Low level flying
 

Looks fun, what do you think?

YouTube - Low Level Flying

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.

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

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

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.

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

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?

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


Pace

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.

YouTube - UNDER THE BRDIGE - Hannes Arch Flying Stunt

This is a gorgeous clip

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

Pace

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

:ok:

A little plea: embedding videos
 

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: copy 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/sr...befinalng6.gif(never mind the spaces, added here or the code won't show):
Result: :ok:

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!

Original video. Flown from the RHS. Instructor?

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.

an aircraft with domonstrated birdstrike tolerance for seagulls!

One word is all that is required "Stupid"

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

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?