Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:09 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:32 pm
Posts: 328
I can't well comment on the buzzing issue, as I'm not a pilot. However, looking over the plot of this guy's movie, it looks like exactly the last thing we need right now for US-Iranian relations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: FAR
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:01 pm 
Offline
Probationary Member

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:53 pm
Posts: 3803
Location: Aspen, CO
FAR are the rules made by the First Abolish Airplanes group. Some of them seem nitpicking,some make good sense. But they are the rules. Normal flying must stay 1000 feet above "populated" areas. The rules don't define "populated", they seem to claim it is whatever they claim it is. But in any case a pier full of people is certainly populated. Also one must fly 2000 feet to the side of any people.

So if he went right over the pier below that it ain't good. Exceptions to the rule are for landing and takeoff, airhows, etc.

He might have been legal above 1000 feet and 2000 off the end of the pier.

Still, he might have gotten better advertising with a Stearman towing a banner and not have the negative reaction. The Santa Monica area is noise sensitive, there are noise monitor sensors at both ends of the runway. I once was warned of a violation ON LANDING, with the power back to near idle. The airport manger was nice about it, I tried to be even more careful and nothing more was said. I wish there was a locally based DC-3 there doing scenic rides like at Oakland.

Whatever we as pilot's think of a flyby, the folks with kids on the pier have a right to enjoy their day safely and quietly. It's not like choosing to come to an airshow or a car race where you know there is going to be noise and action close by.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:01 pm
Posts: 157
A2C wrote:
My mistake. The pilot was clearly flying recklessly towards the pier too close to people, and frightening them. No doubt unethical, and illegal.

A2C wrote:
The media too often is biased and inaccurate, and after reading the article I concluded that the plane probably was over the water. After seeing the video, clearly the pilot was reckless. Again my apologies!
Glad you seen the light...

gary1954 wrote:
I realize that ya gotta let yer hair down once in a while, thats why God made the Desert.
20 minutes to the north east of Van Nuys there's a wide open desert where these guys could play all day - I've been there and done that myself

JohnH wrote:
I just woke up and saw the headline in the back of the article. I've already had my good laugh for the day. "This was a very serious and dangerous act" said Santa Monica Attorney...

I haven't read anything else or seen the video- but knowing that city's reputation...


It's no secret about the "People's Republic of Santa Monica" and their anti aviation agenda, but this crap plays right into their hands.

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:01 pm
Posts: 157
TriangleP wrote:
Quote:
It's no secret about the "People's Republic of Santa Monica" and their anti aviation agenda, but this crap plays right into their hands.

I started to write the same thing, but held off. This will be the story behind the story...stay tuned for further developments. The city leadership and residents want to effectively, if not completely shut the airport down, bit by bit. The city enacted ordinances to ban private jets, which is against federal law, or might attempt lawsuits against the FAA to ban private jets, which so far have all been for naught. These incidents play into the hands with those having this agenda. Since this area of California voted strongly for the current administration, I suspect the city will use political pressure thru Congress on the FAA to do what their lousy, overpaid city govt. lawyers could not do. The one saving grace of the FAA is that it's focus, by law, is on providing safe access to all citizens, not just those with money or NIMBYs. For me, it's a real grind when organizations use a single incident to pursue their unrelated agenda. I hope the FAA can perservere through this little mess. It needs to consistantly apply the law.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... -jets.html

http://smaasmo.tripod.com/


I used to live close by to Santa Monica and actually worked there in the late 70's when I was getting my A&P license, and the noise battles were going on back then. I was told by some folks that when Douglas closed their facility all the noise crap started.

Even though this incident took place a year ago I'm sure the noise Nazis are already planning their strike.

_________________
"If its red or dusty - DON'T TOUCH IT!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:20 am
Posts: 681
Location: Belgium
I'm not a pilot and so I have a ask for the pilots:

Are there not two separate question, in this current case :
- The respect of the flying and display rules
And
- The fact of perform "a display" over a non advertised crowd ?

I think that the simply fact to respect the flying rules is cleary not enough to avoid to create panic: peoples coming to an airshow come to see plane performing dramatic fly-bys, people going to the beach no.
So the reaction of the crowd is clearly understandable.

So, who organised this "display" ?

Just my .2 cents

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:15 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm
Posts: 2760
Iclo wrote:
I'm not a pilot and so I have a ask for the pilots:

Are there not two separate question, in this current case :
- The respect of the flying and display rules
And
- The fact of perform "a display" over a non advertised crowd ?

I think that the simply fact to respect the flying rules is cleary not enough to avoid to create panic: peoples coming to an airshow come to see plane performing dramatic fly-bys, people going to the beach no.
So the reaction of the crowd is clearly understandable.

So, who organised this "display" ?

Just my .2 cents


I would suggest that you look at this parallel thread:

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... hp?t=32984

There is a good discussion going on over there regarding this. Also, there is a link to the official court case that explains everything in detail. It will answer all of your questions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:58 am
Posts: 3
Location: SOCAL
The cold hard reality is that Skip Holm's aerial skills are what you are seeing in that video. Skip is a great airman but lacks a great deal of common sense. Skip had been violated three times before and figured it was the only way to save his ticket. He has no "get out of jail free card" he just rats out other pilots to get loose from the Feds

This is no joke I am sad to say, I was personally in Russian on a movie set with Skip Holm, Rigs and 4 other pilots when the news of the revocation came in from the FAA back home. All of us heard Skip admit that he blamed Rigs because - and I quote "you can produce movies but I have to make a living flying and this is my fourth violation and probably my last". Bottom line Skip hung his wingman out to dry to save himself. If you doubt the fact Skip is dangerous, check out these Youtube Videos where he admits careless and reckless in his own words...a video confession!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEAQ4KGAJ3Q

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRRDeWtsNis

I admire his talents but after this nonesense, I would never fly with Skip again.

Moral to the Story: "Never lose sight of your wingman" -- Especially if you intend to rat him out to the Feds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:02 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm
Posts: 2760
RhinoFlyer wrote:
". Bottom line Skip hung his wingman out to dry to save himself. If you doubt the fact Skip is dangerous, check out these Youtube Videos where he admits careless and reckless in his own words...a video confession!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEAQ4KGAJ3Q

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRRDeWtsNis

I admire his talents but after this nonesense, I would never fly with Skip again.

Moral to the Story: "Never lose sight of your wingman" -- Especially if you intend to rat him out to the Feds.


With all due respect, I don't see what these youtube videos have to do with what this thread is talking about. Those videos are not a confession. In the videos, Skip is strictly talking about movie stunt flying done with full approval of the FAA and under the banner of film-making. This thread is talking about one specific incident, NOT about stunt flying in a movie.

I don't deny that Skip has violated rules and FAR's and probably has done some questionable acts in his flying, such as this Santa Monica pier stunt, but the tone and context of your post makes me believe that you have an agenda here to tarnish Skip's reputation. Why not just simply state facts and let us decide what we think about Skip?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:20 am
Posts: 681
Location: Belgium
It will be difficult when you discuss about the story of the "pier buzz" to no include the general reputation of the pilots...

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:05 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:16 am
Posts: 2308
RhinoFlyer wrote:
All of us heard Skip admit that he blamed Rigs because - and I quote "you can produce movies but I have to make a living flying and this is my fourth violation and probably my last". Bottom line Skip hung his wingman out to dry to save himself.

Doesn't really matter what Skip said, Riggs hung himself out to dry when he buzzed the ferris wheel. Skip was piloting the aircraft that made the pass off the end of the pier, not the one right over it.. & the Feds know that fact.

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 11:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:58 am
Posts: 3
Location: SOCAL
There is no question Skip is a gifted pilot. The issue is safety and its impact on all of us.

Watch the interviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEAQ4KGAJ3Q

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRRDeWtsNis

Skip admits to the camera in person and in his own words to [b]flying in July 2009 with a non pilot actor in the left seat of a plane with only one set of controls and zooming down the runway to scare him, then flying around at "300-400 MPH 10 feet from the ground".[/b] These are Skips words.

Worst of all it was not an FAA Waivered Film Shoot, no filming protocol was followed, no permits obtained and the local FSDO received dozens of complaints about low flying aircraft.

Here is a youtube video that shows one of the stunts people complained about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im794K1nnuc

As you can imagine there is a full blown FAA investigation in process.

We cannot as a group defend these actions. Skip is a legend in aviation and as such must be held to a higher standard not a lower one. He should set the example for the rest of us.

His recent conduct and frankly these admissions make some of us wonder if he even cares that he has a licence.

Hopefully someone on this forum knows him well enough to take him aside and have a heart to heart with him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:26 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 2:29 pm
Posts: 4527
Location: Dallas, TX
Rhino - please don't be offended, but I want to speak up here.
I'm not sure why you're airing out all the laundry on the forum where the public can read it, but I'm guessing you really don't care that much for Mr. H but are more anxious to get these matters public. Since I don't know all of the reasons, I'll refrain from commenting further on motivation, but I'm not sure this is the right way to go about things. Airing things out on the public forum is more likely to polarize things and get a bunch of wannabes passing judgment without facts. If the FAA is already involved, let them do their thing. I'm sure we'll hear about it later if he indeed made mistakes.
The Jet / car stunt certainly appears to break a FAR IF it was truly unwaivered, etc... although I suspect a pre-planned photo shoot is probably not going to get nearly the FAA attention that the passes over that pier got.
On the other hand, allowing an actor to fly - under supervision - even at low altitude may be bad judgment, but not necessarily illegal, or even that dangerous, if one takes the proper precautions. Some of us flight instructors have to make judgment calls everyday with students of varying aptitudes and abilities.

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:08 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:16 am
Posts: 2308
Sentencing in this Monday....

Quote:
Movie producer David G. Riggs was flying a Soviet-era military jet, accompanied by another jet and a propeller plane pulling a banner for his unfinished film, when he startled beachgoers in 2008.

By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times

June 18, 2010


A pilot and movie producer who startled beachgoers by buzzing the Santa Monica Pier in a Soviet-era military jet was convicted Thursday of recklessly operating an aircraft.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury found that David G. Riggs, 48, violated a rarely used section of the state public utilities code designed to protect life and property from careless and reckless pilots.

Judge Harold Cherness is scheduled to sentence Riggs on Monday. The misdemeanor charge carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Prosecutors also say they may ask the judge to restrict Riggs' pilot's license, which was recently renewed following a yearlong revocation by the federal government.

"This was a clear-cut case of careless and reckless endangerment of the public," said Terry White, who heads the criminal division of the Santa Monica city attorney's office. "Flying a plane along the shoreline at 250 knots [about 287 miles per hour] is a dangerous act no matter how skilled a pilot you are."

Prosecutors accused Riggs of making low-level passes near the coastal landmark on Nov. 6, 2008, to promote an unfinished film his company was making about a maverick squadron of Americans and Russians on a secret mission to Iran.

During the stunt, Riggs flew a 1973 Aero Vodochody L-39 Albatros, a Czechoslovakian jet trainer that became popular in the Soviet bloc during the Cold War.

He was accompanied by another L-39 and a propeller plane that pulled a banner for the movie. The flight occurred about 1 p.m. while hundreds of people were on the beach and pier.

White alleged that Riggs disregarded federal aviation regulations by flying too low along the shoreline and too close to the pier at speeds of almost 300 mph. He further asserted that Riggs performed illegal aerobatics and did not have permission from the Federal Aviation Administration to perform an aerial display.

According to the charges, the jet raced along the shore at less than 100 feet, although the FAA requirement is 1,000 feet over populated areas. Witnesses said it was so low it created a wake on the ocean and the lifeguard in Tower 26 said she could feel the heat of engine exhaust.

Just before the plane would have hit the pier, a videotape of the flight shows the L-39 going into a steep spiraling climb over the landmark, smoke streaming from the tail as if in an air show. The prosecution claims the maneuver was below 1,500 feet, the FAA minimum altitude for aerobatics.

Defense attorney John Duran countered that the aerial display was a carefully choreographed event flown by a skilled pilot who maintained the required altitudes and distances between his plane, the beach, the pier and those on the ground.

Citing court testimony, Duran asserted that some witnesses could not say if Riggs' plane or the other L-39 made the high-speed passes. A safety expert retained by the defense also testified that the flight did not endanger the public because the plane was in good condition and was flown by a pilot certified for L-39s.

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:46 pm
Posts: 256
Location: midwest
ZRX61 wrote:
Sentencing in this Monday....

Quote:
...Prosecutors also say they may ask the judge to restrict Riggs' pilot's license, which was recently renewed following a yearlong revocation by the federal government....


can they do that? I thought only the FAA could suspend or revoke licenses


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:35 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm
Posts: 2760
ZRX61 wrote:
Quote:
Terry White, who heads the criminal division of the Santa Monica city attorney's office. "Flying a plane along the shoreline at 250 knots [about 287 miles per hour] is a dangerous act no matter how skilled a pilot you are."


What a totally asinine statement for the city attorney representative to say. I guess he thinks all military and aerobatic display pilots are dangerous. You have to love it when uninformed people use sweeping generalizations about things they know absolutely nothing about.

I'm not excusing Riggs' behavior, he should be sentenced appropriately.

What about Skip, is his case still pending, or did he get off scott-free?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group