• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

READ This Before You Water Ski or fly near Water Supplies

sj

Staff member
Northwest Arkansas
http://www.telegram.com/article/20090331/FRONTPAGENEWS/903310270

WORCESTER — The National Transportation Safety Board has upheld the two-month suspension of a local lawyer’s pilot’s license imposed after he flew a Piper Cub too near the surface of Wachusett Reservoir and the Cosgrove Intake Building.

NTSB documents identify the pilot as Roy A. Bourgeois and state the incident took place about 5:30 p.m. Aug. 2, 2007. Mr. Bourgeois is a Worcester lawyer.

Two men fishing from shore told administrative law Judge William E. Fowler Jr. at a two-day hearing in August and September 2008 that the single-engine aircraft was about 30 feet above the water and 50 feet from the shoreline when it flew by them.

Two Department of Conservation and Recreation watershed rangers testified that the Piper Cub was close enough to the Cosgrove Intake Building, where they were standing, that they were able to describe the two men in the airplane.


The Cosgrove Intake building is where drinking water from Wachusett Reservoir flows east to metropolitan Boston.

Conservation and Recreation Commissioner Richard K. Sullivan Jr. said today that the agency was eager to get the word out that pilots are not to fly within 500 feet of a person or structure. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a notice that aircraft were not to come within 500 feet of a public water supply.

“In terms of public health and public safety, we take this very seriously. Two fishermen and two of our DCR watershed rangers acted quickly and reported this incident, and this should serve as notice to any pilot who might be thinking of doing the same thing,” Mr. Sullivan said.

The commissioner credited heightened public awareness after 9-11 with fewer instances of low flyovers at Quabbin and Wachusett.

Mr. Bourgeois told Judge Fowler he had a passenger on board the Piper Cub, Robert Hansman, who was photographing wildlife.

The pilot told the judge that he had several years’ experience with soaring and gliding clubs and that he had flown over the reservoir “hundreds if not thousands of times,” and no one had complained before.

Mr. Bourgeois maintained that at no time was his flight “careless, reckless or dangerous.”

The FAA had recommended a 90-day license suspension, but because Mr. Bourgeois had no prior violations penalty was reduced to 60 days.

Mr. Bourgeois appealed the decision of the administrative law judge to the NTSB, which denied the appeal, based on what it called compelling and persuasive evidence from witnesses.

The 60-day suspension took effect Feb. 16.
 
What does 500 feet horizontal distance look like from my Cub? I have not had my bionic eye calibrated lately.

The lawyer should have tried this defense. "Your honor, these men are obviously lying. I was never more than 5 feet above the water."

Just trying to help.
 
Re: READ This Before You Water Ski or fly near Water Supplie

steve said:
http://www.telegram.com/article/20090331/FRONTPAGENEWS/903310270

WORCESTER — The National Transportation Safety Board has upheld the two-month suspension of a local lawyer’s pilot’s license imposed after he flew a Piper Cub too near the surface of Wachusett Reservoir and the Cosgrove Intake Building.

NTSB documents identify the pilot as Roy A. Bourgeois and state the incident took place about 5:30 p.m. Aug. 2, 2007. Mr. Bourgeois is a Worcester lawyer.

Two men fishing from shore told administrative law Judge William E. Fowler Jr. at a two-day hearing in August and September 2008 that the single-engine aircraft was about 30 feet above the water and 50 feet from the shoreline when it flew by them.

Two Department of Conservation and Recreation watershed rangers testified that the Piper Cub was close enough to the Cosgrove Intake Building, where they were standing, that they were able to describe the two men in the airplane.


The Cosgrove Intake building is where drinking water from Wachusett Reservoir flows east to metropolitan Boston.

Conservation and Recreation Commissioner Richard K. Sullivan Jr. said today that the agency was eager to get the word out that pilots are not to fly within 500 feet of a person or structure. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a notice that aircraft were not to come within 500 feet of a public water supply.

“In terms of public health and public safety, we take this very seriously. Two fishermen and two of our DCR watershed rangers acted quickly and reported this incident, and this should serve as notice to any pilot who might be thinking of doing the same thing,” Mr. Sullivan said.

The commissioner credited heightened public awareness after 9-11 with fewer instances of low flyovers at Quabbin and Wachusett.

Mr. Bourgeois told Judge Fowler he had a passenger on board the Piper Cub, Robert Hansman, who was photographing wildlife.

The pilot told the judge that he had several years’ experience with soaring and gliding clubs and that he had flown over the reservoir “hundreds if not thousands of times,” and no one had complained before.

Mr. Bourgeois maintained that at no time was his flight “careless, reckless or dangerous.”

The FAA had recommended a 90-day license suspension, but because Mr. Bourgeois had no prior violations penalty was reduced to 60 days.

Mr. Bourgeois appealed the decision of the administrative law judge to the NTSB, which denied the appeal, based on what it called compelling and persuasive evidence from witnesses.

The 60-day suspension took effect Feb. 16.

That was also in AOPA last month. I know that because my Dad gave my wife a copy and told her to read it and then told her to keep me in line 8)

Tim
 
The public drinking water thing brings in a bunch of lakes and rivers. The sad part is that having been in the water treatment plant construction and operation business for nearly 25 years I can think of absolutely NOTHING that could be done to damage the safety of a RAW water supply that could be delivered by aircraft.
 
I routinely fly OVER Wachusett Reservoir.It is not a problem to do this.After 9/11 this and other public water supplies were put off limits to anything but direct overflights.Circling or flying in any manor that may be construed as suspicious is a no no.Every pilot in this area is aware of the sensitivity to this.As a matter of fact they even placed armed guards on the ground at Wachusett and several other drinking water sources.I have no idea why this dope thought it was ok to do what he did but this kind of crap just brings more problems to all of us.Some pilots just don't get it.
Pilots here in Mass took a lot of heat after 9/11 because the flights originated here in Boston and of course the pols had to do things to make everyone feel safe from all these bad airplanes.Fences,badges,background checks we have it all including the public paranoia.

Bill
 
Yes, notice that the FAA cited him for violation of FAR 91.119, for flying closer than 500 feet to people and property.

That has nothing to do with public drinking water supplies.

I agree that the guy should have known better, but hey, he's a lawyer, remember?

Unfortunately, this is the kind of stuff that casts a shadow on ALL of us with the general public, many of whom think we're all rich nut balls anyway.

MTV
 
What a load of crap, but getting to see a lawyer get the shaft is pretty funny!
 
Well, that may be, but consider that there are literally millions of apparently totally terrified "citizens" out there right now, many of whom are scared shitless of little airplanes, and an outfit called TSA, just drooling to turn the screws on aviation.

So, it may be a bunch of crap, but my point is that if we don't take this crap seriously, we won't be flying ANY little airplanes in a few years.

If you want to fly low, do it somewhere away from people and buildings. How hard is that?

All we need is more crap from TSA fer crying out loud.

MTV
 
mvivion said:
Well, that may be, but consider that there are literally millions of apparently totally terrified "citizens" out there right now, many of whom are scared !&$# of little airplanes, and an outfit called TSA, just drooling to turn the screws on aviation.

So, it may be a bunch of crap, but my point is that if we don't take this crap seriously, we won't be flying ANY little airplanes in a few years.

If you want to fly low, do it somewhere away from people and buildings. How hard is that?

All we need is more crap from TSA fer crying out loud.

MTV

Best thing you can do is take every person you know up flying. Anything you can do to get a friend in GA will help.

I took 30 rides one day in January this year.

Tim
 
Flying Low

I attended a seminar not long ago given by the Border Patrol who works on the Washington/Canadian boarder. Couldn't believe some of the films he was letting us see of all the people they catch bringing dope in by helicopters and small airplanes. He said they catch one or two a day in boats, hiking out, car's any mean's of getting it into the U.S. He said there watching most all the planes near the boarder. He said you won't know it most of the time but were filming and checking N numbers to see who you are and curious what your doing in the area. Might even meet you when you land and have a talk. He said, don't get us wrong, alot of us are pilots have our own planes ect. We like flying as much as you do. But also said, if we have another 9/11 that would probably be the end of small aircraft flying for alot of us.

Bill
 
I attended a safety seminar at the Worcester airport last night.It is a good size airport and TSA has a presence because a small commercial carrier operates there.One of the based pilots related how TSA attempted to fine a mechanic on the field $1,000 for not having his security badge in plain view while he was working.
By the way the local FAA guys have no love for these folks and actually share our concern for how they are treating all of us.

Bill
 
drinking water

Unless its coming out of a well ALL public drinking water comes from rivers and lakes! This means Landing on gravel bars just for fun could get us in trouble if someone wanted to make trouble for you as I see it.
Dave
 
ag-pilot,

I don't think so. As I noted before, this violation had nothing to do with TSA and drinking water. It had to do with a guy probably really flagrantly violating FAR 91.119.

I know of a number of cases where someone complained of low flying aircraft to the FAA and the FAA called the pilot on it. Pilot responded that they were at legal altitudes, and that was the end of the case. I believe that's by far the most common outcome.

On the other hand, there are cases where something "else" happened as well, or the pilot was dumber than dirt when the FAA called.

Remember, the reg says you can't fly closer than 500 feet to Property. Is a dam property?? Sure it is.

"So, Mr. Pilot Guy, how high were you when you flew over that dam???"

"Why, I was at 600 feet, Mr. FAA Guy and thanks for asking."

But, buzzing around places like this will eventually draw TSA attention, and at least in my opinion, we don't want to start getting those guys interested if we can avoid it.

Speaking of dumber than dirt :lol: .

MTV
 
Now I can see that 500' min altitude regulation (FAR 91.119) applying to the people in the boat, the building, and even the dam itself-- but is the reserviour itself considered a man-made item and so requires the 500' clearance? Sounds like BS to me, and another reason to have tailnumbers as small as legally possible-- not sneaky, just prudent.
(I'm smearing mud on my 12-inchers today,first thing!!)

Eric
 
500'!

Guys, think about it, most of us want 500' to land our cubs... that is not much.

The guy flew buy a boat and two ranger types that were on the dam, not swimming in the water!

Stay 500' from people and their structures and you are ok in the rural areas.

But remember, the "except for take off and landing" is interpreted by the FAA and the Judge, not a real pilot.
 
hotrod150 said:
Now I can see that 500' min altitude regulation (FAR 91.119) applying to the people in the boat, the building, and even the dam itself-- but is the reserviour itself considered a man-made item and so requires the 500' clearance? Sounds like BS to me, and another reason to have tailnumbers as small as legally possible-- not sneaky, just prudent.
(I'm smearing mud on my 12-inchers today,first thing!!)

Eric

Yeah, and placing them just forward of the rudder post on near the hor stab makes them easy to read on the ground, but as soon as you're in the air pretty much unreadable unless you're banked over fairly steep. I'd never do that but I've heard of others doing it .... :angel:
 
courierguy said:
hotrod150 said:
Now I can see that 500' min altitude regulation (FAR 91.119) applying to the people in the boat, the building, and even the dam itself-- but is the reserviour itself considered a man-made item and so requires the 500' clearance? Sounds like BS to me, and another reason to have tailnumbers as small as legally possible-- not sneaky, just prudent.
(I'm smearing mud on my 12-inchers today,first thing!!)

Eric

Yeah, and placing them just forward of the rudder post on near the hor stab makes them easy to read on the ground, but as soon as you're in the air pretty much unreadable unless you're banked over fairly steep. I'd never do that but I've heard of others doing it .... :angel:

Oops, I just read that, it makes it sound like I have them on the hor stab, not so just low on the vert stab near the hor stab, they've always passed inspection from the feds so I guess its OK :eek:
 
Only have small numbers on your plane and put masking tape over them before going airborn! Maybe a paint job with that paint that changes colors as the light angle reflects differently would also be good, and a stealth mode button.

Joy
 
Back
Top