Not such a good idea: float plane takes off under bridge in Ottawa
 

What a load of total bollocks! Get out of the Ottawa ghetto and visit such towns as Chapleau, Kenora, Yellowknife,Vancouver, Victoria, in all of these places plus dozens of others float planes land right downtown,{in fact we tied up at the hotel ramp in Kenora a few years back} even the Ottawa River has dozens of float planes along both the Ontario and Quebec shorelines, including many within city limits, To hear the "Chuck Yeager" Cessna instructors at the Ottawa Flying Club rag on about this is more an indication of how little they have seen of Canada, and how little they know about float flying or flying in general. Where I taught floats for a few years the best sheltered place for T/O was under the local bridge , but folks simply waved to us, not like the twits in our nations Capitol who think its OK to drive like idiots and boat with no flotation devices but for Gods sake get those dangerous rag and tube float planes to stop scaring us!Yes, its true the pilot should have worked it out that Ottawa is not the place to do anything resembling fun, but was it dangerous? no way!

Well said Clunck!

Back in the day when telephones didn't take videos and were black and hung on the wall, I flew under a bridge in Ottawa. I had landed on the river in a Super Cub, in the wrong place, and had to go back downstream to the seaplane dock at Laurentian Air Service. I was damn lucky to have survived by the sound of it. :D

Sounds like it might work out for the guy, depending on who does the "oral counseling". :D

Absolutely reckless
 

Comparing this "stunt" to normal operation in remote cities doesn't help the discussion. This pilot took was in a busy area and under a major thoroughfare. If he managed to crash it would have serious consequences on the local economy. The actions of this pilot were absolutely reckless. Not to mention irresponsible.

STC, Vancouver, Victoria, "remote cities"? Dear me , no High Tea for you in the "Empress" with that kind of attitude! As for "Affecting the local economy ",Ottawa is a civil service town, nothing can affect the local economy short of a nuke dropped on the place, or electing a government which fires the whole civil service.

Does the OFC have a float plane Clunk?

Chuck, I'm told they had a part time instructor at one time who dabbled in float flying, and tried bush for a while but didn't stay for long. I doubt given the insistence from TC that students have to solo to get the float endorsement that an outfit like the Ottawa Flying Club would be too happy with the cost of insurance premiums for such a venture.

There's no float aircraft listed on their web site.

It was this issue that was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak with me and the head of flight training in Ottawa.

I was trying to get TC to change the solo requirements for a sea plane rating to a flight test with an independent flight test examiner.

Not only would it make more sense it would allow those teaching the sea plane rating to save a lot of money on insurance.

The head of TC's flight training department was one of the most impossible to reason with forms of life that ever lived.

Anyhow I decided it was impossible to even try and work in their system even if I got a frontal lobotomy so I could relate to them on their level....I have never done a sea plane rating since.

Chuck, regarding the "must solo" clause to obtain a float rating I agree totally with your position, but there is an interesting sequel to this dictate from TC. A few years back, TC decided to go after folks who unable to obtain or afford coverage for students soloing float planes were simply ignoring the rule and sitting in the aircraft whilst the student completed the required "solo" landings and take offs, when TC got wind of this they tried to ground and cancel the float ratings of pilots who having trained with any outfits who had indeed "bent the rules" to avoid punitive insurance costs, one of these pilots I know very well, at the time of this action by TC he had over 5,000hours {accident free} PIC on C185, Beavers and Otters, when TC tried to ground him he hired a lawyer who would have made TC look bloody stupid if they were to do this, one of the points he used was to point out that within the ranks of TC there were in fact inspectors who had done the very same thing when they were running outfits out side of TC, so the issue was quietly forgotten, and this still goes on in the "real world", maybe now with the departure of JD this nonsense can be changed to reflect reality!

There was nothing reckless about that takeoff. Can't see what the issue was there.

This is a non-event. IMHO:bored:

Yes isn't the hypocrisy breathtaking?

Out here in the rain forest TC had a Beaver on amphibs, they finally got rid of it because their inspectors kept landing it on the water with the gear down and flipping it over.

Did Merlin find a nice position for him so he can double dip in his old age?

Chuck, TC in Montreal had an unsafe/half extended gear on an Amphibious Beaver, rather than land on the grass or hardtop our boy decided to land in the river! , it floated upside down in the Back River until it grounded on some rocks, at least they are consistent with their foul ups!

Agree 100%. Except the general public sees it differently :eek:

In Aus, late 80's, early 90's is when I reckon it really started to get a hold and the by late 90's it was full bore.

Risk aversion, protect the kids from getting scrapes, cuts and bruises,
H&S rules and regs, can't offend anyone, soft c#@ks all round, lefty agendas, ........

I am not a pilot but have done or been in aircraft numerous times that have done far worse
- before H&S rules took over.

That's a good line... :ok:

Made me laugh.

Yes please, let's return to the day when employers could poison their workers at will and/or push them into doing dangerous tasks without protective equipment.

The thing that's supposed to make humans superior beings is our ability to adapt and change (well at least some humans). :rolleyes:

JO, I don't think those protesting the "Granny State" under various Health and Welfare autocrats question the need for SENSIBLE regulation but the industry is rife with stupid counter productive regulations, such as, wearing of "Day Glow" vests by aircrew as they do their walk around, if they are going to get run over then whatever is running them over has already ploughed through the parked aircraft so its really quite irrelevant what colour cloths the pilot is wearing! On this subject, I sometimes fly into an airport which once was military and one thing the military do well is record keeping, it turns out that in seventy years they can find no record of anyone being run over by an aircraft,BUT, they do have records of twelve pilots/ground crew walking into props and engine intakes, so surely it would be more logical to paint props and intakes with those of-center bright markings which look like some mobile sculpture? I pointed out to one of these "Ramp Gestapos" recently that their instruction about standing right dead center front if you are guiding an aircraft, if its my vintage aircraft then I will most likely chop them up with the prop as I'm unable to see a thing over the nose, {this was at an air show by the way, and a replacement prop is a kings ransom, it however it requires no skill or money to create another human} the reply I received was," well aircraft like this shouldn't be allowed here", this was at a show with LOTS of tail dragging WW2 aircraft! One of my grandkids was recently told she should stop jumping fences with her pony by her school teacher as "its too dangerous" dear Lord what next, padded hockey pucks? I think this is the sort of stuff getting on people wicks, not legislating pure food and water standards,

the best I've ever seen yet is plymouth city council cancelling the bon fire night fireworks, and replacing it with... a giant TV showing a video of fireworks!!!

Just so you know, the reflective vests are not a regulation in Canada. They've been mandated by the airport authorities themselves. And I know a guy who was run over by a vehicle on the ramp at a large European airport who would disagree with the notion that they're not a good idea. He didn't have one on and it was a dark and rainy night when the vehicle struck him. The aircraft he was walking around (757) was untouched. He spent a few days in the hospital.

I can only presume that he was not under the aircraft, or even close to it as most would be doing the walk around, I also know of a case in which a rampy caught his bloody day glow vest in a baggage loader and was seriously mangled. I'm sure we can all find the odd obscure cases when someone gets hurt on the ramp, but pilots wearing day glow vests is not going to stop these odd incidents ,Maybe we should mandate those kids hats with the rotating beacons on top, hell we can keep grinding out these rules till everything grinds to a stop, then our jobs will be 100% safe!

The stupidly of some of these people is hard to believe.

One day I had just finished an air display at an air show, I taxied in and parked in the place reserved for me.

As I was walking across the ramp one of the security guys runs up to me and demanded I return to my airplane because I was not wearing a green safety vest.

I asked him who was more visible, me in my bright orange flight suit that Breitling made me wear or him in his little green vest.

He insisted I could not go the mens room in the terminal without a green safety vest.....

.....I just walked past him and went in the building, when I came out to go back to my airplane the airport manager was there to stop me from returning to my airplane..

Idiots, just plain idiots

Dear Clunk
 

Have you seen the way these rampies drive lately? As close as they can get and at a great rate of knots as well…I've seen them skid to a stop only feet away from various parts of the jet! And all I got was a wave and a grin after throwing the LC cold steely stare! (I'm told it used to throw fear into people… :) ) Any way, walkarounds: I teach that one needs to also have a larger view of the airframe from a few angles to make sure that nothing gets missed, i.e.: damage or missing bits. So I back up and take in the whole view…no hiding under the wing allowed…all the while wearing my lovely vest… :}

Left coaster I've been doing walk arounds since I got my first licence in 1954, yes I'm aware of the need to see the whole airframe, for a part of my somewhat varied flying career looking for bullet holes and splinter damage was fairly high on the list of things to note, however these silly vests will not stop you getting run over by untrained idiots as you state, the solution is to train Rampies to do it right, however the "on time at all costs" style of management are to blame for this attitude I believe. My wife and I recently attended a fantastic get together of a particular antique aircraft in the UK, {we do in fact own one} the manager of the airport it was held at is totally opposed to this silly "dressing up" which spoils the vintage flavour of such a meeting, and you know what? nobody was run over or taxied over by any of the aircraft which have almost no brakes and very limited control whilst on the ground, unlike the float plane which started this thread!

I remember when YYZ first required it, we all got the nasty email. next day our white/yellow/orange painted crew van had the side stove in by some numpty in a tug. Don't expect a vest to save you, be paranoid keep your head on swivel in the airside environment. They are all trying to kill you!!!!!!!!

Does anyone know if TC has investigated and "determined if a violation occured"?

Would be interested to know what TCs position is...

Dupre, TC will check all the media, including PPrune, and make a decision on which way the wind blows, to make anything stick in this case they will have to dig deep to prove anything or any dangers to the public, notwithstanding the "experts" at both the rowing club and the Ottawa Flying Club. By the way, the CBC seemed to get it right on local TV after the initial hysteria died down.

I'm the go to guy for odd jobs around our local curling club. Recently I painted the stairs that go from the downstairs locker rooms onto the ice, including the door that leads onto the ice. At the bottom of the door, so it will be at eye level to those coming upstairs, there is affixed a safety poster that reads "Caution Slippery Surface." I had taken the poster off to paint the door and questioned the need to replace it, since the statement is pretty obvious. I was told yes, replace the poster because it was part of the safety inspection carried out by the government H&S department. My suggestion the inspector be placed in a cage where the people could throw him peanuts and he could scratch his ass for public amusement was equally rejected.

Pigboat, if it wernt so sad that we have come to this, it would be funny, a perfect example indeed of the stupidity of such things! Of late I have been watching the series on WW1, its a superb production and the use of modern methods to make the old movies into clear and much improved records of the horror of these times, however the caution at the start of each episode that they "may contain disturbing images" seems to be a bit redundant, are not all wars a bit like that?

Don't forget that some can't let common sense overcome their egoist urge to control people.

Notwithstanding everybody's raging against unnecessary regulations driven largely by the insurance industry (at least rage against the right entity), was it necessary for this chap to fly under the bridge? And if it wasn't necessary what makes it different than doing it in a land airplane after taking off from YOW?


I'm just trying to determine where people draw the "stupid" line when it comes to flying under bridges.

A contract our company had back in the late eighties required us to fly under a span in a Provincial park so as to get our product on some trees which were on a small outcropping under the bridge, I recently drove over the same structure and the trees we sprayed are now beutifull to look at and also have achieved the aim of preventing bank erosion, now gues what? TC had to issue a low flying waiver for this contract as it meant flying almost down the main drag of a small village {and a 600hp Ag Cat tends to be a bit on the load side!} The inspector who issued this waiver did in fact work for us after he retired, dont know where he is located right now , but it would be nice to hear his take on this Im sure.

Doing something that is necessary, trained and sanctioned to complete a job is not what I'm talking about. Ag pilots fly under powerlines because they are trained, proficient, it is necessary at times because it's safer and they are sanctioned. Conair pilots fly very low in confined areas and steep terrain with airplanes that were never designed to do that, but they are again trained, proficient, sanctioned and do it because it's necessary.


Was flying under the Macdonald Cartier bridge necessary?

EngFireLeft

After watching the video again it looked like he didn't have a choice as theres a bridge behind him as he started his takeoff.

Roybert

What about starting his takeoff to be airborne past the bridge? Didn't look that far to me and would have cost him a minute or two at most to taxi up.

Yup .... I guess they should have frozen aviation development and pilot training methods and standards somewhere around 1960, maybe 1965 at the latest so you guys could be happy and feel like that period was (and remains) the pinnacle of aviation.

The issue in this whole matter is that in the absence of any other info other than the video and typical CBC drivel, the guy in the video apparently was using a section of the river which wasn't a licensed aerodrome within the built up area of the city ...... small picky matter under the regs.

So, as long as "there is no danger to the public" (in your perception,) then anybody should be able to do anything they feel like at any moment with an airplane? Want to land on the main street because its close to the office? Yup, sure .... why not ... as long as you don't run over granny on her way across the street to buy a loaf of bread .... what's the big deal?

So, when was the last time you saw an "Old Granny" in cork boots, shuffling about on the river? :}