Back-Country Aviation

[plowhog]

His violation was not due to making a low pass to inspect a landing are. From the article, it was due to:

"Palmer flew too close (closer than 500 feet) to people or structures or vehicles"

I've flown over and landed at countless airports, including landing on the gravel strip at Bettles, AK, in the Arctic Circle. In my opinion, going below 500ft AGL is not needed to inspect the suitability for landing. But maybe the "bush pilots" see it differently.

It *is* a hard rule that you don't fly within 500 feet of people, structures, or vehicles. Period. This safety regulation is well founded.

Having said all of that, I have flown under a bridge-- which is a huge violation except for one circumstance. You can only legally do that if you are taking off or landing. So we "arranged" a few takeoffs and landings under a bridge when I did my seaplane rating.

 

[3930dave]

He's not joking.

One friend taught me basically how to take off and do a controlled crash in case something happened to him.

Altitude and weight he covered alot. Also making sure strip is clear. Not everyone in AK has radios

Mike is an interesting cat. Caught my eye a Winter or 2 back, with that red plane he built - Draco. Even in the STOL world, that was an exceptional plane.

Skill and non-small amount of Luck, has allowed Mike to survive his younger days, to impart some of the wisdom he conveys in his 4 Friends speech. Ironically, given all the remote back-country flying he does, he wrote-off Draco on an airport runway, taking-off in a heavy cross-wind - you do never know. Listening to his post just after (he was fine), I had a Trust Your Instincts moment when he said "I could have easily/safely taken-off ACROSS the runway, but didn't want the tower pissed-off", then took full personal responsibility for the crash.

A different ^ aspect, but also a good example of what happens when pilot choices are constrained.

That said, Mike is still pushing the boundaries, big-time. That racing plane he built (Turbulence) is breaking records, to the point that ATC thought he had a faulty transponder (prop-plane, that passes jets).

I found the comments of the commercial-pilot (Juan?) in that video interesting, re. how disconnected commercial pilots are today, from the actual flying of the plane, and cited that issue as one reason he has always continued to fly small planes.

I also found one question/comment late in the Q/A session notable - the guy in the audience walked away from training @ a flight-school in the Eastern USA, as it was to dangerous. Pilot shortages, post-Covid, are a reality, and it sounds like some schools are running too close to being a puppy-mill.

^ Might have been a factor in the next video I'll put up.

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

This debrief covers some of the factors in this fatal crash

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

His violation was not due to making a low pass to inspect a landing are. From the article, it was due to:

"Palmer flew too close (closer than 500 feet) to people or structures or vehicles"

I've flown over and landed at countless airports, including landing on the gravel strip at Bettles, AK, in the Arctic Circle. In my opinion, going below 500ft AGL is not needed to inspect the suitability for landing. But maybe the "bush pilots" see it differently.

It *is* a hard rule that you don't fly within 500 feet of people, structures, or vehicles. Period. This safety regulation is well founded.

Having said all of that, I have flown under a bridge-- which is a huge violation except for one circumstance. You can only legally do that if you are taking off or landing. So we "arranged" a few takeoffs and landings under a bridge when I did my seaplane rating.

I'm trying to understand (seriously, I'm not arguing....) the constraints re. aborts/go-arounds.....

On an off-airport short field approach, if your assessment is to not land, AND the abort puts you in violation of the 500' rule, what are you supposed to do ? (I haven't checked the Canuck regs, but expect they mirror yours).

Time/money may never align for me well enough to do my ultralight license here.... but if I did, these STOL planes are really attractive to me, for their back-country off-airport abilities.

Rgds, D.

 

[plowhog]

On an off-airport short field approach, if your assessment is to not land, AND the abort puts you in violation of the 500' rule, what are you supposed to do ?

Safety is paramount in aviation. It trumps everything.

Years ago, I violated airspace separation with a Learjet at Van Nuys airport. I would up receiving a commendation from the FAA over my flying skills, not a reprimand. The FAA will prioritize safety even in light of all the many rules. As "pilot-in-command" of the aircraft you are authorized to violate any rule if it is due to taking a safer action. Just be ready to back it up when challenged. In my case, I was dealing with an on-board emergency (fire in the cockpit) and had declared an emergency.

I did not read that this pilot was landing, only going in to "take a look." This is often abused and the FAA knows that. This brings up an unwritten rule in flying. Had he ... claimed ... he was intending to land and had to abort for safety due to an iguana on the field (just kidding), I think he would not have gotten a reprimand. Unless the 500ft rule were violated on the approach before any "safety" issue could arise.

I once landed a sophisticated aircraft at a remote airstrip in New Mexico. Bought a tank of fuel. On startup, the turbine inlet temperature gauge had failed. It was a *mandatory* instrument to have on takeoff. Big violation if you took off with it inoperable. But there were also no mechanics who could work on this type of plane within several states of me. Would be a huge deal, and expense, to fly in a mechanic with proper tools and parts.

I called a trusted friend, explained my circumstances, and asked what he would do. He said: "well, did the instrument fail on the ground, or did it fail shortly after takeoff?"

 

[3930dave]

Thanks for the examples plow. Your last paragraph illustrates the importance of understanding the nuances of regs !

I'm still not clear on Inspection Passes though, esp. for off-airport sites, as they sound like Taking a Look to my novice ears.

There is a general trend (at least up here) I find concerning in many sectors..... as an individual, too often you are expected to prove your Innocence, rather than the burden of proof being on the other side to prove that you are Guilty.

If this ^ trend was just in Aviation (something I can easily choose to not participate in as a license-holder), I'd be less concerned than I am.

Rgds, D.

 

[ray66v]

Meanwhile, we have dusters here, that commute long distances at 200' agl, over populated areas. And, enter the pattern to land even lower completely unannounced, fouling up traffic.

And, the FAA doesn't act.

 

[Jstpssng]

Meanwhile, we have dusters here, that commute long distances at 200' agl, over populated areas. And, enter the pattern to land even lower completely unannounced, fouling up traffic.

And, the FAA doesn't act.

I remember that from decades ago, when they were spraying the forests to knock back an insect infestation. (Spruce budworm)
Every night during spray season you would see them flying in formation at tree top level, flying back to base.

 

[3930dave]

Meanwhile, we have dusters here, that commute long distances at 200' agl, over populated areas. And, enter the pattern to land even lower completely unannounced, fouling up traffic.

And, the FAA doesn't act.

You raise a good point.

Had a great chat, 10-15 years ago, with a Vietnam vet. Flew rotary and fixed wing. Went to University in Florida, and took the same courses the Ag engineers did, to learn about spraying. Did some crop dusting, knew all the regs, and was pretty disgusted by practices/attitudes that were common.

Little regard for dosage, and despite "strict" regs about drift control, it was commonly ignored. He was one of the only guys to keep records of what he was doing - another ignored regulation.

Today, esp. considering all the other attacks Ag is under, it is surprising that this still slides by.....

I guess Youtube personalities are much easier targets....

Rgds, D.

 

[ray66v]

The rules are almost always there to help keep everyone safe.

Everyone sometimes does something that's not 100% by the book. Either knowingly, or unknowingly.

The sad part is, the more experienced pilots seem to often be the ones who set the worst examples of ignoring the regulations.

Which explains why you often read about a 20k, or 30k hour pilot doing something really shocking in the accident reports, and wonder how they could do such a dumb thing.