?????????????

[500E]

This is what I would call reckless even if I had the training a bridge with workers on structure and cars below.

As a manager there should be a lot more situation awareness, if this is as reported, his judgement is in question

 

ODOT files complaint over pilot

A helicopter pilot flew between the uprights and under the cables of the Interstate Bridge.By Brad FordThursday, July 10, 2008 Workers for the Oregon Department of Transportation were on the supports of the Interstate Bridge when a pilot flew a helicopter under the counterweight cables and between the supports. Dave Thompson, with ODOT, calls it reckless. Thompson says if the helicopter hit the bridge it could have injured ODOT workers, people in vehicles below and would have potentially closed the bridge for an unknown period of time.

 

Thompson says the pilot was Morgan Kozloski, a manager at Hillsboro Helicopter. Thompson says Kozloski called several people at ODOT to apologize. He told them he's trained to fly at low elevations and the flight was safe. ODOT is filing a complaint with the FAA and Coast Guard.

 

[Darren Hughes]

Yeah, I seen this article yesterday and I'm not sure how I feel about this 1. People on the ground can have a tendency to blow things way out of proportion sometimes. Thomson says that if the chopper hit the bridge it would have injured the workers on it. This is true, but that's why there is a pilot flying and not a chimpanzee!!! But on the other hand, there were cables on top of the bridge. It's kinda hard to tell from the photo of the bridge how much room there was for the chopper to pass underneath the cables.

 

There's 1 thing for sure, being the manager of a school, he's not exactly setting a good example for the students.

[67november]

Link to the article

 

http://www.620kpoj.com/cc-common/news/sect...article=3939700

[67november]

A better pic of the bridge

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/80651083@N00/...57594213337828/

[helonorth]

The guy has totally set himself up for a careless and reckless violation. "Trained to fly

at low elevations"? This isn't combat. He deserves to get a violation. Too many senseless wire

strikes that often end up fatal. If he's doing something as stupid as that, who knows

what else he's doing. I know it's harsh, but a suspension is probably not enough.

Someone who shows such a blatant disregard for safety should have their certificate

revoked.

[mountainchopper]

Hillsboro does a lot of news and video stuff so it could have been mission oriented, also the commercial side of things is pretty separated from the flight school aspect.

 

Not to always play the devil's advocate, but this doesn't differ too greatly from ag pilots flying under power lines which are strung over roads which cars filled with people drive on.

 

Perhaps the off chance exists that this pilot may have known what he was doing in flying where he did, recon-ed the maneuver and worked to avoid any collision hazards. At any rate he didn't crash, no one was hurt, and life goes on.

[delorean]

You can't fly under wires or bridges without a letter of authorization (LOA). Don't ask me where to show you where in the FARs this is, because it's not. But that's the stance the FAA took on it years ago--careless and reckless.

 

For instance, you can't fly through the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. The FAA will violate you (after you get out of jail) for careless and reckless. The Arch is 640 ft tall and 640 ft wide at the base. It can be done very safely--in fact one of the local FAA Inspectors has done it three times with a LOA while sling loading a 360 degree camera (he also landed on the top twice!)

 

Same goes for bridges......but they're much lower, much closer to boaters, suicide jumpers, etc.

 

One of the operators in St. Louis does have a LOA for flying underneath the bridges that cross the Mississippi in front of the Arch. They had a barge on the river at the north leg and they refuel pad was about 1/4 mile north. They were authorized to fly under the Veterans and Eads bridges to go to/from the fuel dump.

 

In this case, my question would be "why?" If they had a REALLY good reason to do it, no traffic or people on the bridge, and could prove it was perfectly safe, then they might get away with it. But looking at the pix and complaints, this guy is screwedand rightly so. No one would ever get away with flying through the Arch either (and getting an LOA would be near impossible.)

[jimbo2181]

You can't fly under wires or bridges without a letter of authorization (LOA). Don't ask me where to show you where in the FARs this is, because it's not. But that's the stance the FAA took on it years ago--careless and reckless.

 

For instance, you can't fly through the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. The FAA will violate you (after you get out of jail) for careless and reckless. The Arch is 640 ft tall and 640 ft wide at the base. It can be done very safely--in fact one of the local FAA Inspectors has done it three times with a LOA while sling loading a 360 degree camera (he also landed on the top twice!)

 

Same goes for bridges......but they're much lower, much closer to boaters, suicide jumpers, etc.

 

One of the operators in St. Louis does have a LOA for flying underneath the bridges that cross the Mississippi in front of the Arch. They had a barge on the river at the north leg and they refuel pad was about 1/4 mile north. They were authorized to fly under the Veterans and Eads bridges to go to/from the fuel dump.

 

In this case, my question would be "why?" If they had a REALLY good reason to do it, no traffic or people on the bridge, and could prove it was perfectly safe, then they might get away with it. But looking at the pix and complaints, this guy is screwedand rightly so. No one would ever get away with flying through the Arch either (and getting an LOA would be near impossible.)

 

 

For some reason I am remembering, "an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on surface." Thats kind of hard to do on a bridge. Unless he was solo in a twin I suppose.

 

Oh by the way. My ruling. Stupid. No need to even think twice.

[BOATFIXERGUY]

The guy has totally set himself up for a careless and reckless violation. "Trained to fly

at low elevations"? This isn't combat. He deserves to get a violation. Too many senseless wire

strikes that often end up fatal. If he's doing something as stupid as that, who knows

what else he's doing. I know it's harsh, but a suspension is probably not enough.

Someone who shows such a blatant disregard for safety should have their certificate

revoked.

 

Careless and reckless are going to nail him for sure. This FAR is so open to interpretation by the inspector writing the violation (whether or not there is an actual FAR by any other number), that if worded correctly, the FAA inspector can easily show how this stunt was both careless and reckless. The FAA legal department and the hearing officer are going to back up the inspector...especially since it has been getting so much press. Good luck with the appeal. Not gonna happen!

[FlyboyDC]

Wow are you guys and the press blowing this entire thing out of proportion. From reading the article I only see a pilot contracted to the US Geology Dept using his skill to conduct an osprey site survey.

 

I can see your point if this pilot was alone and hotdoggin but he had a passenger from the US Geology dept with a mandate to search for these nests.

 

I think DOT and FAA should tread lightly. If my licenses were up for suspension I would do all in my power to fight back.

 

Thats my two cents from DC

Go Ospreys

[Darren Hughes]

Seems a little fishy that you chose this topic to be your first post on here. So whats the agenda? Better yet, whats your usual username, and whats your real location??!!! <_>

[BOATFIXERGUY]

Wow are you guys and the press blowing this entire thing out of proportion. From reading the article I only see a pilot contracted to the US Geology Dept using his skill to conduct an osprey site survey.

 

I can see your point if this pilot was alone and hotdoggin but he had a passenger from the US Geology dept with a mandate to search for these nests.

 

I think DOT and FAA should tread lightly. If my licenses were up for suspension I would do all in my power to fight back.

 

Thats my two cents from DC

Go Ospreys

 

Are you serious?

 

So if i have a contract I can do what I want?

 

And the FAA isn't going to tread lightly on anyone. They have more money than you or anyone else and can quickly drain your cash. I'm glad you'd fight back, as would I. But they really don't care if you do or don't.

[Jeff]

It seems to me that if this were a legitimate US Geology Dept. mission, then the LOA would be obtained from the FAA, or a letter stating that an LOA was not necessary. Additionally, precautions would have been taken to not have DOT workers and cars, etc. on the bridge at the time of the fly-by.

 

Absent the letter and the safety precautions, common sense should have dictated that the pilot refuse to fly through the bridge like that. After all, who is in charge in the aircraft, some government scientist or the PIC? Hmmm! I think we all know the answer to that one.

 

On a different note... it would have been kinda cool to watch. Glad no accidents happened.

 

~Jeff

[C.R.O.]

On a different note... it would have been kinda cool to watch. Glad no accidents happened.

 

~Jeff

 

Why is it that the coolest things to watch, are also usually not the smartest things to do?

 

Here's hoping I have a boring career, doing flights that nobody wants to watch.