Gamekeeper turned poacher
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gamekeeper turned poacher
Love it!
Air inspector, 78, banned for flying under a bridge
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...cfba3019e0a374
Air inspector, 78, banned for flying under a bridge
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...cfba3019e0a374
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 418 Likes
on
221 Posts
At the age of 78 I don’t blame really her for doing it just the once.
I suppose it was a “suspension” bridge?
I suppose it was a “suspension” bridge?
Lovely. What a way to satisfy one's long career.
With all that lifetime's experience, can you imagine it was done without giving it some considerable thought ?
No. Just a good, reliable and familiar aeroplane, the hand of skill and margins to satisfy even the most unusual possibilities that could spoil the afternoon.
After all, it wasn't as if it hadn't been done before. And if it had been for some Cruise movie, the FAA would have cleared it without batting an eyelid.
Well done, Ms.Lunken.
For the ill-educated, Major Chris Draper DSC. aka The Mad Major, flew under 15 of the 18 Thames bridges on the 5th.May, 1953. It didn't help his career either. One of a number. Why though do non aviation people fail to understand that it can be done with little or no risk ?
(Photo courtesy of the Daily Mail and Alamy)
With all that lifetime's experience, can you imagine it was done without giving it some considerable thought ?
No. Just a good, reliable and familiar aeroplane, the hand of skill and margins to satisfy even the most unusual possibilities that could spoil the afternoon.
After all, it wasn't as if it hadn't been done before. And if it had been for some Cruise movie, the FAA would have cleared it without batting an eyelid.
Well done, Ms.Lunken.
For the ill-educated, Major Chris Draper DSC. aka The Mad Major, flew under 15 of the 18 Thames bridges on the 5th.May, 1953. It didn't help his career either. One of a number. Why though do non aviation people fail to understand that it can be done with little or no risk ?
(Photo courtesy of the Daily Mail and Alamy)
Last edited by Sleeve Wing; 17th May 2021 at 16:12.
[QUOTE=DB6;11046153]
Air inspector, 78, banned for flying under a bridge
/QUOTE]
It was my understanding that the "ban" was the result of an alleged intentional disabling of ADS-B out. Isn't it a bit soon to be re-writing history?
Air inspector, 78, banned for flying under a bridge
/QUOTE]
It was my understanding that the "ban" was the result of an alleged intentional disabling of ADS-B out. Isn't it a bit soon to be re-writing history?
Martha has gone and done it this time - those who read Flying regularly will know all about her...... quite a character but she's been getting less and less happy with the restrictions I think
She knew exactly what she was doing for sure.
She knew exactly what she was doing for sure.
Why though do non aviation people fail to understand that it can be done with little or no risk ?
Had a local cropduster of some renown, especially with the aviation authority, who was up before the beak for allegedly flying under a bridge on the local highway that was of very little height above terrain. Couldn't be done says he to the judge, the aircraft wingspan is greater than the distance between the pylons. Charge dismissed, what wasn't said was that it was done by having a great deal of sideslip.
or those who don't know of her here's her biog.
For no apparent reason, Martha fell in love with airplanes at age nine and she learned to fly an Ercoupe in the early 1960s while attending college in her hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio. Armed with a degree in English Literature, she became a flight instructor and operated a flying school at Cincinnati's Lunken Airport for seven years. She married Ebby Lunken, for whose family the airport was named.
After a divorce and far too much time instructing, Martha reluctantly accepted a job in 1980 as an Aviation Safety Inspector with FAA's Flight Standards Division at DuPage Airport in Chicago. Eight years later she made her way back home via the Indianapolis FSDO and ran the FAA's safety program in southern Ohio ... when she wasn't on suspension.
She has an ATP, airplane single and multi-engine land and sea, and a commercial hot air balloon rating. She's type rated in the Lockheed 18, DC-3 and SA-227 aircraft. Martha owns a 1956 Cessna 180, half of a J-3 Cub and has 12,000+ hours flight time. For a long time she was one of the few FAA DC-3 check-pilots
For no apparent reason, Martha fell in love with airplanes at age nine and she learned to fly an Ercoupe in the early 1960s while attending college in her hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio. Armed with a degree in English Literature, she became a flight instructor and operated a flying school at Cincinnati's Lunken Airport for seven years. She married Ebby Lunken, for whose family the airport was named.
After a divorce and far too much time instructing, Martha reluctantly accepted a job in 1980 as an Aviation Safety Inspector with FAA's Flight Standards Division at DuPage Airport in Chicago. Eight years later she made her way back home via the Indianapolis FSDO and ran the FAA's safety program in southern Ohio ... when she wasn't on suspension.
She has an ATP, airplane single and multi-engine land and sea, and a commercial hot air balloon rating. She's type rated in the Lockheed 18, DC-3 and SA-227 aircraft. Martha owns a 1956 Cessna 180, half of a J-3 Cub and has 12,000+ hours flight time. For a long time she was one of the few FAA DC-3 check-pilots
FAA lawyers are physics challenged and have trouble realizing that a transponder only replies when interrogated. Once there's terrain between the radar and transponder antennas (as down in a river valley below a bridge spanning it) the antennas can't see each other.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting example of an "anti-authority" mindset. I used to sometimes read her column in Flying and it got a bit erratic in recent years e.g. when she hand-propped a Cub with no chocks and it zoomed off, and then she did it again but that time it hit another plane. Clearly she's an experienced and even distinguished aviator - she should set a better example.
FAA lawyers are physics challenged and have trouble realizing that a transponder only replies when interrogated. Once there's terrain between the radar and transponder antennas (as down in a river valley below a bridge spanning it) the antennas can't see each other.
This was also strike three, not a standalone event.
Taxi incident and a runaway hand prop event upon which she was asked to surrender her Examiner authorization.
Stories have it that she’s always had a bit of a contentious relationship with the FAA.
Interesting example of an "anti-authority" mindset. I used to sometimes read her column in Flying and it got a bit erratic in recent years e.g. when she hand-propped a Cub with no chocks and it zoomed off, and then she did it again but that time it hit another plane. Clearly she's an experienced and even distinguished aviator - she should set a better example.
My feelings exactly - obviously a great person to know but she's sounded like she was fraying at the edges recently - time to step back from flying on your own I think...............
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why though do non aviation people fail to understand that it can be done with little or no risk ?
There are many "routine" things that cannot be done safely in an aircraft (like landing, taking off or flying in cloud) given the wrong equipment, a poor, or poorly trained, pilot or any combination thereof.
Through the judicious and commonsense use and application of rules and regulations (like "though shalt not fly under bridges") you lessen the opportunity for the latter to go "showboating" and that way less people die.
Anybody who does not get this simple flight safety truism has no business referring to themselves as a professional aviator.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: West Woop Woop
Age: 53
Posts: 56
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many "showboating" things that can be done safely in an aircraft (ie "with little of no risk") given the right equipment and a competent, trained pilot.
There are many "routine" things that cannot be done safely in an aircraft (like landing, taking off or flying in cloud) given the wrong equipment, a poor, or poorly trained, pilot or any combination thereof.
Through the judicious and commonsense use and application of rules and regulations (like "though shalt not fly under bridges") you lessen the opportunity for the latter to go "showboating" and that way less people die.
Anybody who does not get this simple flight safety truism has no business referring to themselves as a professional aviator.
There are many "routine" things that cannot be done safely in an aircraft (like landing, taking off or flying in cloud) given the wrong equipment, a poor, or poorly trained, pilot or any combination thereof.
Through the judicious and commonsense use and application of rules and regulations (like "though shalt not fly under bridges") you lessen the opportunity for the latter to go "showboating" and that way less people die.
Anybody who does not get this simple flight safety truism has no business referring to themselves as a professional aviator.
Did I see construction machinery on the bridge? Was it closed to traffic so no risk to public? An arranged display, by a pilot showing real skill.
Not comparable to an unauthorized flight requiring little skill.
Several foreign pilots have done high bridge flights in Scotland and had explanations accepted by the court, or not been investigated.
If a Scottish pilot did it they'd be jailed.
(Looking at how road traffic and marine cases are disposed of.)
Not comparable to an unauthorized flight requiring little skill.
Several foreign pilots have done high bridge flights in Scotland and had explanations accepted by the court, or not been investigated.
If a Scottish pilot did it they'd be jailed.
(Looking at how road traffic and marine cases are disposed of.)
well its all fine and dandy until someone hits the bridge........................... 