Unsafe Flight- Watch it HERE!

video's been yanked, by the user. post your own flight and then pull it down spike? why?

(Chuckle).

Wait, was it, in fact, posted to Youtube by Spike? If so, I'll destroy the copy I have as well.


Nope, not me, and I am beginning to regret ever posting it.

Actually, what I regret is the thread title, as I jumped to the conclusion that it was "dangerous flight," when what I really intended was that others view it and render their own impressions. Since I dislike it when people jump to unfair conclusions without all the appropriate evidence, it is especially painful when the offending person is... me.

For everyone whose sensibilities have been offended (and this would include the pilot, if by chance he ever reads this), please accept my apologies.

I am suitably reminded that, for every event with eyewitnesses, there are at least as many stories as there are witnesses, and none of them is likely to be perfect.
 
(Chuckle).




Nope, not me, and I am beginning to regret ever posting it.

Actually, what I regret is the thread title, as I jumped to the conclusion that it was "dangerous flight," when what I really intended was that others view it and render their own impressions. Since I dislike it when people jump to unfair conclusions without all the appropriate evidence, it is especially painful when the offending person is... me.

For everyone whose sensibilities have been offended (and this would include the pilot, if by chance he ever reads this), please accept my apologies.

I am suitably reminded that, for every event with eyewitnesses, there are at least as many stories as there are witnesses, and none of them is likely to be perfect.

otoh - there are plenty of times when some stupid pilot trick such as busting TFRs or running out of gas elicits a chorus of "these guys are giving us a black eye"
 
otoh - there are plenty of times when some stupid pilot trick such as busting TFRs or running out of gas elicits a chorus of "these guys are giving us a black eye"

Yeah, but there is a degree to which such things are inadvertent. No one purposefully runs out of gas or busts the wrong airspace. We can argue over how careless they were to run into such a situation (and we have argued just that). What was on the video looked like a very intentional buzz job to me.
 
Yeah, but there is a degree to which such things are inadvertent. No one purposefully runs out of gas or busts the wrong airspace. We can argue over how careless they were to run into such a situation (and we have argued just that). What was on the video looked like a very intentional buzz job to me.

Is there ever an unintentional buzz job?
 
(Chuckle).




Nope, not me, and I am beginning to regret ever posting it.

Actually, what I regret is the thread title, as I jumped to the conclusion that it was "dangerous flight," when what I really intended was that others view it and render their own impressions. Since I dislike it when people jump to unfair conclusions without all the appropriate evidence, it is especially painful when the offending person is... me.

For everyone whose sensibilities have been offended (and this would include the pilot, if by chance he ever reads this), please accept my apologies.

I am suitably reminded that, for every event with eyewitnesses, there are at least as many stories as there are witnesses, and none of them is likely to be perfect.

You are correct in many ways, although, reporting to the FSDO will only accomplish getting someone to review it. If it was something bad, they'll act, if it wasn't then they won't. I see no harm in reporting it.

Regardless, I've deleted the video.
 
I see a big difference between a low pass at a fly in and a low pass, followed by flight at the edge of the envelope, under power lines, behind trees, etc. right next to a group of pilots.

But maybe I'm just a sissy, and don't think that flying a 172 under powerlines is a smart or safe move.

What's the difference between a 172 and an Ag Cat or Air Tractor besides it being considerably smaller and having more clearance? First thing they teach you in Ag school is "Don't climb for wires if you fit under them. Once you see the horizon under them, don't even look at them again, just maintain your clearance off the ground".
 
What's the difference between a 172 and an Ag Cat or Air Tractor besides it being considerably smaller and having more clearance? First thing they teach you in Ag school is "Don't climb for wires if you fit under them. Once you see the horizon under them, don't even look at them again, just maintain your clearance off the ground".

This is getting to be a tiresome argument. Plain and simple, you know as well as I do that this guy was not an ag pilot, doing ag spraying, he was a showoff in a rented 172, that if nothing else, I suspect the owners would not approve of the actions.

If he was an ag pilot, he would have been flying an ag plane, he would have been flying legally, and he wouldn't have been showing off.
 
You are correct in many ways, although, reporting to the FSDO will only accomplish getting someone to review it. If it was something bad, they'll act, if it wasn't then they won't. I see no harm in reporting it.

Regardless, I've deleted the video.
Neither do I. And as long as it is reported as a 'you might wnat to look into the further..." report I see no harm in doing so. In fact that is exactly what I did. I mentioned to them there appears to be an problem here that should be looked into further to determine if any FARs were violated. That is what we should be doing. Not closing our eyes to potential problems. That only will fed into the airport and airplane haters and give them more ammunition to close our airports.
 
What's the difference between a 172 and an Ag Cat or Air Tractor besides it being considerably smaller and having more clearance? First thing they teach you in Ag school is "Don't climb for wires if you fit under them. Once you see the horizon under them, don't even look at them again, just maintain your clearance off the ground".

Funny, first thing they taught me in M1 Abrams Tank school was "Don't swerve to avoid trees and other obstacles -- just drive through them..."

I'll think I'll use that on if I'm ever in a fender-bender.

:rolleyes:
 
Neither do I. And as long as it is reported as a 'you might wnat to look into the further..." report I see no harm in doing so. In fact that is exactly what I did. I mentioned to them there appears to be an problem here that should be looked into further to determine if any FARs were violated. That is what we should be doing. Not closing our eyes to potential problems. That only will fed into the airport and airplane haters and give them more ammunition to close our airports.

And the FSDO guy who is looking at this reassures my faith in the system; he's not on a witch hunt, neither are those that reported it.

FSDO guy said:
We really do appreciate your notification about this, and providing more information. I can assure you that this office will gather all the evidence we can before reaching final conclusions, and that due process will be given.
 
I got a VERY open and frank email about the circumstances of the flight and names of the individuals involved, from the wife of the pilot (who was in the plane with him during the flight) and she thanks us for "giving [her] the platform to open a dialog with my husband to air my concerns about his maneuvers on that particular day".

Her husband has over 600 hours of MEL experience (owns and flies a 310). She said her husband has agreed to review his manner of flying the 172, and the video contents, with 'more experienced pilots whose opinion he respects' and that 'should and FAA inspector contact us, [he] will respond with the appropriate, respectful, red-blooded American pilot, EMT, carpenter/handyman, guardsman/veteran attitude', though she admits that her own reaction to his flight was 'inclined to be more violent'.

According to her, the person who recorded the video is an ATC controller; in his own words, he said that "I won't be calling FSDO. We in ATC, especially those of us that are pilots, don't want to be lumped in with the long arm of the FAA law. We have a reputation as being the good guys of the FAA in our local area, and want to keep it that way."

The “wife” speaking in the video is not the pilot’'s spouse-she was in the plane. The voice in the video is suspected to belong to the wife of a recently certificated pilot who learned in 79079 before its new engine and joined the flying pilot on a day-trip a few months ago.

Sounds like everybody involved has the right attitude--concern for safety, doing the right thing, helping a fellow aviator if indeed he needs such help (which we don't know, if we don't ask).

A while back I emailed the registered owner of the plane in the video and got these two responses (the first was cc'd to Troy):


Dear Concerned Pilots;

My name is B....
(The designer of our website and mother of four, ages 3 to 16.)

Regarding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8Vf79tCDT0

Although our website, , is still on the Internet, I
have been unable to update it since its last update, so the aircraft stats
and phone numbers are incorrect. N46474 and N9112C are still insured for
commercial [aerial tours, rental, and instruction] use; but N8187V, N79079
and N5771M are no longer available for rental and instruction. We have
been weathering the current economic conditions. N8187V, N79079 and
N5711M are only being used by friends and family. And K....., the
pilot of 79079 in the video, has 600+ hours of MEL experience. This was his first soft field
landing and take-off. I have attempted pilot training, and I can land a 172, but children and business
distraction have kept me from being focused on the goal of being a
certificated pilot. I was in the plane during the filming of this video.

In the following comosition, I have interjected my own comments into the
supportive quotes from the pilot community in brackets [] .

-The author of the video, N8837M scnewsps@bresnan.net Scott Newpower writes:

"A friend of ours has about 20 acres a little southwest of Billings and
they have a 1200 foot strip on their property. They have a fly in every
Labor Day weekend [my friend, too]. Here's some video of me taken by
somebody that was there that day. There was very little wind and when I
landed it was 94 degrees. A little storm moved thru while we were there [a
cloth-wing plane nearly took off and was tipped on its wing tip - no real
damage - by the tire/tie-down] and the takeoff temp was probably 80-85.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn1dD_A1ojE&feature=channel [Yep, I
sincerely agree, Mr. Newpower; you did a nice job.]

"At the same fly in was this guy. This is a 172 with the standard 150 HP
[actually, a beautiful, 1-year-old, just 100+hour 160HP from Western
Skyways]. The camera guy didn't get the camera started in time but he took
off with two people [pilot and passenger 380 lbs] and full or nearly full
flaps [short/soft field take-off]. At the end of the runway is a county
road. He had to haul back on the stick to clear the road. Almost exactly
1/2 mile from the departure end is a set of power lines, that is what he's
turning for. He never got high enough to clear the power lines until well
after he completed his 270 degree turn. Notice that when he goes behind
the trees it sounds like the engine gets cut, we thought he decided to
crash land in the field, that's why you see the guy running in the clip.

"Yep, I'm in the video [me, too, inside the plane.]. The camera pans
across me a couple times, I'm standing with the guy that owns the white
Cub in the videos, we work at the tower together. That flight was about 15
minutes before I took off. I am familiar with the airplane as it is
locally based, although I don't know the owner. There were a few people at
the fly in that knew him and the video will get back to him. [The “wife”
speaking in the video is not the pilot’s spouse-I was in the plane, but
the voice in the video is suspected to belong to the wife of a recently
certificated pilot who learned in 79079 before its new engine and joined
Kris on a day-trip a few months ago.] We're a relatively small pilot
community here so word of mouth travels fast. I won't be calling FSDO. We
in ATC, especially those of us that are pilots, don't want to be lumped in
with the long arm of the FAA law. We have a reputation as being the good
guys of the FAA in our local area and we want to keep it that way.

quote from -N8837M scnewsps@bresnan.net Scott Newpower


>From www.pilotsofamerica.com

Henning (also in aopa.forum) of Australia says:

"It's actually very typical flying for cattle mustering. That too is done
down on the deck, flaps deployed and near minimum controllable airspeed. I
didn't see anything done in that video that isn't done by working pilots
on a routine basis around the world. Since you have no clue as to the
pilot’s background, perhaps all this commentary is a bit over the top. I
didn't see anything done that I haven't spent entire days doing including
flying under the wires."

Kent Shook WI

"Well, I hope you're right and he was just demonstrating his slow-flight
skills, but he alarmed at least a few people [By the way, beer was
available for easily excited, non-pilot guests] on the ground at the
airport [note from Scott: “A friend of ours has about 20 acres a little
southwest of Billings and they have a 1200 foot strip on their property.”]
(whom he buzzed). If he truly were in complete control of the plane during
the flight, then I gotta give him credit...slow flight with steep turns at
extremely low altitude takes nerve and skill far beyond what most pilots
possess." [He is skilled, as a pilot, and an EMT, and a
carpenter/handyman, guardsman/veteran. No one can question that. But he
sometimes thinks he’s Superman… Well, sometimes he is.]

>From Aopa.forum

Wabower in AOPA.forum
"If this is the scariest, is it fair to assume you haven't flown with many
primary students?"

SGS 1-26 of AOPA.forum
'Eh... whatever. With freedom comes the freedom to be stupid. That is true
freedom right there. And you putzes want to rat him out. tsk tsk tsk."

1kpfan of AOPA.forum
'it is such a fine line... maybe he is actually that good at slow flight.
But of course that can't be it, he must be
stupid."


Wally Roberts, who likes to spar with the FAA, says:
"He looked like "good stick" to me. If he was violating a traffic pattern
(which we really don't know) then he had bad manners.

This is part of the freedom AOPA has insisted upon at uncontrolled
airports when the weather is good, and I agree with that principle
totally."

Sportster of AOPA.FORUM
"They were having a flour bombing contest, he has some flour on his gear.
[The unfilmed 5 minutes was a second attempt to "deploy” the second flour
bomb, which had hung intact on the wheel, and was noticed on the return to
our home airport.] He was having a great time [He enjoyed the challenge,
but I did not, because this is outside of my experience and comfort zone.]
and the crowd probably enjoyed it. Sounded like a couple of nervous
Nellies making the commentary. Didn't understand all the comments about
flaps, that’s what you use in slow flight.

"Interesting to see all the judgmental commentary. Wonder some people walk
out the door in the morning."
___________________________________________________________________________

As for taking appropriate action: I have reviewed the video with “the
pilot”, and encouraged him to review it with more experienced pilots whose
opinions he respects. He has already started that process.
I also expressed my opinion to him that he should stick to flying his
Cessna 310, since he is good at that, and stop scaring the less
experienced/educated by flying my 172 like a WWII fighter jock.

Should an FAA inspector contact us, Kris will respond with the
appropriate, respectful, red-blooded American pilot, EMT,
carpenter/handyman, guardsman/veteran, attitude – doing what ever is
necessary to “maintain an even strain” and keep his certification in good
standing. [I, on the other hand, am inclined to be more violent. 'might
explain my own lack of a certificate.

I sincerely appreciate your emails. It gave me the platform to open a
dialog with my husband to air my concerns about his maneuvers on that
particular day. Our rental agreement expressly denies the privilege of
landing on private grass strips. And low altitude, slow flight
maneuvers, are discouraged, except in the presence of a CFI (which K... is
not), and then only during emergency landing simulations. He should
respect these parameters even if he is not bound by them.

Sincerely,
B...
Mother, Wife,

Thank you for your concern. Here is the pilot's explanation:

First he apologizes to all who found this event frightening or contrary to
the interests of aviation and safety.
Second, the landing was great, especially for a first time actual short/
soft.
Third, takeoff was immediately post thunderstorm. The windsock indicated a
quartering headwind Pilot encountered a wind shift at about twenty feet
that changed to a quartering tailwind at probably 20 knts. This robbed him
of lift and he circled the field to gain altitude, not seen was that he
cleared the power lines by 50+ft. However, there was virga immediately
ahead so he decided to circle in the field and exit away from the virga.
Challenging, yes.
Now the dunb@$#% stuff. All of the approaches were fairly normal short
approaches with an approach and go. Not an abnormal maneuver. The last
were the same, executed more in the direction of the wind while trying not
to actually overfly any persons or structures. WRONG PLACE,WRONG TIME!
Regardless of what was intended or how mindful one thinks they are being
of the rules or others safety, interpretation is in the eye of the
beholder.
You have the pilot's sincere apology and his promise not to perform these
maneuvers in front of crowds or hecklers with cameras.

Thank You,
 
Last edited:
OK...now I'm more confused than ever...

Oh well...

:nonod:

Well this is what I got from that letter.

1. Kris Kuhr a 600+ hr MEL pilot was flying the SEL 172 in that video.

2. He was doing his first soft field take off and landing

3. The take off itself:

a) The 172 is a 160HP from Western Skyways STC'ed plane

b). Two people in the plane a pilot and passenger weighing 380 lbs
together

c) Aircraft config: full or nearly full flaps [short/soft field take-off].


d) runway is 1200 feet long: At the end of the runway is a county
road. He had to haul back on the stick to clear the road.

e) Power lines: Almost exactly 1/2 mile from the departure end is a
set of power lines, that is what he's turning for. He never got high
enough to clear the power lines until well after he completed his
270 degree turn

4. I (Beth Kuhr) have reviewed the video with “the pilot”, and encouraged him to review it with more experienced pilots whose opinions he respects.

5. Beth Kuht admits to having concerns: "It gave me the platform to open a dialog with my husband to air my concerns about his maneuvers on that day

6. Pilot claims a major windshear: "he windsock indicated a
quartering headwind Pilot encountered a wind shift at about twenty feet
that changed to a quartering tailwind at probably 20 knts"

7. The pilot promises to not let himself get caught doing what ever it is he likes to do: "You have the pilot's sincere apology and his promise not to perform these maneuvers in front of crowds or hecklers with cameras."
 
How do you get to be a 600 hour multi pilot and not know how to do a soft field TO in a 172?


Trapper John
 
...ok..now there are bits of half-chewed apple on my monitor...

:nono:

Let me help clean that up for you then!!

puppy_screen_cleaner.jpg



:D:D:D:D
 
How do you get to be a 600 hour multi pilot and not know how to do a soft field TO in a 172?


Trapper John


I would wager that 99% of pilot mill pilots don't *really* know how to do a soft-field takeoff, either. Hell, if you never land or take off on wet, soggy, muddy grass, you don't really know how to do one.
 
FYI the FAA FSDO is looking for a copy of that video. If you have it they would like to continue to review it as part of their investigation.
Good thing Nick already said he'd deleted it before he knew you were looking for it, or he'd be busted for destruction of evidence to impede an investigation!:smilewinkgrin::rofl:
 
This is getting to be a tiresome argument. Plain and simple, you know as well as I do that this guy was not an ag pilot, doing ag spraying, he was a showoff in a rented 172, that if nothing else, I suspect the owners would not approve of the actions.

If he was an ag pilot, he would have been flying an ag plane, he would have been flying legally, and he wouldn't have been showing off.

What's illegal about flying a rented 172 under the power lines?
 
A while back I emailed the registered owner of the plane in the video and got these two responses (the first was cc'd to Troy):

Yeah, which is why I paraphrased... I was trying to keep the controller and individual(s) names out of this so they could retain SOME anonymity. We all know Google loves POA posts. ;)
 
What's illegal about flying a rented 172 under the power lines?

You know the answer to that question (it involves being within 500ft of objects 2000 feet laterally), so I'm not going to continue this.
 
Isn't there a ruling somewhere that a "congested area" is several people on a beach?
:confused:

Also -- IIRC, up to 20 degrees in 172s reduces stall speed -- any additional after that merely increases drag with little to no decrease in stall speed...

:dunno:
That's right. But if you're trying to go very slowly, to maneuver among obstacles, the drag can't hurt, necessarily. But you better know damn well what it can do in that configuration. Get yourself in a spot where you need to get over something quickly, and you will have a problem.

I've never done anything like the video shows, but I have explored the "dirty" envelope "at altitude" with those planes... I'd imagine it's possible someone could actually have a good grip on things doing this sort of low-level flying, given enough practice. Not the best choice, maybe for a "Flying Farmer" routine, but as has been pointed out, 172s are used for all kinds of utility work, where they can be flown quite safely in this manner.

But aside from the video, we have the anecdotal evidence of poor airmanship on this guy's part, so I'm not saying "it's all good" based solely on the fact that a 172 can actually do that stuff safely.
Seeing as how it was done for the "benefit" of a group of onlookers, I'd wager this is the kind of pilot who didn't learn to fly like this first at a safe altitude (although I could be wrong).
 
The first video "has been removed by the user" from youtube.. thanks for posting the stills.
 
Yeah, which is why I paraphrased... I was trying to keep the controller and individual(s) names out of this so they could retain SOME anonymity. We all know Google loves POA posts. ;)

OK I redacted most of the identifying information, even though it's pretty likely that anyone interested could sort out who was who without my post.
 
That's right. But if you're trying to go very slowly, to maneuver among obstacles, the drag can't hurt, necessarily. But you better know damn well what it can do in that configuration. Get yourself in a spot where you need to get over something quickly, and you will have a problem.

I've never done anything like the video shows, but I have explored the "dirty" envelope "at altitude" with those planes... I'd imagine it's possible someone could actually have a good grip on things doing this sort of low-level flying, given enough practice. Not the best choice, maybe for a "Flying Farmer" routine, but as has been pointed out, 172s are used for all kinds of utility work, where they can be flown quite safely in this manner.

But aside from the video, we have the anecdotal evidence of poor airmanship on this guy's part, so I'm not saying "it's all good" based solely on the fact that a 172 can actually do that stuff safely.
Seeing as how it was done for the "benefit" of a group of onlookers, I'd wager this is the kind of pilot who didn't learn to fly like this first at a safe altitude (although I could be wrong).

A 172 like most light planes is less efficient at generating lift in the air with any flaps deployed. Flaps can shorten the takeoff roll on by getting the plane airborne at a lower IAS and as long as sufficient power is available a plane like that can climb at a steeper angle but if the DA is high enough once the plane is in the air the climb angle with flaps will be less than without. And as already mentioned, full flaps on a 172 will reduce climb performance by quite a bit (and totally eliminate it at MGW above about 5000 DA IIRC). That said, I haven't seen any evidence that anywhere near full flaps were deployed on the 172 in the video.
 
A 172 like most light planes is less efficient at generating lift in the air with any flaps deployed. Flaps can shorten the takeoff roll on by getting the plane airborne at a lower IAS and as long as sufficient power is available a plane like that can climb at a steeper angle but if the DA is high enough once the plane is in the air the climb angle with flaps will be less than without. And as already mentioned, full flaps on a 172 will reduce climb performance by quite a bit (and totally eliminate it at MGW above about 5000 DA IIRC). That said, I haven't seen any evidence that anywhere near full flaps were deployed on the 172 in the video.

Somehow I missed the "testimony" that this was the PIC's first "soft/short" in a 172... that changes my opinion of whatever it is we're looking at in this video. If this started as an earnest attempt to just practice t&gs on a grass strip, the video is pretty damning.
It was a long landing for a touch 'n' go... touched down hot and kinda flat, in which case, if he really wanted to go around normally, he should have gotten rid of one notch of flaps right away after breaking free again... not much sink if you go from 30 to 20, and it helps to get rid of that drag! It's worth trying if you find yourself screwing up a full-flap t & g on a short runway; I've been there. If I have 20 out, I'll leave them until the plane is really climbing reliably. Generally, you can get away with 20 until you are "clear of obstacles" if you want to wait. But 30, or 40 as is the case in some models... gotta retract one notch early just to get Vx, unless you are putting on some sort of show that you have planned out beforehand.

When I flew out of 2N8 the "rule" was to never even approach with more than 20 degrees, because of the length of the runway and nearby obstacles. It wasn't impossible to get out of there with more on a t & g, it was just kinda stupid, especially if you landed long.

Some skill there, in the video, in dealing with what happened next, but there's a lot more to airmanship than mere skill. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You guys are a funny bunch. We had a series of threads about an ADIZ bust where you all fell all over each other to flame the pilot despite the fact that none of you was there. Here you have a video of some guy doing a stunt that is obviously illegal, not to mention dangerous, and you fall all over yourselves to excuse him. The former was bust of a really stupid FAR, the latter a bust of good sense and operating procedure. Busting the ADIZ doesn't kill pilots, these sort of low-level stunts do so routinely.
 
You guys are a funny bunch. We had a series of threads about an ADIZ bust where you all fell all over each other to flame the pilot despite the fact that none of you was there. Here you have a video of some guy doing a stunt that is obviously illegal, not to mention dangerous, and you fall all over yourselves to excuse him. The former was bust of a really stupid FAR, the latter a bust of good sense and operating procedure. Busting the ADIZ doesn't kill pilots, these sort of low-level stunts do so routinely.
Our unpredictability is what makes the community fun though! Often -- it really depends on who gets the first few posts in -- and then people read those and tend to fall in line with it.
 
You guys are a funny bunch. We had a series of threads about an ADIZ bust where you all fell all over each other to flame the pilot despite the fact that none of you was there. Here you have a video of some guy doing a stunt that is obviously illegal, not to mention dangerous, and you fall all over yourselves to excuse him. The former was bust of a really stupid FAR, the latter a bust of good sense and operating procedure. Busting the ADIZ doesn't kill pilots, these sort of low-level stunts do so routinely.
I don't see where everyone was trying to excuse him. Didn't some people turn him in?

Our unpredictability is what makes the community fun though!
That and reading people's viewpoints. If everyone agreed with each other all the time it would be boring. :sleep:
 
I don't see where everyone was trying to excuse him. Didn't some people turn him in?

That and reading people's viewpoints. If everyone agreed with each other all the time it would be boring. :sleep:


Zackly!
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top