The old ag pilot in the room thinks that pilot made a terrible decision and at the last moment figured out how to un**** himself.
I think you're spot on.
It’ll start with a chat with an ASI. How friendly it is depends on the pilot. Ideally he has already had a chat with himself that goes something like ‘I effed up and won’t do that again.’ The ASI will probably give him something to do. Maybe take a course on ADM
Specifically ADM with regard to performance when hard data doesn’t exist, and maybe something about identifying and avoiding orographic downdrafts.
And maybe some info on how big registration numbers on an E-AB have to be on his/her next airplane
I do *not* want to be there when a pilot does a poor job of risk management and takes themselves and possibly others out doing something they thought was OK because they had gotten away with similar in the past. Again.
Howza ‘bout
QFT.
Can you explain the relevance of people being judgey to the discussion? What I see here are pilots discussing the incident and what judgment is warranted.
Hard to conclude that based on only the information we have from the video. I'd say that depending on what an actual investigation finds, anything from a warning to a 709 ride or even certificate revocation could be appropriate. For all I know sitting here, he might have lost engine power right after takeoff, or he might have started his takeoff run with, "Hold my beer and watch this."
Yeah. It’s one thing to sling poop and another thing to be objective about what went down. The objective evaluation of performance to facilitate improvement is a hallmark of being good at the flying thing we all like. No reason to be a butthole about it though.
Yeah, but then the doc won't have anything to look at during your BasicMed exam.
The relevance of people being judgey is that people will be judgey. Objective comment/critique isn’t judgey, but understanding that non-participants are going to perceive risk differently than the pilot needs to be taken into account. Whether or not the pilot chooses to make the takeoff either way, he needs to understand that subjective judgements, like whose definition of a close call should be used, are going to determine whether this is an interesting event or an FAA investigation.
And why. How did he end up at that particular spot? Had he landed nearby?
Risk involves the severity of the outcome along with the likelihood of the outcome. The severity in your example is injury or death, but I would consider the likelihood of impact with the bridge fairly low, especially one that would touch bystanders, so overall it’s a relatively low risk to innocent bystanders.
Be required to read this thread. Or would that be an Eighth Amendment violation.
When was that? Four decades ago, my instructor took me flying down low along a river, but made sure I knew that we had to climb 500' over the bridges.
Still not sure about the guy in the video since there was a second bridge involved. And he was taking off.
He was taking off. What's the minimum for not be reckless on takeoff? 12'? 5'? No harm, no foul?
That’s an interesting thought…I wonder if AI could extrapolate performance data to get something accurate.Or maybe Claude was PIC
Yep, it's a gray area... Was he still "taking off" or was he "in flight" when he passed under that 2nd bridge.
Whether he was still “taking off” or “in flight” is irrelevant. The verbiage in the reg is
So the question becomes was it necessary for a takeoff to fly under (or over, for that matter) that bridge?
And whether it was necessary may hinge on whether this was a suitable location to take off from in the first place.
I think of you were on that bridge rather than on the internet, you might have considered this more of a close call. What he did was the absolute height of stupidity. Regardless of how this turns out, this guy absolutely brought this on himself.
