I don’t normally start the “check out this crazy video” threads, but I couldn’t resist with this one.
Holy shit! “Those crazy Texans,” indeed! Stupid is more like it.
But seriously, what’s the FAA likely to do in this case?
There was plenty of stupid going on there.
Terrible piece of flying - even disregarding the potential collision with the person filming, he was lucky his wing didn’t clip the ground.
That said, did the people on the runway have permission to be there? A runway is for aircraft, not someone on a mini quad-bike.
It was a choreographed stunt. Two problems, though:
-
The pilot’s waiver that allowed him to do aerobatics expired in November. (The airport says it’s valid, but this is not the case from what I’ve read.)
-
There is still a requirement that people on the ground not be endangered.
As for the first item, the pilot may have been acting in good faith. This, of course, carries no weight with the FAA. (Their motto: ‘We’re not happy until you’re unhappy.’ I keed! I keed the FAA!)
As for the second item, the pilot and everyone involved with the stunt and shoot obviously believed there was no danger. The FAA thinks otherwise. The pilot might be able to convince them that all appropriate steps were taken to ensure the safety of ground personnel. Might. But if the waiver was expired, there’s no getting around that. There will be enforcement action of some sort. It’s just a matter of how severe it will be.
.
Too late.
Mr. Larsen would like to see you in the morning.
10am
1601 Lind Avenue SW, Suite 260
Renton, WA 98057
Best station call letters/story subject ever.
Nitpick: You don’t need a waiver to do aerobatics. You need one to do aerobatics at low levels.
They are usually granted incrementally, with the lowest being ground level. The guy who taught me aerobatics had a ground level waiver for airshows, and it took him two or three years to get it.
So, not to defend the nonsense in that video, but if the guy had a recently expired ground level waiver, he was no novice. Still stupid, but it’s not just some yahoo with more money than experience.
Yeah, I thought about that after I posted; but I didn’t bother to come back to make a clarification post.
The pilot’s certainly no novice. There’s no way he got up one morning and decided to call his friends for a little video hilarity. I’m sure he has a lot of experience in that aircraft (it wasn’t a rented Decathlon, after all), and I’m sure he used his experience to know exactly where his aircraft would be. He probably practiced the maneuver countless times with nobody on the ground. Barring a sudden wind gust – and he must have studied the weather beforehand – or pilot error – which he’d practiced not to commit – it was probably as safe as it could be. But all of the preparation does not show on the video. All we see is the stunt.
Here’s the thing: Being experienced as he obviously is, there’s no excuse for flying on an expired waiver; good faith or not.
It’s a 100 foot wide runway and the white border is about 3.5 feet wide. the camera is about 10 feet from the edge. The wingtip comes down to the height of the 4x4 front wheel during the wheelie.
I’m not buying that it looked closer than it was because of the camera angle. Using the horizon as a reference point as well as the 4 x 4 I’d say the wingtip was 2 feet off the ground and the plane passed within 5 feet of the camera.
I don’t think a wing strike would have destroyed the plane but it would interfere with the flying characteristics upon impact and this was done with someone in front of the plane.
Wouldn’t have done the guy with the camera much good either.
“Clean-up on runway three.”
Well that’s what I meant. He was next to the 4 x 4 when his wing was a few feet off the ground. The camera person would have suffered the wing strike.
The pilot was too low and waaaaaay to close to people. At 200 mph the tiniest control changes would soak up the gap between plane, ground, and people.
One three
Lancaster Muni. Runway One Eight.
I would think hitting anything with a wingtip would spin the plane, but apparently you can hit cowsand peoplewith no ill effect.
That’s not to say you should treat the towerlike a pylon at the Air Race! They’re far less forgiving!
The ground is the least forgiving. It never really got over what my dad and I did to it back in 1974. :eek:
Neither did we.
I like my aerobatics at a really high altitude.
Did the fact that the plane banked AWAY from the people suggest anything?
Had he lost control, most scenarios would have the plane or its wreckage moving away from the runway.
It suggests what I suggested earlier - that this was an experienced pilot doing something that nonetheless appears reckless.
Leaving aside the possible expiration of his waiver, the FAA could take action against the pilot for the mere appearance of recklessness. The regs are written such that pilots can be blamed for just about anything, even when there is no precise verbiage proscribing a certain action. And the FAA is known to have no sense of humor about dangerous stunts, especially when video of it goes viral.
Example: the guy piloting a helo a while back while also having sex with a girl. They came down on him like a ton of bricks, despite what in my opinion was a masterful display of multitasking and situational awareness.
My bet is this guy will get some sort of action from the FAA even if it turns out to have been a pre-arranged and rehearsed stunt.
Well hell, let’s see that video.
Looked like it was done on a takeoff:
I have been in an 260HP Pits & I do not think it was at 200MPH. I wonder what else is misrepresented?
Biggest oops was thinking if it was on the net, the FAA would not see it.