Low level flying

[JUST-local]

Looks fun, what do you think?

YouTube - Low Level Flying (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVTQoD2Bqg4)

[IO540]

A very risky thing to do unless you are competent at that sort of thing.

It's not illegal if you remain 500ft+ away from boats etc. I don't know if buoys count; he was certainly quite close to those. Taking a bit of a risk to show the tail number :)

My view is that putting this on Youtube is a foolish thing to do and merely brings GA into disrepute (as if that was needed, in some quarters). It's a bit like those FPV model plane flying videos; they are great fun but putting them on Youtube is just going to result in a widespread ban on model plane flying in "interesting" places, which is a great pity.

[pulse1]

I hope that Aircraft Grouping are happy to see one of their aircraft being flown like that. Great fun though.

[Lister Noble]

Bit of a pratt:*:(
Maybe he stuck someone else registration up there.

[IO540]

If I was doing this I would also wind the altimeter back a bit, to improve the wind-up... but I think in this case he really was at 50-100ft.

[SNS3Guppy]

Particularly over water, not a very wise thing to do.

[Katamarino]

I don't see a great problem with it, if you are careful and address the risks. I have no idea of this guy's competence.

Am I correct in thinking that European "standardisation" will soon make this illegal, as they are making any flight below 500 feet illegal except for takeoff and landing, even in deserted locations?

[Pace]

Having come into flying from car racing and being a speed freak there is nothing like such low flying of course I have never done anything like that :E over water or deserted forests.
I would add I am sure we have all flown down the runway at 20 feet I am sure IFR we have hand flown to minute tolerances?
The aircraft doesnt know its at 20 feet not 2000 feet and at least over water you wont hurt anyone but yourself.
Having said that if the donkey goes bang your in the drink! You will probably be out of ATC reception and dont even contemplate such acts unless your skills are well up to it?
Over rough seas you may get a bigger wave than the rest :ugh:
Look at the Red bull racers do we admire them or think they are a bunch of lunatic cowboys? (Yes probably:O
But surely most of us have a dream of flying over deserted terrain just above tree and lake tops stearing around rock faces with our wing tips cutting a shadow a few feet up in a Piper Cub and at one with nature ? NO where is your spirit of adventure?
Saw that famous clip of a Russian Pilot flying inverted under a hump back bridge and YES I admit having a sly admiration for those guys.
But DONT DO IT ;) well at least not inverted

YouTube - Inverted Flight Under Bridge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwaPrTmwGSg&playnext=1&list=PL304859E06BB4789B&index=52)


Pace

[englishal]

The guy can obviously fly ok and seems competent, but the 500' rule refers to "structures" and to post yourself on YouTube wizzing around at 50' alt close to "structures" is a little dim unless you have a valid reason.

(b) The 500 feet rule - Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

[Pace]

YouTube - UNDER THE BRDIGE - Hannes Arch Flying Stunt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLVG-RmRQyA&list=PL304859E06BB4789B&index=55&playnext=3)

This is a gorgeous clip

Sure EASA will stop this as well as changing the 500 ft rule to 5000 feet

Pace

[patowalker]

YouTube - Harvard Aircraft Ski on water (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGHQ1pYXsHo)

[Doodlebug]

That's not low. You're low when you pull up before banking. He had the sun behind him and chop on the water, nobody around to hurt but himself, what's not to like? Live a little.

Now for properly low, observe, at around 45 seconds in:

YouTube - Gliding Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aumO0ZHwAro)

:ok:

[Deeday]

Guys, what not have a go at embedding YouTube videos, instead of pasting the link? It works and makes the thread a lot more enjoyable.

To embed this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVTQoD2Bqg4copy and paste the gibberish after the v= (but not any further gibberish) between YOUTUBE tags, by clicking on the icon http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/youtubefinalng6.gif(never mind the spaces, added here or the code won't show):
jVTQoD2Bqg4[/YOUTUBE ]Result: :ok:
[youtube]jVTQoD2Bqg4

[Neptunus Rex]

Not that dangerous.
100' in a puddle-jumper, 6 kts of wind (or so) enough to give a slight chop to show the surface, but not enough to produce swell or turbulence, and some meagre bank angles. OK, amateurs out for some fun, and they didn't push it too far. Even if their donk stopped, they seemed to have enough smash to be within gliding distance of land.

Maritime Patrol crews fly regularly at those heights, with more aggressive manoeuvring, in aircraft with 120' wing spans. However, they have Radar Altimeters with audio and visual warnings, plenty of training, and a devout coward in the non-flying pilot's seat!

[Maoraigh1]

Original video. Flown from the RHS. Instructor?

[IO540]

nobody around to hurt but himself,

The cameraman was in the LHS, I reckon.

This is possibly an instructor showing off :) I say that only because I have known instructors well capable of various stunts.

[Pilot DAR]

Maritime Patrol crews fly regularly at those heights, with more aggressive manoeuvring, in aircraft with 120' wing spans. However, they have Radar Altimeters with audio and visual warnings, plenty of training, and an aircraft with domonstrated birdstrike tolerance for seagulls!

[Big Pistons Forever]

One word is all that is required "Stupid"

[hatzflyer]

No, two words.. Fun Loving.
Or three words ...Boring Old Fart.

[FleetFlyer]

There is absulotely nothing wrong with low level flying providing the pilot is flying within the law (500ft rule), within his capabilities and within the capabilities of his aircraft.

I regularly fly at low level (sub 500ft) both to make flying more interesting and to practise forced landings. I was taught PFLs that finished 10 feet off the deck. I practise them down to 50 feet but I see no reason to go lower as I'm close enough to the surface to know whether I made a choice of field that would result in me finishing up with a serviceable aircraft had I landed. I am religous about observing rule 5 and I always check an area thoroughly before descending below 500ft in order to not be surprised by structures, livestock, pylons, etc. I have a couple of areas I prefer and they are a long way from any habitation.

How many of you safety concious non-low flying people out there practise your PFLs regularly and to a degree of realism that lets you know if you would have been successful?

[excrab]

Years ago I used to water ski on rivers. Great fun - feeling of speed - obviously never did it with passengers on board, just on the way back from charters when I had an empty aeroplane. Or sometimes I'd just do what these guys were doing - follow the rivers at twenty feet looking for crocodiles.

Then one day I thought - what happens if the engine stops? I can pull up to about three hundred feet if I'm lucky. Just time to choose where to crash. No VHF contact low down and probably no time to get anyone on the HF. End up probably dead, certainly hurt, and no one would know where I was.

What they are doing isn't clever. It isn't cool. In a single engine aeroplane it is incredibly stupid. That's what I decided twenty odd years ago and nothing I have done in an aeroplane since then has changed my mind. If you don't agree then think about it. It isn't the same as an organised event like red bull with paramedics and helicopters on the scene just in case.

[FleetFlyer]

Is there anyone out there with statistics that support whether or not this activity is unusually dangerous?

[MichaelJP59]

They seem fairly close to the shore for a beach landing if the engine stops?

If you're going to do some low flying this would seem one of the safer ways to do it, with guaranteed flat 'terrain' and few obstacles (watch out for wind farms!)

I guess for most of us, we only fly in the first place because it's fun. Everyone must make their own judgement on how much risk to take, and one thing is for sure, you can't reduce that risk to zero.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Low flying over water is risky, abrupt changes of bank angle is even more risky when close to the surface.

Bottom line is it is poor decision making especially with a passenger involved.

[Big Pistons Forever]

How many of you safety concious non-low flying people out there practise your PFLs regularly and to a degree of realism that lets you know if you would have been successful?

Since I work part time as a flying instructor I do a lot of PFL's all of which I stop at 300 to 500 feet as at that point it is obvious whether or not you are going to make the field, so I see absolutely no point in going down to 50 feet. If I want to demonstrate a PFL to touchdown I do it to a runway.

As for low flying....well my summer job is flying a firebomber,so low flying is a requirement of the job. However it is done after specific initial and recurrent training by highly experienced pilots and conducted in accordance with specific SOPs design to maximize the safety of the operation. What I saw was a lowtime pilot in a light single cranking and banking on the deck exposing himself and his passenger to needless risks for no good reason except for cheap thrills....hence my "stupid" comment on an earlier post.

BTW in my experience pilots who have experienced an actual engine failure in a single seldom seem to be very enthusiastic about low flying....go figure...

[Doodlebug]

''BTW in my experience pilots who have experienced an actual engine failure in a single seldom seem to be very enthusiastic about low flying....go figure...''

I have experienced an actual engine failure in a single. Overhead a quarry, with a heavily water-ballasted glider attached to my rear-end via a bit of string.

Still have no problem with low flying.

[Katamarino]

What I saw was a lowtime pilot in a light single cranking and banking on the deck exposing himself and his passenger to needless risks for no good reason except for cheap thrills....

This is exactly the same arguement that the H&S nazis that we all hate to much use to try and stop anything we don't like.

Why stop there, Big Pistons Forever? How about those aerobatic pilots? They're exposing themselves to needless risk for no good reason except cheap thrills, after all; it would be safer if they just flew straight and level. Why go flying at all? You don't NEED to fly off for that burger, so why not avoid the needless risk and just stay on the ground?

Now we get onto motor racing, gliding, owning a motor bike, drinking wine, jeez; if you avoid all "needless risk" you would have one hell of a boring life.

[ei-flyer]

Katamarino,

Oh no, that's entirely different, because it is conducted in a CONTROLLED, AUTHORITY APPROVED environment within which no risk is entailed whatsoever. And I'm sure they have been through 'specific initial and recurrent training by highly experienced pilots' as well, so that's even better. :ok:

p.s. BPF, what makes you think the pilot's lowtime? :)

[Katamarino]

While I recognise your sarcasm, it is of course worth noting that this flying was just as legal as any aerobatics, and one can go fly aerobatics with no formal training as well if one wishes. Some people just love to constrain others' fun and take the attitude that if they don't want to do it, no-one else should be doing it either, I guess...

[Neptunus Rex]

Quite right Katamarino. Some of these people would have stopped the Wright Brothers' first flight.

[Big Pistons Forever]

This is exactly the same arguement that the H&S nazis that we all hate to much use to try and stop anything we don't like.

Why stop there, Big Pistons Forever? How about those aerobatic pilots? They're exposing themselves to needless risk for no good reason except cheap thrills, after all;.

I enjoy both flying and teaching aerobatics. The difference is I am trained for what I am doing, I am flying an aircraft designed for the task, the exercise is carried out in a block of airspace designated for aerobatics and at an altitude sufficent to recover if a manoever is botched. All my students are pretty pumped when they land and the most common comment is "what a thrill, that was awesome". The difference is they got their thrills flying in a way that is specifically designed to reduce the risks to a sensible level.

As for the fact that you seem to think I am some straight and level kill joy, well I bet my last flight was more exciting than yours:E . I was flying the deputy lead position in a Formation flight of 4 Nanchang CJ6's. I was within 30 feet of the lead for an hour of manoevers that included up to 90 degs of bank and 45 deg of pitch (the latter when detached as 2 ship elements). But again I was fully trained by an ex Air Force demonstration team pilot, the flight was carefully briefed, we worked in a protected area, I was wearing a nomex flight suit and parachute, etc etc. There is no comparison between a properly conducted aerobatic, or formation flight and some guy who decides, probably on the spur of the moment, to showboat at wave height with a passenger on board.

Bottom line from my POV is that there are plenty of ways to get your thrills in aviation while appropriately managing risk........or you can impulsively choose to accept an unplanned and unlimited amount of danger for some momentary cheap thrills ...... which I would suggest is a pretty good definition of "stupid".

[Neptunus Rex]

BPF
I was within 30 feet of the lead for an hour of manoevers that included up to 90 degs of bank and 45 deg of pitchTuck in a bit tighter; you'll find it easier and less tiring.

Given the chance, I'd be in that formation with you!

[Doodlebug]

Well, I fly to the moon three times a week on a repetetive flight plan and I wear a spandex flightsuit and... :}

(just teasing, Pistons, I'll see myself out... :ok:)

[hatzflyer]

"Does anyone have any statistics?"
Yes.
I've been doing exactly what he was doing most weekends for 40 yrs.
No incedents
No engine failures
No problems.
Therefor demonstrated perfectly safe QED.
Say what you like, have your moan, take the micky,call me what you want, express your opinion,prove your theory etc.etc.

It will not change the facts, I am still here I have not hurt anyone , any aircraft, and I have broken no rules. Ergo it is safe by demonstration. Fact.

[Cows getting bigger]

The problem with posting such videos on the Internet is that some 45.5 hour PPL (or even worse, student pilot) will watch the video and think "I can do that". The pilot in the video may well be stupid or indeed he may well be extremely experienced, having spent much his working life getting trained and paid to fly like that. However, for every expert, there is probably a handful of idiots who will try to emulate.

I wouldn't necessarily be criticising the pilot; I would be questioning the judgement of the individual who posted the video.

[Big Pistons Forever]

BPF
Tuck in a bit tighter; you'll find it easier and less tiring.

Given the chance, I'd be in that formation with you!

I said I was within 30 feet (wingtip seperation) for the hour. 30 ft is enroute (ie to allow radio freq changes and full engine monitoring), most of the time I was at 10 feet or so and the last bit was at parade (ie you have to hold a bit of into lead aileron because your wing tip is in the wing tip vortex of the lead). You are absolutely right the closer you are the easier it is :ok:

[hatzflyer]

CGB, very valid point which is exactly why there are no vids of me on YouTube doing "stupid " things.
I admit that I have done some pretty stupid things in my life but the post I did above explains my view on this particular thread.That said there are still those that will condem me.:ugh:

I bet big pistons forever has one of those condoms that go right over over your head down to your feet !

I bet he has never had unprotected sex.

When I started flying it was more dangerous than sex but now that's changed !

Merry Christmas to all pilots everywhere, enjoy your flying, push the bounderies but not quite to breaking point! Keep safe in the New Year.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hatzflyer

So help me out here. How does the fact that you have never had an engine failure in the past guarantee you will not have one on the next flight ? or that you will get a bird through the canopy ? or suffer some sort of flight control malfunction ?

If you have evaluated the risks and decided that the probability of malfunctions/incidents occuring which will inevitably lead to an accident is sufficently low that you are willing expose yourself to that risks .... well that is only a decision you make. But it is IMO entirely different matter deciding that there are no risks because nothing bad has happened so far. I would suggest that is simply wishfull thinking and not risk management

Personally I have no problem if somebody decides to do something risky and wipes himself out, in an aircraft , or any other conveyance .... that is just evolution in action ..... I do have a problem if he/she has a passenger though as I think that is fundamentally irresponsible.

I do not think given that many or even most readers will not have the experience or training to understand and mitigate the risk inherent in what was shown in the video, that it is a good idea to suggest what this guy did was a good idea. That is obviously just one personal opinion and is worth every penny you paid for it :)

And this "boring old fart" has said his piece so I will stop monopolizing this thread

Cheers BPF

[SNS3Guppy]

As for low flying....well my summer job is flying a firebomber,so low flying is a requirement of the job. However it is done after specific initial and recurrent training by highly experienced pilots and conducted in accordance with specific SOPs design to maximize the safety of the operation. What I saw was a lowtime pilot in a light single cranking and banking on the deck exposing himself and his passenger to needless risks for no good reason except for cheap thrills....hence my "stupid" comment on an earlier post.

I have to agree. I saw an inexperineced pilot displaying poor understanding of low level safety, operations, altitude control, and for that matter, airplane control. Including the aircraft registration in the video only confirmed the lack of judgment.

My career has involved a lot of low level operation, including many years of aerial firefighting and ag (crop dusting), and other operations. Flying low is a discipline, and it needs to be done responsibly. The people in the video weren't showing discipline, or responsibility.

Depth perception over water, even rough water, is challenging to determine, even with experience. Depth perception when jinking around and thrill seeking may present a greater challenge. The pilot in the video was up and down and all over the place, rolling reversals this way and that, displaying poor airmanship and again judgment.

I do not think given that many or even most readers will not have the experience or training to understand and mitigate the risk inherent in what was shown in the video, that it is a good idea to suggest what this guy did was a good idea. That is obviously just one personal opinion and is worth every penny you paid for it

Make that two personal opinions; agreed.

Those bent on saying "leave them alone, they're just having fun" clearly don't have the experience or understanding of what they see to make such a statement in anything but abject ignorance.

The inexperienced pilot who doesn't know the difference might be tempted to duplicate the same stupidity, leading to tragedy.

To the poster who said he'd been doing it for some time and never got hurt, I'm reminded of the man who plays a round of Russian Roulette. He puts the pistol to his head, presses the trigger and then when nothing happens, says "it's okay. It didn't go off."

One day it will.

[Doodlebug]

Quote - Those bent on saying "leave them alone, they're just having fun" clearly don't have the experience or understanding of what they see to make such a statement in anything but abject ignorance. - unquote

Whoops, ok, thanks for reminding all of us of our abject ignorance, Guppy.

And, oh, our lack of experience, obviously :)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Depth perception over water, even rough water, is challenging to determine, even with experience. Depth perception when jinking around and thrill seeking may present a greater challenge. The pilot in the video was up and down and all over the place, rolling reversals this way and that, displaying poor airmanship and again judgment.


That is exactly what I saw in the video.

It made me fearful for whoever fly's with that pilot.

My opinion is based on thousands of hours of low level flying for over fifty years as a pilot trained and paid to do such flying, both fixed wing and helicopters.

[SNS3Guppy]

It probably needn't be pointed out, but I believe Chuck's experience includes considerable water flying too.

Whoops, ok, thanks for reminding all of us of our abject ignorance, Guppy.

And, oh, our lack of experience, obviously

No need to apologize. You're welcome.

[Neptunus Rex]

BPF
Thanks mate; I'd fly on your wing any time (remember, I'm an ex Big Piston pilot too.)

This has been an interesting thread, with the funsters versus the naysayers. The crux of the matter is, any form of flying needs discipline, adequate and proper training plus thorough understanding and briefing of the job in hand.

Low flying, aerobatics and formation flying are amongst the most demanding of our repertoire, so require special attention. However, they can all be performed safely, given appropriate conditions of weather, training and skill.

Having spent many hours flying low over the sea, I would never do it in a single-engined aircraft. (I always had four, or even six.) I have also many hours of formation and aerobatics experience. I would never do either without a parachute.

Train hard - fight easy.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It probably needn't be pointed out, but I believe Chuck's experience includes considerable water flying too.

It does, I received my seaplane rating in 1954 and I can't even remember the different seaplanes I have flown.....but as an example I have well over four thousand hours on the PBY and a lot of it was teaching others.

In my opinion abrupt bank angle changes such as I saw in that video that close to the water is very high risk for any pilot because just a slight error in pitch control can result in flying into the water.

Fun flying is one thing, but high risk taking can quickly change fun into disaster.

[hatzflyer]

Hey, big pistons and friends, its half an hour to Christmas day here ,and i don't want to start an argument with you guys. You have your view, I have mine and I don't think we will ever agree.
What I have said is what I believe, It is what I have done. In my day job I write risk assessments and method statements every day.
I deal with consultants and engineers and experts every day. These guys write hypothetical risk assesments that make my job impossible. They charge more for a hyperthetical assesment that I charge to actually do the job.
More often than not I find that these consultants specify things that cannot be achieved, and when questioned on detail have to admit that they don' t know anything about what we do. Meanwhile we have 45yrs experience in the field of installing our products with a combined experience of over 60 yrs in our management team of 3 people. We have over 3800 successful installations .
That gives us credability.

By the same token I have stated on here in a public forum that what was shown is not inherently dangerous. I have demonstrated that to be the case.
What I have not done is qualified those comments(because I do not feel the need to, those that know me personally know the truth of my statements).
I have
not gone into minute detail , nor have I encoureged any one to try it.

Also there are geographical detail differences between doing this on the east coast of England and in an air sea search situation in a flying boat over the sea.

I am not presumptious enough to say that my way is the only way , or that I am always right.
What I claim is simple...In exactly the way I act in my everyday work.
Results speak for themselves, they are factual and demonstrated, factual results beat hyperthetical cases hands down every time!

Merry Christmas and safe flying for the New Year.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Am I to understand that professional pilots who specialize in low level flying and the teaching of same have no credibility because they are fear mongers and their advice should be ignored hatzflyer?

[SNS3Guppy]

In my day job I write risk assessments and method statements every day.
I deal with consultants and engineers and experts every day. These guys write hypothetical risk assesments that make my job impossible. They charge more for a hyperthetical assesment that I charge to actually do the job.
More often than not I find that these consultants specify things that cannot be achieved, and when questioned on detail have to admit that they don' t know anything about what we do. Meanwhile we have 45yrs experience in the field of installing our products with a combined experience of over 60 yrs in our management team of 3 people. We have over 3800 successful installations .
That gives us credability.

Gives you credibility? With respect to flying low level operations over water? No, not really.

Now, if those were 45 years of experience flying low level operations, with 3,800 low level hours, and a combined total of 60 years of low altitude experience by those same three people, you'd have something. As it turns out, you don't. If you'd spend all day flying low altitude runs, rather than spend all day writing "risk analysis," you'd have something. But you don't. If the consultants and engineers you deal with all day have that experience and care to chime in, they'd have credibility on the topic.

Your sum total contribution to the topic seems to be that you've done it and didn't die, and you think it's fun.

Also there are geographical detail differences between doing this on the east coast of England and in an air sea search situation in a flying boat over the sea.

Flying over the sea near the east cost of England is different than flying over the sea in the middle of the Atlantic, or over the sea on the west coast of the United States? Is the atmosphere composed of different gasses? Are the waves formed differently? How exactly does being close to England make it any different.

I hear this a lot on this site. Carburetor ice is different within the borders of the UK, vs. anywhere else on earth. Pilots in the UK don't need aircraft flight manuals, although everywhere else requires them. Pilots in the UK don't need to learn to lean the mixture, even though it's one of the most basic tenets of operating a piston aircraft engine. And so on. Now I'm most impressed to learn that flying over water near the UK is entirely different than flying over water anywhere else, and I'm frothing at the mouth to learn why.

I'd really love to hear your take on glassy water, too.

[ei-flyer]

I make my quiet point again - we don't know that they/the pilot are/was inexperienced.

[SNS3Guppy]

I make my quiet point again - we don't know that they/the pilot are/was inexperienced.

Quite right. The video demonstrates either considerable lack of experience, or simply very poor judgment and airmanship. Possibly both. If the pilot in the video is experienced, then it's exceptionally poor judgment.