Qatar 777 low pass Horseshoe Bay Tx

nauga said:
That he crossed a picket line or that he was flying the subject of this thread?


And a few more who will hijack a thread at the drop of a post.

Nauga,
and 7500 reasons why
Click to expand...
Interestingly, some here seem very selective about just which thread hijackings they choose to object to.

That said, I apologize if I've committed an infraction.
 
Roger Wilco said:
That said, I apologize if I've committed an infraction.
Click to expand...
No apology necessary. While I thought your post was a good lead-in to my complaint, it was not the post I took issue with.
My apologies for the confusion, and with that I'll end my meta-hijack.

Nauga,
ceasing buzzer
 
Wondering if he dropped those flaps and dropped lower than expected?
 
nauga said:
No apology necessary. While I thought your post was a good lead-in to my complaint, it was not the post I took issue with.
My apologies for the confusion, and with that I'll end my meta-hijack.

Nauga,
ceasing buzzer
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. I have been confused ever since the Internet was invented.

I do, however, think that the matter of just who was driving that bus is within the scope of the thread. I mean, if Dan Gryder were involved…no, nevermind.

Back to the scheduled programming.
 
Roger Wilco said:
Interestingly, some here seem very selective about just which thread hijackings they choose to object to.
Click to expand...
I have refrained from explaining my dislike of the comment for the better good of the thread (and civility in general). I stand by my reaction. My way of saying my peace without further dialogue.
 
Racerx said:
I have refrained from explaining my dislike of the comment for the better good of the thread (and civility in general). I stand by my reaction. My way of saying my peace without further dialogue.
Click to expand...
PM me if you want to get it off your chest. Unless, of course, you happen to have performed struck work.
 
Groundpounder said:
Wonder if it was that scab Bob Allen from Nomadic Aviation at the helm
Click to expand...
I dunno anything abou the guy or the actions he took some 37 years ago, but fwiw he's quoted as saying it wasn't him or his shop at the controls, though he supposedly knows who it was (scroll to the end):
www.aerotime.aero

Industry peer hints at who flew contentious 777 low-pass

A Boeing 777 flyby in the US has been at the center of a viral storm after the aircraft’s wing appeared to be just feet away from the ground as it turned.
www.aerotime.aero www.aerotime.aero
 
As pointed out in the video, there appears to be a person with prior knowledge filming the event. What if this was carefully staged not to violate any FARs. Is the person filming <500 ft from the aircraft?

next
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. Not a factor

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. Not a factor at this location.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over 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. Applicable - A population is the total number of inhabitants. The airport population is probably zero.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. Not a factor
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that wouldn't be a factor. If power had failed during that pass, do you think there was sufficient runway left to put it down without running off the end? And what about after he'd started his low-altitude turn?
 
DaleB said:
I'm not so sure that wouldn't be a factor. If power had failed during that pass, do you think there was sufficient runway left to put it down without running off the end? And what about after he'd started his low-altitude turn?
Click to expand...
If “a power unit” failed, they’d have others that would be sufficient to land without undue hazard.
 
Clip4 said:
As pointed out in the video, there appears to be a person with prior knowledge filming the event. What if this was carefully staged not to violate any FARs. Is the person filming <500 ft from the aircraft?

next
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. Not a factor

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. Not a factor at this location.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over 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. Applicable - A population is the total number of inhabitants. The airport population is probably zero.
Click to expand...
Yep, and I personally know a friend who was violated by the SAT FSDO and given a 90 day suspension because he allegedly flew an ILS to a low approach with the gear up, and one of my favorite SAT FSDO inspectors said that the gear up was proof that he had no intent to land, therefore he was in violation of 91.119 which only gives an exception for takeoff or landing.
That's why even when I'm training students in tailwheel and it's in the student's best interest to fly down the runway rather than land, it's best to call a landing a do a "go-around." Honestly someone should have this fixed with the regs, because a low inspection pass over a runway is not inherently unsafe and you shouldn't be penalized like that for what is legal if you land.
 
airliner low passes..the WNBA of aviation spectating. lmao.


RyanShort1 said:
Yep, and I personally know a friend who was violated by the SAT FSDO and given a 90 day suspension because he allegedly flew an ILS to a low approach with the gear up, and one of my favorite SAT FSDO inspectors said that the gear up was proof that he had no intent to land, therefore he was in violation of 91.119 which only gives an exception for takeoff or landing.
That's why even when I'm training students in tailwheel and it's in the student's best interest to fly down the runway rather than land, it's best to call a landing a do a "go-around." Honestly someone should have this fixed with the regs, because a low inspection pass over a runway is not inherently unsafe and you shouldn't be penalized like that for what is legal if you land.
Click to expand...

What they need to fix is that FSDO, and their little cartel of dermatoporosis patients. They still hiding cardboard cutouts of themselves behind bulletproof glass while working from home, and no appointments except Thursday from 9 to 11? Don't answer that I'm being rhetorical. :fingerwag:
 
hindsight2020 said:
What they need to fix is that FSDO, and their little cartel of dermatoporosis patients. They still hiding cardboard cutouts of themselves behind bulletproof glass while working from home, and no appointments except Thursday from 9 to 11? Don't answer that I'm being rhetorical. :fingerwag:
Click to expand...
It may or may not have something to do with my choice to live in Dallas after my student incident.
 
I suppose the enforcement branch has been mulling this over in great detail; how long would they normally take to notify pilots of any penalty?
 
MauleSkinner said:
If “a power unit” failed, they’d have others that would be sufficient to land without undue hazard.
Click to expand...

Tarheelpilot said:
I understood. I was just trying to figure out a way to call him an ******* without violating the TOS.

And there it is. I said the quiet things out loud.

Yeah. He can **** right off.

Been in this industry for 30 years. On both side of the union line. I don’t like unions… but they are a necessary evil to extract reasonable wage and work rules.

So yeah. **** that scab and **** anyone that defends his selfish behavior.
Click to expand...
He clearly has a company man personality in his videos.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I suppose the enforcement branch has been mulling this over in great detail; how long would they normally take to notify pilots of any penalty?
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but I think that they have 30 days from when they became aware of the incident. As butthurt as some people are over the video, you have to assume that they are “aware” by now. :)

Can’t we just chalk it up to good, clean, fun and move on? :)
 
Mod Note:

Okay guys, let's keep this thing on topic (as much as we can on PoA!) - the union stuff will only stir up emotions that'll eventually get the thread locked. Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top