-
1960 Piper Comanche -
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
On another aviation forum, they are saying that Skip Holm was one of the pilots involved in this buzz job. Anyone know if Skip is in any trouble as a result of this? -
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
from the article...
According to FAA and National Transportation Safety Board records, Riggs and a second pilot, Skip Holm, left Van Nuys Airport on Nov. 6, each flying an L-39. Holm was in a Canadian-registered plane that Riggs had leased, FAA officials say.
The plan was to do four passes of the Santa Monica coast at a safe altitude as a third small plane flew nearby, towing a promotional banner for the movie "Kerosene Cowboys."
FAA and NTSB documents show that Riggs flew away from the other two planes and made low passes at the pier and along the beach before Holm told him over the radio to "knock it off." Riggs concluded the flight by pulling into a steep climb just before he would have hit the pier, videotapes show.
I dont see how he could be in trouble, but you never know.Comment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
If you read the entire article, it states that Skip was one of the 2 pilots involved in the flight, but it sounds like he was not involved in the buzzing incident.1960 Piper ComancheComment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
The information comes from someone in the FAA who says they have Skip on video tape as the one who buzzed the pier, while Riggs was the one who buzzed the ferris wheel. I really hope they are wrong, and I suspect they probably are. I'm just curious if anything has happened to Skip or if the FAA is going after him for a possible violation.Originally posted by Bob View Post
BTW, the FAA is not always fair as we all know, so whether someone is actually innocent is entirely beside the point. The FAA will often "scapegoat" someone due to heavy political pressure and/or public scrutiny.Comment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
Whats the big deal if Skip buzzed the pier anyways? If anyone can do a buzzjob, Skip is the man...Comment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
It's not a matter of whether Skip can do it or not safely. No one is questioning his piloting abilities here, but rather the accusations of his actions in blatantly violating several FAR's. Last time I checked the FAA does not grant passes to pilots of superior ability to break all the regulations without prior FAA approval.Originally posted by ezetom View PostComment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
Hasn't Skip been in trouble before over an incident flying a P51 in Calif. a few years back doing aerobatics or
?
Lockheed BobComment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
Seems I recall reading about Bill Rheinschild getting himself in hot water with the FAA over "read-my-service-stencils" passes. Don't know the final disposition of that affair.
And it's true, the FAA supposedly had the goods on Bob Hoover but had to resort to trumped-up charges to ground him.
"We're the Feds. We do what we want. Because we can."
$"Man was meant to fly -- the earth is for worms!"
Martin CaidinComment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
There's a couple of times in that video that 2 airplanes are visible.......and both appear to very close to the pier. Was Skip at Reno this year?Comment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
According to the FAR's you must be at least 1,000' above any congested area which clearly was violated. Another question I have did they have a clearance to operate in LA's class Bravo airspace? If not, that's another major no no. Plus, there is a air speed restriction of 200 knots or less when operating in class D airspace (Santa Monica Airport) and 250 knots in class B airspace (LAX). Were these violated also? After 9-11, the FAA is obviously very sensitive to these issues and we as pilots must remain diligent to these rules.Originally posted by dvddude View Post1960 Piper ComancheComment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
Probably not going to matter...speculation is that Skip has a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for issues such as these. He's had to use it before like someone mentioned earlier when he got into trouble in a Mustang.Comment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
Not that it matters to me but I would hardly call a peir a congested area. That rule addresses the ability to land the plane safely in case of an engine failure. It would be fairly easy to miss a single peir and ditch without harm to anyone on the ground or water. The FAA might rule otherwise, it has happened before, but typically bodies of water are not considered congested.Originally posted by comancheflyer View Post
Oh and it looks like the floor on the Bravo airspace is 5000 feet in that location but it is hard to see from the east coast.
Comment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
Good question regarding what is considered a congested area. First, here is the FAR rule regarding minimum altitudes:Originally posted by wyhdah View PostNot that it matters to me but I would hardly call a peir a congested area. That rule addresses the ability to land the plane safely in case of an engine failure. It would be fairly easy to miss a single peir and ditch without harm to anyone on the ground or water. The FAA might rule otherwise, it has happened before, but typically bodies of water are not considered congested.
Oh and it looks like the floor on the Bravo airspace is 5000 feet in that location but it is hard to see from the east coast.
I Sec. 91.119
Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator. to look up in the FAR's and here is what
Then, I would assume that the FAA would look at past rulings to determine what an open assembly of persons are. There was a similar incident when a Gulfstream II buzzed a beach in Hawaii. The FAA ruling board perfunctorily held that the persons on the beach made it a congested area as an “open air assembly of persons.”
Throw in a busy pier with all kinds of carnival activities going on (if you have never been to the Santa Monica pier, its a very crowded place most of the time), and I think this pilot is going to have a struggle hanging on to their license. Just sayin'1960 Piper ComancheComment
-
Re: Oooooops - It's usually not a good thing to buz the Santa Monica pier in a L-39
Why?
http://www.latimes.com/videobeta/wat...mpty&src=frontComment
Comment