What makes a pilot do this?

Caramon13 said:
I see it and say, boy, that guy is a moron for doing that and even more stupid for making a video out of it. Immediately I think, what makes him so special that the rules don't apply to him, that he thinks he is above reproach because he did something "cool". I think of what could have happened and what may happen again if he isn't shut down because...hazardous attitudes don't simply "go away". This is the guy that will take a passenger up and stall a plane or barrel roll a 172 because...well just because..

Personal preference I guess..
Click to expand...

Ummmm, what rules? Opinions vary, facts don't
 
gsengle said:
This guy was flying over an uneven rocky stream bed and I bet his nose gear was at times within feet of the ground. Not tens of feet, but a couple feet of the ground. If he had maintained even 25 feet I don't think many of us would have had the same reaction.
Click to expand...
Just sand and water dude. No rocky streambed there.
 
After making a pass similar to a precautionary landing, I'd have no qualms about doing this myself. Then too, I've always thought crop dusting would be one of the best jobs to have.
 
N659HB said:
Watch some of his other videos. He flies parasails through treetops.
Click to expand...

Those are some nice videos! I wish I could be doing HALF the things he does! I saw the powered parachuting for the first time at oshkosh last year, wanted one so bad, but you know, those dollar signs are an issue!
 
Clark1961 said:
Ummmm, what rules? Opinions vary, facts don't
Click to expand...

14 CFR 91.119 as already stated as a start, which is what I refer to when I see someone doing something like this. Of course it's my opinion. I wasn't there, were you? Can you prove that if the engine cut out that he would have done zero damage to any persons or property below by performing an emergency landing? Just because we may not have seen any people and may not have perceived anything whizzing by as "property" doesn't make it so. That he wasn't violating any rules at any particular moment is an opinion as well.

Also, just because the video was 1:41 in length doesn't mean that he stopped doing what he was doing, or that he didn't continue to scud run all the way back to the airport.

What he was doing was reckless and there was no good reason to be that low in that plane doing what he was doing. He was showing off. And, as I said above that kind of reckless disregard (which led to nothing this time) is bound to get him into trouble later.
 
Caramon13 said:
14 CFR 91.119 as already stated as a start, which is what I refer to when I see someone doing something like this. Of course it's my opinion. I wasn't there, were you? Can you prove that if the engine cut out that he would have done zero damage to any persons or property below by performing an emergency landing? Just because we may not have seen any people and may not have perceived anything whizzing by as "property" doesn't make it so. That he wasn't violating any rules at any particular moment is an opinion as well.

Also, just because the video was 1:41 in length doesn't mean that he stopped doing what he was doing, or that he didn't continue to scud run all the way back to the airport.

What he was doing was reckless and there was no good reason to be that low in that plane doing what he was doing. He was showing off. And, as I said above that kind of reckless disregard (which led to nothing this time) is bound to get him into trouble later.
Click to expand...
There is no proof that the reg you referenced was violated. Suspicion or suggestion does not equal proof. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong or illegal. When you claim it is a rules violation without proof you diminish the validity of your opinion to the point that it should be ignored. At this point I will ignore any further spurious claims you make.
 
Clark1961 said:
There is no proof that the reg you referenced was violated. Suspicion or suggestion does not equal proof. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong or illegal. When you claim it is a rules violation without proof you diminish the validity of your opinion to the point that it should be ignored. At this point I will ignore any further spurious claims you make.
Click to expand...

Your entire argument makes an appeal to ignorance and is extremely one-sided. You are arguing your conclusion that "he broke no rules or no rules were broken" must be true, because there is no evidence against it. Whereas what I am saying is your argument is inherently flawed because you do not possess all of the facts. You simply are choosing to ignore the other possibilities.

There is a higher probability that rules were in fact broken based upon his actions then not. If investigated, a proper conclusion could be reached. But to just outright say "no rules were broken because there isn't proof" is an expression of ignorance..not fact.
 
Caramon13 said:
Your entire argument makes an appeal to ignorance and is extremely one-sided. You are arguing your conclusion that "he broke no rules or no rules were broken" must be true, because there is no evidence against it. Whereas what I am saying is your argument is inherently flawed because you do not possess all of the facts. You simply are choosing to ignore the other possibilities.

There is a higher probability that rules were in fact broken based upon his actions then not. If investigated, a proper conclusion could be reached. But to just outright say "no rules were broken because there isn't proof" is an expression of ignorance..not fact.
Click to expand...


not arguing legal or not. Watch the rest of his videos, yes they're mostly powered parachute, but he's clearly a skilled pilot (in this case used to refer to parachute), and has a LOT of skilled pilot friends. Also note the OP video is shot from the right seat. We don't know who was flying, what their certifications are, how much experience they have, NOTHING. Just a couple simple observations.
 
Floatplanes said:
not arguing legal or not. Watch the rest of his videos, yes they're mostly powered parachute, but he's clearly a skilled pilot (in this case used to refer to parachute), and has a LOT of skilled pilot friends. Also note the OP video is shot from the right seat. We don't know who was flying, what their certifications are, how much experience they have, NOTHING. Just a couple simple observations.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and its what we DON'T know that makes a difference.
 
Caramon13 said:
Absolutely, and its what we DON'T know that makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is, legalities can not be argued, there's ZERO concrete to base anything on. Everything is all opinion on something like this and my opinion is, I can't wait until the next time I fly so I can run similar. Maybe not quite as low, but certainly close.
 
Floatplanes said:
Bottom line is, legalities can not be argued, there's ZERO concrete to base anything on. Everything is all opinion on something like this and my opinion is, I can't wait until the next time I fly so I can run similar. Maybe not quite as low, but certainly close.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. There are more than a few concrete items that you can base an opinion on, but that's all it is, an opinion. Besides, it kills time between now and when I have to walk out the door from work. :)
 
Caramon13 said:
I respectfully disagree. There are more than a few concrete items that you can base an opinion on, but that's all it is, an opinion. Besides, it kills time between now and when I have to walk out the door from work. :)
Click to expand...

Ok, technically we can argue whatever we want whenever we want.

Truer words have never been spoken!
 
Caramon13 said:
I think this is just a glass half full/empty discussion. You see a video of some guy flying 2 feet off the ground and immediately give him the benefit of the doubt arguing since nothing can be proven, he's immediately free of any blame and why should we care? Nothing happened and so what? It's his plane, so what?

I see it and say, boy, that guy is a moron for doing that and even more stupid for making a video out of it. Immediately I think, what makes him so special that the rules don't apply to him, that he thinks he is above reproach because he did something "cool". I think of what could have happened and what may happen again if he isn't shut down because...hazardous attitudes don't simply "go away". This is the guy that will take a passenger up and stall a plane or barrel roll a 172 because...well just because..

Personal preference I guess..
Click to expand...

No. It's a preference toward or away from regulation is all it is. People will still do it. They just won't post it on YouTube.
 
I'm sure people do it and don't post on YouTube. In fact, people have been doing it for years before there was a YouTube. Some people don't get away with it, but most do. It's a myth that there are no old, bold pilots.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm sure people do it and don't post on YouTube. In fact, people have been doing it for years before there was a YouTube. Some people don't get away with it, but most do. It's a myth that there are no old, bold pilots.
Click to expand...

Around here, no need to even find a creek bed. Just go up in the mountains and tuck a wingtip into the rising lift side of a canyon to get your jollies of being inches from death on, if that's your thing.

The glider pilots out of Boulder do it every ridge lift flight, too.

If all you're looking for is low-level feelings of speed, there's ample opportunity around here to accomplish that and even have a semi-rational reason for doing so.

Poor video guy has the disadvantage of living where it's flat, so PoA folks who've never flown fast in the proximity of Terra Firma, can claim he's "unsafe".

I mean, yeah, in relationship to the fact that he doesn't HAVE to be that low for what he's doing, I get it. But none of us have to go aloft at all, either.

That's the end game of over-regulation. No flight allowed without a purpose deemed appropriate to the regulators. We already see it in the Private /Commercial "common purpose" rules and we all know people have flown folks places they had no real common purpose to go to.

Hell, even if I fly my wife to Vegas, she's going for the food and maybe a little shopping and pool drinks, and I'm going to lose a few bucks at a craps table. We don't have a true common purpose. LOL. If I get lucky, I'll cover whatever she buys. Haha.

Lawyers don't like it when you say your common purpose was "fun" and aren't specific. Heh.
 
denverpilot said:
We already see it in the Private /Commercial "common purpose" rules and we all know people have flown folks places they had no real common purpose to go to.
Click to expand...
I'm glad I had never heard of the common purpose rule back when I was a private pilot.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm glad I had never heard of the common purpose rule back when I was a private pilot.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I saw the "holding out" laws broken weekly on the bulletin board at Metro State outside the Aviation major offices. LOL.

Not that anyone paid attention to it back then.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm glad I had never heard of the common purpose rule back when I was a private pilot.
Click to expand...

Still applies to you as a commercial pilot...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aka = also known as. So please explain how you're allowed to charge for more than proportional expenses or hold out for passengers in your private plane without a 135 cert?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Aka = also known as. So please explain how you're allowed to charge for more than proportional expenses or hold out for passengers in your private plane without a 135 cert?
Click to expand...
Please explain where I said I was going to charge more than proportional expenses.
 
Everskyward said:
Please explain where I said I was going to charge more than proportional expenses.
Click to expand...

You're the one who said that rule no longer applied to you. See above.

I was pointing out that it also applies to a commercial pilot or ATP, in their personal plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
You're the one who said that rule no longer applied to you. See above.
Click to expand...
I said that the rule about having a common purpose does not apply to me. I never said anything about charging more than proportional expenses.
 
Everskyward said:
I said that the rule about having a common purpose does not apply to me. I never said anything about charging more than proportional expenses.
Click to expand...

So in your personal plane you can hold out for passengers? As long as you charge only proportionately?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
So in your personal plane you can hold out for passengers? As long as you charge only proportionately?
Click to expand...
If I fly a friend to a destination and they are there for a different reason than I am, I don't consider it "holding out".
 
Everskyward said:
If I fly a friend to a destination and they are there for a different reason than I am, I don't consider it "holding out".
Click to expand...

And therefore everything you've said you're doing is in compliance with the same rule. So you're complying. And bound by the exact same rule as a PPL. Yes?

Where do you get the idea you're exempt from common purpose?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
And therefore everything you've said you're doing is in compliance with the same rule. So you're complying. And bound by the exact same rule as a PPL. Yes?

Where do you get the idea you're exempt from common purpose?
Click to expand...
I've flown many people all over the country, both 91 and 135 when there was no reason for me to go there. And they paid far more than their share of expenses.
 
If you're providing the airplane (you rented it) it is also not allowed, from what I've read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
If you're providing the airplane (you rented it) it is also not allowed, from what I've read.
Click to expand...
I definitely did that as a private pilot, kosher or not. But I haven't rented an airplane in a very long time, except to take various specialty lessons.
 
Everskyward said:
I definitely did that as a private pilot, kosher or not. But I haven't rented an airplane in a very long time, except to take various specialty lessons.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that's illegal as a PP, commercial pilot or A&P with limited exemptions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
Just pointing out that's illegal as a PP, commercial pilot or A&P with limited exemptions
Click to expand...
OK, hence my first comment that I'm glad I didn't know about it when I was a private pilot. ;)

Not sure why you wanted to start an argument.
 
I didn't. You kept disagreeing :) or violently agreeing. I'm not sure which...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top