If you remove the context of this video (water skiing) this is a great conversation starter about personal minimums and comfort vs. experience in the airplane. I think that leads to a much bigger conversation about safety in the airplane. I like that you were willing to share this and actually discuss the topic. Even if it is a heated debate I think the overriding theme of this video is extremely valuable. Good video Trent!
@@syitiger9072 BUT, that's also a risk that you're willing to take. You've done the risk assessment, and decided that it's okay. Now, I'm going to assume you're talking about a motorcycle, and maybe you're doing something like The Snake for your first time. Would you do it with a passenger, or would you ride solo? All part of the risk assessment. So, yeah, you can ride above your limits, but hopefully you've looked at all the possible outcomes.
Your style is so transcendental ...proximity flying eats up the buffer for the anomaly., but your speeds make it survivable...no riskier than motocross. This is the most intriguing flying I have ever seen as I am considering to awaken my dormant license and pursuing this skill set. Thanks.
Trent, I don't think I've told you how awesome your intro is. The cinematography, the editing and especially the music. And it's the perfect length too. Not too long and not too short.
Great video Trent, one of the scariest things about flying in 2019 is knowing that nearly every single person you see has a high definition camera in their pocket and any mistake or use of grey area in the FARs can cost your ticket. Glad that you didn't lose your license over that deal. I think off-airport operations appear to be dangerous not only to the non-pilot but also to the pilot who's never even landed on a well maintained grass strip. You do a great job on your channel showing how safe and enjoyable it really is. Thanks to you and the flying cowboys for promoting GA in a recreational way.
How is this kid promoting GA? By ravaging the environment in his wannabe cub? By terrorizing the geese and duck and wildlife streamside? You have no clue, If I was the FAA ( I'm just a 30 year commercial pilot with 11,000 hours and much of tha in the bush ) I'd would have grounded his ass for 5 years.
There is an old saying....."Don't be THAT guy" Gentle is "THAT guy". Good grief.......ravaging the environment??????? by skimming the surface of the water........Really???? I feel bad for the young people of today because of people like this.
Hey Trent, did they provide copies of the "pictorial evidence?" I'm sure a shot of the # freedom fox waterskiing across Tahoe would look nice on the wall.
I don't know why Trevor Jacobs The Airplane-Crashing Asshole didn't think of trying to waterski an airplane --- or did he and I just don't know it yet?
Hi Trent, I can't imagine anyone being a hater of your channel, it is alwas professional, amazing footage, and most times pilots can glean a little more knowledge by watching you videos. Two thumbs up buddy, don't listen to the haters none of the rest of us do..
How is this channel not huge? It should have at least 2 million. Maybe not a super popular subject, but not rare and definitely interesting. The videos are so well edited and he says everything so well while being humble about it.
Hi Trent, I liked your video on water skiing. I was taught by my instructor in a P.A. 18, he was acting as my instructor teaching off airport landings. We contacted the fisdo back when we had one, and they gave their blessing. He was also an air show pilot and he did a comedy routine. I was a commercial pilot with aerobatic experience. As an air show performer with a low altitude waiver you can practice, and or teach your act. When he did shows on the beach he included water skiing. Two things. We never did it during teaching in a place that a person would be close enough to film. Of course during the air show, his low altitude waiver, and the fact that the air show people were keeping the water around the air show free from boats and people, made it ok. When we practiced it, and when I now do it on my own, I am always aiming towards a landing spot that is legal to land on. We never had any problems with the FAA. Maybe their is a fine line between practicing to increase your skills and showing off. That is a concern of mine with your videos. As pilots we have trained and we know the risk. I hope someone doesn’t get hurt trying some of those things. You might want to include more cautious education in your videos as a whole, on the other hand will your explanation by way of education make you more liable if a newly minted Tailwheel pilot has an accident skiing using the information you provided?? I love your videos, I’m just looking out for you and the rest of the cowboys.
Trent, when you asked for a legal interpretation you were essentially asking a lawyer who might have to prosecute a case against you to tell you how to pick apart their case. That's never going to be fruitful. :-) The FAA has intentionally made interpretation of part 91.119 vague so that they may apply it on a case-by-case basis. The specific subparagraph of the part cited in the investigation letter doesn't really matter, because even if you successfully argue that subparaph A doesn't apply, subparagraph C clearly WOULD apply. If you read subparagraph C in its entirety, which would include the clause the part starts with, then it would read "Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate an aircraft below 500' when over other than congested areas except over open water or sparsely populated areas." That means you cannot fly below 500' period, full stop, unless you are taking off, landing, over open water, or over a "sparsely populated" area. Lake Tahoe is not considered open water, so you cannot claim that. I know that seems wrong, but if you look at the FAA's Aeronautical Chart User's Guide it defines the difference between open water and all other bodies of water with color. Look at a Sectional Chart and you'll see Tahoe is not open water. Open water is essentially off shore, as in the shore of the ocean. A few exceptions I found include the major portion of the Great Lakes (except for an area near Green Bay) and Lake Okeechobee. That leaves only the question of whether you were over a "sparsely populated" area. Looking a satellite view of Lake Tahoe, I can't see any portion of the shore that is sparsely populated, so your case would hinge on whether the Administrative Law Judge determined the area over the lake is "sparsely populated." Given there is a delineation on aeronautical charts between "open" water and other waters, and that the term "open water" is included in the rule, I think you would have a hard time winning that one. One of the ways we can learn what certain laws mean is to look at how they are applied in court. The case of Administrator v. Folk is instructive in this case: www.aerolegalservices.com/Articles/Congested%20Areas%20Under%20FAR%2091-119%202008-08-28.shtml The gist of it is that although the board of law judges who reviewed the case on appeal initially noted the FAA "has not pronounced a precise definition [of "congested area"] that includes the factors of the density of the population in an area; whether there is surface traffic in the vicinity; or the numbers and proximity of residences, buildings, or structures," it still affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's determination that the disputed area was "congested" for the purposes of the case in question. An ALJ, by the way, may not know anything at all about flying, so they often defer to a flying authority for definitions. In this case, the flying authority is the FAA. What that means is the FAA retains the authority to violate you if you fly lower than 500' ANYWHERE over the lower 48 states unless you're taking off or landing. The inspector who told you landing anywhere off a paved runway surface was likely simply warning you that the rule, which is applied on a case-by-case basis, may apply AT ANY TIME, so unless you should be prepared to cite relevant information about your operation when landing somewhere off an airport. His example about performance data is relevant. If you don't have it for a particular operation you probably shouldn't engage in that operation, no? You can develop your own performance data if it doesn't exist (EAA has just published a new manual on flight testing). If you can show that you made every effort to mitigate the risks involved in landing in somewhere off airport I don't believe any FAA inspector will go after you. Am I claiming the FAA never abuses its authority? No. The FAA has certainly used its authority in capricious and sometimes spiteful ways in the past. Was it abused in your case? I think you clearly violated the rules, and even you yourself acknowledge doing what you did with a passenger aboard was not smart. Overall, I appreciate your tone on this video (Although I would prefer that you were more adamant about discouraging this behavior and I wish you had not implied at 14:30 in the video that getting caught was your biggest mistake). There is a place for this kind of flying, but you need to justify it. If you have an operational need to land where skiing is the only option, AND you take appropriate precautions (get training from a licensed instructor, know the performance data, be proficient, etc.) then I believe you're golden. If you have an accident, however, and you have not taken these appropriate precautions, then you expose yourself to the potential insult of an enforcement action added to the injury of the accident.
As an electrician this all sounds much like what I have dealt with before in that it’s all up to the interpretation taken by the inspector. Glad you didn’t get in more trouble and continue to rock on. Love your videos.
The good side of it is that someday, when you have an aircraft full of passengers, and the engine starts to die, and you are looking for a place to land in the northern bush of Canada, and spot a small area to land but too short before you hit the bush, you will be able to use a little of the water as your runway, get down safely and save the lives of all your passengers. There is a good side to every bad thing that happens in life. Happy Flying
I don't think I've ever seen you two so happy when sailing.... It's obvious that this catamaran is just perfect for the two of you.... Love the video, the love between you two and of course the sailing....God Bless!!!
One little nitpick. You are not skiing on "surface tension". That term refers to the specific way that water molecules attract each other to minimize surface area. It makes a drop of water falling through the air stay "drop" shaped, and placed on a surface bulge up rather than spread out, a stream of water hold together, and some small insects can stand directly on top of the water without penetrating it. You can take the surface tension out of water, such as by adding soap, but it's still water, and you could still ski on top of it as you could any other liquid of similar density. You're skiing on Newton's 3rd law (equal and opposite reaction), and it works because the water is relatively dense and can't get out of the way quickly. Your tires are hitting the surface and it's hitting back. Regarding brakes. Many years ago I was watching one of the pioneering videos of super cubs landing on gravel bars in Alaska with water skiing approach, and that pilot said that he purposely applied brakes and kept the tires locked while skiing. His contention was that the speed differential between the tire's surface and the water is greater when the tire is not turning, and that by allowing it to rotate your'e lowering that speed differential, sort of like your upwind but downriver scenario (water moving with you). I'm also thinking that with a spinning tire you might get some Magnus effect, which pulls the water around the rear of the tire flinging it upward (as you say the struts get wetter). Any water that is thrown upward, is created by an opposing downward force on the tire.
I got a lesson on 119 a from my FAA examiner during a check ride, he explained that when flying over water you must be able “glide” to land in the event of a power unit failure unless you have floats. Different aircraft glide ratios = different safe altitudes. This conversation took place over the Great salt lake, in a Schweitzer 300c. They drop like a rock so it was pertinent information lol.
Good tips and insight, Trent! I always wondered how it's not against the min AGL FAR to fly as low as depicted in many online videos, although as youngsters we did it all the time over the prairie and hills of western Nebraska, almost always with passengers, but in certified aircraft. As far as I know, there was only 1 report of a low flying aircraft turned in to the FAA at BFF in the early 1970's, which was probably a friend and I. It's a rural area with cropdusters flying around all summer long surrounded by endless prairie with homes and outbuildings miles apart. I guess people back then weren't so quick to report something that had nothing to do with them, unlike the present mindset. Keep sharing as you can; always interesting!
Flight below 500ft is specifically allowed in sparsely populated areas, as long as the plane gets no closer than 500ft horizontally to any buildings, people or boats. however like so many things bureaucratic they fail to define the terms they use like "sparsely populated". The simple interpretation is that sparse is implied by the ability to be clear 500 feet horizontal on all sides, but this is up to individual interpretation.
@@mytech6779, thanks for the recap. It's been so long since I've flown I've probably forgotten most of what I learned about regs and such thru lack of use! It probably helped that we knew all the local FAA employees personally. I even worked with one of their wives while in college.
Doing what you do at the risk of no one but you and you are learning hot to be a really good pilot. Look what Sully learned in a glider I’m sure he pushed the limits at times. But his real world learning saved a lot of lives
Your story of being violated and my experiences with the FAA really just pisses me off..... Edit: I had to wait a year to renew my medical certificate (no flying for A YEAR) because of a medical condition that I DON’T HAVE. The FAA decided to interpret the doctor’s evaluation that said there was nothing out of the ordinary (they always read it back to me) in their own way and then ignore two follow up letters that my doctor and I wrote. You just kind of have to go with their narrative, but damn I’m still a little annoyed by the fact it happened.
Been there done that, I was grounded in Australia by CASA for 1year due to being put on a medication for a medical condition. The amount of reports and BS i had to go through to get my medical sorted was a joke. Even though the condition had no effects on my flying, and neither did the medication.
Ozzy Chappell The ibuprofen. Obviously just joking, but they seriously regulate any type of meds due to the IMSAFE acronym. Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue, Emotion/Eating. You want to make sure all of that is in the green before you go fly. In terms of a headache, it could be a variety of things, but if you're new to flying, a headache can distract you from what's important in the cockpit. Basically if you're safe, you shouldn't need meds. That's my take from it anyways.
Been there still there lol my medical was revoked with a month of getting my PPL due to meds..haven’t been able to get it back in 8 years because of SSRI’s.
I learned to fly in a Piper Cub in the Panhandle of Texas where there are lots of what we called Playa Lakes in the rainy season. These ponds are up to half a mile across and a foot deep. They made great places to go sliding across the surface of the water on those fat balloon tires. Well, what else do you expect an invincible 16 year old kid with a student certificate in his pocket to do when out from under the watchful eye of his instructor. (I'm sure she (yes, a woman taught me to fly) knew what was going on.
Re: Inspector: "careless and wreckless anywhere other than a paved runway because there is no data in the performance charts". I haven't flown in 10+ years, but I remember performance charts that referenced a grass runway...so off the top of my head, I'm not sure what the inspector meant. Example, 1978 C172: "For operation on a dry, grass runway, increase distances by 15% of the "ground roll" figure."
You're doing the right thing with your flying Trent . Disregard haters and informers. If not for people like yourself, there would nothing called aviation in the first place.
"So no waterskiing for me." ... Yeah, right. ... Now I want to see a video of you actually waterskiing, like behind a boat in a swimsuit, just to stick it to the FAA.
How can anyone hate your video’s?!! I’m always jealous but never hate the awesome fun you have! Keep them coming Trent. And thanks for taking the time to share.🍻
Oh boy, where to begin. First, before I tell the story, I’m an old dog -CFI, instrument instructor, and multi-I. I had no idea you young guys were doing this. In 1978 when I got out of the army, I went to work as ground crewman for a crop duster. His personal plane was a PA-16 Piper Clipper, a sweet little airplane. Before the season started we flew down to Florida and he demonstrated this technique. Somewhere I have pix buried in my junk. He used it as practice for spraying crops. He was also an insane drunk as was the business owner. We all survived the season and I learned to fly tail wheel with him. I got my private ticket in Athens, GA at Clark’s Flying Service. Mr. Clark drilled into my skull: “There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old-bold pilots.” Guys, unless you have a real operational need to do this, don’t do it. Then only learn it from some graybeard. Keep the greasy side down.
This is an interesting topic. I’ve always been curious about it. On the topic of 91.119a, even though your aircraft is near the surface, as long as you have plenty of airspeed, a zoom climb is always an option. I think that could have been a very viable argument.
You can skip the zoom climb, water is an acceptable emergency landing spot. Example Flight 1549, it was the prefered by the pilot over attempting a return to the airport. Like Trevor Jacob.
Flying in general "can be considered careless and reckless". Life, in general, can be considered careless and reckless. Those FAA inspectors are probably nose wheel drivers that always use flight following for their $100 hamburger flights....
Great video! I'm not a back-country pilot, nor a tailwheel pilot (yet) but the enforcement action discussion reminded me of some advice I got from an old crusty Air Force Pilot. He told me when I think I'm doing something dumb, write the first line of the incident report in my head. Usually we read, "the non instrument rate pilot continued visual flight into instrument meteorological conditions...." Something like that. In 18 years of civil and military aviation, that thought has kept me safe. I've taken some risks, especially in my military career, but they were always thought out, calculated, and done with a plan. The worst I can say I've done as PIC is returning from my PPL Checkride in 2003, I requested a circle over my parents' house. I was with tower, at least 1500agl; not "buzzing," but low enough that they heard me and came out on the deck to see me. I'd do that again, but I'm overall pretty risk-averse.
Wow, people got bent out of shape about this? Youre an experienced pilot, you know the dangers. Keep up the good vids, looking forward to the house and runway updates. All good stuff. Gave the vid a like
@Airstrip Kid the problem with that argument is the regulations apply to everyone. you can't make regulations for 1 type of person, but another set for a different type of person, that would be discrimination. and because of that, the regulations can't make exceptions between pilots who know their stuff, and those who don't drifting on an open road will get you fined, wether or not you are an experienced rally driver. same thing here i personally have no problem with it, if you know what you are doing. and trent does. the cowboy's all do i think.
Look, if they don't go hard after people at the start, when the experienced pilots are the ones experimenting, and make an example out of their cases, then when the noobs and idiots start killing themselves and eventually causing real accidents, the FAA will get blamed. You know some moron will push it for views and thrills, and they'll plow into a boat or kayak or something, or they'll kill someone on shore, or any number of other things could happen. The FAA need to cover their bases. Unless there is a threat of action, no one will stop or listen to mere requests. The idiots who don't know their limits (unlike the guy who made the video) and don't understand physics, are the ones who ruin everything for everyone.
@Airstrip Kid I'll agree with you, except on one point, and that's carrying passengers. You said, "if you know what your [sic] doing." The pilot may know what he's doing, but the passenger may not, and the passenger may not fully understand and recognize the inherent risks taken. Even if that passenger is another pilot, but who has never done waterskiing before.
Good job Trent. Don't the haters bother you. I have been a pilot for years, and this is something that could help you in a pinch type situation. It never hurts to know this stuff. Thanks for the video! Keep up the good work!!!
This is a very good video, and the best part, IMO, is the advice to be proficient in wheel landings. I can speak to this, since I have almost 50 years of tail wheel flying, in my C140 and C120. As an aside, in all of my landings, I am focused on keeping the plane straight down the runway, maximizing rudder control. Remember, Rudder for heading and Aileron for course. I've never ground-looped; I've never even been close to doing so, and don't ever intend on doing so. Be confident in your landings in a tail wheel airplane, whether it be wheel landings or three-pointers, be aggressive, don't be wishy-washy with the rudder.
Inspectors are completely free to interpret the rules and regs however they want within reason, and there is very little recourse options an operator has to fight back, besides throwing many thousands of hard earned dollars at a possibly never ending Cort battle against the faa with unlimited resources. Hold fast trent! Don't let the paper pushers keep you down.
Lot’s of people done understand basic physics. I was taught 40 years ago to waterski an Ag Cat to get a good visual while “on step” to know your limitations while spraying rice fields. The farmers wanted their chemicals applied as low as possible!
Before you started talking, my first thought was wow - that can be used for shorter landing. Water will 'suck' the tires into it because of something called surface tension which will help slow the aircraft and keep the wheels planted for the shorter landing technique. It makes sense that bush pilots use it because it appears to be a legitimate use of physics with surface tension of water. Obviously, this can cause an accident if you're not at the right power level because the craft will continue to slow down and be pulled into the water, or flip forward after sinking a certain amount. But, if the technique is used properly, I can see it being quite beneficial. As for the brakes being wet - you can apply a technique which is learned in other countries during mandatory driver training classes before entering a puddle, or flooding on a road.... If you depress the brake pedal in such a way that the brakes skim the rotors, you can entire the brakes stay dry as water that gets on the disc after will be more easily swept away because of two dry surfaces moving over one another with next to no distance between them vs having 3 layers - 2 dry and 1 wet in the middle.... So you could use that technique and apply the brakes, if you are coming in for a landing, before you skim the surface to help keep the brakes dry. ie, what happens during hydroplaning. Also, if you had a verbal discussion with your passenger and both of you were willing to take the risk, then you would've won in court as it falls under a verbal contract. You warned him of all of the risks, such as death, etc... so legally, by him agreeing, he signed a waiver. Section A, doesn't pertain to you. If you upheld section C by staying away, 500 feet, from all people and structures on the surface, then you couldn't have possibly broken section A by endangering them. If you had an engine failure, you would've sunk, flipped and endangered yourself, and your passenger - both of which had legally 'signed' a waiver allowing that event to take place. You should've stood up for yourself.
correction....only rich trust funder kids with parent purchased airplanes do this shit..the rest of us have to work for our airplanes and WE give a damn about the streamside wildlife habitat, which these little punks, clearly do not.
Retired Airlines pilot,,,Cessna 207 eight miles from departure apt. The IO540 broke a crankshaft,3500ft glide lasted couple minutes(I have floatplane license),flipped over very close to a boat on clear water.Upside down hanging from my belt,was easy to get out with my lifevest(uninflated) and standing on the wing,closing the door. Did manage to break a tooth on the dash(no shoulder harness in those days)from the impact. Plane floated for about 3min,wile walking to the wingtip to board the skiboat. Ocean floor was about 1500fathim...went down like the titanic,still remember the plane spiraling down towards DavyJones locker!!! Come to find out there’s an A.D.on the crankshafts,back then. The FAA wanted to violate me.We at Airlines don’t tell them S**t.Hope this helps
Excellent learning experience. Going to share with another RUclipsr who is a low time pilot in the bush of Idaho - C-182 airplane which might benefit from large tires. Thanks from a pilot who lost a medical in 2010 with over 800 hours and many memories.
The way most laws are written now (in my opinion) are unconstitutional because they're vague and open to interpretation and subjectivity, which leaves people unsure if their actions will violate the law. And so many laws are what I call "add on" laws where they'll never be enforced unless you do other things wrong. I'm an attorney and have been practicing 12 years in Oklahoma City and have dealt with the FAA on a few issues but it's not my practice focus.
Great comment. Probably 90% of our federal government is unconstitutional. Just compare the enumerated powers against the myriad government agencies and all the regulations created by bureaucrats (as opposed to laws enacted by congress, many of which are still unconstitutional--i.e., illegal).
This is sooooo, true. I filed for an annulment from a wife who married me for the money and when I paid her debts off, she jumped on a plane back to Taiwan never to return. Fraud all the way. Well In Nevada Civil Rules of Procedure are written so poorly I cannot even serve her legally and binding as per treaties and the Hague Convention. So I have had to write motion after motion to correct their poor legislative fopaux. 3 years and I am still not done because Judges don't want to make the tough decisions.
SO! Well don't what to say! But you are the best and you enjoy life! Keep doing what you like to do and don't let the haters ever get you down....and you don't have anything to be ashamed of. Thanks for your time to allow me to fly with you in your videos.
Smart not messing with the Feds. Lost my right leg, hip, and pelvis at age 16, can't wear a prosthesis, but I loved to fly Luscombes. Had many battles with the Feds over that, despite the closed rudder system, strapped in left foot (pull for right rudder; push for left) and handbrake for the right brake on the stick. Finally had a proper medical test flight at HEF (D.C. District) with a former F15 pilot who issued me a SODA with just one limitation: must wear corrective lenses for near and distant vision. I'd go on to fly other tailwheel aircraft but remained a Fed magnet. You did well, Trent. Just nod, agree, and move on 😉
Guys up in my neck of the woods do the same with snowmobiles. I remember one spot where there was (as I remember) a 15-20 ft patch of clear water and a huge number of tacks on either side because the locals would use it as a shortcut.
I’ve read (and been involved) in this chain for the last couple of days. What is missing proportionality. There is an aviation judgement difference between things you can do on barren public lands & waterways, at 3k ft., over & around cities & private land, and on the most contentious & heavily used water way in the nation, Lake Tahoe. (CA & NV actually fought a war over it, the Sage Brush war, and all the interests in Tahoe have been at war ever since: developers, environematalists, sailors, campers, wilderness, boaters, fishermen, miners, public access people, private beach people, sea & float plane operators, jet ski rental, Casinos, nature preserves, protected forests. The list of stakeholders is endless. To top it off, The Coast Guard has a Lake Tahoe station because Tahoe is part of the interstate federal waterway system with commercial traffic between CA & NV. Tahoe is also a drinking water reservoir.) This is not the hill to die on regarding FAA overreach. Instead, be self-interested & be smart: monied interests around Tahoe could crush any activity on or around the lake like LSAs, particularly if Trent had tripped on a half submerged log or something. As for the other: Trent admitted he knowingly violate FARs and took responsibility. Good man. Those of us back east are envious of the Flying Cowboy’s access to hundreds of miles of witness-free public lands.
I love this type of vid because you are sharing your experience that others can benefit from. I believe it to be untenable for FAA to claim that landing off airport is careless and reckless because there is no POH performance information for doing so. I'm an aviation attorney and would be ecstatic to fight them on that one!
Stan Barankiewicz Contact him and get it done. Their laws are inconsistent and contradict themselves. Their rules require the shutting down of all rescue flights and all bush flying. They need o be prosecuted until Trump fires some trash.
I know how u feel about giving tips, but I think you have done the right thing by giving tips. Ultimately we as pilots are the decision makers, it’s no different to making the choice to do aerobatics, we can try it because it looks fun on RUclips, or we can decide not to, I would hope all pilots are responsible enough to know and stick to their limits. This water skipping is out of the question for me, I don’t feel right to risk it, but that’s just me.
shout out to the float guys in the video, love it. also super informative man, much appreciated. always fun river runnin and water skiing here in southeast ak
Absolutely right about Probably Shouldn't. That being said, LIVE FREE OR DIE Nobody should be able to tell you how to live your life. Liberty means having freedoms, but not infringing on other's freedom. As long as you're not stopping someone else from enjoying their freedom, the FAA should not tell anyone what to do.
FPVREVIEWS and personal responsibility means following the rules you agreed to follow. Personal responsibility is what Trent is doing now: accepting responsibility for his actions. We have a long history in the aviation community of publically discussing our errors, lack of judgment, & questionable calls openly & without rancor in hopes that others will learn from them. The earliest flying magazines I remember had columns titled, “I learned about flying from that.” They also featured NTSB & FAA reports on accidents, where every aspect of an incident is evaluated by the magazine staff writers.
@@rhkennerly Very true. A well informed decision is essential to making the right one for you. The issue here is someone else saying they know better than you do what is right for you, regardless. How would you like it if someone decreed that aviation was dangerous, and we should all take buses? I think we can all agree that water-skiing is the wrong decision for 99 percent (or more) of pilots, and it's a great thing that we have lots of reports to read about it, to remind us of just why it's not a good idea for us. But if we learn gradually, analyze all of the risks, and decide to give it a try, who are we hurting? That being said, It's the wrong decision for me, and i have no desire to see most pilots try it, but I will stand up for anyone's right to do it if they decide to. If everyone never did anything with an element of risk, our species would not exist. It will require an insane amount of risk by at least a small number of individuals in the future if we are to survive as a species as well. Think of the risk of flying the shuttle/orbiter for all those years.. lives lost, but we learned form it, accepted the remaining risk, and forged ahead. Today we have ISS because of it. Being too risk adverse leads to stagnation.
LoL, 200# at 40mph? Ok, not really wrong, at 175 my preferred speed is 39mph. But I grew up waterskiing, moved into wakeboarding and waterskiing. On a front deep water start, longline, I can plant my feet and stand as slow as 22mph. Drowned in spray until the boat gets up to speed. Really like this video though. Water is harder than most people think. And glass smooth water? Never good! On the bare feet, it is a knife edge digging into one point on your foot. A one inch ripple makes for a nice foot massage. Love it bro, keep the good stuff coming. Be putting maiden flight on my Flight Test Freedom Fox this week.
I am NOT a pilot. Nor a scientist. However I have enough life/physics knowledge to understand this clearly. And while I couldn't explain it as Trent does here, I understood the physics of it prior to this explanation. The most important thing Trent says here is "life is a calculated risk" !! I ride a motorcycle without a helmet. My kids are all grown, I'm 60+ - Life is short, live hard! [shrug]
....Keeping in mind that this is the same FAA that certified an exotic, computer-controlled and limited input, zero-fail safe automatic system that literally took control of the horizontal stabilizer of a commercial passenger jet in the most vulnerable point of the flight envelope. Yeah, you guys are definitely the authorities on aviation safety...................................................
Just remember there are old pilots and bold pilots, but supposedly there are no old bold pilots, from someone who has been flying for 35 years, I love your videos AND your flying and abilities, just make sure you become an OLD pilot. Keep up the good work.
Words of wisdom Trent... the more I watch your videos, the less you and the flying cowboys look like the flying circus I imagined in the beginning ( yes, that’s a compliment 😂) . The way you fly is awesome but inexperienced pilot should take example of your analysis and risk mitigation instead of thinking that what you’re doing is just fun and easy to shoot at home with their GoPro. Keep the blue side up and long live your amazing channel ! Alex (France)
91.119 and 91.119(a) says: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. The part I want to emphasize is 91.119(a) : "... without undue hazard to *persons or property **on the surface**." It doesn't say anything about pilots, passengers or aircraft. Only persons and property on the surface. Moreover, 91.119(c) says: 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. In my reading, there is clearly NO minimum altitude to adhere to over open water so long as you comply with 91.119(C)'s 500 foot rule. Meaning: fly as low as you want over open water so long as you do not come closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (Gosh I hate the FAA sometimes...) Sorry you got busted, Trent.
loversRule, this is exactly right and I agree wholeheartedly. Trent could sign up with AOPA and pay an extra fee for lawyer services and get it reversed I would think. Maybe I need to watch the rest of the video first, before further comment.
Yo Trent,, Very well thought out and the way you came across was very good!! You covered it all basically, and were good at portraying your thoughts!! What more needs to be said!! Don’t do it!! But if you are?? Be careful!! I love you like a brother!! Fly Low,,, Fly Safe,,, G-Man
Sounds like another plea deal was brokered. "You do a PSA on the hazards of water skiing and we will cut you probation." Haaaaaa !! Reminds me of throwing RC planes out of your aircraft and landing on RC runways video. Trent, Trent, Trent. You are an OUTLAW !!!!!
You should have let the inspector know that you WERE coming in for a landing, a touch-and-go! As some have said, I would hate for the first time needing to use this 'landing' technique to be coming in slow for a full stop on a sandbar. It makes far more sense to be proficient in landing techniques and options that can be practiced before having to execute them, the very reason we touch-and-go on pavement.
Mixing done nicely and maybe... just maybe you may have saved someone's life too,because you KNOW there are people who need to know where the edge is. I used to fly a R172K to some fishing places... and flew a BL-17ATC out of a cow patch about 400' of good run, then a sand trap, a one way strip with a honkin tree right off the approach. I never had a problem, but even ultralights crashed there. I had maybe 10 feet of squiggle room on each wingtip on the good part. The worst part was the bull who took a liking to my spinner after I removed the paint and shined it up. OK, landing #13 maybe I was a bit weirded out. There was no go around on landing after the tree. NEVER took a passenger to that strip. Got vectored by USAF once when leaving Palm Springs because a corridor got shut down after filing, and they sent me East of area51 into a band of TCU's then cut me free . Another close one! Not many pilots will be truthful or real because they are so worried about the Feds. So, like you I say maybe get some dual acro instruction, and concentrate on recognition and controlling unusual attitudes etc, and then strap on a chute and go to a designated practice area and really learn your plane in all foreseeable situations. Then never do anything to need that chute again!! Like the music, I am retired 72 years young also do quads and fixed RPV and music creation is also as rewarding as a nice calm day in the air. Take care my fellow human of planet earth, have safe fun!
I keep watching this video please don't give up on the adventure of what you do if I can find the money to learn to fly I am going to to in some small part because of you
Perfectly understandable. I took mechanical engineering in school. But I do have to wonder, why are so many people so ignorance of science and physics in the USA these days? It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
Lifted_Above Because the politics of the new left say its more important to respect feelings than facts and science.. stupid shit, really,.... for stupid people.. and bureaucrats, which by definition are lacking just about every positive human aspect.
Because for the last several generations the public school system has been teaching that adherence to authority is more important than understanding reality.
Have not skied a wheeled plane my self but discussed the matter with a 13,000 Hr Helicopter and fixed wing pilot who had on numerous occasions skied tail draggers for fun or beech landings - His explanation was that and as can be seen in your video that while skiing the water friction will quickly start your wheels turning and when they reach rotation equal to that of aircraft speed the surface tension against the water is lost and the wheels will start to sink in - He said always have the toe brakes on until just before reaching the beech As for stability issues engaging brakes after skiing for a period is resultant of centrifugal force when the brake caliper quickly stops the rotating wheel and has nothing to do with tyre braking against water - example: a car hard braking on seal then starts to hydroplane on water loses braking ability
I would think that the "Scuba-Flying" part would only take effect right after the "Waterski-Flying" part rapidly dis-combobulated! The next few seconds would get really exciting... and then the coincidental FAA Guy would be right there to hand you your nasty-gram!! ;^)
Kind of a “Come full circle” day for me today. First, I got to meet your brother Kevin today (super great guy, BTW!) and we got to fly together on a short hop from Truckee to Oakland. And then I get home, and there’s a new video from the guy that got me into KitFoxes in the first place! Now that’s my kinda day! Oh, and I think I fall into the category of “Undecided” for the time being 😎
Just an A&P mechanic wandering through. Would like to point out the potential for water to get into your wheel bearings with water skimming. Could cause them to rust. Rust and pitting is usually immediate rejection so that could set you back a couple $100 for new wheel bearings. Also the possibility of over-speed for the wheel bearing. Basically spinning it so fast that the friction of the bearing produces enough heat to thin out the grease. The grease gets thin enough to a point where it doesn't lubricate. Worst possible case the bearing blows apart completely or it seizes in place. All that said you could have to skim for quite some time above the aircraft's landing speed to cause this to happen. Just wanted to throw that out there.
The comment by someone in FAA Legal stating that lack of landing and takeoff performance numbers in a POH for unpaved surfaces makes such operations illegal is WRONG. Says who? The FAA. The only information in a POH that a Part 91 operator must have and use are limitations-the rest is advisory. In fact, if all aircraft limitations are on placards visible to the pilot, the POH need not be on board.
No sure it's been mentioned but my understanding of this effect on water is that the actual hydro-plaining works better with brakes locked. The bouncing bomb (WW2 fame) is a good example here, rotating rearwards is even MORE effective. Rotating wheels will make this effect on water 'less' effective. But of course if you are going to go from water to 'land' then locked brakes will be an overriding concern. :)
Enjoyed the vid. Call me a Vulcan but surfing a plane has to an ego thing. That aside, your video explained the pros and cons clearly and precisely. Keep up the good work!!
Well, I'm no expert. Though I like physics somewhat. I thought the conversation and warnings were quite clear. And I appreciate it. I am reminded of a couple of times I was pulled over by California Highway Patrolmen. We had a sensible conversation, I complied, and there was no penalty. In my book that was good law enforcement. When I was in New Jersey, their immediate fix very often is to tow you. It seemed black and white. So I appreciate that you could talk to aviation authorities. It could be worse.
Honest assessment of one's choices... Here is a reality... Its not "IF" something happens, it is just a matter of "When" something happens. I used to ride street bikes when I was younger, and did lots of crazy stuff. One day I was out pushing the limits, and something told me to stop doing it, so I did. About 60 minutes later I had a freak accident and got a free ride to Balboa Hospital via helicopter... Life can be fun, and pushing the limit at times is necessary to build confidence in one's skills. But don't continue to push it... Mr. Murphy will show up and will let you know why you shouldn't push your luck. BE SAFE FOLKS!!!
Trent: I don't want to sound like a hater. Your videos are amazing. You've certainly heard this more than once: There are old pilots And there are bold pilots But here are no Old, Bold PIlots.
As a 16000 hour pilot, I have a few suggestions for you. First, why don’t you become a CFI? It will make you a better pilot. Second, become a seaplane pilot. Third, get an instrument rating. It will also make you a better pilot. A good, careful pilot never stops learning. Also, go to Alaska and learn bush flying.
It seems like there is a variation on how the rules are applied. One FAA guy doesn't care, the next one wants to clip your wings. Almost like cops..leaving Trent and the rest of us confused
Rick Kennerly “Regs” are nothing but threats of violence written on paper by politicians. “If you don’t do this we will throw you in a cage or steal your money”. If there is no victim, there can be no crime.
JustLetMeDrive You don’t need a permit to do what you want with your own property. It’s your right to do whatever you please, as long as it doesn’t hurt others or their property.
Hey Trent, great video on the topic! I never thought about how you would actually want faster groundspeed over the water in this scenario. As pilots, it's second nature for us to always pick the slowest groundspeed (into the wind) when close to the surface or landing. Btw, check out the story of N3829D. It was a Beech 77 that crashed in Lake Meredith Texas in 1984. The pilot and passenger both died likely due to water skiing the airplane. According to the FAA report "the pilot had been known to skip wheels on the lake".
Risk is a part of life. Life is yours to do as you want, you are correct that life has risks every day. Forget the haters. Live your life as you see fit. I am sure the FAA thinks differently though....
Hi Trent, I love your videos. You’re definitely a skilled flyer... a good stick and rudder guy, and humble to boot. That’s generally a great combo that leads to a long and happy life as a pilot. Me? I’m in the - best to err on the side of conservative flying - camp. My rational is this. Because it’s basically illegal no one can check you out. If that’s the case you gotta go figure it out on your own. I think teaching yourself this water skimming stuff is akin to teaching yourself aerobatics... there are reasons it’s generally considered to be bad a good idea. 😊
Trent, love all your videos, and I appreciate that you are passionate about flying enough to be honest and let us know about things that FAA shakes their finger at and scolds you for. We all can learn from other people’s mistakes and become more knowledgeable pilots. Keep up the great videos!!!
Hi Trent! When you were wrapping things up & said; " If you're going to do it, be safe & use a..." I thought you were going to say condom! Lol, but it was ".... couple of techniques I mentioned" or something along those lines. On the subject of aquaplaning, speed is definitely your friend. I haven't done it in a plane, just on a dirt bike, but it doesn't work unless you're going fast enough, in my case, flat out in 6th! Anyway love your vids & the opening music/footage gives me goosebumps. Please, don't ever change the music!
Hydroplaning can happen in a semi truck also. When 80.000 lb.articulated vehicle (it's hinged and bends) is riding on a thin layer of water drastic accidents are just a hair's breath away.
Captain Sully has joined the chat
Lol
Nice One!
hahahahahahahaaahahaha
✈🌊 😁
Not quite. Still, kinda clever.
If you remove the context of this video (water skiing) this is a great conversation starter about personal minimums and comfort vs. experience in the airplane. I think that leads to a much bigger conversation about safety in the airplane. I like that you were willing to share this and actually discuss the topic. Even if it is a heated debate I think the overriding theme of this video is extremely valuable. Good video Trent!
"LIMITS" = that's it. Walk, drive, fly, ride "WITHIN YOUR LIMITS" VERY WELL SAID Trent! !! !!!
I usually ride above my limits so i can get better
@@syitiger9072 BUT, that's also a risk that you're willing to take. You've done the risk assessment, and decided that it's okay. Now, I'm going to assume you're talking about a motorcycle, and maybe you're doing something like The Snake for your first time. Would you do it with a passenger, or would you ride solo? All part of the risk assessment. So, yeah, you can ride above your limits, but hopefully you've looked at all the possible outcomes.
Id do it solo and with good tires
Your style is so transcendental ...proximity flying eats up the buffer for the anomaly., but your speeds make it survivable...no riskier than motocross. This is the most intriguing flying I have ever seen as I am considering to awaken my dormant license and pursuing this skill set. Thanks.
Always a good day when Trent posts a video 👌
Trent, I don't think I've told you how awesome your intro is. The cinematography, the editing and especially the music. And it's the perfect length too. Not too long and not too short.
Great video Trent, one of the scariest things about flying in 2019 is knowing that nearly every single person you see has a high definition camera in their pocket and any mistake or use of grey area in the FARs can cost your ticket. Glad that you didn't lose your license over that deal. I think off-airport operations appear to be dangerous not only to the non-pilot but also to the pilot who's never even landed on a well maintained grass strip. You do a great job on your channel showing how safe and enjoyable it really is. Thanks to you and the flying cowboys for promoting GA in a recreational way.
How is this kid promoting GA? By ravaging the environment in his wannabe cub? By terrorizing the geese and duck and wildlife streamside? You have no clue, If I was the FAA ( I'm just a 30 year commercial pilot with 11,000 hours
and much of tha in the bush ) I'd would have grounded his ass for 5 years.
@@thegentlecraftsman4764 Thanks for the respectful comment from a real pilot.
There is an old saying....."Don't be THAT guy" Gentle is "THAT guy". Good grief.......ravaging the environment??????? by skimming the surface of the water........Really???? I feel bad for the young people of today because of people like this.
Hey Trent, did they provide copies of the "pictorial evidence?" I'm sure a shot of the # freedom fox waterskiing across Tahoe would look nice on the wall.
I don't know why Trevor Jacobs The Airplane-Crashing Asshole didn't think of trying to waterski an airplane --- or did he and I just don't know it yet?
Hi Trent, I can't imagine anyone being a hater of your channel, it is alwas professional, amazing footage, and most times pilots can glean a little more knowledge by watching you videos. Two thumbs up buddy, don't listen to the haters none of the rest of us do..
How is this channel not huge? It should have at least 2 million. Maybe not a super popular subject, but not rare and definitely interesting. The videos are so well edited and he says everything so well while being humble about it.
I honestly don’t think I ever clicked on a video so fast...
right? haha
I've never clicked on a video because of a notification until now lol
Hi Trent, I liked your video on water skiing. I was taught by my instructor in a P.A. 18, he was acting as my instructor teaching off airport landings. We contacted the fisdo back when we had one, and they gave their blessing. He was also an air show pilot and he did a comedy routine. I was a commercial pilot with aerobatic experience. As an air show performer with a low altitude waiver you can practice, and or teach your act. When he did shows on the beach he included water skiing. Two things. We never did it during teaching in a place that a person would be close enough to film. Of course during the air show, his low altitude waiver, and the fact that the air show people were keeping the water around the air show free from boats and people, made it ok.
When we practiced it, and when I now do it on my own, I am always aiming towards a landing spot that is legal to land on. We never had any problems with the FAA. Maybe their is a fine line between practicing to increase your skills and showing off. That is a concern of mine with your videos. As pilots we have trained and we know the risk. I hope someone doesn’t get hurt trying some of those things. You might want to include more cautious education in your videos as a whole, on the other hand will your explanation by way of education make you more liable if a newly minted Tailwheel pilot has an accident skiing using the information you provided?? I love your videos, I’m just looking out for you and the rest of the cowboys.
Trent, when you asked for a legal interpretation you were essentially asking a lawyer who might have to prosecute a case against you to tell you how to pick apart their case. That's never going to be fruitful. :-) The FAA has intentionally made interpretation of part 91.119 vague so that they may apply it on a case-by-case basis. The specific subparagraph of the part cited in the investigation letter doesn't really matter, because even if you successfully argue that subparaph A doesn't apply, subparagraph C clearly WOULD apply. If you read subparagraph C in its entirety, which would include the clause the part starts with, then it would read "Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate an aircraft below 500' when over other than congested areas except over open water or sparsely populated areas." That means you cannot fly below 500' period, full stop, unless you are taking off, landing, over open water, or over a "sparsely populated" area.
Lake Tahoe is not considered open water, so you cannot claim that. I know that seems wrong, but if you look at the FAA's Aeronautical Chart User's Guide it defines the difference between open water and all other bodies of water with color. Look at a Sectional Chart and you'll see Tahoe is not open water. Open water is essentially off shore, as in the shore of the ocean. A few exceptions I found include the major portion of the Great Lakes (except for an area near Green Bay) and Lake Okeechobee.
That leaves only the question of whether you were over a "sparsely populated" area. Looking a satellite view of Lake Tahoe, I can't see any portion of the shore that is sparsely populated, so your case would hinge on whether the Administrative Law Judge determined the area over the lake is "sparsely populated." Given there is a delineation on aeronautical charts between "open" water and other waters, and that the term "open water" is included in the rule, I think you would have a hard time winning that one.
One of the ways we can learn what certain laws mean is to look at how they are applied in court. The case of Administrator v. Folk is instructive in this case:
www.aerolegalservices.com/Articles/Congested%20Areas%20Under%20FAR%2091-119%202008-08-28.shtml
The gist of it is that although the board of law judges who reviewed the case on appeal initially noted the FAA "has not pronounced a precise definition [of "congested area"] that includes the factors of the density of the population in an area; whether there is surface traffic in the vicinity; or the numbers and proximity of residences, buildings, or structures," it still affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's determination that the disputed area was "congested" for the purposes of the case in question. An ALJ, by the way, may not know anything at all about flying, so they often defer to a flying authority for definitions. In this case, the flying authority is the FAA.
What that means is the FAA retains the authority to violate you if you fly lower than 500' ANYWHERE over the lower 48 states unless you're taking off or landing. The inspector who told you landing anywhere off a paved runway surface was likely simply warning you that the rule, which is applied on a case-by-case basis, may apply AT ANY TIME, so unless you should be prepared to cite relevant information about your operation when landing somewhere off an airport. His example about performance data is relevant. If you don't have it for a particular operation you probably shouldn't engage in that operation, no? You can develop your own performance data if it doesn't exist (EAA has just published a new manual on flight testing). If you can show that you made every effort to mitigate the risks involved in landing in somewhere off airport I don't believe any FAA inspector will go after you.
Am I claiming the FAA never abuses its authority? No. The FAA has certainly used its authority in capricious and sometimes spiteful ways in the past. Was it abused in your case? I think you clearly violated the rules, and even you yourself acknowledge doing what you did with a passenger aboard was not smart. Overall, I appreciate your tone on this video (Although I would prefer that you were more adamant about discouraging this behavior and I wish you had not implied at 14:30 in the video that getting caught was your biggest mistake). There is a place for this kind of flying, but you need to justify it. If you have an operational need to land where skiing is the only option, AND you take appropriate precautions (get training from a licensed instructor, know the performance data, be proficient, etc.) then I believe you're golden. If you have an accident, however, and you have not taken these appropriate precautions, then you expose yourself to the potential insult of an enforcement action added to the injury of the accident.
As an electrician this all sounds much like what I have dealt with before in that it’s all up to the interpretation taken by the inspector. Glad you didn’t get in more trouble and continue to rock on. Love your videos.
always carry a Code Book and know how to find sh..tuff in it : ) and never take short cuts...
The good side of it is that someday, when you have an aircraft full of passengers, and the engine starts to die, and you are looking for a place to land in the northern bush of Canada, and spot a small area to land but too short before you hit the bush, you will be able to use a little of the water as your runway, get down safely and save the lives of all your passengers. There is a good side to every bad thing that happens in life. Happy Flying
I don't think I've ever seen you two so happy when sailing.... It's obvious that this catamaran is just perfect for the two of you.... Love the video, the love between you two and of course the sailing....God Bless!!!
One little nitpick. You are not skiing on "surface tension". That term refers to the specific way that water molecules attract each other to minimize surface area. It makes a drop of water falling through the air stay "drop" shaped, and placed on a surface bulge up rather than spread out, a stream of water hold together, and some small insects can stand directly on top of the water without penetrating it. You can take the surface tension out of water, such as by adding soap, but it's still water, and you could still ski on top of it as you could any other liquid of similar density. You're skiing on Newton's 3rd law (equal and opposite reaction), and it works because the water is relatively dense and can't get out of the way quickly. Your tires are hitting the surface and it's hitting back.
Regarding brakes. Many years ago I was watching one of the pioneering videos of super cubs landing on gravel bars in Alaska with water skiing approach, and that pilot said that he purposely applied brakes and kept the tires locked while skiing. His contention was that the speed differential between the tire's surface and the water is greater when the tire is not turning, and that by allowing it to rotate your'e lowering that speed differential, sort of like your upwind but downriver scenario (water moving with you). I'm also thinking that with a spinning tire you might get some Magnus effect, which pulls the water around the rear of the tire flinging it upward (as you say the struts get wetter). Any water that is thrown upward, is created by an opposing downward force on the tire.
I was thinking the same thing. Thanks for posting this.
Sooooo brakes on then?
I got a lesson on 119 a from my FAA examiner during a check ride, he explained that when flying over water you must be able “glide” to land in the event of a power unit failure unless you have floats. Different aircraft glide ratios = different safe altitudes. This conversation took place over the Great salt lake, in a Schweitzer 300c. They drop like a rock so it was pertinent information lol.
Good tips and insight, Trent! I always wondered how it's not against the min AGL FAR to fly as low as depicted in many online videos, although as youngsters we did it all the time over the prairie and hills of western Nebraska, almost always with passengers, but in certified aircraft. As far as I know, there was only 1 report of a low flying aircraft turned in to the FAA at BFF in the early 1970's, which was probably a friend and I. It's a rural area with cropdusters flying around all summer long surrounded by endless prairie with homes and outbuildings miles apart. I guess people back then weren't so quick to report something that had nothing to do with them, unlike the present mindset.
Keep sharing as you can; always interesting!
Flight below 500ft is specifically allowed in sparsely populated areas, as long as the plane gets no closer than 500ft horizontally to any buildings, people or boats. however like so many things bureaucratic they fail to define the terms they use like "sparsely populated". The simple interpretation is that sparse is implied by the ability to be clear 500 feet horizontal on all sides, but this is up to individual interpretation.
@@mytech6779, thanks for the recap. It's been so long since I've flown I've probably forgotten most of what I learned about regs and such thru lack of use! It probably helped that we knew all the local FAA employees personally. I even worked with one of their wives while in college.
Thanks for being upfront and honest
Thank you for the explanation. I have less than zero desire to do this myself, but I have always wondered about the actual mechanics behind doing it.
Doing what you do at the risk of no one but you and you are learning hot to be a really good pilot. Look what Sully learned in a glider I’m sure he pushed the limits at times. But his real world learning saved a lot of lives
Your story of being violated and my experiences with the FAA really just pisses me off.....
Edit: I had to wait a year to renew my medical certificate (no flying for A YEAR) because of a medical condition that I DON’T HAVE. The FAA decided to interpret the doctor’s evaluation that said there was nothing out of the ordinary (they always read it back to me) in their own way and then ignore two follow up letters that my doctor and I wrote. You just kind of have to go with their narrative, but damn I’m still a little annoyed by the fact it happened.
Been there done that, I was grounded in Australia by CASA for 1year due to being put on a medication for a medical condition. The amount of reports and BS i had to go through to get my medical sorted was a joke.
Even though the condition had no effects on my flying, and neither did the medication.
Todd m You could take ibuprofen for a headache and the FAA would beat you over the head with a stick.
@@pvtdipwad2944 is it the ibuprofen or the headache that they consider the problem? New to aviation, just curious.
Ozzy Chappell The ibuprofen. Obviously just joking, but they seriously regulate any type of meds due to the IMSAFE acronym. Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue, Emotion/Eating. You want to make sure all of that is in the green before you go fly. In terms of a headache, it could be a variety of things, but if you're new to flying, a headache can distract you from what's important in the cockpit. Basically if you're safe, you shouldn't need meds. That's my take from it anyways.
Been there still there lol my medical was revoked with a month of getting my PPL due to meds..haven’t been able to get it back in 8 years because of SSRI’s.
I learned to fly in a Piper Cub in the Panhandle of Texas where there are lots of what we called Playa Lakes in the rainy season. These ponds are up to half a mile across and a foot deep. They made great places to go sliding across the surface of the water on those fat balloon tires. Well, what else do you expect an invincible 16 year old kid with a student certificate in his pocket to do when out from under the watchful eye of his instructor. (I'm sure she (yes, a woman taught me to fly) knew what was going on.
Re: Inspector: "careless and wreckless anywhere other than a paved runway because there is no data in the performance charts". I haven't flown in 10+ years, but I remember performance charts that referenced a grass runway...so off the top of my head, I'm not sure what the inspector meant. Example, 1978 C172: "For operation on a dry, grass runway, increase distances by 15% of the "ground roll" figure."
You're doing the right thing with your flying Trent . Disregard haters and informers. If not for people like yourself, there would nothing called aviation in the first place.
"So no waterskiing for me." ... Yeah, right. ... Now I want to see a video of you actually waterskiing, like behind a boat in a swimsuit, just to stick it to the FAA.
How can anyone hate your video’s?!! I’m always jealous but never hate the awesome fun you have! Keep them coming Trent. And thanks for taking the time to share.🍻
Oh boy, where to begin. First, before I tell the story, I’m an old dog -CFI, instrument instructor, and multi-I. I had no idea you young guys were doing this. In 1978 when I got out of the army, I went to work as ground crewman for a crop duster. His personal plane was a PA-16 Piper Clipper, a sweet little airplane. Before the season started we flew down to Florida and he demonstrated this technique. Somewhere I have pix buried in my junk. He used it as practice for spraying crops. He was also an insane drunk as was the business owner. We all survived the season and I learned to fly tail wheel with him. I got my private ticket in Athens, GA at Clark’s Flying Service. Mr. Clark drilled into my skull: “There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old-bold pilots.” Guys, unless you have a real operational need to do this, don’t do it. Then only learn it from some graybeard. Keep the greasy side down.
This is an interesting topic. I’ve always been curious about it. On the topic of 91.119a, even though your aircraft is near the surface, as long as you have plenty of airspeed, a zoom climb is always an option. I think that could have been a very viable argument.
You can skip the zoom climb, water is an acceptable emergency landing spot. Example Flight 1549, it was the prefered by the pilot over attempting a return to the airport. Like Trevor Jacob.
Flying in general "can be considered careless and reckless". Life, in general, can be considered careless and reckless. Those FAA inspectors are probably nose wheel drivers that always use flight following for their $100 hamburger flights....
Great video! I'm not a back-country pilot, nor a tailwheel pilot (yet) but the enforcement action discussion reminded me of some advice I got from an old crusty Air Force Pilot. He told me when I think I'm doing something dumb, write the first line of the incident report in my head. Usually we read, "the non instrument rate pilot continued visual flight into instrument meteorological conditions...." Something like that. In 18 years of civil and military aviation, that thought has kept me safe. I've taken some risks, especially in my military career, but they were always thought out, calculated, and done with a plan. The worst I can say I've done as PIC is returning from my PPL Checkride in 2003, I requested a circle over my parents' house. I was with tower, at least 1500agl; not "buzzing," but low enough that they heard me and came out on the deck to see me. I'd do that again, but I'm overall pretty risk-averse.
Wow, people got bent out of shape about this? Youre an experienced pilot, you know the dangers.
Keep up the good vids, looking forward to the house and runway updates. All good stuff. Gave the vid a like
@Airstrip Kid the problem with that argument is the regulations apply to everyone.
you can't make regulations for 1 type of person, but another set for a different type of person, that would be discrimination.
and because of that, the regulations can't make exceptions between pilots who know their stuff, and those who don't
drifting on an open road will get you fined, wether or not you are an experienced rally driver.
same thing here
i personally have no problem with it, if you know what you are doing. and trent does. the cowboy's all do i think.
Look, if they don't go hard after people at the start, when the experienced pilots are the ones experimenting, and make an example out of their cases, then when the noobs and idiots start killing themselves and eventually causing real accidents, the FAA will get blamed. You know some moron will push it for views and thrills, and they'll plow into a boat or kayak or something, or they'll kill someone on shore, or any number of other things could happen. The FAA need to cover their bases. Unless there is a threat of action, no one will stop or listen to mere requests. The idiots who don't know their limits (unlike the guy who made the video) and don't understand physics, are the ones who ruin everything for everyone.
@Airstrip Kid I'll agree with you, except on one point, and that's carrying passengers. You said, "if you know what your [sic] doing." The pilot may know what he's doing, but the passenger may not, and the passenger may not fully understand and recognize the inherent risks taken. Even if that passenger is another pilot, but who has never done waterskiing before.
Good job Trent. Don't the haters bother you. I have been a pilot for years, and this is something that could help you in a pinch type situation. It never hurts to know this stuff. Thanks for the video! Keep up the good work!!!
This is a very good video, and the best part, IMO, is the advice to be proficient in wheel landings.
I can speak to this, since I have almost 50 years of tail wheel flying, in my C140 and C120.
As an aside, in all of my landings, I am focused on keeping the plane straight down the runway, maximizing rudder control.
Remember, Rudder for heading and Aileron for course.
I've never ground-looped; I've never even been close to doing so, and don't ever intend on doing so.
Be confident in your landings in a tail wheel airplane, whether it be wheel landings or three-pointers, be aggressive, don't be wishy-washy with the rudder.
Inspectors are completely free to interpret the rules and regs however they want within reason, and there is very little recourse options an operator has to fight back, besides throwing many thousands of hard earned dollars at a possibly never ending Cort battle against the faa with unlimited resources. Hold fast trent! Don't let the paper pushers keep you down.
Lot’s of people done understand basic physics. I was taught 40 years ago to waterski an Ag Cat to get a good visual while “on step” to know your limitations while spraying rice fields. The farmers wanted their chemicals applied as low as possible!
The FAA will always err on the side of caution. Great video, as usual.
Before you started talking, my first thought was wow - that can be used for shorter landing. Water will 'suck' the tires into it because of something called surface tension which will help slow the aircraft and keep the wheels planted for the shorter landing technique. It makes sense that bush pilots use it because it appears to be a legitimate use of physics with surface tension of water.
Obviously, this can cause an accident if you're not at the right power level because the craft will continue to slow down and be pulled into the water, or flip forward after sinking a certain amount. But, if the technique is used properly, I can see it being quite beneficial.
As for the brakes being wet - you can apply a technique which is learned in other countries during mandatory driver training classes before entering a puddle, or flooding on a road.... If you depress the brake pedal in such a way that the brakes skim the rotors, you can entire the brakes stay dry as water that gets on the disc after will be more easily swept away because of two dry surfaces moving over one another with next to no distance between them vs having 3 layers - 2 dry and 1 wet in the middle.... So you could use that technique and apply the brakes, if you are coming in for a landing, before you skim the surface to help keep the brakes dry. ie, what happens during hydroplaning.
Also, if you had a verbal discussion with your passenger and both of you were willing to take the risk, then you would've won in court as it falls under a verbal contract. You warned him of all of the risks, such as death, etc... so legally, by him agreeing, he signed a waiver. Section A, doesn't pertain to you. If you upheld section C by staying away, 500 feet, from all people and structures on the surface, then you couldn't have possibly broken section A by endangering them. If you had an engine failure, you would've sunk, flipped and endangered yourself, and your passenger - both of which had legally 'signed' a waiver allowing that event to take place.
You should've stood up for yourself.
Hey Trent, whatever flops your mop, looked awesome.. only good pilots do this and you nailed it!..thanks for sharing..
correction....only rich trust funder kids with parent purchased airplanes do this shit..the rest of us have to work for our airplanes and WE give a damn about the streamside wildlife habitat, which these little punks, clearly do not.
Retired Airlines pilot,,,Cessna 207 eight miles from departure apt. The IO540 broke a crankshaft,3500ft glide lasted couple minutes(I have floatplane license),flipped over very close to a boat on clear water.Upside down hanging from my belt,was easy to get out with my lifevest(uninflated) and standing on the wing,closing the door. Did manage to break a tooth on the dash(no shoulder harness in those days)from the impact. Plane floated for about 3min,wile walking to the wingtip to board the skiboat. Ocean floor was about 1500fathim...went down like the titanic,still remember the plane spiraling down towards DavyJones locker!!! Come to find out there’s an A.D.on the crankshafts,back then. The FAA wanted to violate me.We at Airlines don’t tell them S**t.Hope this helps
You’re right! Walking out the door is dangerous....going back to bed and watching RUclips videos for the rest of the day
I'm with you Mike.... Popcorn first.... LoL
Excellent learning experience. Going to share with another RUclipsr who is a low time pilot in the bush of Idaho - C-182 airplane which might benefit from large tires. Thanks from a pilot who lost a medical in 2010 with over 800 hours and many memories.
The way most laws are written now (in my opinion) are unconstitutional because they're vague and open to interpretation and subjectivity, which leaves people unsure if their actions will violate the law. And so many laws are what I call "add on" laws where they'll never be enforced unless you do other things wrong. I'm an attorney and have been practicing 12 years in Oklahoma City and have dealt with the FAA on a few issues but it's not my practice focus.
Great comment. Probably 90% of our federal government is unconstitutional. Just compare the enumerated powers against the myriad government agencies and all the regulations created by bureaucrats (as opposed to laws enacted by congress, many of which are still unconstitutional--i.e., illegal).
This is sooooo, true. I filed for an annulment from a wife who married me for the money and when I paid her debts off, she jumped on a plane back to Taiwan never to return. Fraud all the way. Well In Nevada Civil Rules of Procedure are written so poorly I cannot even serve her legally and binding as per treaties and the Hague Convention. So I have had to write motion after motion to correct their poor legislative fopaux. 3 years and I am still not done because Judges don't want to make the tough decisions.
Jarad...Give Tom our regards from new Zealand.
CAMERON NERDIN come to Texas, we do annulments by alternate service all the time. 😎
SO! Well don't what to say! But you are the best and you enjoy life! Keep doing what you like to do and don't let the haters ever get you down....and you don't have anything to be ashamed of.
Thanks for your time to allow me to fly with you in your videos.
Smart not messing with the Feds. Lost my right leg, hip, and pelvis at age 16, can't wear a prosthesis, but I loved to fly Luscombes. Had many battles with the Feds over that, despite the closed rudder system, strapped in left foot (pull for right rudder; push for left) and handbrake for the right brake on the stick. Finally had a proper medical test flight at HEF (D.C. District) with a former F15 pilot who issued me a SODA with just one limitation: must wear corrective lenses for near and distant vision. I'd go on to fly other tailwheel aircraft but remained a Fed magnet. You did well, Trent. Just nod, agree, and move on 😉
Dirt bike riders can ride over smooth water if you go fast enough ! It’s a skill like any other skill .
Guys up in my neck of the woods do the same with snowmobiles. I remember one spot where there was (as I remember) a 15-20 ft patch of clear water and a huge number of tacks on either side because the locals would use it as a shortcut.
I’ve read (and been involved) in this chain for the last couple of days. What is missing proportionality.
There is an aviation judgement difference between things you can do on barren public lands & waterways, at 3k ft., over & around cities & private land, and on the most contentious & heavily used water way in the nation, Lake Tahoe.
(CA & NV actually fought a war over it, the Sage Brush war, and all the interests in Tahoe have been at war ever since: developers, environematalists, sailors, campers, wilderness, boaters, fishermen, miners, public access people, private beach people, sea & float plane operators, jet ski rental, Casinos, nature preserves, protected forests.
The list of stakeholders is endless.
To top it off, The Coast Guard has a Lake Tahoe station because Tahoe is part of the interstate federal waterway system with commercial traffic between CA & NV. Tahoe is also a drinking water reservoir.)
This is not the hill to die on regarding FAA overreach.
Instead, be self-interested & be smart: monied interests around Tahoe could crush any activity on or around the lake like LSAs, particularly if Trent had tripped on a half submerged log or something.
As for the other: Trent admitted he knowingly violate FARs and took responsibility. Good man.
Those of us back east are envious of the Flying Cowboy’s access to hundreds of miles of witness-free public lands.
I love this type of vid because you are sharing your experience that others can benefit from. I believe it to be untenable for FAA to claim that landing off airport is careless and reckless because there is no POH performance information for doing so. I'm an aviation attorney and would be ecstatic to fight them on that one!
Stan Barankiewicz according to the FAA, a C-17 landing on a gravel strip is reckless and dangerous! What a joke 🤣
Stan Barankiewicz Contact him and get it done. Their laws are inconsistent and contradict themselves. Their rules require the shutting down of all rescue flights and all bush flying. They need o be prosecuted until Trump fires some trash.
I know how u feel about giving tips, but I think you have done the right thing by giving tips. Ultimately we as pilots are the decision makers, it’s no different to making the choice to do aerobatics, we can try it because it looks fun on RUclips, or we can decide not to, I would hope all pilots are responsible enough to know and stick to their limits. This water skipping is out of the question for me, I don’t feel right to risk it, but that’s just me.
Before everyone had cameras (cell phones) we could do fun stuff.
shout out to the float guys in the video, love it.
also super informative man, much appreciated. always fun river runnin and water skiing here in southeast ak
Absolutely right about Probably Shouldn't.
That being said, LIVE FREE OR DIE
Nobody should be able to tell you how to live your life. Liberty means having freedoms, but not infringing on other's freedom. As long as you're not stopping someone else from enjoying their freedom, the FAA should not tell anyone what to do.
FPVREVIEWS yeah.. all freedom, no responsibility. Yet every LSA wreck runs up the insurance premium on the rest of us. But man, aren’t you free.
what part of not "infringing on other's freedom" did you not understand? Personal Freedom means Personal Responsibility.
@@rhkennerly
Outstanding comment.
FPVREVIEWS and personal responsibility means following the rules you agreed to follow. Personal responsibility is what Trent is doing now: accepting responsibility for his actions.
We have a long history in the aviation community of publically discussing our errors, lack of judgment, & questionable calls openly & without rancor in hopes that others will learn from them. The earliest flying magazines I remember had columns titled, “I learned about flying from that.” They also featured NTSB & FAA reports on accidents, where every aspect of an incident is evaluated by the magazine staff writers.
@@rhkennerly Very true. A well informed decision is essential to making the right one for you. The issue here is someone else saying they know better than you do what is right for you, regardless. How would you like it if someone decreed that aviation was dangerous, and we should all take buses? I think we can all agree that water-skiing is the wrong decision for 99 percent (or more) of pilots, and it's a great thing that we have lots of reports to read about it, to remind us of just why it's not a good idea for us. But if we learn gradually, analyze all of the risks, and decide to give it a try, who are we hurting? That being said, It's the wrong decision for me, and i have no desire to see most pilots try it, but I will stand up for anyone's right to do it if they decide to. If everyone never did anything with an element of risk, our species would not exist. It will require an insane amount of risk by at least a small number of individuals in the future if we are to survive as a species as well. Think of the risk of flying the shuttle/orbiter for all those years.. lives lost, but we learned form it, accepted the remaining risk, and forged ahead. Today we have ISS because of it. Being too risk adverse leads to stagnation.
LoL, 200# at 40mph? Ok, not really wrong, at 175 my preferred speed is 39mph. But I grew up waterskiing, moved into wakeboarding and waterskiing. On a front deep water start, longline, I can plant my feet and stand as slow as 22mph. Drowned in spray until the boat gets up to speed. Really like this video though. Water is harder than most people think. And glass smooth water? Never good! On the bare feet, it is a knife edge digging into one point on your foot. A one inch ripple makes for a nice foot massage. Love it bro, keep the good stuff coming. Be putting maiden flight on my Flight Test Freedom Fox this week.
I am NOT a pilot. Nor a scientist. However I have enough life/physics knowledge to understand this clearly. And while I couldn't explain it as Trent does here, I understood the physics of it prior to this explanation. The most important thing Trent says here is "life is a calculated risk" !! I ride a motorcycle without a helmet. My kids are all grown, I'm 60+ - Life is short, live hard! [shrug]
....Keeping in mind that this is the same FAA that certified an exotic, computer-controlled and limited input, zero-fail safe automatic system that literally took control of the horizontal stabilizer of a commercial passenger jet in the most vulnerable point of the flight envelope.
Yeah, you guys are definitely the authorities on aviation safety...................................................
apples and oranges..nice try at distraction from the real topic...environmental disregard...!
@@savannaswildnatureworkshop7810 Wow. Okay......... .......Backs away slowly from crazy person..............
Just remember there are old pilots and bold pilots, but supposedly there are no old bold pilots, from someone who has been flying for 35 years, I love your videos AND your flying and abilities, just make sure you become an OLD pilot. Keep up the good work.
From someone who's been arrested for surfing, me. Stay radical.
How in the hell do you get arrested for surfing?
Probably during a storm surge beach closure kind of thing
In a mall in Minnesota? @@FrostyDog9186
@@FrostyDog9186 that's what the judge demanded to know.
@@matthewbrothers2823 even then what's with the arrest over surfing?
this is a great lesson: if at any time you think the words "i shouldn't do this," do not do it.
Words of wisdom Trent... the more I watch your videos, the less you and the flying cowboys look like the flying circus I imagined in the beginning ( yes, that’s a compliment 😂) . The way you fly is awesome but inexperienced pilot should take example of your analysis and risk mitigation instead of thinking that what you’re doing is just fun and easy to shoot at home with their GoPro.
Keep the blue side up and long live your amazing channel !
Alex (France)
Will enjoy your channel without water skiing you bring a lot of joy to arm chair pilots😊
91.119 and 91.119(a) says:
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
The part I want to emphasize is 91.119(a) : "... without undue hazard to *persons or property **on the surface**." It doesn't say anything about pilots, passengers or aircraft. Only persons and property on the surface.
Moreover, 91.119(c) says:
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.
In my reading, there is clearly NO minimum altitude to adhere to over open water so long as you comply with 91.119(C)'s 500 foot rule. Meaning: fly as low as you want over open water so long as you do not come closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (Gosh I hate the FAA sometimes...) Sorry you got busted, Trent.
loversRule, this is exactly right and I agree wholeheartedly. Trent could sign up with AOPA and pay an extra fee for lawyer services and get it reversed I would think. Maybe I need to watch the rest of the video first, before further comment.
Right, and they can't say that ditching in the water isn't a viable emergency landing.
My grandfather was a WWII fighter pilot (P-47). He used to love flying UNDER bridges in his Cub. FAA nailed him. No sense of humor.
Yo Trent,,
Very well thought out and the way you came across was very good!!
You covered it all basically, and were good at portraying your thoughts!! What more needs to be said!!
Don’t do it!! But if you are?? Be careful!!
I love you like a brother!!
Fly Low,,, Fly Safe,,,
G-Man
Sounds like another plea deal was brokered. "You do a PSA on the hazards of water skiing and we will cut you probation." Haaaaaa !! Reminds me of throwing RC planes out of your aircraft and landing on RC runways video. Trent, Trent, Trent. You are an OUTLAW !!!!!
You should have let the inspector know that you WERE coming in for a landing, a touch-and-go! As some have said, I would hate for the first time needing to use this 'landing' technique to be coming in slow for a full stop on a sandbar. It makes far more sense to be proficient in landing techniques and options that can be practiced before having to execute them, the very reason we touch-and-go on pavement.
Touch and go practice on the water. Awesome.
Mixing done nicely and maybe... just maybe you may have saved someone's life too,because you KNOW there are people who need to know where the edge is. I used to fly a R172K to some fishing places... and flew a BL-17ATC out of a cow patch about 400' of good run, then a sand trap, a one way strip with a honkin tree right off the approach. I never had a problem, but even ultralights crashed there. I had maybe 10 feet of squiggle room on each wingtip on the good part. The worst part was the bull who took a liking to my spinner after I removed the paint and shined it up. OK, landing #13 maybe I was a bit weirded out. There was no go around on landing after the tree. NEVER took a passenger to that strip. Got vectored by USAF once when leaving Palm Springs because a corridor got shut down after filing, and they sent me East of area51 into a band of TCU's then cut me free . Another close one! Not many pilots will be truthful or real because they are so worried about the Feds. So, like you I say maybe get some dual acro instruction, and concentrate on recognition and controlling unusual attitudes etc, and then strap on a chute and go to a designated practice area and really learn your plane in all foreseeable situations. Then never do anything to need that chute again!! Like the music, I am retired 72 years young also do quads and fixed RPV and music creation is also as rewarding as a nice calm day in the air. Take care my fellow human of planet earth, have safe fun!
Trent don’t let anyone get in you’re way. You didn’t get where you are by letting haters have brain space.
Always good to see you posting and giving us stuff to think about as well as a vid to watch
I keep watching this video please don't give up on the adventure of what you do if I can find the money to learn to fly I am going to to in some small part because of you
Perfectly understandable. I took mechanical engineering in school.
But I do have to wonder, why are so many people so ignorance of science and physics in the USA these days? It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
Lifted_Above Because the politics of the new left say its more important to respect feelings than facts and science.. stupid shit, really,.... for stupid people.. and bureaucrats, which by definition are lacking just about every positive human aspect.
Because for the last several generations the public school system has been teaching that adherence to authority is more important than understanding reality.
Have not skied a wheeled plane my self but discussed the matter with a 13,000 Hr Helicopter and fixed wing pilot who had on numerous occasions skied tail draggers for fun or beech landings - His explanation was that and as can be seen in your video that while skiing the water friction will quickly start your wheels turning and when they reach rotation equal to that of aircraft speed the surface tension against the water is lost and the wheels will start to sink in - He said always have the toe brakes on until just before reaching the beech As for stability issues engaging brakes after skiing for a period is resultant of centrifugal force when the brake caliper quickly stops the rotating wheel and has nothing to do with tyre braking against water - example: a car hard braking on seal then starts to hydroplane on water loses braking ability
Okay, you can Waterski a plane. But can you scuba the plane? That would be impressive.
I would think that the "Scuba-Flying" part would only take effect right after the "Waterski-Flying" part rapidly dis-combobulated! The next few seconds would get really exciting... and then the coincidental FAA Guy would be right there to hand you your nasty-gram!! ;^)
@@MrGaryGG48 LOL!
I got so happy seeing the intro I thought it was back then I saw video was posted a year ago then got sad
Interesting and wise words for beginners. My tip take a mini BA canister incase you go in.
I'm so doing this!
Pretty sure the cirrus has a button for it
Kind of a “Come full circle” day for me today. First, I got to meet your brother Kevin today (super great guy, BTW!) and we got to fly together on a short hop from Truckee to Oakland. And then I get home, and there’s a new video from the guy that got me into KitFoxes in the first place! Now that’s my kinda day! Oh, and I think I fall into the category of “Undecided” for the time being 😎
step1: become a pilot
step2: buy a airplane
step3: be good in flying
finally the video is intersting for me...
Lmao xD
Just an A&P mechanic wandering through. Would like to point out the potential for water to get into your wheel bearings with water skimming. Could cause them to rust. Rust and pitting is usually immediate rejection so that could set you back a couple $100 for new wheel bearings. Also the possibility of over-speed for the wheel bearing. Basically spinning it so fast that the friction of the bearing produces enough heat to thin out the grease. The grease gets thin enough to a point where it doesn't lubricate. Worst possible case the bearing blows apart completely or it seizes in place. All that said you could have to skim for quite some time above the aircraft's landing speed to cause this to happen. Just wanted to throw that out there.
The comment by someone in FAA Legal stating that lack of landing and takeoff performance numbers in a POH for unpaved surfaces makes such operations illegal is WRONG. Says who? The FAA. The only information in a POH that a Part 91 operator must have and use are limitations-the rest is advisory. In fact, if all aircraft limitations are on placards visible to the pilot, the POH need not be on board.
No sure it's been mentioned but my understanding of this effect on water is that the actual hydro-plaining works better with brakes locked. The bouncing bomb (WW2 fame) is a good example here, rotating rearwards is even MORE effective. Rotating wheels will make this effect on water 'less' effective.
But of course if you are going to go from water to 'land' then locked brakes will be an overriding concern. :)
Enjoyed the vid. Call me a Vulcan but surfing a plane has to an ego thing. That aside, your video explained the pros and cons clearly and precisely. Keep up the good work!!
Good video Trent. I can appreciate all of the scientific reasoning, and assessment of risk.
P.S. upriver all day lol
Well, I'm no expert. Though I like physics somewhat. I thought the conversation and warnings were quite clear. And I appreciate it.
I am reminded of a couple of times I was pulled over by California Highway Patrolmen. We had a sensible conversation, I complied, and there was no penalty. In my book that was good law enforcement.
When I was in New Jersey, their immediate fix very often is to tow you. It seemed black and white. So I appreciate that you could talk to aviation authorities. It could be worse.
Your videos are well done, and helpful. Thanks.
Honest assessment of one's choices... Here is a reality... Its not "IF" something happens, it is just a matter of "When" something happens. I used to ride street bikes when I was younger, and did lots of crazy stuff. One day I was out pushing the limits, and something told me to stop doing it, so I did. About 60 minutes later I had a freak accident and got a free ride to Balboa Hospital via helicopter... Life can be fun, and pushing the limit at times is necessary to build confidence in one's skills. But don't continue to push it... Mr. Murphy will show up and will let you know why you shouldn't push your luck. BE SAFE FOLKS!!!
There are the come be a pilot it's fun crowd then there is the "I'm a professional aviator, you just wouldn't understand pleb" crowd.
Very reasoned, mature presentation.
Excellent amateur analysis. Your bravery and retrospection add value to the general aviation community.
Blessings
🙏🏻💕😇
:{D}
Trent: I don't want to sound like a hater. Your videos are amazing.
You've certainly heard this more than once:
There are old pilots
And there are bold pilots
But here are no Old, Bold PIlots.
As a 16000 hour pilot, I have a few suggestions for you. First, why don’t you become a CFI? It will make you a better pilot. Second, become a seaplane pilot. Third, get an instrument rating. It will also make you a better pilot.
A good, careful pilot never stops learning.
Also, go to Alaska and learn bush flying.
It seems like there is a variation on how the rules are applied. One FAA guy doesn't care, the next one wants to clip your wings. Almost like cops..leaving Trent and the rest of us confused
Shouldn't get violated by the government for doing as you please with your own property while not harming others or their property.
TheVoluntaryistPolakwegian he admits to violating regs that he had previously agreed to follow.
he could have requested a exposition permit to do the exhibit on the lake and he wouldnt have got busted
Fantastic post. Nailed it very concisely.
Rick Kennerly “Regs” are nothing but threats of violence written on paper by politicians. “If you don’t do this we will throw you in a cage or steal your money”. If there is no victim, there can be no crime.
JustLetMeDrive You don’t need a permit to do what you want with your own property. It’s your right to do whatever you please, as long as it doesn’t hurt others or their property.
Hey Trent, great video on the topic! I never thought about how you would actually want faster groundspeed over the water in this scenario. As pilots, it's second nature for us to always pick the slowest groundspeed (into the wind) when close to the surface or landing. Btw, check out the story of N3829D. It was a Beech 77 that crashed in Lake Meredith Texas in 1984. The pilot and passenger both died likely due to water skiing the airplane. According to the FAA report "the pilot had been known to skip wheels on the lake".
Risk is a part of life. Life is yours to do as you want, you are correct that life has risks every day. Forget the haters. Live your life as you see fit. I am sure the FAA thinks differently though....
How much does ground effect come into play?
Same as over land, depends more on the airframe.
Hi Trent, I love your videos. You’re definitely a skilled flyer... a good stick and rudder guy, and humble to boot. That’s generally a great combo that leads to a long and happy life as a pilot.
Me? I’m in the - best to err on the side of conservative flying - camp. My rational is this. Because it’s basically illegal no one can check you out. If that’s the case you gotta go figure it out on your own. I think teaching yourself this water skimming stuff is akin to teaching yourself aerobatics... there are reasons it’s generally considered to be bad a good idea. 😊
Hitting birds at low level in an aeroplane is a spiritual experience.
So is hitting skunks at night while taxiing.
Ooooohhh...
Chris Brit especially for the bird.
Trent, love all your videos, and I appreciate that you are passionate about flying enough to be honest and let us know about things that FAA shakes their finger at and scolds you for. We all can learn from other people’s mistakes and become more knowledgeable pilots. Keep up the great videos!!!
Hi Trent! When you were wrapping things up & said; " If you're going to do it, be safe & use a..." I thought you were going to say condom! Lol, but it was ".... couple of techniques I mentioned" or something along those lines. On the subject of aquaplaning, speed is definitely your friend. I haven't done it in a plane, just on a dirt bike, but it doesn't work unless you're going fast enough, in my case, flat out in 6th! Anyway love your vids & the opening music/footage gives me goosebumps. Please, don't ever change the music!
Hydroplaning can happen in a semi truck also. When 80.000 lb.articulated vehicle (it's hinged and bends) is riding on a thin layer of water drastic accidents are just a hair's breath away.