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.

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

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.

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.

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...

''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.

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.

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? :)

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...

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

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".

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!

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:)

"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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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 :)