Are there any regulations that are applicable to towing a water skier with an airplane?

[-]

nick_reddit_12@reddit

<<< Their insurance companies have entered the chat >>>

[-]

galloping_skeptic@reddit

Aviation insurance adjuster here. Assumimg that what they're doing is not illegal according to local law, I don't see anything that would immediately void coverage, oddly enough....

[-]

The only thing squishy here from an insurance point of view is that COLREGS (nautical rules) and FAR (aviation rules) tend to disagree on rights of way for seaplanes and liability may be a bitch to establish.

A seaplane accident with vessel will be a tough one for an adjuster, and there are rules as mentioned above for spotters and PFDs.

[-]

New_Line4049@reddit

Its fine, the planr is fast enough to pull up and fly over any obstacles it seems. Personally I just hope the water skiier has robust life insurance and medical cover in that case....

[-]

galloping_skeptic@reddit

You're not wrong. If this turned into a sticky liability issue, I'm not sure I'd want to be a part of it. Haha

[-]

Wooden_Customer_318@reddit

Would you mind if I dm’d you some questions about aviation insurance?

[-]

galloping_skeptic@reddit

I will be happy to answer what i can.

[-]

Wooden_Customer_318@reddit

Appreciate it. DM sent.

[-]

CavingGrape@reddit

man you chill as hell for that respect

[-]

TinKicker@reddit

I would chalk this event up to the same “rules” that came into play when “that guy” put on an air show demonstration in a Bell 407….complete with barrel rolls.

While the pilot was undoubtedly skilled, his performance was well outside the parameters set forth in the Bell POH. After seeing the video, Bell simply declared the aircraft unairworthy. The entire machine instantly became scrap.

The kicker…the pilot didn’t own the aircraft.

I seriously doubt the aircraft manufacturer in the OP has a section of the POH dedicated to towing water skiers. You’re introducing loads on the aircraft structure that the airframe was never designed to carry. It’s scrap.

[-]

SeaMareOcean@reddit

Ahhh the classic confidently incorrect Reddit comment.

[-]

TinKicker@reddit

The OP asked if there were regulations. Other than the broad “shall not operate in such a manner as to pose a danger to persons or property”, which is up to individual interpretation by the FAA, no there is not a specific FAR that addresses towing a water skier with an aircraft. The Coast Guard probably does have regulations regarding water skiers….like the tow boat must have two occupants: one driving the boat and the other facing aft, observing the water skier. But USCG regs aren’t my field.

As for the Bell 407 aerobatics event I described, that is exactly what happened. The case was presented at the 2016 GAASI convention in Wichita by one of the Bell Flight Safety ASIs. And yes, that helicopter was declared to be unairworthy by Bell. The air show pilot was not the aircraft owner. He lost all of his certificates to FAA enforcement action. The insurance company walked away from the hull loss claim by the aircraft owner.

[-]

Stimqa@reddit

You sound fun at parties

[-]

DinkleBottoms@reddit

Are there sections of the POH dedicated to banner towing or glider towing? Genuinely asking, because it seems that pulling a water skier puts such an insignificant load on an aircraft that is already designed to land in the water.

[-]

vpoko@reddit

Looks like a boat to me. It doesn't become an airplane until it's in the air.

[-]

CowboyLaw@reddit

There are more planes in the ocean than there are boats in the sky.

[-]

LlistlessLlama@reddit

big if true

[-]

basssteakman@reddit

If?

[-]

PhotographStrong562@reddit

I mean there was a point not too long ago in history where that could have been true. The flying boat was incredibly popular for a while at the dawn of aviation.

[-]

allaboutthosevibes@reddit

Pre 1903, there would have been quite a few moments where the opposite would have been true by a lot. Zero planes in the ocean. Any time a crazy storm/tsunami wave threw a boat (or several) into the air, for those brief seconds, there were an infinite/undefined amount more boats in the sky than planes in the ocean.

[-]

shadowtheimpure@reddit

I love seaplanes, even better are dual-landing planes that can land either on water or land.

[-]

bullwinkle8088@reddit

The quote refers to crashed aircraft in the oceans of the world.

[-]

Mpadrino27@reddit

😂😂 I’m dying…

[-]

SmoothOpawriter@reddit

I hope you can get some help, please report back.

[-]

petarsubotic@reddit

I'm sorry to inform you....

[-]

SeaSock8246@reddit

he ded

[-]

Alibotify@reddit

n gone

[-]

_FjordFocus_@reddit

Small when false

[-]

cited@reddit

The avengers have one so jot that down

[-]

Jolly_Line@reddit

Prove it

[-]

gamrgrant@reddit

Then big

[-]

dingo1018@reddit

WW2 accounts for the majority, Boeing probably comes in second.

[-]

JiffyDealer@reddit

Considering that Boeing also made ww2 planes, I think that makes Boeing #1

[-]

SiBloGaming@reddit

How many inflatable boats would I have to ship around with a plane to make this a false statement?

[-]

CowboyLaw@reddit

I like the way you think. Two problems though. First, they’d have to be inflated. They’re not boats until they’re inflated. Second, you’d only make the statement temporarily untrue. Once those planes landed, the balance of power would shift back to the wet planes.

[-]

Outrageous-Ad5612@reddit

Are you telling me that there isn’t a boat heaven

[-]

CowboyLaw@reddit

Jimmy, I think you should sit down for this.

[-]

Beardedwrench115@reddit

Ocean planes this, sky boats that, when are we going to start talking about the submarines in space?

[-]

Rare_Trouble_4630@reddit

https://youtube.com/watch?v=EsUBRd1O2dU

[-]

Danitoba94@reddit

When we get a submarine into space.

[-]

CowboyLaw@reddit

Tell you what, let’s start by talking about Pigs In Space, then we’ll transition to subs real gentle-like.

[-]

Beardedwrench115@reddit

As long as we can get to the underground space shuttles, you got a deal.

[-]

Fit_Seaworthiness387@reddit

Subterranean satellites. New band name also.

[-]

terribleazn@reddit

Source?

[-]

TurnoverMysterious64@reddit

I’ve heard this before so tried to look it up.

According to this which cites FlightAware, there are anyone here from 12,000 - 14,000 planes in the sky at any one time.

Planes under water is a little harder to track down, but I figured a good starting place would be losses during WWII in the Pacific Theater since those would’ve been largely over water. According to this Wikipedia article, the United States had 14,533 operational losses in the Pacific Theater while Japan had ~20k operational losses.

So while it’s hard to pin down, with ~35k operational losses of aircraft just in WWII in the Pacific it seems highly likely that this “fun fact” is true. Even if just half of those planes actually ended up in the water, that alone would be enough, and that’s without factoring in planes lost elsewhere during WWII (I’m sure the English Channel sadly makes another sizable contribution), not to mention aircraft lost over water outside of WWII.

[-]

bmw_19812003@reddit

This is awesome research and a really interesting fact but, I think you may want to go back and read the original statement again.

He said there are more planes in the water than there are BOATS in the sky.

[-]

pezdal@reddit

The way I first heard this is that there are more planes UNDER water (ie sunk) than boats in the sky.

[-]

shifty_grades_of_fay@reddit

Also true.

[-]

TurnoverMysterious64@reddit

Yeah I realize that.

Not when I first left the comment, but right afterwards. I left an edit, but decided to leave my original comment too.

[-]

elkab0ng@reddit

🫡

[-]

CowboyLaw@reddit

I’m just a smart ass, but you’re actually smart. I found your research fascinating, so I salute you.

[-]

TurnoverMysterious64@reddit

lol maybe in the research department, but not so much in the reading comprehension area

[-]

CowboyLaw@reddit

Me. I’ve snorkeled a plane wreck, but I’ve never flown on a Skytanic.

[-]

Kristallography@reddit

the skytanic as in the famous skyboat that became a floating wreckage after hitting a cloudberg?

[-]

place909@reddit

And the Captain who famously went up with his ship

[-]

Stimqa@reddit

Cloudberg! I know that guy! Brooklyn down near prospect!

[-]

ttystikk@reddit

Just ask the admiral!

[-]

CowboyLaw@reddit

The very same.

[-]

DrSFalken@reddit

Never made it to the Wing Fortress Zone in Sonic 2, eh?

[-]

CowboyLaw@reddit

Nah man, I’m a Nintendo dude, born and raised.

[-]

GruGruxLob@reddit

I fuckin spit out my drink🤣

[-]

chabanny@reddit

Clean that drink up buddy

[-]

GruGruxLob@reddit

Don’t patronize me sir

[-]

pr0wlunwulf@reddit

Brilliant

[-]

GreatDune@reddit

You won the internet today my friend. Your opponent never had a chance.

[-]

IcebergDarts@reddit

lol I am taking this as a /s (whether it, I assume, is or isn’t)and it’s making me laugh my ass off

[-]

terribleazn@reddit

Yes and did not expect to get a response like this, but I appreciate the spirited debate 😂

[-]

windyoctopus8@reddit

In this case, a simple “trust me bro” works.

[-]

gogoboomstick@reddit

Just imagine someone desperately pleading with the coast guard as they climb closer and closer to a flock of migrating geese.

[-]

majoraloysius@reddit

China is working on their Ekranoplans in an effort to change that…

[-]

cancolak@reddit

The space shuttle qualified, albeit briefly. Of course if we can consider it a spaceship.

[-]

OrganizationPutrid68@reddit

There is water... at the bottom of the ocean!

[-]

Haunting-Item1530@reddit

So is it a car when taxiing?

[-]

vpoko@reddit

A plane like that? Yeah. An A380 is a huge bus when taxiing.

[-]

Venom1656@reddit

So a ground airbus?

[-]

boomer2009@reddit

We just call it a bus.

[-]

gcwyodave@reddit

A bus? That can go in the air? So, I dunno, an Airbus?

[-]

TacTurtle@reddit

Skytrolley

[-]

govunah@reddit

Then there's this guy edging his pilot license

Pilot makes another emergency landing on I-77 - WV MetroNews https://share.google/iCToLWjw4rvln5Mus

[-]

astorres6030@reddit

So a plane in the ground is just a big bus? And becomes airbus when in the air right...? Right...? :-/

[-]

digitaljestin@reddit

My thoughts exactly.

[-]

Ok_says_Rammus@reddit

It's a houseplane.

[-]

superlibster@reddit

Not sure if water skiing behind a plane is legal but a plane is still regulated by the FAA when it’s on the ground.

[-]

BobbyB52@reddit

Any aircraft capable of manoeuvring on water is considered bound by the rules applicable to power-driven vessels under the International Collision Regulations, so you are essentially right.

[-]

Theron3206@reddit

An even more expensive than normal boat at that.

[-]

Canelosaurio@reddit

Speed is key here

[-]

Sugar_titties9000@reddit

It only becomes fun water skiing once the plane reaches V1

[-]

Sea_Dust895@reddit

In AUS you need a boat license and a plane license to operate a float plane, so I assume he is exercising the boat part of his license at the moment.

[-]

beastpilot@reddit

Well, what if it is in the air?
https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/2c3yqa/barefoot_water_skiing_behind_an_aircam/

[-]

No-Permission-5425@reddit

God a boy can’t have a hobby these days!

[-]

TheSound0fSilence@reddit

We tried to have the Boy Scouts but the women didn't like us having fun and ruined it.

[-]

chicagotonian@reddit

As an Eagle Scout, I’d have to say the nationally-reported sexual abuse proved to be more of an issue than some ladies wanting to join

[-]

Gooder-N-Grits@reddit

In what ways does having something dangling between your legs make one a better Scout?

[-]

TheSound0fSilence@reddit

See, just sucks the fun out of the room

[-]

Gooder-N-Grits@reddit

I've been an Eagle since 94'.

Never met another Eagle who had a problem with it.

[-]

Lethal_Nimrod@reddit

You have now

[-]

Gooder-N-Grits@reddit

What are your reasons for believing that men are superior at exemplifying the values of Scouting?

[-]

NErDysprosium@reddit

Turns out, if you liked Scouting enough to stick with it and earn your Eagle, you generally think it's a good program and want other people to have the chance to participate and grow from it, too. How shocking.

(Eagle since April 2018)

[-]

topdollar38@reddit

14 CFR Part 91.13 is what they would likely get you on:

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

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

[-]

beastpilot@reddit

(b) doesn't apply since it's not at an airport.

(a) is questionable as it's not air navigation, and there's nothing here obvious that endangers the life of anyone. I mean, you're allowed to drop people out of airplanes as long as you do it with care, and this seems similar.

[-]

topdollar38@reddit

Correct (a) would not apply. That is for reckless use of aircraft while in the air.

(b) does apply however. You have to go back to the legal definition of "airport" as defined in 14 CFR Part 1.1, not just the common understanding of what an airport is.

"Airport means an area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any."

The airplane landed there at somepoint, which means that area was used for the landing of aircraft and, presumably, intends to be used again for takeoff at some point; thereby fitting the definition of "airport"

FAA would also likely get you on 91.119(c) since using an aircraft to have someone waterski behind it is not necessary for takeoff or landing.

[-]

Icy_Energy_3430@reddit

"It's easier to ask for forgiveness then permission."

Quote from probably corrupt politician.

[-]

Pattern_Is_Movement@reddit

OP seems to want to find a reason to end some harmless fun

[-]

Stimqa@reddit

💯

[-]

barnacle_ballsack@reddit

1000

[-]

dlsmith08@reddit

9001

[-]

Jayhawker_Pilot@reddit

When I was young and drank a lot, I would have done this - both skiing and flying.

[-]

saml01@reddit

Plot twist: you still would.

[-]

Responsible-Seat1111@reddit

Real answer here.

I dont know which country this is but, in canada as long as he has clear line of sight down the whole lake and doesnt take off i dont think they're doing anything wrong.

[-]

human-being7@reddit

In NY, there needs to be a third person: a spotter to let the captain know when the skier goes down

[-]

av8_navg8_communic8@reddit

Yeah! Give ‘er bud!!

[-]

Suspicious-Bench-940@reddit

I'd only worry if the plane took off.

[-]

RutCry@reddit

Landing with a ski rope dangling sounds like a bad idea.

[-]

Suspicious-Bench-940@reddit

You don’t say! :0

[-]

RutCry@reddit

Like a dog running out of chain.

[-]

LetsGoHawks@reddit

The skier would probably be smart enough to let go.

[-]

ANoiseChild@reddit

Let Tom Cruise film his movie in peace, geez.

[-]

Pulsifer-LFG@reddit

Ah, I see you haven't met "people".

[-]

SmugMonkey@reddit

The same guy that thought waterskiing behind a plane was a good idea? That guy?

[-]

zealoSC@reddit

Or brave enough to hang on until landing

[-]

rockknocker@reddit

The first time I went water skiing my hands wouldn't let me let go after falling down. Just held harder by instinct.

Boy was I sore the next day.

This guy would either be a lot more sore... or floating in a cloud.

[-]

-Badger3-@reddit

The skier would probably be ~~smart enough to let go~~ too much of a pussy to hold on.

[-]

Suspicious-Bench-940@reddit

Adrenaline is a hell of a drug sometimes, lol.

[-]

prplx@reddit

Remember that guy holding a wind sail that got picked up by a big gust?

[-]

Aksds@reddit

Iirc they are also harnessed in

[-]

PropOnTop@reddit

The kite folds when you let go of the bar...

[-]

Aksds@reddit

And that I guess

[-]

abn1304@reddit

“I don’t think this is how parasailing is supposed to work, guys”

[-]

Zvenigora@reddit

Probably long before rotation speed is reached. 60kt is scary fast on water skis.

[-]

malcolmmonkey@reddit

You’d be amazed how good humans are at not letting go of things that will kill them.

[-]

Chapman1949@reddit

Touché! 8-)

[-]

NetDork@reddit

Haven't had a lot of public-facing jobs?

[-]

CurrentSkill7766@reddit

This is America. We're free to not be smart.

[-]

looper741@reddit

77,303,568 people proved that last November.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your post/comment has been automatically removed due to user reports. If you feel the removal was in error contact the mod team. Repeated removal for rule violation will result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

Nahhhidontfeellikeit@reddit

Rule #7

[-]

foilrider@reddit (OP)

The question Is basically “what if it does?”

[-]

TurnoverMysterious64@reddit

Let go?

[-]

foilrider@reddit (OP)

Just say “I don’t know”. The question was clearly about whether it’s legal to tow a waterskier with an airplane. Can the plane take off and fly at 10ft AGL? Is that legal? You don’t know, I get that. Maybe someone does?

[-]

LatitudeTireSwing@reddit

You sound like someone wanting to find a violation to report..don’t worry they won’t hit your sailboat.

[-]

foilrider@reddit (OP)

Like “holy shit, is that legal??!” Is such a fucking weird question to think of when you see an airplane towing a water skier. And then everyone answers with bullshit non-answers and I’m a snitch for finding that annoying?

If I wanted to report it I would have sent the video to the FAA, not posted on Reddit. I thought there would be at least one knowledgeable person on here. I just wanted to know.

[-]

publicsausage@reddit

Why is legality your first concern Karen?

[-]

publicsausage@reddit

100%, good catch

[-]

LiveFlightDeck@reddit

Honestly, this is what its starting to look like.

[-]

snarfgobble@reddit

Yep. Sure looks that way.

[-]

ManifestDestinysChld@reddit

Well think of it this way: are there any regulations about strapping wings to your motorboat and towing a water skier? I'm guessing it's fine unless / until you lift off (or hit something).

Not every bad idea is illegal.

[-]

Suspicious-Bench-940@reddit

Unless you're harming others, I feel like everyones ideas should be legal. Im only being half serious lol

[-]

SirEDCaLot@reddit

this is what happens

[-]

Kevlaars@reddit

Stay in ground effect it's probably still fine.

[-]

hereisalex@reddit

That's what the parasail is for!

[-]

Artevyx@reddit

You'd have plenty of time to decide to let go before altitude would become an issue over water.

[-]

WingApprehensive7551@reddit

Yeah but maybe not so much time before the "over water" part goes away.

[-]

Darkrider_UWC@reddit

That's when you start paragliding

[-]

RogLatimer118@reddit

I'd be more worried for the plane. The downward pressure on the tail would provide a white-knuckle ride for the pilot ---for a short while.

[-]

darksoft125@reddit

I'd only worry if the plane took off.

Then it's cloud surfing!

[-]

JMoc1@reddit

🎶Let’s begin!🎶

[-]

RealUlli@reddit

https://youtu.be/bT09JUnukGA

Only let go when the plane starts climbing!

[-]

EngineeringField@reddit

No sh*t!

[-]

Stypic1@reddit

Don’t take off ig

[-]

shadowsofthelegacy@reddit

Which is more expensive? Aviation gas or boat gas?

[-]

topdollar38@reddit

Avgas at $5-$10 per gallon. Some airplanes do have an STC to use MOGAS though.

[-]

lordph8@reddit

If Tailspin has taught me anything, no.

[-]

not_a_fracking_cylon@reddit

Is that the Columbia River gorge??

[-]

battlecryarms@reddit

Leaded fuel exhaust straight to the lungs 😂

[-]

ssouthurst@reddit

It's perfectly legal as long as the skiers surname is Banner.

[-]

30yearCurse@reddit

when all you got is a hammer....

[-]

abstractmodulemusic@reddit

Could make for some next level para sailing

[-]

swiftarrow9@reddit

The only regulation I'm aware of is right-of-way. Sea planes are wayyyyyyy at the bottom. Motorboat are much higher. So even seaplane towing human, still going to have to yield to everything else. Could make the towing inconvenient.

[-]

youbreedlikerats@reddit

Regulations? Where we're going we dont need regulations!

[-]

Datasq@reddit

Yes only one rule: don't go above 1000 feet

[-]

keenly_disinterested@reddit

91.119 includes:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: 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.

[-]

Dekkera_@reddit

Natural selection

[-]

tomjerman18@reddit

don't die, 2.

[-]

cambomusic@reddit

Why is OP tryna hate?

[-]

n108bg@reddit

No but that needs to be at least a 2 seat aircraft and either have a 3rd seat and a spotter or a mirror, depending on if this is in Wisconsin or not.

[-]

EezEec@reddit

/oddlyspecific

[-]

hughmercury@reddit

I think by Alabama law they would need mirrors on both sides of the craft, with a minimum viewing area of 2.5" by 4".

[-]

karateninjazombie@reddit

That sounds like experience talking right there.

[-]

DeOptimist@reddit

Seems to be working fine

[-]

verwinemaker@reddit

It's Kit cloudkicker and Baloo!

[-]

jwg529@reddit

Reading these comments made my day. Carry on!

[-]

sqyntzer@reddit

I'm sure there will be now. 😂

[-]

sixsacks@reddit

Don’t take off.

[-]

balderdash66@reddit

lol, at least 6-7 gph, but if you can afford the plane …. Who cares?

[-]

ADisposableRedShirt@reddit

I used to tow tubes behind my cruiser. LOL at 6-7 gph. If you are worried about gas prices; You do not belong in the air or on the water.

[-]

hhhhnnngg@reddit

If it floats, flies, or fucks, it’s cheaper to rent than own.

[-]

PM_ME_UR_BCUPS@reddit

The first time I heard this phrase it was "it's cheaper to borrow a buddy's"

[-]

Similar-Elevator-680@reddit

This.

[-]

SheepherderFront5724@reddit

If it floats, fucks or flies, it's better to rent than to buy.

[-]

mig82au@reddit

Your cruiser didn't use special leaded fuel that's $4.5-6 per gallon. 6 gph is on the low end of light aircraft consumption. Also, what daft thing to say.

[-]

KAM1KAZ3@reddit

Your cruiser didn't use special leaded fuel that's $4.5-6 per gallon.

Regular is $4.70+ where I'm at. And the ethanol free stuff is even more.

[-]

mig82au@reddit

6 isn't the upper limit, I gave the common range across the US to avoid cherry picking examples. There are plenty of places selling 100LL for 6-9 USD/gal. Regardless, it's idiotic to claim that you don't belong in a plane if you care about fuel price. Often fuel is about as much as the dry rental rate. Doubling the expense of an expensive activity is a big deal.

[-]

balderdash66@reddit

True that, my nephews boat only got 6 gph at 35 mph.

[-]

Sleep_adict@reddit

My boat chugs about 25gph… it’s only 25 foot. 7 is a dream

[-]

Gooder-N-Grits@reddit

Have you tried weighing the anchor prior to throttling up? XD.

(Our 30' does about 20gph at 30mph cruise)

[-]

ApolloTookMyAward@reddit

Give the man a wing suit and I think you have just invented a new sport

[-]

Oli4K@reddit

Stay below 12,000 ft.

[-]

WorekNaGlowe@reddit

Redneck Law Department would say „cool as fck”

[-]

DVOlimey@reddit

Yes, the water skier must wear a lifebelt, not consume any alcohol prior, and must eject at V1

[-]

hughk@reddit

and must eject at V1

Possibly called a "rotation"?

[-]

DVOlimey@reddit

Fully depends on the angle and direction of the water ski's

[-]

Air_to_the_Thrown@reddit

Where is this?

[-]

Several-Eagle4141@reddit

Extreme Parasitic drag makes this a boat

[-]

insanelygreat@reddit

Well that's a rude thing to call the waterskier.

[-]

TemporaryAmbassador1@reddit

Rule 1: don’t be a nark

[-]

WinterSee_09@reddit

Most likely but: What the police doesn’t see, makes the police not hot

[-]

Silbylaw@reddit

The plane needs to stay below 400 feet ASL.

[-]

apoetofnowords@reddit

Kit Cloudkicker

[-]

jankotron@reddit

this is some Red-Bull shit if i’ve ever seen it lol

[-]

14Three8@reddit

Not a flight requiring a license if there’s no intention of taking off

[-]

Hyperious3@reddit

What in the red bull fuck

[-]

Kerberos42@reddit

As long a the Bond theme plays in the background, it’s fine.

[-]

TheLoneSculler@reddit

Don't die?

[-]

planescarsandtrucks@reddit

It all comes down to your local FSDO’s interpretation of “reckless” in accordance with 14 CFR 91.13. In this case, you’d better have a really good lawyer to explain how this isn’t “reckless” and a “danger to life”.

[-]

ResortMain780@reddit

How do you reckon this is at all reckless or a danger to life? For the floatplane, its just like taxiiing. For the water skiier its no different than skiing behind a boat that can go really fast. He does have the option to let go you know.

[-]

BeachEmotional8302@reddit

Can't wait for Red bull to pick up this idea

[-]

madding247@reddit

Don't fuck up.

2, If you do fuck up, fly away..

[-]

lightdork@reddit

When your on the water it’s a boat. When in the air it’s a plane (500ft separation from people).

[-]

brettles84@reddit

I know Cleet took the floats off the carbon cub...... but still, this you Cleetus?

[-]

ManufacturerLost7686@reddit

That's a 6 feet long towed banner. Perfectly legal.

[-]

CrimsonTightwad@reddit

Yes. Regulations include Darwin Awards criteria, Gravitational Laws, and Organ donor tissue matches.

[-]

malcolmmonkey@reddit

“500 ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure except when taking off or landing.”

I think lawyers could argue for a while as to whether this is a violation of that. 🤣

[-]

Tripleberst@reddit

"I'm sorry officer. I... I didn't know I couldn't do that."

[-]

FormerlyUndecidable@reddit

Skier is part of the aircraft

[-]

IHazCow@reddit

Aircraft on water follow boat rules until they are in the air, then they switch. So until that watercraft is off the water, it's a boat. When it does, it's an aircraft.

That's just a strange looking loud boat.

[-]

Ok_Adhesiveness_4939@reddit

The prop is in the wrong element!

:-P

[-]

codynan5@reddit

Yep. Airboat.

[-]

beastpilot@reddit

By that simple definition, almost every time you taxi you break the rule.

All I see is an aircraft taxiing, and separation does not apply on the ground.

[-]

oioioifuckingoi@reddit

Solved with a 501ft tow rope.

[-]

nicspace101@reddit

So much douchebaggery in one image.

[-]

sailingtroy@reddit

SOP is to let go at Vr.

[-]

Danitoba94@reddit

Stop squealing. You're not getting any cheese from the feds.

[-]

andylikescandy@reddit

Someone chasing on a jet ski, let's wait for the other camera perspective on r/holdmyredbull

[-]

SniffYoSocks907@reddit

What are you, a narc?

[-]

madakaczka@reddit

Isn't there a regulation saying that a float plane is technically a boat and thus it needs two means of propulsion while on water, such as an engine and paddles?

[-]

Wanttobefreewc@reddit

I bet you’re fun at parties…

[-]

Ok_Armadillo_665@reddit

Genuinely everyone who has ever said this is a massive loser. Sorry you had to find out this way.

[-]

Demented_Crab@reddit

I'm sure they were just wondering lol I don't have a problem with it at all, but I also wondered if it was legal or if anyone's ever made any laws pertaining to it, since it's such a specific thing.

[-]

DubiousSandwhich@reddit

Thought that until I read his comments. OP is a Karen for sure

[-]

DM-ME-THICC-FEMBOYS@reddit

If I wanted to report it I would have sent the video to the FAA, not posted on Reddit. I thought there would be at least one knowledgeable person on here. I just wanted to know.

Doesn't read like that to me. Dude was just curious and (almost) nobody is being helpful.

I'd probably be annoyed if I, without any intention of reporting it either way, had an off-hand thought if something was legal and half the responses were not to be a wet blanket.

[-]

nlcircle@reddit

Yep, not allowed above 10.000 ft except with a flightplan, never exceeding 250 kts.

[-]

Boostedbird23@reddit

Kit Cloudkicker?

[-]

Lazypilot306@reddit

Depends if the pilot is logging the time if so, straight to jail.

[-]

CptSandbag73@reddit

If this is allowed, then that is certainly allowed.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ru50a4LPpow

[-]

UnhingedPastor@reddit

Yes, uh...

checks notes

Don't.

[-]

Electronic-Tree-9715@reddit

When you try to leave and Karen, who arrived late, still wants to board

[-]

Effective_Iron8188@reddit

Don't take off...

[-]

BeaverMissed1@reddit

Regulations kick in when they go air borne. Essentially for the skier

[-]

wait_ima@reddit

Yes. 91.119. “over open water . . . the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person . . . .”

[-]

FlyByPC@reddit

Sure are.

A power boat like that would have to give way to a sailboat, for instance.

[-]

IndependentCount8281@reddit

As long as they don’t get busted till I get a turn, idgaf.

[-]

europorn@reddit

Same as for when they are towed by a boat - stay away from the prop.

[-]

cancolak@reddit

Yes, the regulation of cool approves this sort of behavior.

[-]

EconomicalJacket@reddit

Why do you care, nark…

[-]

mibergeron@reddit

Anyone else have the TaleSpin theme running through their head?

[-]

Sagail@reddit

Lol I can't wait to hear the "I'm in a pattern" call

[-]

semicon_@reddit

OP you karen. Leave them the F alone

[-]

btfarmer94@reddit

Yes. Stay behind the propeller and not in front of it

[-]

waltamobile@reddit

That’s cool, but this is cooler…

https://youtu.be/vdTrr_VRKgU?si=w7-oUc4cYILZqpgx

[-]

Maldivesblue@reddit

Nope!

[-]

KindPresentation5686@reddit

Looks like an air boat

[-]

Hot_Balance9294@reddit

Skier just needs to be named Banner.

[-]

RedditMuzzledNonSimp@reddit

There's always one asshole wants to ruin others good times when they are not hurting anyone.

[-]

33TLWD@reddit

I hope not

[-]

GrayZeus@reddit

Any regulations are overridden by being cool af

[-]

argparg@reddit

Better write a letter!

[-]

Redneckish87@reddit

I think it’s only a problem because they don’t have a safety spotter for the water skier 😂

[-]

DJHickman@reddit

Better not be.

[-]

BabiesatemydingoNSW@reddit

What one does when the Bayliner is busted.

[-]

stult@reddit

Hood River! I used to live on the cliff in the background

[-]

piekid86@reddit

These air bud spinoffs are getting crazy.

Nowhere in the rules does it say a dog can't tow a water skier with an airplane!

[-]

texas1982@reddit

No spotter.

[-]

dpdxguy@reddit

Columbia River?

[-]

mi5key@reddit

We're not in the age of regulations anymore.

[-]

AlexLuna9322@reddit

As long as it doesn’t takes off, it’s like one of those Airboats.

[-]

BrokeAssZillionaire@reddit

I’m going to try this. Just need to find myself a lake, and skies… and a plane

[-]

Biuku@reddit

Needs a spotter.

[-]

MarxHunter@reddit

We dc aG8uivza775wafw1xwaeaddd5azxjzb. J 6bxnrrgt,I🙃🙂😊🫠wtzt,

[-]

JankyTime1@reddit

FAA bootlicker identified

[-]

TangoZuluMike00@reddit

They are regulated to be awesome

[-]

Infuryous@reddit

What airplane, I see a boat with stabilizers!

[-]

Artevyx@reddit

It's got a propeller and floats; it's a boat 🤷🏻

[-]

fungus909@reddit

If you take the proper precautions.

[-]

whereami1928@reddit

Is that in the Gorge?

[-]

shallot_chalet@reddit

That’s the waterfront park for sure

[-]

HagenWagen@reddit

FAA clearance?

[-]

ThisIsMyHandleNow@reddit

Hours are hours.

[-]

Whynotyours@reddit

Legally it is a flying boat. Real question is do they have a spotter?

[-]

xonk@reddit

I think there are altitude restrictions.

[-]

makgross@reddit

Well, you gotta fly 500 feet from people….

[-]

PonderosaPilatus@reddit

That looks fun, where do I sign up!?!?

Also, think of the air you could catch on a wakeboard, when your "boat" can actually pull you into the air with it!

[-]

Living_Guess_2845@reddit

Common carriage?/s

[-]

Darth_Heretic@reddit

I hate ppl.

[-]

DisregardLogan@reddit

God forbid a guy has hobbies

[-]

patrick24601@reddit

Darwin has entered the chat.

[-]

Kitchen_Clock7971@reddit

Do not exceed VR

[-]

buildyourown@reddit

Legally they need a spotter and I'm betting that boat following doesn't count

[-]

rotordrvr@reddit

Screw it up enough and there will be.

[-]

SwampEucalyptus@reddit

What country is this in? That might help with researching an answer.

[-]

llynglas@reddit

I imagine altitude is limited.

[-]

FishPilot@reddit

Why? You gonna snitch?

[-]

adramsthel@reddit

Hood river?

[-]

NetDork@reddit

Altitude must not exceed length of rope divided by the square root of 2.

[-]

Traditional-Step-246@reddit

As long as he does not take off of the water he is under the classification of a boat he has to stay on the water

[-]

Dewey081@reddit

Common sense?

[-]

nikkonine@reddit

Does he go airborne after the trees?

[-]

MaddingtonBear@reddit

State laws regarding what kind of boat can be used to tow a waterskiier, yes. I wouldn't want to put my definition of careless and reckless against my local FSDO's, but there's an argument to be made (like logging time), that there is no intent to fly, and thus the FARs related to flight are not triggered. So as long as you're not logging PIC time towing a waterskiier, you might be OK.

[-]

mattblack77@reddit

Is this possibly the most expensive way to go waterskiing, short of hiring a nuclear submarine to tow you along?

[-]

yellochocomo@reddit

Can I log this under glider tow

[-]

MikeW226@reddit

V1 and rotate, or get off the pot.

[-]

splattermonkeys@reddit

Not YET

[-]

BrianBash@reddit

That is awesome 😂

[-]

LefsaMadMuppet@reddit

While it has been done a couple times, it should be noted that the TOW is really intended for stationary firing as the wire guidance system and the relatively slow speed of the missile can result in the firing aircraft entering in to the weapons envelope of the target vehicle. Then again since, in this case, the target is a water skier, the counter fire will consider of little more than dirty looks, harsh language, and maybe a half-empty Blatz beer can. For more on the issue of TOW operations and target engagement, I will refer you to FM 3-22.34 (FM23-34) TOW Weapon System, November 2003.

[-]

talkingcostello@reddit

Yes, red right return.

[-]

usmcmech@reddit

If it is not prohibited then it is permitted.

If the Feds really wanted to nail someone then 91.13 could apply

[-]