This link shows a pilot doing something unconventional but fun:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=a0fFO_1535553838
Try as I might I can’t convince myself that it’s particularly risky, but maybe that’s because I don’t have the imagination to see where the dangers lie.
When I was doing my PPL an instructor suggested that we fly low past the sea cliffs at Hoy, which he had done many times before. What he hadn’t tried was to fly past them in the nesting season and whilst what ensued should have been obvious, it took us both by surprise. At a stroke we were simultaneously guilty of disturbing nesting birds, and were alarmed to find ourselves flying through a fairly dense flock. Think of the opening credits to Star-Trek, but with seagulls rather than stars whizzing past and you get the picture. It wasn’t fun.
I suspect more than a few of us fly in ways we know might be regarded in a poor light if there were anybody to watch. My guilty pleasure is flying low over water in a few places where I know there are no wires and near terrain where, if I suffered an engine failure, I would choose to ditch anyway. It feels not unreasonable and I can’t see that I have broken any law, but perhaps there’s something I haven’t thought of.
Jacko likes water skiing, and wrote an interesting treatise on it. It seems to me that this is what we should do regarding these things – talk about them. At least this way you have more of an idea where the dragons lie.
One wouldn’t want to encourage others to act recklessly, and this is one risk of doing so, but contrariwise if lots of people are taking liberties without realising how dangerous their actions are, then open discussion might encourage them to reconsider.
The problem of course is that nobody likes to be thought of as reckless so whilst PPLs are generally fairly open about scares and close scrapes there’s probably a lot that doesn’t get talked about. So what tricks do our friends get up to when there’s nobody watching? To discuss on this thread or on:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BT7JCFS
for an added layer of anonymity (I can’t guarantee that responses are untraceable). I’ll collate any responses here.
I’d say the guy in the Supercub could have arrested his descent much sooner but wanted the thrill of skimming the trees below!…and scaring the guy with the camera…
I think low flying (iaw the regulations in the US or UK) is a perfectly acceptable activity…I was flown along the East Lothian coast at about 10ft in a PA18 and absolutely loved it….thankfully the UK derogated the 500’ EASA low flying rule…
There’s a few videos like this from I think Bobby Breeden. Normally you would have to dive into the valley to gain flying speed, but the steroid Cubs can take off almost in their own length, so it’s probably for effect.
Seeing plane spotters at the end of a runway (not the wisest place to stand) I’ve stayed in ground effect to give them a good photo – no need for a telephoto lens 
kwlf wrote:
Try as I might I can’t convince myself that it’s particularly risky, but maybe that’s because I don’t have the imagination to see where the dangers lie.
Three major risks, I’d say:
- Not having enough altitude
- Not pulling up aggressively enough
- Pulling up too aggressively so that you get an accelerated stall
Of course if you have enough altitude, the last two risks are manageable.
@kwlf, that looks pretty standard operating procedure for a reasonably competent Cub driver, but nice to watch, so thanks for posting.
Of course, to those of us who sit for hours in front of our autopilots like a dog watching TV, anything which involves manipulation of flight controls seems a bit weird – even the ordinary proficiency manoeuvres like landing in a turn, runway slaloms, landing with the prop stopped, stalls, spirals and spins in IMC… I can’t see there’s any point in doing them except for their own sake, but that’s good enough reason for me.
Actuarily, the most risky I’ve done was probably to fly a floatplane (just check the insurance premium for a C172 on floats), with towing gliders a close second (ditto).
Take off from Nayland with a quartering tailwind might not be as dramatic but you are diving to gain speed after lift off from the first one hundred yards, which constitutes the level bit of the runway.
The other risk I can see with a cliff take-off is that if you were too slow you might strike the tail. We did similar take-offs in hang-gliders and they were thoroughly thrilling. The issues there were making sure you got enough directional control to avoid turning back into the cliff – often the lift would be greater under one wing than the other. As the cub moves much faster I doubt whether these are significant concerns.
I’ve only ever flown low over estuaries and the sea. Carb heat on and a mental note that if the engine fails I’ll ditch promptly and in control rather than whilst messing about with fuel valves and the like. I feel more ambivalent about it having seen a video of an aircraft overturning in shallow water, trapping the pilot. I also have a lifejacket.
kwlf wrote:
As the cub moves much faster I doubt whether these are significant concerns.
I think it is more important that the Cub has an propeller that pulls it away from the cliff.
Is the idea here that you get airborne in ground effect, and then have to descend to gain speed as you come off the cliff? That’s what hang gliders do sometimes.
My question is about the landing you have to do in order to be in a position to do the spectacular cliff take-off.
