Jump to content

Navy Washes Aircraft in Lake Tahoe


flyingseapig
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anyone know why the military pilots think they are exempt from the FAA FAR's. As far as I know Lake Tahoe is a National Forest and recreational area, isn't overflight of these areas supposed to be at 2000' AGL or more? Just another example of our taxpayers at work and wreckless pilots endangering peoples lives and damaging government assets. These guys should get their keys taken away and be scrubbing the latrines!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see any people or property on the water that were at risk from the helicopters.... And what a nonpilot deems "safe" is not exactly an informed decision....

 

Alost a year ago, we had some nutjob who lived on the approach end of the airport (a couple miles away!) complaining about "low flying aircraft". He said they were only a couple hundred feet above his house and doing circles around it. Turns out he lived under the hold for a VOR approach into the airport. The hold altitude was 1700 ft AGL.... Should we get in trouble because that man deemed the aircraft as being unsafe?

 

True, but you also need to operate at an altitude that is deemed safe and I don't think anyone on or around the lake would say that they were in compliance with that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but you also need to operate at an altitude that is deemed safe and I don't think anyone on or around the lake would say that they were in compliance with that.

 

Ok what is the minimum safe altitude over a lake?

 

This is in the news because they damaged the helicopter in a non-operational way, if their "mission" was to fly low over a lake no one would care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those pilots have been taken off flight status pending investigation. They were enroute to San Diego from Scaramento and "swung by" Lake Tahoe it seems.

 

My issue is not low flying or the fact that it's a National Forest but they clearly did not do any performace planning or preperation prior to going there. The reason the helicopter went in the lake is because of the lack of performace. That is what really bothers me more than anything in this case.

 

By the way, after they went swimming they landed at the airport for repairs. Total tally is close to $500,000.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

did not do any performace planning or preperation prior to going there. The reason the helicopter went in the lake is because of the lack of performace.

 

 

We don't really have enough information to speculate whether or not they had the performance, or what they did or did not plan on, the other helicopter was doing just fine. It seems like an MH-60 could hover at 6,000 but I have no idea.

 

To me it looks like the incident helicopter was doing a weird maneuver and lost control.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't really have enough information to speculate whether or not they had the performance, or what they did or did not plan on, the other helicopter was doing just fine. It seems like an MH-60 could hover at 6,000 but I have no idea.

 

To me it looks like the incident helicopter was doing a weird maneuver and lost control.

 

Yes, and that weird manuever is called "flat-hatting" or showing off trying to get a photo op and instead getting 2 aircraft all wet and damaged. Nice job guys!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok what is the minimum safe altitude over a lake?

 

An altitude that in case of engine failure, does not endanger property or persons on the ground....or something close to that. My FAR's are in the car.

 

So maybe legal up to a point, but stupid just the same. T

 

The law was never intended as a substitute for common sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So maybe legal up to a point, but stupid just the same. T

 

The law was never intended as a substitute for common sense.

 

I was correcting the OP who said these pilots should be violated for laws that don't exist. If someone makes incorrect FAR statements, myself included, they should be corrected.

 

This forum get's so hyperbolic sometimes. No one is advocating that this was a good idea.

 

But it was a navy twin helicopter hovering over water, I feel like there are many more aviation stories more worthy of indignation

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/19/60minutes/main6223615.shtml

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

I was correcting the OP who said these pilots should be violated for laws that don't exist. If someone makes incorrect FAR statements, myself included, they should be corrected.

 

This forum get's so hyperbolic sometimes. No one is advocating that this was a good idea.

 

But it was a navy twin helicopter hovering over water, I feel like there are many more aviation stories more worthy of indignation

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/19/60minutes/main6223615.shtml

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have jumped the gun on the performance aspect. But either way, there were not to be there in the first place and been taken off flight status.

 

Side note: If you are going to hover that high over water it would be best to use OGE performace data. Ground effect will not benifit much in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a more complete video than the one that has been posted? Where are the news reports stating that they were not supposed to be there? The one that I read said they had been taken off flight status until they determined what they were doing there. No indication that it was a punitive measure.. All I am seeing in this thread so far are unsupported accusations.

 

I like to stand by the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal. Cut these guys a break until we find out what really happened and be thankful nobody was hurt.

Edited by SBuzzkill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a more complete video than the one that has been posted? Where are the news reports stating that they were not supposed to be there? The one that I read said they had been taken off flight status until they determined what they were doing there. No indication that it was a punitive measure.. All I am seeing in this thread so far are unsupported accusations.

 

I like to stand by the "innocent until proven guilty" ideal. Cut these guys a break until we find out what really happened and be thankful nobody was hurt.

 

Just read an article where they confirmed they were flying low just to try and get a cool photo shot when they dunked it. That is one expensive picture, I wonder how it turned out because it cost the taxpayeres a lot of money. Love the comment:

 

“Somebody has to be a total moron to do it in total view of tourists in a recreational area, when everyone has a camera these days,” he told the newspaper. “We don’t really have morons flying naval aircraft.”

 

This guy obviously doesn't know what he's talking about as evidenced by these flight crews!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goes back to the whole, "Somebody is always watching." Regardless of whether it is an FAA individual or not, there is always somebody who will see you, and more times than not, they will have some sort of digital device to record your actions with. Also comes back to using good pilot judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to mark a ton of noise avoidance areas on our maps because of people reporting buzz numbers. Not necessarily doing anything wrong other than being loud near there houses. One guy has been arrested a couple of times for shooting at our helicopters. He gets a nice 2k radius ring around his place :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because they are exempt. You ever see a fed try to ramp check a military aircraft or pilot?

 

The FAA refers most complaints, compliance, and enforcement issues against the military back to the appropriate military agency. That's the FAA's policy per their S.O.P. (8900.1 volume 14 & FAA order 2150.3B, pg 2-12)

 

Order 2150.3b

 

f. Complaints against Members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46101 {b} and 14 C.F.R. § 13.21, the FAA refers complaints against a member of the U.S. Armed Forces acting in the performance of official duties to the Secretary of the appropriate department in the Department of Defense for action. The appropriate military authority concerned, within 90 days of receipt of the complaint, is required to inform the Administrator of the action taken on the complaint, including any corrective or disciplinary action.

 

 

The FAA also has a stated general Philosophy on violations:

 

8900.1 Vol 14-25 GENERAL 8900.1 Vol 14

 

B. Philosophy. Every inspector knows that a violation is not really proven until or unless it is adjudicated. Therefore, unless the inspector is absolutely certain that there is evidence to prove that a violation exists; the inspector should not allege that it does. To think or to report or to "play Monday morning quarterback" and say that someone is in violation of a Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) is as easy as writing one's name. To know that a violation exists the inspector must be able to write a Summary of Facts of what that person did or did not do based on the wording of the rule. The inspector must also be sure that the inspector has the evidence to prove it.

Edited by iChris
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the real lesson here is, be careful whenever you do something of which someone else may not approve, because there's always going to be someone around with a cell phone to film it!

 

Scratch your ass at the mall, and ten minutes later its on YouTube. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fairly obvious that the pilot was simply running low on drinking water and decided to top off his canteen. Everyone knows long flights make you thirsty. It's not like he can just land at a 7-Eleven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...