|
10 acres is like a moderately nice suburban cul-de-sac with like 10 houses with large yards per side and blacktop for an easy reference. Seems tight for landing aircraft to me.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
To be fair to the guy, he said the smallest lot size is 10 acres with most of them being far larger than that. Or did he mention elsewhere that the lot where he was landing was ~10 acres?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
Murgos posted:10 acres is like a moderately nice suburban cul-de-sac with like 10 houses with large yards per side and blacktop for an easy reference. Seems tight for landing aircraft to me. A suburban cul-de-sac is not 10 acres per lot. This area is 10 acres minimum per lot, meaning it could be more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
Has no one found the place on google maps yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 01:03
|
|
|
Dude should have 1) filed NASA and 2) not admitted anything in the FAA interview.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
I miss the 65th Aggressor Squadron at Nellis. They're back, and they're gonna fly F-35s, but they probably won't get sickass Russian-inspired paint like the F-15Cs did, and the 64th's F-16s do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Now that the Russian air force has shown their whole rear end, I assume the aggressors will have to start painting their planes like the PLAAF to imply a plausible threat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
vessbot posted:1) If the above-500 check shows OK, then this ruling sets up the perverse decision tree that below 500 you must land no matter what. You see the problem with this? 1) To be honest, I don't see the problem with this because the assumption I'm making is that he "tried to land" in a place completely unsuited to land a fixed-wing aircraft, which is borne out by the fact he decided it was in fact not a suitable place to land. He's trying to make the case that this is somehow going to be widely applicable, when I think it's far more likely that the interpretation will be "don't land or 'attempt to land' near people's houses at not-an-airport, you dinguses." 2) True, but if it could have been determined that there was no possibility of a safe landing in the circumstances* with respect to the landing area itself but also the things around it, from above 500 feet, then the possibility of landing would have been precluded and therefore it would be forbidden to break any of the limits, regardless of how the area is categorized. * I think this is where the "necessity of the landing" thing comes in. Had there been a need for a precautionary landing, it may have been a suitable landing site or at least merited a closer inspection, while not being a suitable landing site for, lack of a better term, shits and giggles. Really, the crucial aspect of the case is the layout of the area, the suitability of the landing site for a completely discretionary landing, and how far he actually was from structures. It's also notable, to me, that during a 20 minute monologue on the subject, he dances very neatly around that one important issue while conjecturing about precedents and god knows what else. Why would he not discuss the single piece of the puzzle that would conclusively show that he acted as a reasonable pilot would in the circumstance? Occam's Razor: Of the following two possibilities: 1) Pilot did a dumb thing near a bunch of houses, and the FAA didn't like it. or 2) The FAA is deciding to make an example out of this one pilot, who acted as a prudent aviator, because they're mean. Which seems more likely? He focuses a lot on his decision not to land; I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and say if he did land, he'd still get hit with careless/reckless if the neighbours complained and the FAA figured it was a stupid idea to land where he did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
What are the exceptions to the 500’ limit? I ask having grown up in an area with lots of crop dusting, so I assume they have one, but curious how it’s worded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 02:18
|
|
|
3) The FAA is deciding to make an example out of this one pilot, who acted as a prudent aviator, because he got caught on tape.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:3) The FAA is deciding to make an example out of this one pilot, who acted as a prudent aviator, because he got caught on tape. If he's acting responsibly and not rehearsing for North By Northwest 2, then why would it matter if he's on tape? Planes land (or choose not to) on tape everyday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Now that the Russian air force has shown their whole rear end, I assume the aggressors will have to start painting their planes like the PLAAF to imply a plausible threat. Yeah, about that...
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, how far out does the "necessary for purposes of taking off or landing" start and end? Like if you're on a 3 mile final and already on the glideslope, and you pass over a hill on the approach path with some houses on it (i.e. a congested area) that temporarily puts you at say 700' AGL, I'm sure that is what the regulation is referring to and that's fine. But what if you're coming in from some arbitrary direction aiming to enter the pattern and, in the course of your normal descent to pattern altitude, you overfly a hill 3 miles off to the side of the airport at 700 feet. Does that still count as "necessary for the purposes of landing" since it was part of your landing sequence? Or would the argument be that you should have come in from a different direction that meant you didn't get that low? What if you're in something very fast that doesn't sink quickly and you do the same thing 5 miles out?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:1) To be honest, I don't see the problem with this because the assumption I'm making is that he "tried to land" in a place completely unsuited to land a fixed-wing aircraft, which is borne out by the fact he decided it was in fact not a suitable place to land. He's trying to make the case that this is somehow going to be widely applicable, when I think it's far more likely that the interpretation will be "don't land or 'attempt to land' near people's houses at not-an-airport, you dinguses." Supporting fact does not bear out the assumption (without time traveling). The unsuitability of the landing was decided after descending below 500, so how could this information possibly have been used to decide to stay above 500? quote:2) True, but if it could have been determined that there was no possibility of a safe landing in the circumstances* with respect to the landing area itself but also the things around it, from above 500 feet, then the possibility of landing would have been precluded But say it couldn't have been determined? There's a bigger world of possibilities out there than 5000+ foot paved airports with an ILS, where the only thing that would make the runway unsuitable is being occupied, and that you can see from pattern altitude. quote:Occam's Razor: I see both equally likely. Unless the definition of "dumb thing" is circularly based on that he got in trouble for it...
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
ulmont posted:What are the exceptions to the 500’ limit? I ask having grown up in an area with lots of crop dusting, so I assume they have one, but curious how it’s worded. The crop dusting exception is in Part 137. The exception being discussed in this case (for takeoffs and landings) is in Part 91. quote:§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. quote:§ 137.49 Operations over other than congested areas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Out of curiosity, how far out does the "necessary for purposes of taking off or landing" start and end? Not defined, just like "congested area." Which is a double edged sword. On one hand it would be impossible to hammer out with certain distances and angles and what not, without coming up with a thousand necessary counterexamples going both ways. Trying to catch every possible circumstance would be like trapping water in a sieve. It's left to be determined on a case by case basis as it prudently applies, which is different based on the type of terrain, type of operation, etc. But it takes being an adult, and honest intentions (on both ends) to manage. But left open-ended like that, the other edge of the sword is that they can gently caress you for anything, after the fact, because anything they decide is a congested area, can be a congested area.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Supporting fact does not bear out the assumption (without time traveling). The unsuitability of the landing was decided after descending below 500, so how could this information possibly have been used to decide to stay above 500? Left somewhat unstated is “would a landing at this location ever be suitable?”
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 04:08
|
|
|
Ooops: https://onemileatatime.com/news/egyptair-crash-smoking-pilot/
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
As an annoying A10 person... NO! Yeah looks good but it's 100% the wrong theatre for them. Someone did a good effort post in one of the ongoing war threads that summed up the problems which I won't go into.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They're back, and they're gonna fly F-35s, but they probably won't get sickass Russian-inspired paint like the F-15Cs did, and the 64th's F-16s do. Then what's even the point? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 05:23
|
|
|
Humphreys posted:As an annoying A10 person... NO! Yeah looks good but it's 100% the wrong theatre for them. Someone did a good effort post in one of the ongoing war threads that summed up the problems which I won't go into. Or is it the manning/training angle? Or please point to the thread that discusses. I'm very interested 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 05:46
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Left somewhat unstated is “would a landing at this location ever be suitable?” Yeah, I'm willing to walk back what I've said if he shows a suitable landing area that did not create any kind of hazard. I don't think he'll do that, because I think the reason the FAA wants to make an example out of him specifically, rather than any of the other people who film themselves or get filmed doing off-airport stuff, is because they don't want people landing planes in arbitrary places in residential areas -- even ones with fairly large properties in the area! I think that's a reasonable thing for the FAA to wish to discourage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 05:52
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Weren't they literally designed for Europe and Russians/Soviets? Just as a sample. the Su-25s on both sides are having pretty dire loss rates and they're very similar in mission and capability. Combination of neither side having air supremacy and air defenses are not very well suppressed. Even for the mission the A-10 was designed for it wouldn't have an extremely long life span. The defense of europe/fulda gap was all about delaying the soviet advance enough to give time to move manpower and materiel from the CONUS. Survivability means the pilots might make it back to base rather than just lawn darting into some german's hops field.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 05:55
|
|
|
vessbot posted:1) If the above-500 check shows OK, then this ruling sets up the perverse decision tree that below 500 you must land no matter what. You see the problem with this? I'm going to disagree with you here. The FAR reads as follows: § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. posted:Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: The way I read that, you are restricted to a 500' AGL hard deck unless you are flying over sparsely populated areas which are a subset of "other than congested areas." At that point, the 500' changes from a minimum altitude to a minimum standoff distance that must be adhered to unless you are landing. The definition of "sparsely populated" may be part of the contention between the pilot and the FAA here, and I don't know if the lateral distance between his aircraft and any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure was violated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 07:16
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Weren't they literally designed for Europe and Russians/Soviets? The A-10 was designed at a time before precision-guided weapons were common. The only way to blow up a column of tanks from the air was to strafe it with unguided rockets or a big heavy cannon. The A-10 is designed for that mission, obviously. It flies low and slow, as you have to if you're going to hit things accurately with unguided weapons, and that makes it extremely vulnerable to short-range air defenses. They were very useful and effective in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes -- but consider who they were fighting. The only anti-aircraft defenses those guys had were some 30-year-old Stingers and 50-year-old manually aimed Russian AA guns. Despite their ruggedness, in World War 3, against an equal enemy, the A-10s were not expected to last very long at all. Today we have extremely accurate and deadly precision guided weapons that can seek out and destroy tanks on their own. For instance, here is the CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon, a smart cluster bomb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ubL2hMPGg Each CBU-97 bomb carries 40 submunitions. Each submunition has an infrared thermal sensor and a millimeter wave radar sensor. They each descend on a parachute while slowly spinning, scanning the ground below for tanks (hot things that stick up). When they detect one, they detonate in midair and fire an explosively formed penetrator through the thin armor on top of the vehicle. Just one is enough to defeat nearly any tank or armored vehicle in the world. An F-15E Strike Eagle can carry 20 CBU-97s, for a total of 800 submunitions. That's how you destroy a tank column today. Streak over the battlefield at 30,000 feet and Mach 1, completely out of range of shoulder fired missiles, dump a bunch of those things without even slowing down, and bug out before they hit. Every armored vehicle in the area blows up 45 seconds later. Bing bang boom. (Before someone points it out, yes, I know the A-10 can carry PGMs today. It still isn't the right plane to send out against an enemy equipped with modern anti-aircraft weapons.) Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Apr 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 08:45
|
|
|
They had to ban the A10 from low level strafing in the first gulf war because they were taking too many losses. It spent most of the 1991 campaign plinking tanks from altitude with Marvericks. It's vaunted gun so much dead weight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 09:19
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:They had to ban the A10 from low level strafing in the first gulf war because they were taking too many losses. It spent most of the 1991 campaign plinking tanks from altitude with Marvericks. It's vaunted gun
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 12:30
|
|
|
Ya, IIRC the A-10 isn’t flyable without the gun (or a commensurate mass of ballast) installed. It really is an aircraft designed around a weapon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 12:57
|
|
|
The SPA-10 Thunderhog was going to have a big ol’ stack of steel plates painted yellow in place of the GAU-8
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 13:01
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:They had to ban the A10 from low level strafing in the first gulf war because they were taking too many losses. It spent most of the 1991 campaign plinking tanks from altitude with Marvericks. It's vaunted gun The A-10 will come in useful when it's time to mop up the 40km long battle Lada columns, but now something more modern would definitely be the way to go. Apparently they're already training on F-16s which makes a lot of sense with modern PGMs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 13:17
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Out of curiosity, how far out does the "necessary for purposes of taking off or landing" start and end? Balloon pilots exploit the poo poo out of this rule, out of necessity. Everything we do affects our landing spot, so if we need to skim rooftops to get to a safe landing spot, then it was necessary for the purpose of landing. It’s obviously something we avoid, just to avoid pissing off the general public. So the rule can be stretched pretty far, depending on the circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
There's a saying when working with the FDA that the FDA is one person - the person that is reviewing/handling your submission. I would imagine the FAA is the same way, and the way that rules are interpreted/someone is punished/gone after depends completely on the single person that was assigned/took up the case. They can absolutely be petty and go after people for stupid reasons, or turn a blind eye to massive corruption/safety issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 14:00
|
|
|
Woolwich Bagnet posted:There's a saying when working with the FDA that the FDA is one person - the person that is reviewing/handling your submission. Considering they are the FAA’s primary regulatory enforcement arms, the FSDOs are famously independent and vary wildly in how they operate/how they interpret regulations. I remain convinced that if dipshit hadn’t abandoned his Taylorcraft and Red Bull hadn’t augered in a 182 after being told not to, the complaint on Trent Palmer wouldn’t have gone anywhere. But now the FSDOs probably have marching orders for zero tolerance of anything even tangentially related to social media or YouTube, and they absolutely know who Palmer is and what his airplane looks like. It honestly doesn’t matter whether he violated a CFR or not, they’re gonna chase it down and make his life miserable until they make an enforcement action stick, or their bosses stop breathing down their necks, whichever comes first. Time to paint the Freedom Fox white with minimum-legal-size registration markings, imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 14:39
|
|
|
Where's the careers in aviation thread?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3821398&perpage=40&noseen=1&pagenumber=228
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Considering they are the FAA’s primary regulatory enforcement arms, the FSDOs are famously independent and vary wildly in how they operate/how they interpret regulations. I remain convinced that if dipshit hadn’t abandoned his Taylorcraft and Red Bull hadn’t augered in a 182 after being told not to, the complaint on Trent Palmer wouldn’t have gone anywhere. But now the FSDOs probably have marching orders for zero tolerance of anything even tangentially related to social media or YouTube, and they absolutely know who Palmer is and what his airplane looks like. It honestly doesn’t matter whether he violated a CFR or not, they’re gonna chase it down and make his life miserable until they make an enforcement action stick, or their bosses stop breathing down their necks, whichever comes first. I mean, the investigation has apparently been ongoing for a long time because the incident happened in 2019 and the FSDO gave him a talking-to immediately afterward, so I don't think that's entirely it. It probably didn't help him, but I doubt he otherwise would've escaped unscathed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I'm going to disagree with you here. Your first paragraph, I agree with. If you think we disagree, it's probably because I jammed too much tightly into one sentence and made it a mess. Let me break it apart and reorder it: The population level only changes the limit between (going from most to least restrictive) - 1000 within 2000 (91.119 b - congested areas) - 500 ft AGL (91.119 c, first sentence - other than congested areas, general) - 500 ft bubble around persons, vessels, vehicles or objects, (91.119 c, second sentence - other than congested areas, subset: over water and sparsely populated areas) In the video he essentially admitted to penetrating the 500 foot bubble, the least restrictive of the categories. If he moves to any of the other bullet points, they're only more restrictive and would still be a violation; so the definition of sparsely populated can not possibly do anything for him. He violated the minimum altitude/distance set up by any population density definition, so he's not contending that. But the landing necessity exception applies equally to all 3 of them, so whether his recon pass falls under it, is significant. vessbot fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Apr 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
Was the RC strip within 500' of any buildings, etc? That's basically the biggest point of contention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
PeterCat posted:Was the RC strip within 500' of any buildings, etc? At 8:20 in the video he says it's not a point of contention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:52
|
|