Martha Lunken has privileges revoked

SkyDog58 said:
What individuals like her fail to understand is that certain things are illegal not because they are immediately dangerous in a given moment with given personnel but that they have a high probability of being dangerous in most moments and with most personnel. The consequences can be deadly. Now, she may or may not have the skills required to pull off her stupid stunt in most circumstances. I do not know. What I do know is that far wiser and far more experienced people than me have determined that such a stunt with an average Joe schmuck pilot under less than favorable conditions could result in an accident, likely fatal. The rules are not written for a Kirby Chambliss type flying under the bridge on a clear calm day. The rules are there for the lesser skilled pilot and gusty days. And there is no mechanism in the rules, nor should there be, for any pilot on a given day to make a determination that they personally are up to the task. I was told a long time ago that just because no one died does not mean the operation was conducted safely. I believe that to be true.
Click to expand...

Lots of assumptions there. I bet she doesn't "fail to understand" any of that. She knows why the rule is there, she just disregarded it. People do it every day. Sitting in a turn lane with a red light that hasn't changed after 3-cycles of the traffic signal . . . you gonna sit there for another 3 cycles to turn left, or are you going to go ahead and turn left on red when it's safe to do so? She knew the rules, the risks for being caught, and she decided the thrill was worth the risk/potential punishment. She was given a punishment and complied with it to earn her certs back. Seems like everything has been rectified.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Lots of assumptions there. I bet she doesn't "fail to understand" any of that. She knows why the rule is there, she just disregarded it. People do it every day. Sitting in a turn lane with a red light that hasn't changed after 3-cycles of the traffic signal . . . you gonna sit there for another 3 cycles to turn left, or are you going to go ahead and turn left on red when it's safe to do so? She knew the rules, the risks for being caught, and she decided the thrill was worth the risk/potential punishment. She was given a punishment and complied with it to earn her certs back. Seems like everything has been rectified.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Her statement that it isn’t dangerous is her determining that there was no risk and therefore it was ok to do it. It is her saying that the while the act was illegal, it wasn’t dangerous for HER, according to HER. What she fails to understand is that while ultimately she might feel empowered to make the decision in that moment being alone in the cockpit with a wild hair up her six and with no one to stop her, she has no legal right or privilege to do so.

And as many folks seem to look up to her, she is setting a poor example to follow. And that is the sad part of all of this. Her hero status. Her cult icon status. Whatever it is. It is undeserved. And with her attitude, I see her performing some sort of encore in the future. I just hope she doesn’t hurt anyone.
 
SkyDog58 said:
What she fails to understand is that while ultimately she might feel empowered to make the decision in that moment being alone in the cockpit with a wild hair up her six and with no one to stop her, she has no legal right or privilege to do so.
Click to expand...
How does she fail to understand this? She understands it better than most of us! She did it, was punished and people won't let it go. BTW, doesn't matter what you or I think... she complied with the law and they say she can fly again.

We're all adults... we shouldn't need examples or heroes. I don't think what she did was dangerous, but I still don't plan to do it. I choose not to take that risk. I'm not changing my mind just because I like her writing.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I see her performing some sort of encore in the future.
Click to expand...
In the interview she was asked if this was the first time she flew under the bridge....she giggled and said "I better plead the fifth on that". I'm not saying the punishment wasn't enough, nor do I feel it was overly harsh. I was merely bringing up that she was interviewed. I do think the interview reflected poorly on her and her attitude about the event.
 
SkyDog58 said:
And as many folks seem to look up to her, she is setting a poor example to follow.
Click to expand...

Sometimes there are the "local celebrity" pilots that like to do amazing things in planes. Many of these guys are very talented and others may just be getting away with it for awhile.

I see your point but (legality aside) isn't the same sort of "looking up to them" done by us beginner pilots as we look to some of the amazing pilots we see flying performances at airshows? Isn't an individual pilot responsible to learn, respect, and grow, their own limits?

Don't misunderstand ... I don't condone at all what she did as I try to obey the law believing that the laws (for the most part) are written for the good and protection of the masses. But the influence that this has on others has to be seen in the light of how they allow it to change their behavior.
 
SkyDog58 said:
It is her saying that the while the act was illegal, it wasn’t dangerous for HER, according to HER.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that's how a number people feel in aviation when it comes to the rules and regs on what to do with THEIR aircraft. That is, right up to the moment one of their fellow aviators doesn't follow those stink'in rules and they are the one that gets screwed. Then it's "I'll call the FSDO" or "I'll sue them out of existence." Blah, blah, blah.:rolleyes:
 
There's a zip line at Camp Kern across that same valley right where she did her stunt. There's no way she (or anyone) could see it at 100kt or whatever. If she hits that she not only kills herself but anyone on/near the Zipline. But keep on worshipping this crazy old woman who did nothing to earn the fame she has.
 
SkyDog58 said:
What individuals like her fail to understand is that certain things are illegal not because they are immediately dangerous in a given moment with given personnel but that they have a high probability of being dangerous in most moments and with most personnel. The consequences can be deadly. Now, she may or may not have the skills required to pull off her stupid stunt in most circumstances. I do not know. What I do know is that far wiser and far more experienced people than me have determined that such a stunt with an average Joe schmuck pilot under less than favorable conditions could result in an accident, likely fatal. The rules are not written for a Kirby Chambliss type flying under the bridge on a clear calm day. The rules are there for the lesser skilled pilot and gusty days. And there is no mechanism in the rules, nor should there be, for any pilot on a given day to make a determination that they personally are up to the task. I was told a long time ago that just because no one died does not mean the operation was conducted safely. I believe that to be true.
Click to expand...
Sure it was contrary to regulation. She knew that going into it and dealt with the consequences. Nothing unsafe or requiring significant skill. She flew a little, slow airplane under a large stationary object. Yawn…

Edit:
If that’s all it takes to excite her she’s easily amused
 
Last edited:
Todd82 said:
There's a zip line at Camp Kern across that same valley right where she did her stunt. There's no way she (or anyone) could see it at 100kt or whatever. If she hits that she not only kills herself but anyone on/near the Zipline. But keep on worshipping this crazy old woman who did nothing to earn the fame she has.
Click to expand...
Was that there when she did it? If so, it sounds like it was just luck that she didn't hit it.
 
Palmpilot said:
Was that there when she did it? If so, it sounds like it was just luck that she didn't hit it.
Click to expand...
A quick Google search tells me the highest zipline at Camp Kern is 200' and it's 1.5 miles from the bridge. The bridge is 239', so yeah, that's a little close!
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Sure it was contrary to regulation. She knew that going into it and dealt with the consequences. Nothing unsafe or requiring significant skill. She flew a little, slow airplane under a large stationary object. Yawn…

Edit:
If that’s all it takes to excite her she’s easily amused
Click to expand...
So it's a "yawn" to ignore laws and regulations as long you think you can do it and deal with the consequences - when forced to - if you get caught. Roger that.
 
With all the discussion on how safe or unsafe it is, I wonder what percentage of bridge underflying attempts have actually resulted in accidents?

Of course, she didn't get in trouble for flying under the bridge itself, there's no regulation specifically prohibiting it, but for the low flying necessary to do it... and, of course, turning off her ADS-B.
 
Salty said:
So it's a "yawn" to ignore laws and regulations as long you think you can do it and deal with the consequences - when forced to - if you get caught. Roger that.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I said. The actual flying involved was a yawn. I was not weighing in on the regulatory issues.
 
Dana said:
With all the discussion on how safe or unsafe it is, I wonder what percentage of bridge underflying attempts have actually resulted in accidents?

Of course, she didn't get in trouble for flying under the bridge itself, there's no regulation specifically prohibiting it, but for the low flying necessary to do it... and, of course, turning off her ADS-B.
Click to expand...
When she flew under a 239' bridge, she wasn't flying 500 feet away from any "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" as required by 91.119(c).
 
I never liked her to begin with. People who impose upon her some kind of Hunter Thompson, Gonzo journalist image flatter her. She's not that interesting.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Her statement that it isn’t dangerous is her determining that there was no risk and therefore it was ok to do it.
Click to expand...
Not dangerous isn't the same as no risk. Very little is no risk. Flying does not have no risk. "Dangerous" implies a level of risk above some threshold.
 
Lowflynjack said:
A quick Google search tells me the highest zipline at Camp Kern is 200' and it's 1.5 miles from the bridge. The bridge is 239', so yeah, that's a little close!
Click to expand...
Is this marked on sectionals? Because absent the bridge, there's no minimum altitude over the river as long as you remain 500' from any person, vessel, or structure. If the zipline is really invisible, how are we to avoid it?
 
Lindberg said:
Is this marked on sectionals? Because absent the bridge, there's no minimum altitude over the river as long as you remain 500' from any person, vessel, or structure. If the zipline is really invisible, how are we to avoid it?
Click to expand...
If you're 500' above you're clear. If you're going under bridges you're not.

OneCharlieTango said:
I never liked her to begin with. People who impose upon her some kind of Hunter Thompson, Gonzo journalist image flatter her. She's not that interesting.
Click to expand...
What has she ever done to earn the fame? Besides marry old man Lunken for a few minutes and then keep his name for 50 years afterwards for aviation clout.
 
Palmpilot said:
Was that there when she did it? If so, it sounds like it was just luck that she didn't hit it.
Click to expand...
It's been there for years long before she did that. And as a local she'd know it's there like I do.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Dude. I don’t need to read it. I read your reply and clarified what I was trying to say because I didn’t do a good job of conveying my intended message the first time. Why is this so hard to understand…
Click to expand...
It's hard to understand that you changed your mind when you don't actually say you changed your mind.
 
Palmpilot said:
When she flew under a 239' bridge, she wasn't flying 500 feet away from any "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" as required by 91.119(c).
Click to expand...

Exactly. It didn't matter that it was a bridge or that she was under it or 239' over it. If there is a bridge deck somewhere that's over 500' above the ground with supports 1000' apart it could be legal to fly under it. For that matter, ultralights, powered parachutes, and weightshift aircraft can legally fly under bridges "if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface" as they're not subject to 91.119c.

OneCharlieTango said:
I never liked her to begin with. People who impose upon her some kind of Hunter Thompson, Gonzo journalist image flatter her. She's not that interesting.
Click to expand...

Hunter Thompson she's not, but she's entertaining. You wouldn't want everybody to act like her, but society needs a lunatic fringe to keep things stirred up.
 
Lindberg said:
How would I know to be 500' above it if it's invisible and I don’t know it's there?
Click to expand...
If you're 500 above the bridge you're also clear of the zip. Besides that valley isn't very wide at all. Isn't it also 2000' horizontal clearance of structures? If so you can't descend into that valley at all probably.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Sure. Never mind whatever. It’s all stupid. Arguing about what a narcissistic nothing of a person did in an airplane. It’s all a waste of time.
Click to expand...
No it's not. ;)
 
Todd82 said:
If you're 500 above the bridge you're also clear of the zip. Besides that valley isn't very wide at all. Isn't it also 2000' horizontal clearance of structures? If so you can't descend into that valley at all probably.
Click to expand...
Over sparsely populated areas or water it's 500' in any direction.
 
Rode that Zip Line a few years ago. Didn’t see any planes that day.

Cheers
 
Todd82 said:
...Isn't it also 2000' horizontal clearance of structures?...
Click to expand...
That rule only exists in congested areas. (Which it may have been; I'm not familiar with the area.)
 
Todd82 said:
If you're 500 above the bridge you're also clear of the zip. Besides that valley isn't very wide at all. Isn't it also 2000' horizontal clearance of structures? If so you can't descend into that valley at all probably.
Click to expand...
Apparently it's a mile and a half away. So I don't have to be anywhere near the bridge.

"[O]ver 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 . . . ."
 
Can a person fly an ultralight under a bridge?

Asking for a friend.

Cheers
 
As an aside, I've been over (planes and cars) and under (on foot) those twin bridges many times. I would believe that a student pilot that was ready for a solo cross country would be qualified to fly under them. Heck, I'd make it a low-altitude air route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top