recklessly flying low over a boater

The SKI of the floatplane, and unsupervised supervision....

Ok, I love news writers.

aktango58 said:

The SKI of the floatplane, and unsupervised supervision....

Ok, I love news writers.

Click to expand...

who needs stupid editors now that we got auto-mis-correction!!!

I read an article on this the other night. Has to be hard for everyone involved. Makes one think about their actions and possible consequences.

$6100 restitution to the family and $25000 to the state, that is stupidly unfair. The family should get the $25000 since they are the ones who have had their lives and future destroyed. I think the penalties are totally unfound and unfair to the destroyed lives of the handicapped family.

CharlieN said:

$6100 restitution to the family and $25000 to the state, that is stupidly unfair. The family should get the $25000 since they are the ones who have had their lives and future destroyed. I think the penalties are totally unfound and unfair to the destroyed lives of the handicapped family.

Click to expand...

I completely agree! The entire situation is tragic, but it sure does seem stupidly unfair.

This should make a lot of us think about the things we do. I for one will take this as a learning experience. Very sad!

A very sad deal all around. Hopefully, pilots will think about this when they are considering a “stupid pilot trick”.

This pilot is going to have to live with this all the rest of his days. That’s a pretty tough sentence in itself.

MTV

Very sad indeed. This reminds me of the Stearman in the river tragedy about 10 years ago or so. Guy giving a ride in a Stearman, low flying along river and hit a wire if I remember correctly or something like that. Airplane wound up in the river, passenger drowned, pilot sentenced to prison. One bad choice ruined 2 lives and affected many others. I may have the details wrong since it was some time ago but what I do have right is the tragedy of it all. Flying low has taken many lives, just sayin.....

[FONT=&quot]An attorney representing pilot Mark Strub entered a plea of not guilty this week, on a charge of homicide by negligent use of a motor vehicle in connection with a 2004 plane crash that killed passenger Kimberly Reed. If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As ANN reported, Reed was one of several passengers Strub gave 10-minute rides to in his Stearman PT-13 (type shown below) during the 2004 Children's Miracle Network Balloon Rally in Wisconsin Rapids, WI. Strub had volunteered his time and plane for the event.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to the NTSB Probable Cause report on the crash, Strub said he had given three people free rides prior to the accident flight. Reed has asked for an aerobatic flight, so with both persons wearing parachutes the plane departed, and climbed to 3,000 feet AGL.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After performing one Cuban eight, a loop, and two hammerhead stalls, Strub and Reed were heading back to the airport, at an altitude of about 50 feet over the Wisconsin river.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Just as I was to initiate a climb I struck power lines crossing the river," Strub told investigators. "I noticed the power lines not more that 1/2 second before impact."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Stearman's landing gear struck the power lines, and the airplane landed inverted in Nepco Lake in about 3-4 feet of water. Officials believe Reed was killed on impact; Strub escaped with minor injuries.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to the Wisconsin Rapids Tribune, Strub's attorney, Harry R. Hertel, asked Tuesday for a substitute judge. Circuit Court Judge James Mason has ordered the case bound over for trial.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hertel also requested the charge be dismissed, saying not only had Strubs showed concern for Reed, he had not acted recklessly.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Accidents happen," Hertel said. "If this is criminal negligence, they're going to have to shut down what happens in Oshkosh with the EAA."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]FAA safety inspector Karen Krueger said a witness saw a low-flying plane "pull up to clear some wires" and then continue around a bend. The witness stated he was "concerned and hoped the pilot knew about additional wires across the river." He heard emergency vehicles 10 to 15 minutes later, Krueger said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"FAA regulations call for maintaining a minimum altitude of 500 feet. Strub was flying too low," Krueger said. "We made the determination he was flying in an extremely reckless manner." [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Krueger said Reed became queasy during the ride and Strub stopped doing stunts. After impact, the pilot attempted to extricate Reed before running about a half mile for help.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Krueger told the newspaper she knew of no other accidental plane crash that had resulted in criminal charges.[/FONT]

Some people don’t need to learn the lesson, some get a unique opportunity to learn the lesson without hurting anyone, and unfortunately some either never learn or do irreparable damage before learning. I got a unique opportunity, and while it still, 43 years later, makes my face flush with embarrassment I will share a little..

I took about 3 feet out of the top of a standing dead tree with the tail of a 185 in front of a rather large gathering of friends when I was 18 years old. I think I was probably doing about 170 mph at the time, and the line between raining limbs down and catastrophe was razor thin. When I got back to the hangar, I did two things that afternoon. I disassembled the tail to look for hidden damage, and I tore up my brand new commercial pilot certificate. I figured if I was that stupid I had no business ever putting an unsuspecting passenger in an airplane with me.

Several days later, the GM of the company I was working for who was also a DPE, called me into his office and slid a new temporary certificate across the desk. He told me that when he heard I had torn my license up he figured I had learned a lesson that likely saved my, and maybe someone else’s life. I truly believe he was right, and I never, ever forgot that lesson. When another person gets in an airplane with me I truly treat it as a sacred trust, and always will.

This still hurts to recount this story even though it was 43 years ago. What bothers me more is that there is at least one person on this forum who was there that day, it still comes up occasionally and it still really bothers me....

Be careful and thoughtful when you’re out there having fun........

Edit- not that it really matters, but I was thankfully alone in the airplane that day.

Mark, thanks for sharing, that has gotta be tough to admit publicly but hopefully others can learn from it.

Kurt

G44 said:

......"FAA regulations call for maintaining a minimum altitude of 500 feet. Strub was flying too low," Krueger said. "We made the determination he was flying in an extremely reckless manner." .....

Click to expand...

This is incorrect, or at least an over-simplification.
FAR 91.119 (minimum safe altitudes) says : "(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."

CubDriver218 said:

I completely agree! The entire situation is tragic, but it sure does seem stupidly unfair.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

What a sad story.

I've known plenty of people killed by low flying. If your inclinded to do so, do it with some knowledge and go along to an ag school and take some lessons.

I took about 3 feet out of the top of a standing dead tree with the tail

Click to expand...

mam90 I'm not sure if you knew about this tree before the flight, but dead trees are particularly hard to see. I can remember my Dad sending flyers out to all his customers urging them to clean up the dead trees in the padocks he was spraying. I think they worried him more then any wires.

Read the whole regulation, you could be at 10000 feet or higher and still be in violation. Powerplant failure.....

The altitude of the flight not withstanding, this will get you every time:

91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a)Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Sad deal. Two buddies and a common prank gone bad. That man has a strong family.

skywagon8a said:

The altitude of the flight not withstanding, this will get you every time:

91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a)Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Click to expand...

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

CharlieN said:

$6100 restitution to the family and $25000 to the state, that is stupidly unfair. The family should get the $25000 since they are the ones who have had their lives and future destroyed. I think the penalties are totally unfound and unfair to the destroyed lives of the handicapped family.

Click to expand...

With respect to Charlie and all, I have to chime in here. I will admit am as bad as anyone, but unless we read the entire transcript, and actually know the ENTIRE case, we should not make a value judgment on the case results.

While it may look stupid and terrible, without all of FACTS, it comes to 'Spouting off'.

It is appropriate to view this as terrible situation, and use it to educate ourselves. To make judgements about the fallout just adds to the current problems our society is having with all the 'opinion' news. Let's not become that.

Thank you, I will return to my hole again.

I recognize what we read is a small part of the story. I also recognize there would be a substantial insurance obligation involved.
But if this were my family and read those numbers there is a good chance we would be angered at a minimum from what is presented.
FWIW I do live with limited use of the right side of my body and can not do all I used too. Remembering the causes and the time I spent staring at a ceiling is not something I find enjoyable. Granted I am surly not the only one here that has been down in the past and lives with it but I would say we have a different perspective on what we read with respect to this family.

CharlieN said:

I recognize what we read is a small part of the story. I also recognize there would be a substantial insurance obligation involved.
But if this were my family and read those numbers there is a good chance we would be angered at a minimum from what is presented.
FWIW I do live with limited use of the right side of my body and can not do all I used too. Remembering the causes and the time I spent staring at a ceiling is not something I find enjoyable. Granted I am surly not the only one here that has been down in the past and lives with it but I would say we have a different perspective on what we read with respect to this family.

Click to expand...

The people involved were working together, and sounds like were friends.

I have been around enough to know that things that look strange may have logical reasoning, so try not to blast the situation before I get into it enough to understand it.

Let's discuss this as a learning situation for us as pilots, and leave the judging to those in the know.

A friend & I were discussing this incident.
Both of us were reminded of a scene in the movie "Catch 22" where a Stinson L5 doing a buzz job took a guy's head off.
OMG, horrible.

I have been around enough to know that things that look strange may have logical reasoning, so try not to blast the situation before I get into it enough to understand it.

Click to expand...

The facts as I understand them are that somebody was flying very low for a buzz job and hit someone. If those are indeed true facts, then no excuse, and the situation is entirely "blastable".

If those are incomplete or incorrect facts, then I apologize.