S&R Hope they find them soon

I've been through that area on the ground and in the air. Not a heckuva lot going on in Dixon. Lots of places for a plane to crash and hide though. :frown3:
 
Found with SAR team rappeling to crash site. Prelim says no survivors.
 
I flew over Dixon just the day before. I was a beautiful calm day. And, so was Sunday..
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
:(

"several" people reported to the sheriff's office they had seen a small blue-and-white plane flying extremely low, just 20 to 30 feet above the river and nearby treetops, Sunday afternoon.
Click to expand...

Too bad the FAA guy doesn't know the regulations:

"Five hundred feet is the absolute minimum, and that's like in the middle of Kansas with nothing around," FAA spokesman Matt Fergus told the Associated Press. Even if the plane was 300 feet off the ground instead of 20 or 30, "that's illegal" Fergus added."

Maybe he should flip open the FARs and have a look:

91.119(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.

EDIT: Based on descriptions of the terrain and difficulty getting to the crash site, I'm assuming of course that they were over a sparsely populated area and were not near any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
 
Last edited:
Jack Spectre said:
Too bad the FAA guy doesn't know the regulations:

"Five hundred feet is the absolute minimum, and that's like in the middle of Kansas with nothing around," FAA spokesman Matt Fergus told the Associated Press. Even if the plane was 300 feet off the ground instead of 20 or 30, "that's illegal" Fergus added."

Maybe he should flip open the FARs and have a look:

91.119(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.

EDIT: Based on descriptions of the terrain and difficulty getting to the crash site, I'm assuming of course that they were over a sparsely populated area and were not near any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
Click to expand...

Your assumption is correct.
 
Jack Spectre said:
Too bad the FAA guy doesn't know the regulations:

"Five hundred feet is the absolute minimum, and that's like in the middle of Kansas with nothing around," FAA spokesman Matt Fergus told the Associated Press. Even if the plane was 300 feet off the ground instead of 20 or 30, "that's illegal" Fergus added."

Maybe he should flip open the FARs and have a look:

91.119(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.

EDIT: Based on descriptions of the terrain and difficulty getting to the crash site, I'm assuming of course that they were over a sparsely populated area and were not near any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
Click to expand...
They should at least make these guys carry a current FAR/AIM with them when they are about to speak with the press... pathetic. :rolleyes2:

But regs or no regs, my impression so far is that they were probably flying lower than was prudent.
As a pilot friend once said: "When you think about it, most of the time the FAA gives you just enough rope to hang yourself..."
 
rottydaddy said:
But regs or no regs, my impression so far is that they were probably flying lower than was prudent.
Click to expand...

Exactly. At such low altitude there's no room to move if, while following a twisting river, you come to a bend too sharp to negotiate and the trees too close and too tall to clear. Or an eagle. Or a wire. Or the engine quits. Lots of stuff to get you. Kind of like climbing into the bear pit at the zoo.

Dan
 
The way the FAA defines congested areas, if there was a lone hermit living 50 miles away the area was congested and the flight illegal. So the FAA guy was technically right. I also think its illegal to operate an aircraft in an unsafe manner, like:

Dan Thomas said:
at such a low altitude that there's no room to move if, while following a twisting river, you come to a bend too sharp to negotiate and the trees too close and too tall to clear. Or an eagle. Or a wire.
Click to expand...
 
This is how the FAA at the field level will assess your flying 50ft above the river if something goes wrong:


5. On October 28, 2004, Karen Krueger, Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), reviewed her findings with Inv. Gosh. It should be noted that ASI Krueger has 28
½ years in her capacity as an Aviation Safety Inspector and that her duties include pilot certification, surveillance responsibility of small air carriers, investigations of accidents and enforcement of FAA actions. Her findings revealed that
Strub was violating two regulations in the way he piloted his plane. Her opinion was that he flew in violation of § 91.119 of the US FAR 91.16, which is entitled “Minimum Safe Altitudes” that requires an altitude of 500 feet about the surface over congested areas. This would include that an aircraft should not be operated closer than 500 feet between a person, vessel, vehicle or structure. She further believes that his piloting was in violation of FAR 91.13 entitled “Careless or Reckless Operation of an Aircraft.” ASI Krueger’s opinion was that Strub was negligent in the piloting of the airplane over the River flying at altitudes somewhere in the area of 50 feet above the water. ASI Krueger states that all pilots are
required to fly at higher altitude so that if there is a problem with the aircraft, the pilot can attempt to safely land. The distances off the ground that Strub was piloting his plane would clearly not allow him to recover from any engine problem.​

(excerpt out of the charging document 'State of Wisconsin against Mark Strub' when they pursued him for negligent homicide with a motor vehicle after he snagged a powerline at 48ft above the Wisconsin river killing his passenger)​

​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top