LOW Formation flight under Bravo Airspace

benb172

benb172

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
282
Location
Medfield
Display Name
Benb172
Home Airfield
Norwood Airport, KOWD
Check this out. I sent it to my flight instructor with a title saying "Minimum Safe altitudes".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_9RUVUFcmk

Skip to 4:45 for lowest point.

Video Description:
"Crossing low under the LAX class B airspace to Malibu. Yes that's not a really safe altitude, but a fast way to get across. The Mooney had to slow down over 40kts for the Cessna to stay in formation."
 
Making Hanger Flying Stories
 
Well to play devils advocate

With a good horizon and out of gliding range of land anyway it doesn't make THAT much difference how low you are
 
Skylane81E said:
Well to play devils advocate

With a good horizon and out of gliding range of land anyway it doesn't make THAT much difference how low you are
Click to expand...

As long as you're higher than the swells....and height over water can be very difficult to judge.

The 182 in that video looked like he was close to striking the prop in the water, and at one point, dipping a wingtip in.

If the engine were to quit suddenly, the aircraft would pitch down and presumably roll right due to torque effect. One should at least leave enough altitude to recover from that and maybe pitch for best glide and try to slow the aircraft before whanging into the water. There is a lot of difference between a ditching at 60 at controlled attitude and a ditching at 120 out of control.
 
Last edited:
Couple of statistics in the making. There are no old bold pilots.
 
Good news for the Mooney pilot -- only the Cessna's N-number was visible in the video. Does he trust the Cessna pilot not to testify?

"Videotaping this crime spree is the best idea we ever had!" - Jimbo Jones (Simpson's Bully)
 
Last edited:
Dean said:
When running drugs you have to fly that low or radar will pick you up.
Click to expand...

Depends where you are. At LA I'm sure they are using several terminal radar sites.

With advancements to terminal radar, much lower than that...we pick up guys at 100-200AGL. :hairraise:
 
DJTorrente said:
Good news for the Mooney pilot -- only the Cessna's N-number was visible in the video. Does he trust the Cessna pilot not to testify?

"Videotaping this crime spree is the best idea we ever had!" - Jimbo Jones (Simpson's Bully)
Click to expand...

What cfr did they break? 91.13 doesn't count. As mentioned being low over water without non liquid visual references is more dangerous then most realize, but legal.
 
ClimbnSink said:
What cfr did they break? 91.13 doesn't count. As mentioned being low over water without non liquid visual references is more dangerous then most realize, but legal.
Click to expand...

Well, FSDO will probably think it counts. And it really doesn't matter if they are right, just getting pulled into the crosshairs is unpleasant enough. "You may beat the wrap, but you won't beat the ride" applies. Aside from that, doing it, and putting it (publicly) on YouTube are two different things.
 
The old we better not exercise or publicise our rights to preserve them argument.
 
DJTorrente said:
Well, FSDO will probably think it counts. And it really doesn't matter if they are right, just getting pulled into the crosshairs is unpleasant enough. "You may beat the wrap, but you won't beat the ride" applies. Aside from that, doing it, and putting it (publicly) on YouTube are two different things.
Click to expand...

Who would the FSDO consider to be the "another"? Fish?

§91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Who would the FSDO consider to be the "another"? Fish?

§91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Click to expand...

There are a fair number of ships in that channel. There are also a couple of small craft harbors not far from there.

There is also the other aircraft in that formation....
 
MAKG1 said:
There are a fair number of ships in that channel. There are also a couple of small craft harbors not far from there.
Click to expand...

All I saw in the video was open water.

There is also the other aircraft in that formation....
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the FAA considers formation flying to be careless or reckless?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
All I saw in the video was open water.
Click to expand...

Odds are the channel was not empty. The video doesn't show it but maybe LAX radar might show something different.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Are you saying that the FAA considers formation flying to be careless or reckless?
Click to expand...

Not on its own. But if you're going to do stupid stuff, formation flying puts someone's life in close proximity to threaten. That wasn't exactly military grade formation flying. The 182 was all over the place, even to the point of 30 deg banked turns. You can argue that the lead's decision to fly beyond the wingman's capability endangered him.
 
Sorry dude even Ron says it is legal(but dumb.) Legal doesn't mean safe and illegal doesn't always mean unsafe. Personal judgement required, reelying on the rules is folly.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Sorry dude even Ron says it is legal(but dumb.) Legal doesn't mean safe and illegal doesn't always mean unsafe. Personal judgement required, relying on the rules is folly.
Click to expand...
"Rule books are paper: They will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal."
-Earnest K. Gann

Ron Wanttaja
 
MAKG1 said:
Not on its own. But if you're going to do stupid stuff, formation flying puts someone's life in close proximity to threaten. That wasn't exactly military grade formation flying. The 182 was all over the place, even to the point of 30 deg banked turns. You can argue that the lead's decision to fly beyond the wingman's capability endangered him.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting concept -- that a formation leader has a legal duty under 91.13 not to endanger his/her wingman by exceeding the wingman's capabilities, or flying him/her into the ground, or anything like that. But I've never heard of that sort of thing becoming an issue outside the military where 91.13 isn't the rule being violated, or as a lead qualification issue for FAST/FFI or other formation certification body, so I think that idea is a bit beyond anything the FAA ever considered when writing that rule.

I might also point out that the 30-bank turns may have been as the result of being sent to the "fighting wing" position, where lead maneuvers without much regard to the wingman, who then does whatever it takes to stay in the 30-degree cone behind lead. I did notice that the wingman was well behind the normal "parade" wing position, very much more in the "fighting wing" location.
 
frfly172 said:
Couple of statistics in the making. There are no old bold pilots.
Click to expand...

Bob Hoover, Chuck Yeager, my uncle Lloyd.... The list goes on and on and on. Scared and timid pilots are much more likely to die because they don't understand the edges of the envelope when the need to operate their arises.
 
Sheesh. Airplanes without floats, trying to be boats.

Boats without wings, trying to be airplanes.

h24rt2.jpg


Pretty sure these guys could have saved some money and went in on a gofast boat if thats thier thing.

img_3405.jpg


No way i'd be doing that, but it did make for a good video!
 
JasonM said:
Sheesh. Airplanes without floats, trying to be boats.

Boats without wings, trying to be airplanes.

h24rt2.jpg


Pretty sure these guys could have saved some money and went in on a gofast boat if thats thier thing.

img_3405.jpg


No way i'd be doing that, but it did make for a good video!
Click to expand...

Save money over an airplane with one of those boats, especially the bottom one? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: NFW!
 
Henning said:
Save money over an airplane with one of those boats, especially the bottom one? :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: NFW!
Click to expand...


Maybe I picked a bad example. That is one bad ass boat! :rofl:, that airplane filming seemed awfully nice though. What do you figure the value is on it?

This better?

images
 
Last edited:
JasonM said:
Maybe I picked a bad example. That is one bad ass boat! :rofl:, that airplane filming seemed awfully nice though. What do you figure the value is on it?
Click to expand...

The bottom one is probably about $700k+ to buy and burns 120-180gph to do 90-120kts. Figure it gets about 200hrs TBO on the $50,000 engines and has a pair of $18,000 drives to handle the 900+HP per side.
 
Henning said:
The bottom one is probably about $700k+ to buy and burns 120-180gph to do 90-120kts. Figure it gets about 200hrs TBO on the $50,000 engines and has a pair of $18,000 drives to handle the 900+HP per side.
Click to expand...

Boat engines have a TBO!?

How does it end up being less than 2000 hours?
 
dans2992 said:
Boat engines have a TBO!?

How does it end up being less than 2000 hours?
Click to expand...

Well, it's not an official TBO, that's just how long they go before blowing up lol. It's less than 2000 because rather than making .5hp/CuIn, they make 2+HP/CuIn. I built a set of 3 472cuin MkIV Chevys for a 47' Fountain that were 1270hp a piece with dual turbos feeding 8-92 blowers on top of the engines which were also equipped with NOS systems to get out of the hole while the turbos spooled up and to add a little "umph" on a close finish. Every 50 hrs we'd yank them and change the bearings and rod bolts if nothing had broke in the mean time. That pretty much gets you through the season, then off season you go through the engines and give them a thorough IRAN. 200hrs is a heavy season.
 
Henning said:
Well, it's not an official TBO, that's just how long they go before blowing up lol. It's less than 2000 because rather than making .5hp/CuIn, they make 2+HP/CuIn. I built a set of 3 472cuin MkIV Chevys for a 47' Fountain that were 1270hp a piece with dual turbos feeding 8-92 blowers on top of the engines which were also equipped with NOS systems to get out of the hole while the turbos spooled up and to add a little "umph" on a close finish. Every 50 hrs we'd yank them and change the bearings and rod bolts if nothing had broke in the mean time. That pretty much gets you through the season, then off season you go through the engines and give them a thorough IRAN. 200hrs is a heavy season.
Click to expand...

What if you just had the boat for fun, not competition racing? Would the engines still wear out as fast?
 
dans2992 said:
What if you just had the boat for fun, not competition racing? Would the engines still wear out as fast?
Click to expand...

Yes, likely faster, most people run these boats 'for fun' harder than racing, because racing you need to finish, and racing you have a throttle man and a wheel man, 'for fun' on fat fifty year old man in a banana hammock and a mid life crisis is doing it all while distracted by his 22 year old mistress. Unfortunately for the boat this means the engines are not going to get run optimally; thank God for rev limiters.:rofl:
 
Last edited:
So it sounds like these go fast boats cost more than a turbine single to maintain!?!

That's crazy!

Why don't they just use standard automotive engines? An engine failure in a boat is far less of an emergency than in an aircraft, and I imagine the regulation of maintenance, etc is pretty much nil...
 
dans2992 said:
So it sounds like these go fast boats cost more than a turbine single to maintain!?!

That's crazy!

Why don't they just use standard automotive engines? An engine failure in a boat is far less of an emergency than in an aircraft, and I imagine the regulation of maintenance, etc is pretty much nil...
Click to expand...

Standard auto engines won't go as fast, plus there is some marinization to do. The keys that you need to make these last is a billet crank and steel or titanium rods.
 
Henning said:
Yes, likely faster, most people run these boats 'for fun' harder than racing, because racing you need to finish, and racing you have a throttle man and a wheel man, 'for fun' on fat fifty year old man in a banana hammock and a mid life crisis is doing it all while distracted by his 22 year old mistress. Unfortunately for the boat this means the engines are not going to get run optimally; thank God for rev limiters.:rofl:
Click to expand...

Since when did you have a RPV following me around????? :dunno:
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Who would the FSDO consider to be the "another"? Fish?

§91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Click to expand...

Both had passengers. Do they count?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top