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

Sectional does show a PVT seaplane base up river with a 3100’ water lane. Couple miles upstream.
 
mryan75 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Although the guy on the bridge kept filming instead of turning and running.
 
What I remember from my ASEL Training on the Missouri River, you were a boat if on the water and a plane if not. So I could go under a bridge while in contact with the water and not if I was airborne. (all subject to takeoff and landing necessity)
 
Shepherd said:
Yup. If it was necessary to land or take off.
The old seaplane base in Poughkeepsie, NY comes to mind.
Click to expand...
I have found that somewhere around three pages is the time in a thread's life where posts start making "new" points that have already been made. You didn't miss anything other than the big question of whether this was necessary.

M

Post in thread 'Kodiak amphib takeoff Willamette River-flies under bridge...'

M20K said:
Yep, it's a gray area... Was he still "taking off" or was he "in flight" when he passed under that 2nd bridge.
Click to expand...
Whether he was still “taking off” or “in flight” is irrelevant. The verbiage in the reg is

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.​

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing
Click to expand...
So the question becomes was it necessary for a takeoff to fly under (or over, for that matter) that bridge?
  • Like
 
Lindberg said:
I have found that somewhere around three pages is the time in a thread's life where posts start making "new" points that have already been made. You didn't miss anything other than the big question of whether this was necessary.

M

Post in thread 'Kodiak amphib takeoff Willamette River-flies under bridge...'

M20K said:
Yep, it's a gray area... Was he still "taking off" or was he "in flight" when he passed under that 2nd bridge.
Click to expand...
Whether he was still “taking off” or “in flight” is irrelevant. The verbiage in the reg is

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.​

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing
Click to expand...
So the question becomes was it necessary for a takeoff to fly under (or over, for that matter) that bridge?
  • Like
Click to expand...
It was clearly necessary for That takeoff. Was THAT takeoff necessary? Who knows? Pretty sure no one who has posted knows, but why let lack of data stop judgment.
 
It was necessary to go under the bridge because if he didn’t, he would have hit it. :)
 
X3 Skier said:
What I remember from my ASEL Training on the Missouri River, you were a boat if on the water and a plane if not. So I could go under a bridge while in contact with the water and not if I was airborne. (all subject to takeoff and landing necessity)
Click to expand...
"Woops, a wind gust forced me off the water unintentionally early." :)
 
Ed Haywood said:
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!
Click to expand...

What horsepower to weight ratio does one need to successfully complete a loop around a bridge while maintaining 1000' from the bridge? So, a perfect 2,000' diameter (or larger) loop? I've never looked at the altimeter at the top of a loop, so I really have no idea!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
What horsepower to weight ratio does one need to successfully complete a loop around a bridge while maintaining 1000' from the bridge? So, a perfect 2,000' diameter (or larger) loop? I've never looked at the altimeter at the top of a loop, so I really have no idea!
Click to expand...

Depends on entry speed. In my Decathlon at a normal entry speed of 160mph, loop diameter is 600 to 800 feet depending on how hard I pull and float.

Someone in an Extra or similar might be able to do 2000 feet if they started at Vne and really milked the energy. I don't know those planes well enough to know for sure.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
What horsepower to weight ratio does one need to successfully complete a loop around a bridge while maintaining 1000' from the bridge? So, a perfect 2,000' diameter (or larger) loop? I've never looked at the altimeter at the top of a loop, so I really have no idea!
Click to expand...
I recall being told that a T-33 takes about 6000 feet.
 
When you’re ready to hang up your boots and quit flying, I’ll pay for your avgas and film from the passenger seat in the decathlon, @Ed Haywood
 
SFDukie said:
When you’re ready to hang up your boots and quit flying, I’ll pay for your avgas and film from the passenger seat in the decathlon, @Ed Haywood
Click to expand...

Dunno about that, but I'm still looking forward to taking you up when you pass through Florida. I've been working up my back seat skills.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Dunno about that, but I'm still looking forward to taking you up when you pass through Florida. I've been working up my back seat skills.
Click to expand...
I would prefer that he pass over Florida, as I doubt he could actually get through it with an airplane. ;)
 
flyingcheesehead said:
What horsepower to weight ratio does one need to successfully complete a loop around a bridge while maintaining 1000' from the bridge? So, a perfect 2,000' diameter (or larger) loop? I've never looked at the altimeter at the top of a loop, so I really have no idea!
Click to expand...
A T-34 can do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top