I live here in San Francisco and often wondered if it's possible for a commercial aircraft to fly under the Golden Gate Bridge? If it's happened already, are there any pictures? Thanks
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Flying under the Golden Gate Bridge
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Greg J. View PostI live here in San Francisco and often wondered if it's possible for a commercial aircraft to fly under the Golden Gate Bridge? If it's happened already, are there any pictures? Thanks
There is no way to fly any of under bridge. It's against the law.
I was thinking you might saw one of the picture. Someone who edited photo chopped the plane went under Golden Gates is fake.
Stuart
-
Flying under the Golden Gate bridge
Thanks for the feed back. I didn't realize it was against the law. Actually, what started me thinking was Virgin Atlantic. I had heard that Richard Branson had purchased a new 747-400 for the Virgin Atlantic service between SFO and London and for publicity he was going to have his plane flown under the Golden Gate, but changed his mind for safety reason. I have no idea if this was true or not, but it did get me thinking. Thanks for your time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Big777jet View PostIt is illegal to fly under any object. Same thing in Gateway Arch in St. Louis.
There is no way to fly any of under bridge. It's against the law.
I was thinking you might saw one of the picture. Someone who edited photo chopped the plane went under Golden Gates is fake.
Stuart
Comment
-
Originally posted by ASpilot2be View PostAgreed. I think you would get charged with careless and wreckless operation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Greg J. View PostIf it weren't illigal and an airline had proper permits and took every precaution, how would you be carged with careless and wreckless operation? I would assume that any airline attempting this would have taken proper precautions.You've got to try to find what's right before your eyes-Finger Eleven
Comment
-
91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
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.
(b) ·Over congested areas. ·Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2.000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) ·Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.,
Comment
-
Bell JetRanger filmed flying low over bridge
Originally posted by thxcollins View Post91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes; (c) ·Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.,
Comment
-
Originally posted by ASpilot2be View PostI was referring to the fact that there is no set rule that says you cant fly under anything. If someone were to just go fly under the Golden Gate, they wouldnt be charged with flying under an object. They would be charged with careless and wreckless operation.
I think cities make ridiculous laws; like laws against riding skateboards or bicycles on sidewalks and parking lots because some people do it in a reckless fashion. Instead they should enforce the general catchall laws; of public endangerment and public nuisance. When I was a kid I learned how to ride a bike on the sidewalk or in a parking lot when no one else was using them; now days I can't even teach my children to ride a bike in an empty school (with no classes or curricular activities in session) parking lot (which is public property) without being threatened for criminal trespassing. ( because some kids were stunting with skate boards and injured themselves and sued the school and because some kids rode their bikes in the parking lot when there was teacher’s cars in the lot and some of the cars got scratched and dented). The thing is more and more we are becoming a fascist state; we are taking the rights away from the vast majority of civilized people; because of a few that are uncivilized.
I think flying under a bridge could be considered “public endangerment“, “inducing public panic” and it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s some sort of violation of anti-terrorism laws.
Originally posted by Louis Gonzalez View PostDuring the opening credits of the movie The Towering Inferno (1974) a Bell JetRanger was filmed flying over the Golden Gate Bridge. It looked like less than 500 feet from the structure to me! (And it was a wide angle lens too!) Beautiful photography however!
I was amazed at watching some of the red bull races that they flew under bridges for part of the show.
While it is an incredible sight to see; I wonder if it’s really worth the risk to the people that depend on those bridges for their livelihood. I hope that that was well thought out.
I doubt a Bell Ranger, or an extra would do much damage; however it would still result in closing the bridge at least temporarily. There also is the copy cat effect; whereas you let some people have an exemption for a small aircraft and the next thing you know is some nut wants to fly a 747 under the same bridge. Thankfully there's not many 747s in the hands of nuts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ATFS_Crash View PostThe thing is more and more we are becoming a fascist state; we are taking the rights away from the vast majority of civilized people; because of a few that are uncivilized.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Louis Gonzalez View PostWell said and sadly, very true. At the risk of being off-topic for a second, in a democracy it's supposed to be majority rule, but this is changing. For example, how can a trespasser illegally jump a fence into private property, hurt himself, then sue the owner? Is that justice? Trivial, unjust "lottery" lawsuits backed by unscrupulous lawyers and brainwashed or greedy clients costing everyone else millions. When will it end?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Greg J. View PostYes, you are getting off topic. My intent of this thread is: Is it possible for a plane to fly under the Golden Gate Bridge. Has it been done and are there any photos? Please stay on topic.Originally posted by ATFS_CrashI would think that that would require permission; a written exemption.
I was amazed at watching some of the red bull races that they flew under bridges for part of the show.
Charter Helicopters do it from time to time - check youtube for videos
[(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.]
But to answer the question in your last post, yes...it is possible given the vertical height of any aircraft is less than the height of the bridge.
Comment
-
Again, and not to change the subject, there is at least one famous manmade structure that did get buzzed (back in the 70's)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_txdqnVP3-c
One of the youtube video responses claims that soon after this stunt the pilot actually flew the aircraft back to the US without being caught. He did, however, lose his license for some other violation later on.
And I'd hate to guess what that might have been.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ufo View PostAgain, and not to change the subject, there is at least one famous manmade structure that did get buzzed (back in the 70's)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_txdqnVP3-c
One of the youtube video responses claims that soon after this stunt the pilot actually flew the aircraft back to the US without being caught. He did, however, lose his license for some other violation later on.
And I'd hate to guess what that might have been.
Comment
Comment