Crazy French Pilots..wow

[SFRT - Frenchy]

Drama Queens ... 

[Golfer]

What do you know? You're French! 

 

[SFRT - Frenchy]

 

Joking appart, are those vids really impressing people? Flying low is the easiest thing a pilot can do.

[Toof]

Low is one thing, carving canyons in a Mirage is a totally different beast Just can't even begin to imagine what that would be like. To go tearing through passes 90 feet wide doing 500+mpg...just nuts, in my book.

Check out the Helo stuff....they raze the land about 5-10 feet off the ground.

Seen plenty of good clips of American flying, but nothing like the French were pulling in that video. Feel free to point me to American pilots engaging in the same shenanigans.   

[SFRT - Frenchy]

Military & civilian pilots from all over the world do the same stuff. The French don't have a special ability that nobody else have.

[Toof]

Military & civilian pilots from all over the world do the same stuff. The French don't have a special ability that nobody else have.

Don't doubt that in the least. Just haven't seen a more impressive video of it being done until I ran across this one. Would love to see some F-16's, or Harriers down in the dirt like that. 

Not knocking any countries Air Guard by any means, but going through those canyons the way they did just made appreciate all pilots that much more.

[Die Hard]

My reading comprehension is fine.  You're overlooking numerous aspects:

When he sells the aircraft and does not disclose the extra stresses he may place on it causing an accident.
Those same extra stresses causing fatigue which can make things fail before they're supposed to.  This endangers the people below him.
The extra wear placed upon the instrumentation alone during what I'll call "unconventional" flight or operations outside their intended design envelopes raises the chances they will fail.  He will be over people when this happens.
I can go on and on and on with further examples including situations where exactly those same things have caused compromised components to fail taking innocent lives.

Just because he does something today over his own property doesn't mean he won't endanger someone else tomorrow (or even one minute later)

He doesn't own the world and he certainly doesn't always fly only over his own populated land.  He's a love muffin.

Hahaha, what a stretch! When he sells the aircraft... Wait a minute! Wasn't he supposed to crash and burn before that? Also, you now assume he's also a liar and would not disclose the extra stresses you claim he place on the aircraft. The U.S. used aircraft marketplace holds as sacred the understanding that the buyer must conduct its own inspection of the aircraft to determine that the aircraft is in an airworthy condition, as determined by a mutually agreed upon inspection facility; is otherwise satisfactory to the buyer; and that following correction of any airworthiness discrepancies, the aircraft is sold "as is" without any representations or warranties from the seller concerning the condition of the aircraft. It has been a fundamental principle of U.S. transactions that once title transfers at closing, the new owner accepts all responsibility for the condition of the aircraft and its equipment, including discrepancies that the inspection facility may have failed to identify during the conduct of a pre-purchase inspection.

[Golfer]

Your delusion that it's possible to do reckless thing in an airplane and only affect yourself is part of the problem.  That's simply not possible.

 

Airplanes don't fly only over the owners private property 100% of the time.  You're endangering more than just yourself and your airplane.

Also no such right exists.  He has an obligation to operate his airplane in accordance with the regulations set forward by the country in which he operates.  The privileges of his pilot certificate are predicated upon this and if he is operating outside of those boundaries (careless and reckless operations do count as violations) he is in effect willingly jeopardizing his privileges.  They're not rights.

Your most recent post is correct in principal however lawsuits to assign liability to sellers who knowingly misrepresent an aircrafts condition at the time of sale.  Fatigue to structural components in addition to accelerated wear on the instrumentation are some of he very basic things that can arise out of flying an airplane recklessly.  It does happen with amateur as well as professional pilots and it's something I have no tolerance for.  Get your kicks for aerobatics in an airplane built for it.  If you need to operate your airplane contrary to the AFM or what's accepted to be good practice you need a new hobby to risk your life with because when you turn into a smoking hole it affects the rest of us.

The guy remains a love muffin.

[Die Hard]

You're still not getting it; "as long as he's outside of controlled airspace and endangers no one but himself and his own property..." The person you're describing clearly does not fit the criteria I stated, so what is your problem?

Could you please point to such a lawsuit?

[Golfer]

Could you please point to such a lawsuit?

I could.  With first hand experience no less.  To appease you?  Not a snowballs chance in hell.

You're still not getting it; "as long as he's outside of controlled airspace and endangers no one but himself and his own property

You're not getting that I get it.  What you're also not getting is these actions are not going to be confined to the length and width of his little grass runway.  They are also directly contrary to the regulations set forward by the issuing agency of his pilot certificate, the FAA.  This in effect puts his privileges in jeopardy.  There are differences between rights and privileges and the authority to fly an aircraft is without a doubt the latter.

[Die Hard]

I could.  With first hand experience no less.  To appease you?  Not a snowballs chance in hell.

In other words: You can't.

What you're also not getting is these actions are not going to be confined to the length and width of his little grass runway.

Who is this "he" you're talking about? If you mean Cpxxx' "friend" then his culpability was agreed upon on page two; before you joined this thread even. So I repeat: What is your problem?

[Golfer]

In other words: You can't.

No. In the words I used.

So I repeat: What is your problem?

This:

As long as he's outside of controlled airspace and endangers no one but himself and his own property he has the God given right to do whatever he wants, including losing his own life. 

No such right, stated or implied, exists.  I have no qualms with someone killing themselves in fact there are many ways to go about doing it.  I take issue with people using airplanes to do it even more with them using airplanes recklessly to do so unintentionally.  You initially replied to cpxxx that his associate was well within his god given rights to act as he was.  You then retract it when you find out that in fact such activities do in fact endanger other innocent people who want no part with his antics.  My point is that those actions were not appropriate long before you agreed to it and outside of an airshow demonstration or practice session have no place from the outset.  I'm not wrong about that.

[Die Hard]

No such right, stated or implied, exists.

If no law prohibits it, stated or implied, is is legal by default.

I have no qualms with someone killing themselves in fact there are many ways to go about doing it.  I take issue with people using airplanes to do it even more with them using airplanes recklessly to do so unintentionally. 

The law does not care what you take issues with. Nor do I.

You initially replied to cpxxx that his associate was well within his god given rights to act as he was. 

Within the parameters of my stated criteria: "as long as he's outside of controlled airspace and endangers no one but himself and his own property". Cpxxx clarified that the person in question did not fit the criteria, I agreed and that was it... Until you entered the thread.

[Golfer]

If no law prohibits it, stated or implied, is is legal by default.


The law does not care what you take issues with. Nor do I.


Within the parameters of my stated criteria: "as long as he's outside of controlled airspace and endangers no one but himself and his own property". Cpxxx clarified that the person in question did not fit the criteria, I agreed and that was it... Until you entered the thread.

A.)  91.13

B.)  You seem to because you keep replying.

C.) My initial post did not challenge your agreeing with cpxxx's assesment.  In fact all it said was what he does in the air does affect those on the ground.  It also affects the perception of the public upon general aviation which is not a positive one these days.  Everything he does in the airplane affects others whether you admit it or not.

[Die Hard]

"Sec. 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.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

Thank you for confirming my point. As long as he's outside of controlled airspace and endangers no one but himself and his own property he can do pretty much whatever he wants.