the last minute. That fits my definition.
 
I'm curious what you would consider a close call.

It looks to me, and others, that he thought he was going to go over the bridge, and then ducked under at the last minute. That fits my definition.
Kind of like when you get that gust of wind and don’t touch down on centerline?
 
Martha went under a bridge with a clearance of 239’ Kodiak bridge is 49’.
 
I'm curious what you would consider a close call.

It looks to me, and others, that he thought he was going to go over the bridge, and then ducked under at the last minute. That fits my definition.
Like I already said, I call this close. I haven’t, nor will, start trying to figure out an exact number where the cut off point is.
 
Martha went under a bridge with a clearance of 239’ Kodiak bridge is 49’.
Google tells me the plane has a 45' wingspan. So if he's in a 30 degree bank, that's 22.5' wingtip to wingtip height. So even a little less than 16' clearance on each end.
 
Plane takes off.
No one hurt.
No damage to anything.
Not even a close call.

Mind your own business.
We have more important problems than this nothingburger.

We need to reset the sensitivity of the average American mind to something more reasonable.
The old saw that what doesn't kill ya makes ya stronger could be adapted to apply to aviation as what doesn't kill ya makes ya wiser. Unfortunately, not always.

I'm a survivor...of my own stupidity. It didn't have to be that way. There are entries in my first logbook that reflect some really bad decision-making and foolish risk-taking. Sometimes I look back and actually shudder. Fortunately I was lucky--lucky that those flights did not end badly, and lucky to have learned from them (and lucky that smartphones, with their video recording capability, did not exist). Another good thing, and the one that applies here, is that in each of those daring escapades I was the only person at risk--had I made the evening news, mine would have been the only name mentioned by the grim-faced reporter standing in a field next to a smoldering wad of charred metal. Then the news feed would cut to a feel-good story about dogs catching Frisbees in the park while someone sighed, "at least he died doing what he loved." Yes I loved flying, but I didn't love being stupid.

But I believe strongly in individual liberty, including the right of each person to assume risk on their own behalf as they engage in their pursuits of happiness. I do not, however, believe that individuals possess a right to put others at risk unless those others are made fully aware of that risk and willingly accept it. We don't know if there were passengers on that plane who were not aware of their risk exposure, however there were people and vehicles on at least one of the bridges, people whose safety was compromised by that pilot's decisions but who were not afforded an opportunity to opt-out. Portland can be dangerous enough without people having to worry about being mowed-down by an errant turboprop while they enjoy a pleasant stroll across a bridge, and the happy fact that this particular incident did not result in a crash is irrelevant.

I'm content to mind my own business while you engage in heroic demonstrations of aviation derring-do, right up until the moment that you put others at risk. Then the equation changes and your actions become everyone's business, whether you like it or not.
 
Yeah, some folk do come across that way. But there is another aspect to this. Pilots doing things that make the public mad and add fuel to the fire of wanting GA restricted, including getting airports closed. This guy got some ‘splainin to do.
I totally agree, and that's one of the points I meant to articulate in #23. To be fair, we do not have the pilot's own account available so that we can understand the incident from his/her perspective.
 
Where was it stated that it was a Go-Around?
"the pilots aborted the landing and powered the aircraft back into the air in a maneuver known as a go-around."

It's linked in the comments.

Here
 
"the pilots aborted the landing and powered the aircraft back into the air in a maneuver known as a go-around."

It's linked in the comments.

Here

1791918062714.png

Didn't realize a 747 was a turbo-prop seaplane.

The article that started this thread (offered for comparison purposes only):

seaplane flies under bridge.PNG
 

Attachments

  • boeing 747 is not a seaplane.PNG
    boeing 747 is not a seaplane.PNG
    32.5 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
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.
:rofl: Wow.
Sincere question, Do AG pilots have different rules, or does the FAA just look the other way.
Different rules. 14 CFR Part 137, Agricultural Aircraft Operations.
 
Is it just me, or is a tail-strike in a 747, legitimately, kind of a scary situation...?
 
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."

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.
Foreshill bridge (over the North Fork of the American River near Auburn, CA) is 730' above the river (which isn't navigated except for commercial whitewater raft trips and fools like me)
Sadly, the span between support towers is only 860’, so you can’t fly under and stay 500’ from “any structure”

But there are 3 high enough and wide enough (more than 1100’ span kength) -
Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge (Colorado River near Hoover dam)
New River Gorge bridge (WV)
And glen canyon bridge IMG_4876.jpegIMG_4877.png



IMG_3437.jpeg
 
Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge (Colorado River near Hoover dam)
And glen canyon bridge

The problem with these two is proximity to the dams. There also appear to be webs of power lines between the bridge and dam in both cases.

Looking at The New though ... I think an intrepid pilot could actually do a loop around it. The FAA would make it the last loop that fellow ever did. But man what a loop it would be!

I camped under the NRG bridge about 30 years ago, during a rock climbing trip. Hammock on the river.
 
Did you watch the video of the plane take off, level off at low altitude, and descend to go under a bridge?
Pilot got task done, no harm, just a bunch of nannies to deal with now.
Might be my >2000mi flying at 100’agl making me inured to it, but I still don’t get people.
 
I am not legal scholar, but I don't think the "necessary" part of 91.119 refers to whether the takeoff or landing is necessary, but rather whether the proximity to people or structures is necessary for the take off or landing.
 
Back
Top