The scene is set - incl Low Flying rules and Is there a 'cultural divide'? [Archive]

FlightOops

26th Jul 2006, 10:10

I have to agree with TOT on this issue.

Regardless of questions of legality relating to his landing and the proximity of vehicles, suitability of site etc (this is a separate issue and if rules are broken action should be taken), my feeling is that the primary point here is IMAGE.

We have all come across pilots propping up a bar tellling you how wonderful they are - that's just human nature and sadly the type of people drawn to flying seem to represent a high proportion of these tossers, however:

Our overriding concern should be to the image we create as pilots and we should always try to operate in a neighbour-friendly fashion to minimise the amount of flak that we will receive.

How many times have you worked on a airfield and the biggest moaner is the guy who lives by the runway threshold. It is hard enough to pacify someone whose life is surrounded by aviation and has grown "used" to normal aviation practice, without trying to create an impression of professionalism and safety to non-aviation related parties by cavalier acts of show.

This incident only throws fuel on the fire - I can't believe the pilot was SO thirsty that this was his only option - more likely it was an attempt to demonstrate the chord-length of his genitalia and only enhances the impression of pilots being up their own backsides.

Just read the thread regarding the village in uproar over a private owner keeping his helicopter on his property.

With such restrictive legislation in our industry, we should be making every effort to limit further regulation by operating considerately. Incidents such as this by the limited "few", spoil the overall environment for the "many" and as such we shouldn't perpetuate the process.

Flying into pubs / restaurants etc is fun and we shouldn't restrict this. That is one reason why people take their PPL's. However, a well coordinated, considerately planned and thoughtful arrival will demonstrate good airmanship, portray an image of professionalism and safety and enhance our reputation not diminsh it.

I think that the pilot in question should be made aware of the impression they are creating in the hope they will learn some humility and see how it looks from the outside.

As a final point, those statements about "prats", "pussycats" etc, just demonstrate your ineptitude (look it up as I doubt you have the intellect to know its meaning !).

Its to$$ers like you that ruin it for the rest of us - nobody is impressed by your faux-bravado and it seems the only person blissfully unaware of what a prick you sound like, is you. It is NOT big and NOT clever.

Parre ... reposte.

FO

TWOTBAGS

26th Jul 2006, 10:21

There was no comment on, if the car park was sealed or not.
There was no comment on, if there was any down way disturbance or close to the actual parked vehicles.
There was no comment if the said aviator had one of those pussy alcohol free beers commonly available.:{

Pull your heads in people. What a bunch of he said she said kindergarten krap!

There is actually one operator that operates a “Pub Crawl” by helicopter, and I tell you it’s the best fun since sliced bread.:D

If you want to put in rules against this and rules against that and wrap everything in cotton wool then you may as well not get out of bed.:ugh:

John has it right,

“Does the green eyed God of Jealousy have anything to do with the disapproval shown here?”

I think so:E

lartsa

26th Jul 2006, 10:25

does it matter what reg it was the reg does not confirm who the pilot was
especially if it was from a school

just out of interest how many yellow robbies are there out there in the uk possibly no more that 5 but i may stand corrected

tot
it cant be one of northern england yellow robbies i think they have broke them all

paco

26th Jul 2006, 11:01

Nothing to do with jealousy. Alcohol and flying don't mix. Period.

However, if only a soft drink was involved, isn't that what personal helicopters are for? Assuming other people are not inconvenienced, of course.

Phil

Pan Pan Splash

26th Jul 2006, 11:38

TWOTBAGS

There was no comment on, if the car park was sealed or not.
Clearly not, as it was full, as described in original post.

There was no comment on, if there was any down way disturbance or close to the actual parked vehicles

Yes there was...Lands in a small car parking space
ALONG SIDE side the cars

“Does the green eyed God of Jealousy have anything to do with the disapproval shown here?”

And if your fifty grand motor was one of the ones in the car park, you'd be just as understanding.. right??:rolleyes:

Simple analysis here from FlightOops..

Flying into pubs / restaurants etc is fun and we shouldn't restrict this. That is one reason why people take their PPL's. However, a well coordinated, considerately planned and thoughtful arrival will demonstrate good airmanship, portray an image of professionalism and safety and enhance our reputation not diminsh it.

NAIL, HEAD, HIT.:ok:

Dropping your Robbie in a car park full of cars is either an indicator of fundamental stupidity and ill thought out flying.. or a complete arrogant disregard for anyone elses cars. How would it be recieved if someone dumped his car on an active helipad while he popped to the nearest bar for a swift one...?? Extreme example..?? Maybe, but true all the same!!!:rolleyes:

rotorspin

26th Jul 2006, 12:03

TOT - you seem to be p**sed off at the actions of this pilot and rightly so! So for the sake of the rest of us do something about it.

If the R22 is privately owned then that is one thing, however if it belongs to a flying school then I would mention it to them...

Students do some of the stupidist things..and they will have the records to show who was flying...may do us all a favour.

lartsa

26th Jul 2006, 12:24

paco

26th Jul 2006, 13:30

Wasn't there a Rule 5 somewhere?

Phil

thecontroller

26th Jul 2006, 13:34

if the R22 pilot is out there, then come forward with your version of events please!

Heliport

26th Jul 2006, 14:15

chester2005If this is true surely someone will have noted the registration for forwarding to the CAA?
As it happened in the UK, there's a very high chance someone (or several) did.

TOT"in a small car parking space
ALONG SIDE side the cars"
If you were so bothered about that (enough to tell everyone on the forum about it), why didn't you introduce yourself as a fellow pilot and tell him in a friendly pilot-to-pilot way?
If your concern was valid, he would have had a chance to learn from it.
If he disagreed with your opinion, you could just agree to differ.

Drinks a beer
wanders back to the car park
and flies away.
Same question.
Why didn't you speak to him and discuss it?
If it was normal beer (not the non-alcoholic copy) it might have deterred him from taking off, or from doing it again, for flight safety and 'image' reasons.
Even if non-alcoholic, it might have made him consider the 'image' aspect in future.

paco
Which part of Rule 5 have you got in mind?
The 500' requirement doesn't apply to landing and taking off or we'd be in breach at many private sites.

Heliport

HELOFAN

26th Jul 2006, 14:56

Maybe it was non alcoholic beer tha he had prearranged with the manager...who knows he may be a diabetic & cant drink the real stuff?? !!!
:8

MAYbe that was his 7th or 9th pub on the way home?
:ouch:

Maybe he didnt care about other peoples cars, thats why he flys.
:E

I dont think its a good thing knocking one down then jumping back in , maybe if he didnt draw so much attention to himself prior to the beer ( landing right there ) that no one would have known.

Maybe he thought it was 8 minutes from bottle to throttle not 8 hrs. its a common mistake when you are a little pissed !
:uhoh:

Ammendment to HELOFAN'S personal rules #3....
Thou shalt not fly in R22's
(no matter of colour even yellow ones)

:=

HF

MD900 Explorer

26th Jul 2006, 16:03

Guys,

Just a small observation. It seems like there are some cultural acceptances here round the world for what is acceptable and what is not relating to wether one should drink and fly. :=

But how many can put their hands up and say they flew the next morning hanging out of their back sides, because they were in the bar the night before getting trashed..:E

I would say that there is a fair few where this is true.

MD :(

Helipolarbear

26th Jul 2006, 22:50

T:} he 'Scene is set'.............but maybe it was a non-alcoholic beer! Imagine that!!!

John Eacott

27th Jul 2006, 00:32

john/twotbags
i know who tot is and i can assure you that tot would not be jealous of anyone flying a robbie ive seen tot in md 902,600,500,520,enstromwhole range j/r infact the whole shooting match

hold it a moment disregard that tot would be jealous of anyone in a r22 as there is no way he would fit in one and if he did squeze in one it would be too heavy to lift Lol

lartsa,

Thanks for the verification of TOT: unfortunately I can only go on his history, which shows a propensity of posting a contentious opening line, then failing to reappear and verify the accusation; check his posting history. There is a similar trawl on D & G at the moment which went to five pages of accusations against the Coffs Harbour Council airport, until the council responded negating the accusation. Guess what, there is no one coming forward to verify the original accuser nor the accusation :rolleyes:

I find the concept of an R22 landing amongst cars in a full pub car park, as stated, to be slightly strange. No one came to bail up the pilot for being too close to their car? The publican blithly accepted a strange visitor to his premises and served him a pint, then watched him go on his way? What about the tables and pub full of patrons: not one of them bothered enough to say or do anything?

I said in my first post that I'd be a bit concerned if someone landed close to cars/objects/people in a car park, and that stands. But the self righteousness of TOT and the lack of verification concerns me, along with the grandstanding that goes on with the assumption that everything reported is factually 100% correct.

LIMIT NOT TARGET

27th Jul 2006, 00:53

With all this debating going on, has anyone stopped to think that the poor pilot has to fly to the pub because he has no car licence due to a DUI.
Give the pilot a chance.
Hey its your shout co-pilot.

metalman

28th Jul 2006, 16:00

Hello Everyone,

I am the pilot who along with my mate decided to call into the pub at the side of the A40 a couple of weeks ago,I cannot believe all of the bull**** that has been printed with regard to my "pitstop" along with the views of all you (so called) super pilots out there,however I now realise and understand how rumour's start,let us begin by not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.

Let me explain the events of that day,but first of all allow me to tell you of my experience i am 60 years old and have been flying for the past twenty five years,i have more that 6000 hrs on fix wing and 1000 hours rotary,300 of them were aquired on the Robbo 22 within the last twelve months,on the day in question we were returing to swansea from wellesbourne pushing a 35knot headwind we were both tired and thirsty when we spotted what we thought was a suitable pub to have a coffe and a sandwich,we made an approach and landed on some grassy ground in front of the car park,there was plenty of room and was in my opinion a safe although some (inexperienced) pilots would say "tight" spot to land. The landord made us very welcome and invited both myself and any of my friends to visit at anytime,he pointed out that he also owned the field next door.(which is big enough for anyone)

I can highly reccomend the restaurant,the food is excellent and people are friendly,if you get an opportunity please go and have whatever takes your fancy,say hello to Stephen and Joanna for me ther name of the restaurant is the Hardwick,it's on the old Raglan Road, Abergavenny,Telephone no 01873854623,or you could email them on [email protected].

I had a sandwich and a lemonade followed by a coffee,my mate had a glass of wine and she also had a sandwich,no alcohol whatsoever!!!!!!!

I hope this has'nt spoilt a good story for all you sad bored people out there!!!!!
Why not go and have some fun instead of sitting at your computers inventing stories?

lartsa

28th Jul 2006, 16:10

this has to be a wind up in the uk pilots dont just see a pub and go in for a drink of coffee and a sarni without permission from the land owner

tot is this the same pub or what ?
i may stand corrected but do others make a habit of landing at places unknown unanounced ?

its august 1st on tuesday not april 1st

PITCH LINK

28th Jul 2006, 16:18

sounds like a good reason to have a break. I'm familar with the area and the pub in question but dont you think it would have been safer to land in the private strip directly opposite the pub! Just as nice chap and licenced.

thecontroller

28th Jul 2006, 16:25

fair enough.

but... what if the pub landlord and come out screaming and shouting, and made a complaint to the CAA about you landing without the landowners permison? seems like a gamble to me

royston - you said in a post in nov 2004 you had 4000 hours fixed wing, and now you have 6000 hours. thats an average of 95 hours flown a month since nov 2004. out of interest - how did you manage that? sounds like an awfully lot.

lartsa

28th Jul 2006, 16:52

by royston on 23 nov 2004 I have 4000hrs on fixed wing and 600 rorary with 120gliding,as far as i am concerned the CAA safety evening are a total waste of time as they are all about the two people that present them
so that means in 20 months you have amassed 2,400 hours which is 120 per month
are you sure

Bright-Ling

28th Jul 2006, 17:01

awww bless

don't be like that boysand girls - it must be the alzeimers that is affecting his maths!

35 kts headwind blah blah - complete TOSH.

YOU are ruining it for the rest of the considerate world who fly nicely!

Another doddery old 60yr old muppet. Great. That's OK then.

Ggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

B-L:ugh:

Bronx

28th Jul 2006, 17:16

Is it the law in Britain that you have to get the landowner's permission before you can legally land at a private site?

Can you be prosecuted if you don't and the UK CAA gets to hear of it?
Even if it was in a field miles from anywhere and some hiker reported you? :confused:

What's the offense? :confused:

Maybe one of the critics on this thread can take a break from criticizing and explain.

Anyways, if he didn't drink what's all the huff and puff about.
Who cares if he had permission if the landlord didn't complain.
Seems to me the only one who cared was TOT. :rolleyes:

B.

metalman

28th Jul 2006, 18:22

thats quite correct i have amassed thousands of hours because i fly a lot,something you lot ought to be doing instead of spending time inventing stories, the facts again (for those of you not quite up to understanding my last explanation) the site appeared to be able to accomodate helicopters,it could.The landlord welcomed me warmly in fact told me to drop (with my friends) at anytime,no alcohol was consumed,(exept by the passenger) i cannot see what law (if any) was broken i must be missing something here, what is the problem? it was (as it turned out) a bone fida helicopter site,so my judgement was correct on all counts ,god lads what world do you all live in?
If any of you do decide to drop in, for gods sake ger real lighten up be happy and have fun (remember that!!!!!!!!!!!)
just for the record i did'nt realise that there was an airfield just up the road,nevertheless i would still be happy to land again at this restaurant site!!!!!!!!!

verticalhold

28th Jul 2006, 18:34

OK. In with both feet. You never asked for permission. Big no-no. So you got a nice welcome. Nobody should try and land without the landowners' prior permission. You didn't know there was an airfield/ airstrip just up the road, inspires great confidence in your airmanship, planning and execution of the flight. As for the queries on this thread about your hours 120 a month is a huge amount especially allowing for those months when you can't fly four hours a day due to bad weather.

Bright-Ling

28th Jul 2006, 19:07

Don't fall in the trap....

IT WAS ME!

I have done 10000000 hrs since Jan (busy old month on the Robbo)

I am 21 (don't look a day of it)

We consumed loads of Bollinger

Blah Blah

The guy is either made up (more than likely) or a complete plonker. I go with the first line - and I hope that TOT files on the **********

Gaseous

28th Jul 2006, 21:43

Can anyone clarify which rule specifies PPR? the nearest I can find is:

20 (2)
The commander of an aircraft arriving at or departing from an aerodrome in the United Kingdom shall take all reasonable steps to ensure upon landing or prior to departure, as the case may be, that notice of that event is given to the person in charge of the aerodrome, or to the air traffic control unit or aerodrome flight information service unit at the aerodrome.

The pub in this case is an aerodrome while the helicopter is using it.

As I read this, the obligation is to report landing ASAP. NOT get prior permission. If this is the case, no rule has been broken.

I cant find any mention of PPR in the ANO. Is it the law of trespass? If so, is that not outside the remit of the CAA? Does trespass still exist?

Anyone help? Yet again aviation law is clear as mud.

Edit. I ask as I have dropped in at pubs (although recognised landing sites) in the past, unannounced, too. I always get ppr if planning a trip to restaurant or pub.

Tailboom

28th Jul 2006, 22:10

What is the problem with you people, so this guy dropped into a pub for a drink so what, from some of your comments most of you should be flying fixed wing and just land at airports !!!!!!!!!

From what I can see most people are pleased to see a heli comming into a pub or restaurant as long as it is flown responsible surely that is part of the fun !!!!!!

Most of the comments here are to prosecute or report the pilot, who cares how many hours the pilot has, he could have 10,000 hours and have only flown around the circuit at a airport and still be rubbish why does every one make such a big deal about hours as if it means the more hours the better the pilot !!!

Get a life you guys and do some exciting flying for a change !!!!!!!!

metalman

29th Jul 2006, 08:43

there are many things we should'nt do,i do not not not fly with the rule book in my pocket,lets stick to the facts shall we,no rule was broken and the landowner had no problem, so, why should you, as for flying in bad weather,ever heard of an instrument rating?

metalman

29th Jul 2006, 08:49

Good on you mate, you seem to understand what flying is all about, i totally agree with you that there is a lot of store put on hours flown,it means nothing if you have never left the circuit! You are correct again when you say that people like to see helicopters arriving,it's exiting and when (as i often do) offer them a quick spin they are off the planet for the rest of the day!That's what i call good PR.

metalman

29th Jul 2006, 08:56

what does "made up" mean?

Tailboom

29th Jul 2006, 09:45

Yeah go on Bright Ling report him or get someone else to do the dirty for you, your obviously when of those heli pilots who has never made a mistake or landed some where they shouldn't have.

I've seen loads like you propping up the bar in the flying club frowning on pilots who know how to have a little harmless fun now and again!!

You and alot of other pilots forget that one of the most important gauges to keep in the green is the "ENJOYMENT GAUGE" !!!!!!

Try it some time. I wonder has TOT ever landed some where he should'nt perhaps he will be honest and let the rest of us know.

Woolf

29th Jul 2006, 11:16

Hello,

Firstly I'd like to say that in my opinion flying a helicopter to a pub for a spot of lunch is great. Unfortunately it's not something I've done yet but if I could afford it I definitely would.

Royston, if indeed you are the pilot in question then I think there is nothing much wrong with what you did and I agree that some of the previous posts are way over the top.

The only suggestion I would make is, that you should always get the landowners permission before you land on his/her property. It’s not just courtesy, it is also is a legal requirement. Obviously in your case the landowner was more than happy but other people might not be so accommodating (see posts above).

The other point to be aware of (and I am not saying that this was the case here) is to make sure the landing site is not in a build up area. If it is (and it’s sometimes not easy to decide) then CAA approval is required for any landing on an unlicensed aerodrome.

Regards,

Woolf

Heliport

29th Jul 2006, 11:46

landowners permission ............... it is a legal requirement.

A few people have said that.

Which law?

ANO?

Rules of the Air?

Can anyone point to the actual legal requirement?

H.

Another Old Git

29th Jul 2006, 13:48

Can anyone point to the actual legal requirement?
This was something much discussed some years ago in the crew room when we ran out of politics and religious subjects to discuss and the conclusion that we came to was at least a civil offence of trespass (depending on where and the the circumstances). It can all get very grey, as with most law.

We then sought further legal advice and the following was given:
Permission may be implied (as in welcome sign, public entrance to public parking etc)
Permission might be conditional (footpath to letter box, closed gate at end of drive)
Permission may be by stautory right. (Public footpath, neighbour right of way, water board electicity company, warrant, court order etc)
If you have none of the above and no owners permission then you are probably trespassing (with another million bits of grey area)

Some food for thought though if you get it wrong. The owner will have recourse for your unlawful act and can consider a landing fee or lien and padlock your machine to the ground until you pay (Its been done!).
I much prefer the ask nicely, or apologise profusely method. A friend of mine keeps a bottle of champagne in the back, along with a nice smile just in case he ever needs it for this very reason.
The other method of course is to get Flying Lawyer and his colleagues to help you out which in turn helps him with his own landing fees. (Only joking! I am too old to sue and I fly therefore I have no money left):rolleyes:

Sometimes its better not to ask the question
AOG

paco

29th Jul 2006, 14:16

As mentioned, it actually comes from the law of trespass, and possibly any parts of common law that have not been put into abeyance by Act Of Parliament, but local Planning permission is involved, too, although this is slightly off topic. In fact, current planning regulations allow a helicopter to be used for personal, business and leisure uses "as many people use a private car" from the owner's dwelling house without limitation, making it exempt from planning control, provided the use is incidental, or ancillary to, the principal use of the land. Planning Policy Note 24 about Planning and Noise paragraph 18 states that, in general, where helicopters are used from gardens or commercial premises and their use is incidental to the principal use of the land then planning permission is not generally required, but the commonly accepted frequency is that a spot of land can be used up to 28 days in a year witht planning permission being required. There are quite a few spots in the average field......

Phil

Jack Plug

29th Jul 2006, 14:52

this case is a typical example of the british disease. ie outraged onlooker doesnt like what he sees and says "there should be a law against it", but there isnt - never mind, we`ll make one up- and a few so called facts as well.

theres no rule of the air about prior permission and the chances of being prosecuted for trespass are about nil. I remember all the rubbish written about rule 5 in a recent thread. Jeez. some of you would only let us land at licenced aerodromes under supervision of a CAA inspector.

AuntyTalk!!!!!

29th Jul 2006, 15:03

Well said Jackplug!!

I see it this way..... anything else is speculation.

Was anyone hurt?
Was any property damaged?
Did the land owner prosecute?
Did the pilot fall out of the sky half cut?

End Of.

Heliport

29th Jul 2006, 15:04

the chances of being prosecuted for trespass are about nil.

Exactly nil.
It's another myth.

topendtorque

29th Jul 2006, 15:06

Heliport how does this fit for an OZ definition. ?
First I looked at the Act, then the Regs, then an ops manual that I found.
In all of the below I interpret that if I am a private land owner and I can disprove any allowances catered for and I am upset because the vibrations of the said low flying or landing helicopter boiled my fish pond dry, made my warm beer go flat, etc. then I can have a go at said helicopter owner / pilot / operator / etc under common law.

Further, CAR 92 (1) sates that you must not take off or land at a place unless it is suitable. Up to you to work out whether you have satisfied the section in blue below. I.E. Do you have permission or not and or not violated someone else’s right at common law.

Flying lawyer and others might put a simpler matrix on it, esp. for UK ops.

CASA Civil Aviation Act
20A reckless operation of aircraft
(1) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person.
(2) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the person or property of another person.
30 Weather etc. to be a defence
(1) In any proceedings for an offence against this Act or the regulations, it is a defence if the act or omission charged is established to have been due to extreme weather conditions or other unavoidable cause.
(2) Any defence established under subsection (1) need only be established on the balance of probabilities.
CASA Civil Aviation Regulation
157 Low flying
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:
(a) Any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or
(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:
(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter — 600 metres; or
(b) in the case of a helicopter — 300 metres;
from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.
(3A) Paragraph (1) (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or departing from a specified place.
(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:
(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height be maintained; or
(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work operations, being operations that require low flying, and the owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such operations; or
(c) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or
(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or
(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing at an aerodrome; or
(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:
(i) a search; or
(ii) a rescue; or
(iii) dropping supplies;
in a search and rescue operation; or
(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:
(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and
(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or
(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in accordance with directions issued by CASA.

However (see in blue above) for any allowed ops below 500 AGL then the prudent operator will always include in their operations manual the following – or similar.

ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THE FACT THAT THE PERMISSION GRANTED DOES NOT CONFER ON AN OPERATOR ANY RIGHTS, AS AGAINST THE OWNER OF THE LAND OVER WHICH THE OPERATION MAY BE CONDUCTED, OR PREJUDICE IN ANY WAY THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES WHICH ANY PERSON MAY HAVE IN COMMON LAW IN RESPECT OF ANY INJURY TO PERSONS OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY CAUSED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY THE OPERATOR.

Tailboom

29th Jul 2006, 17:14

Well Guy's I've just flown in from The Western Helidays and I'm sure I saw one of those Yellow Robbie things, I believe it was an R22 parked outside a pub in Pontypridd ( Thats in South Wales) I couldn't believe it !!!

The car park was empty though !! :)

Mikeb

29th Jul 2006, 20:47

Maybe our infamous yellow Robbie pilot needed a few pints (lemonade of course) to give him some Dutch courage to fly home in the terrible weather today.?

Bronx

29th Jul 2006, 21:36

Well said Jack Plug. :ok:

metalman

29th Jul 2006, 22:50

god am i glad that my pint is now out of all of your systems.
happy flying.

nigelh

29th Jul 2006, 22:54

I know loads of people who will have a pint or two and fly, in my experience most fly much smoother after one or two !! Are the alcohol rules the same for FAA and CAA ? I have to say the pilots on this topic do seem to be "holier than thou " after all you would need a pint or two to drown your sorrows if all you had to fly was an R22 !!!!!!!!:{

John Eacott

29th Jul 2006, 23:28

god am i glad that my pint is now out of all of your systems.
happy flying.

:D :D :ok:

Gaseous

29th Jul 2006, 23:33

I have a 'proper' breath tester. The limit is 20mg/100ml. I did some tests when not flying. I weigh 168 lbs. 1/2 pint of Tim Taylors Landlord leaves me just under the limit 20 minutes after drinking it. 1 pint results in over the limit. Even 1/2 a pint is too close to the limit to risk from the legal point of view. The consequences of a positive test are dire. We all know the other risks.

edit

posted for information. Not a snipe at royston. Enjoy your flights to the pub, mate. I do, and in case the Pprune police are watching next time I land, the pint is for Mrs G. The soft drink is for me. OK?

metalman

30th Jul 2006, 07:53

Hi Gaseous,
thank you for that information,i didnt realise there were so many people out there acting as police officer'S and Undercover agents for the CAA.

muffin

30th Jul 2006, 08:16

I also often visit pubs by helicopter. An offer to the landlord to get his camera and come for a ride to take some aerial pics of his pub is all that is ever required as a landing fee.

thecontroller

30th Jul 2006, 10:38

royston: so how DID you manage to get 120 hours a month for the last 20 months?

lartsa

30th Jul 2006, 12:43

he has an addiction to coffee in pubs

MamaPut

30th Jul 2006, 18:08

Can we now stop persecuting royston, all those sad people who are too busy looking at everything everybody else does go and get a life, and finally lay this thread to rest over a sandwich and a glass of lemonade :D

Antitorque

30th Jul 2006, 19:44

Have you got the lat & long for that pub Id like to call there when I ome down that way It sounds like a nice place Hope TOTs there

Flying Lawyer

31st Jul 2006, 15:13

By coincidence, I spent the weekend in Wales and, as The Hardwick is an easy 20 mile drive from the house, went there for Sunday lunch and looked at the scene of the event described by TOT - or non-event, depending upon your point of view.

Setting the Scene?
I can’t help wondering if TOT was there when the Robbie landed - or has ever been there.

“the pub is on the edge of the A40 main road”
No, it’s not.
It’s at the side of a B road - the B4598.
It was the main road many years ago – until the A40 dual-carriageway was built.

“the village pub”
It's not in a village.
It’s in the middle of the countryside, surrounded by farm land.
It was a run down pub until last year when the present owner bought it and turned it into a restaurant. There's a small bar, but it's certainly not a ‘village pub’.

Multimap link: http://uk.multimap.com/p/browse.cgi?pc=NP79AA
In Map view, it’s just below the red circle where a winding lane emerges from the direction of the A40.
If you switch to Aerial view, the red circle is immediately next to the restaurant.

“Along comes a shiny yellow Robinson R22, Lands in a small car parking space ALONG SIDE side the cars”
Not according to the owner.
He says the helicopter landed on the grass.
The grass area is adjacent to the car park at the side of the property.

No-one showed or expressed any concern. Everyone seemed to enjoy seeing it, “it added a bit of interest.”

I didn’t ask what Royston drank – partly because I wouldn’t expect the owner to know or tell me even if he did and partly because Royston has already said it was non-alcoholic.

It was the only time a helicopter has landed at the property. The owner wasn’t asked for permission in advance but it didn’t cause any problems so wasn’t bothered.
He would prefer to be asked.

Various legal points raised:

Land-owner's Consent
I haven’t actually looked it up but I can’t remember seeing any law which requires a pilot to obtain a land-owner’s consent before landing.
It’s obviously good practice, but that’s a different matter.

Rule 5
I haven’t seen anything, either in this discussion or at the location, which suggests a breach of Rule 5.

Trespass
The commonly seen signs warning that "Trespassers will be Prosecuted" are virtually meaningless. Simply going onto someone’s land without permission is not a criminal offence.
There are certain specified circumstances where trespassing is a criminal offence. eg Trespassing on railway lines, on some military property, trespassing with intention of residing on the property or with the intention of disrupting lawful activity on the property.
A land-owner may have grounds for a civil claim against you for trespass but, unless you damage the land by (eg crops) any damages would be nominal.
The risk of being sued is remote provided you don’t cause any damage.

I wonder what it is about the British mentality which makes us so quick to criticise other pilots and claim they've flown illegally. :confused:

The Restaurant
Owned and run by chef Stephen Terry and his wife Joanne. He worked at a number of top London restaurants before moving to Wales and (I think) earned a Michelin star for another restaurant in the area before setting up the Hardwick.

Food: Outstanding. Imaginative dishes cooked to perfection.
Wine: Good range at sensible prices.
Service: Perfect. Friendly and efficient.
Décor: ‘Country pub’. No fancy trimmings – but you’re not paying fancy prices.
Location: In the beautiful Usk valley just outside Abergavenny.
Cost: Average £30-35 head for 3 courses with wine. (Main courses £10-17) Good VFM given the quality.
FL Rating: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

Highly recommended - by road or air.
The grass area is fairly tight – not suitable for for an inexperienced pilot IMHO (as Royston says above.)
I didn’t look for it but apparently there’s a small airstrip the other side of the road.

FL

SASless

31st Jul 2006, 15:26

Drinking and Flying....oh...never dear boy! Anyone ever eaten lunch in the Agusta staff mess in Italy? Wine with pasta....then back to the hangar. Granted it is a small bottle but still....alcohol and flying?

Guilty yer honour!:rolleyes:

metalman

31st Jul 2006, 16:34

Rule 5 of the ANO does not and cannot apply whilst taking off or landing! In any case there are quite different rules that for choppers.

ShyTorque

31st Jul 2006, 16:56

Rule 5 of the ANO does not and cannot apply whilst taking off or landing! In any case there are quite different rules that for choppers.

Really? What are the differences, please? :confused:

MrEdd

31st Jul 2006, 17:23

God lad Roystone, blimey that´s whats heli flying is about.

And i for one think u made a good call. Flying bad/ruff weather will make u tired, tired peopel make mistakes. Great call to land and get fresh again, that´s a safe pilot in my eyes.

Think some peopel here have been watching "days of our lives" to mutch, not everything containes a intrige.
Yes correct peopel that does things wrong and incorrect, so they get better and wiser pilots.
But don´t beat on peopel just of the fact that u diden´t like one thing.

"sorry for crappy spelling"

metalman

31st Jul 2006, 17:26

hi it clearly says for example that, and i quote (any helicopter shall be exempt from the land clear rule.It also says "a helicopter shall be exempt from the 500' rule when conducting manoeuvres in accordance with normal aviation practices and the helicopter must not be operated closer that 60 metres to persons vehicless vessels objects or structures,unless when taking off or landing in other words this is an exemtion for manoeuvering helicopters,and of course a helicopter has to manoeuver (hover taxi) when the landing phase is complete,without this exemption we could never land,imagine that!!!!!!!!!!

Whirlygig

31st Jul 2006, 17:35

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%205%20amended%201%20April%202005a.pdf

Technically, with respect the maneouvring rule, Rule 5 does state within a licensed or Government aerodrome or with permission of the CAA and must not be operated neared than 60 metres (about 200 ft in old money) to people etc.

Cheers

Whirls

Bravo73

31st Jul 2006, 17:46

royston,

If you are going to try and argue your case by refering to the ANO, I suggest that you quote the correct section, in it's entirety.

Rule 5, (3), (a), (ii) Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions states:

Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice. (My emphasis).

Now then, arriving unannounced at a non-licenced site (without the landowner's permission) and allegedly landing in a car park (which was full of cars at the time) is hardly 'in accordance with normal aviation practice', is it? :=

metalman

31st Jul 2006, 17:55

Bravo 73, are you unable to understand the evidence from the flying flying lawyer,he has visited the pub and has had confirmed my version of events,which proves that no laws or rules were broken.

metalman

31st Jul 2006, 18:05

Thanks to the flying Lawyer for taking the time and the trouble to visit the site of the "Village" pub, i am pleased that you liked the restaurant,and am relieved that the Landord explained the true events of the day that i landed.
I would urge all you budding adventures to fly to this restaurant and try the food,there is a field right next to the pub that is owned by the landord (dont try it in a cessna!!!)the welcome would be warm,and the food delicious, but i would remind you it would be Courteous to ring first!!!!!01873854220

ShyTorque

31st Jul 2006, 18:22

"It was the only time a helicopter has landed at the property."

So it appears the landing was NOT in accordance with normal aviation practice. That is the dodgy part. Always best to ask landing permission first because if the landowner owner complains, the CAA might well have a case to follow up.

Tailboom

31st Jul 2006, 18:31

It might be the case that nobody had landed there whilst this landlord has been there, but who knows about the previous 30 years !

I know its good practice to ask first if you can visit but some times its not possible, surely if its only now and again you land without permission your chances of getting into any sort of trouble are very low and are far outweighed by the pleasure of the experience

Whirlygig

31st Jul 2006, 18:56

Of course, the passenger could always a mobile phone to ring ahead! :E

Cheers

Whirls

....pass that tin hat would you please love!

ShyTorque

31st Jul 2006, 19:00

In my case, a landing for a drink at a pub wouldn't outweigh the dubious pleasure of a court appearance at the request of the CAA legal department.

I therefore always ask permission first, especially as my job depends on keeping my licence. :ok:

Gaseous

31st Jul 2006, 19:08

SASless

31st Jul 2006, 19:08

Why ever would one consider landing at a pub or restaurant to be other than a normal practice? Perhaps I am abnormal by that standard. (Whirls don't start!)

I have to agree with whoever suggested it must be a "British" thing to query every action of fellow pilots vice just letting them get on with their life and leave the complaining to someone that was "harmed".

Joe Bloggs landing his helicopter at a country pub certainly falls under the catagory of "nuttin to do wit me Mate!".

Whirlygig

31st Jul 2006, 19:14

My interpretation of other comments is that "normal aviation practice" involves asking permission first.

It's not that you should not land at a pub, hotel but that you should ask (assuming, of course, that we are within the bounds of Rule 5). Seems to be the courteous and sensible thing to do. After all, you wouldn't want to frighten the horses. :}

Cheers

Whirls

ShyTorque

31st Jul 2006, 19:19

Shyt
Are you seriously suggesting that we can only land somewhere someone else has landed before???
Its normal practice for me to land in places that an aircraft has never knowingly landed before. I have loads of them in my log book. Thats why I bought a helicopter.

No, of course not, I do it almost every week, in a five tonner. It's just NOT a good idea to pitch up on someone's private property with a helicopter without checking if the landowner is happy for it to happen.

If I had a piece of land on the edge of a village, I would feel quite aggrieved if someone just landed in it because he fancied a drink at the pub next door, especially if my car risked gravel rash because of it. I would feel the same if someone pitched up and parked his car on my drive! Wouldn't you? If not, just post the grid ref. :E

I'm surprised anyone would think a helicopter is any different. Even at a hotel with a helipad, I wouldn't dream of landing without obtaining advance permission.

ShyTorque

31st Jul 2006, 19:43

If merely passing comment means a frenzy.... Yawn... :rolleyes:

Sorry, just off to frenziedly eat my beans on toast and drink a Newcastle Brown.... expect more hot air later

:)

Gaseous

31st Jul 2006, 19:44

Whirlygig

31st Jul 2006, 19:49

My understanding of this scenario (though maybe not this particular case) is that there is, within Rule 5 the rule about helicopters maneouvring within 60m of people, structures etc, and the permission.

With respect to permission, although the CAA may not have a case, the landowner might especially if damage is caused.

Cheers

Whirls

SASless

31st Jul 2006, 20:00

I can recall landing a Red, White, and Blue Sikorsky at more than a few pubs in my past.....usually crying about the terrible weather and the lack of quality weather reporting as I headed to the bar to buy the crewman a pint. Funny how they all seemed to be very nice pubs and none complained about the mode of our transport or attire. Mind you the muskox rubberized canvas coveralls were a bit tacky and warm.

rotorvision98

31st Jul 2006, 20:01

A.R.E. have been informed and are investigating!! P.S. Royston are you still using that awful hair dye?

Gaseous

31st Jul 2006, 20:14

Whirly, No, Rule 5(i) only applies in a licenced or government aerodrome. The more general 5.3 (a)2 applies outside congested areas. ie exempt the 500 ft rule. The only 'advice' I know, is on the BHAB site which says "a flat area of ground about the size of two tennis courts should be adequate to take the smaller types" and to all intents and purposes you should keep at least a blade length from buildings.

edit to agree with Cpt Jim below

dead horse well flogged.

ShyTorque

31st Jul 2006, 20:15

S
I agree totally about obtaining permission and it is good manners and good airmanship to do it, but we have established in this thread it is not a legal requirement so how can the CAA have a case if you dont? See FLs earlier post.

I suggest you ask the CAA for their official stance on this. I'm not arguing about it, other than to repeat that I don't personally take the risk. If someone wants to take the chance of a special invite to a court appearance, that's perfectly OK with me. Tudor Owen will no doubt be delighted to represent you in a professional capacity.

BTW, I did once receive a strongly worded warning letter from the CAA Head of Legalese, following a complaint from a member of the public about our helicopter taking off and landing at our normal helipad. At the time I was the chief pilot of a UK police air support unit and was exempt from Rule 5 in any case. If someone complains, you will probably be investigated. These days, I prefer to take my days off at home ;)

cptjim

31st Jul 2006, 20:23

Guys (and Gals),

The term 'Flogging a dead horse' springs to mind here!! :ugh:

I think we can agree that we have established it is common courtesy to call the land owner, when possible!!

Now let's go back to the thing we love most, i.e. flying helicopters, those of us that are real pilots and not armchair ones!

Royston, next time I'm in the area the first round is on me....Lemonade of course!! :}

Cpt Jim

Tailboom

31st Jul 2006, 20:24

Well I for one would be most happy if I had a bit of land somewhere and somebody just "pitched up" and landed in it, I've been flying years and I have never met anybody yet who has not been pleased to see a helicopter land.

Most people in my experience are fasinated by it, have any of you guys ever landed with a problem a poss warning light on, low on fuel, unexpected bad weather etc, what has been the reception, not that it is a regular occurance for me, but I've always been made more than welcome, in some cases treated like some sort of celebrity.

The only time I've ever had serious trouble was when I landed with complete electrical failure in a gliding site short of Bath (without asking first) and after stopping them trying to lynch me and calming every body down I explained to them that we were all fellow flyers whether in powered machines or not and that I need their assistance every thing was fine.

I think it is a total different thing asking for PPR in an airfield the reason being is that they have loads of machines arriving or departing (unless its Pembrey) lets be fair if its not in a bulit up area, with plenty of open space and no horses or people running around then whats the problem ? there is hardly going to be a queue of R22's lining up to land !!!! Chill out Guy's !!!

ShyTorque

31st Jul 2006, 20:40

To quote the alternative viewpoint, an RAF squadron colleague of mine once landed a Puma in a farmer's field because that is where he was directed to land during a military exercise. Even before he had shut down his aircraft was attacked by the landowner who tried to drive the front blade of his large excavator into the turning rotor disc.

I once made a precautionary landing in a field in Wales because of dense smoke from a burning TRU coming from the aircraft electrics bay. We shut down in very short order only to be told a minute later by the landowner, in very terse terms, that we were very unwelcome to remain there.

Sorry to disappoint but not everyone shares our enthusiasm for helicopters.

Tailboom

31st Jul 2006, 20:52

Shy Torque I can understand what your saying and I do agree, but youve most probably been flying for years and youve only got 1 incident and your mate in the forces the same, but I still think that if your a civillian heli and your polite and courteous then the chances youl get a problem are slim.

Flying Lawyer

31st Jul 2006, 21:08

Royston & Whirlygig
The 60 metres proviso in Rule 5(3)(i) doesn’t apply to helicopters landing and taking off. (Whirlygig – see the Note at the end of your link.)

Royston & Bravo73
It’s Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air, not the ANO.

Bravo73
Whether or not the site is licensed is irrelevant to Rule 5(3)(a)(ii).
Royston didn’t land in a car park full of cars. I’m puzzled why you’ve brought up again an allegation which has turned out to be false.
IMHO it would be an odd (and unfair) state of affairs if a pilot found himself in breach of Rule 5 by failing to obtain prior consent from a land-owner if there’s no legal requirement that he must do so.
That said, it’s the sort of argument which the CAA might advance. Given that the CAA writes the regulations (which then pass formally through Parliament without any consideration of the necessity for a particular rule or the form in which it’s written), if it thinks prior permission should be a legal requirement, it should be included in the Regulations IMHO - so that the position is clear.

ShyTorque
"It was the only time a helicopter has landed at the property.
So it appears the landing was NOT in accordance with normal aviation practice.”
I disagree.
I was going to make the same point as Gaseous until I saw you withdrew it in response to his question.
I entirely agree pilots should ask for permission to land, for the reasons you give and as a matter of courtesy.
Re someone’s helicopter in your drive. I’d be very angry if someone parked their car in my drive without permission, but they wouldn’t have committed a criminal offence.

Nikkyg v
Some people, not everybody.

Rotorvision98
I hope your post was a joke in bad taste rather than fact.
If it’s a fact, it’s a sad day for the Rotorheads forum IMHO.

Tailboom
You're probably right that the chances of a civilian helicopter pilot who's polite and courteous encountering a problem are slim, but there's no shortage of people even inside the UK aviation world who seem to get pleasure from causing trouble for others. Couple that with the fact that the CAA isn't above prosecuting trivia and it's not worth taking a chance.

FL

metalman

31st Jul 2006, 21:11

Hi Rotorvision98
i dont think you are being fair in making this personal,you mentioned that i have my hair dyed,whilst this is true i have to tell you that the experiece leading up to this dyeing siuation has left be a lot poorer as well as completely and utterly devastated, let me explain,i was only 53 and was going prematurely grey,as a direct result of the grey hair my wife of 36 years (at the time) had been progressively going "off" my sex life had dropped to zero and ny cofidence was on the floor,in order to put things right a flying instructor,who shall remain nameless (his name rhymes with pill) suggested that i use a hair colourant in order that i go "back to black" and try to resore my sex life and my self esteem,so i purchased a bottle of medium brown "just for men" i had'nt done this before,so i donned the rubber gloves and began to vigourously massage it into my scalp,this was a big big big mistake,if any of you out there are familiar with the term,"a fine mist" then you will know what happened next!
Before i took the decision to rectify my confidence, we had two white cats and a white budgie,i honestly and truthfully did not realise that this dye mixture was permanent, when i realised what had happend i ran like the wind upstairs to get some old towels in order to try to get the cats back to some sort of white,before anyone asks i did'nt touch the budgie,in my haste to get things sorted before the wife returned i just did not realise (again) that this stuff was running down my back and down my chest,when i did realise i went frantic,because it was dripping and spraying onto:the hall carpet,the stair carpet, the downstairs bathroom wallpaper, the hall wallpaper, it even stained all of the paintwork on the stairs,by this time i was in a right state,
i was panic striken,i did;nt know what to do,where to look,i could only picture my wife face when she would see the damage (she looks a litte bit like jack palance), suddenly and without warning i heard------------- her key in the door,i wwwaass
fffrozen to the spot,she took one look at the utter chaos and carnage, her face contortad with theabsolute rage of a prgnant brontesawerous with piles and she!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so you see i have already gone through the pain barrier about my hair,so play fair and stop getting personal!!!

Gaseous

31st Jul 2006, 21:21

royston, mate, please, please ,please,please delete the above post before too many people read it.:uhoh:
You'll have the RSPCA as well as the CAA after you.

Tailboom

31st Jul 2006, 21:23

Well said Flying Lawer, I can also cofirm that Royston has stopped using it !! his wife, and the bathroom carpet are both relieved !!!!

ShyTorque

31st Jul 2006, 21:25

FL,

Whether rule 5 applies or not, a prosecution might still be brought under Article 64.

Point is, as a private pilot and a professional lawyer you will have a job whether folk land helis unannounced on private property without permission or not - I for one might ask you to defend me against a CAA prosecution.

However, I bear in mind that if you lost the case, you would still have a job, but I might not :rolleyes:

Royston, I once considered trying hair dye. You have made me realise it was a very good idea not to! ;)

MamaPut

31st Jul 2006, 21:43

Reading this thread just makes me thankful I don't have to fly in UK if you're all such a bunch of total killjoys who's only interest is other people's business. If people like RV98, ST and B73 are typical of the flying population then you definitely have the CAA you deserve.

Royston you're a cool dude. A man in the prime of life who just want to live his life, have a little harmless enjoyment in his later years and having had the good fortune to be able to do so. Good on yer :ok:

The difference between the UK attitude and that of the rest of the world is still well summed up by an old story of the deadbeat by the side of the road who ends up covered in dust when a big fancy Rolls Royce drives past him. If this happened in UK he'd think 'Rich bastard flashing his wealth in the face of the working classes - after the revolution you'll be here with me'. If it happened in USA he 'd think 'Lucky bastard having a great car like that - one day I'll be like you'.

FL, despite your kind visit, then bringing your wealth of legal experience to the thread, there are still many out there from Little Britain who know that you're wrong and they're right :ugh: . I sometimes wonder why anybody bothers visiting Prune with all its anonymous, self-professed experts.

Flying Lawyer

31st Jul 2006, 21:47

ShyTorque

I suppose it could, but IMHO Royston didn't endanger anyone or anything.
I think he's unwise in saying too much on a public forum but that's a separate issue. It's well known that CAA personnel monitor PPRuNe.
(BTW, Article 64 (ANO 2000) has been replaced by Article 74 of the ANO 2005.)

I agree 100% that it's unwise to land without the permission of the land-owner. Why take the risk of someone causing trouble? I hope nothing I've said gives a contrary impression - I've simply responded to specific questions asked and points made.

MamaPut
(Most) Brits love rules and laws, despite claiming not to.
Aviation is no exception.

I visit PPRuNe because I think it's a superb site and I learn a great deal. This forum in particular has a wealth of genuine experts from all over the world.
I find some views irritating, just as I'm sure people sometimes find my views irritating, but the variety of views and personalities makes it even more interesting.

FL

metalman

31st Jul 2006, 22:02

Dear everyone,
how much more mileage can there be in this thread? :confused:

ShyTorque

31st Jul 2006, 22:07

FL,

I totally agree. My point is that a disgruntled landowner could easily claim that his property or person had been endangered. He didn't in this case, so all is well. However, from past experience it might not have been.

As I pointed out earlier, certain claims were made during my time as the chief pilot of a police helicopter unit, against us whilst carrying out the normal operation of our aircraft to and from the base helipad (over open fields, as it happened). The claims resulted in a warning letter from the CAA Legal Branch. I sent a reply pointing out that we were most definitely not in breach of Rule 5 and were, in any event, exempt from the relevant parts of it under the terms of our PAOC. No further action was taken.

A PPL might suffer more than a mere warning letter. I wonder what Royston would be writing if the landowner in his case had been as outraged by his landing as our "local friend" was.

No further mileage claims made, Royston.
120 hours a month as a Builder with a PPL. Now there's a mileage claim. I take it you are an hours builder ;)

rotorvision98

31st Jul 2006, 22:15

rotorvision98

DELETED

Take your nasty personal attacks where they're appreciated.

If you post another one I'll ban you from PPRuNe.

Heliport

Bronx

1st Aug 2006, 05:46

This thread is a good example of a fine forum at it's worst.

MamaPut hit the nail right on about the British attitude. Its like a disease and as usual the worst offenders are private pilots, wannabee professionals and new qualified pros.
They struggle to find some rule some pilot's broken and when that's shot down because they don't understand the rule their quoting they try another one. I just don't understand this need to try and prove that someone got something wrong.

ShyTorque
Your final position makes good sense but before you got there you were shifting your ground so quick I could hardly keep up.
"It was the only time a helicopter has landed at the property. So it appears the landing was NOT in accordance with normal aviation practice.”
Unbelievable! especially coming from an experienced professional pilot.
And how you can compare the drive of your house with a hotel or pub that's open to the public beats me. :confused:

TOT

1st Aug 2006, 07:02

.

Childish personal attack deleted - Heliport

It still beats me how, as a 6000hr pilot you failed to see a 500 metre strip, hangar and windsock directly opposite, (75 metres away) on the other side of the road.

Like everything else in life its all very well untill some thing goes wrong.
Regardless of Rule 5,trespass, chips in car paint work, or obtaining the owners permission first,
You have just landed, engine at flight idle cooling down , suddenly the labradors roar out and start circling the helicopter. Its too late when they have spoilt your tail rotor paint work!!!! Same thing applies with inquisitive children. I still maintain a courteous phone call first will eliminate any potential problems.

I stand by my original post's comment
35 Knot wind? when was that then??
Established heli pad? I live within a few miles of the pub, use that road daily and have never seen, or heard of a heli in there before.

ShyTorque

1st Aug 2006, 09:23

Hi Bronx,

I haven't changed my position at all. I have voiced my opinion, based on a number of years flying in UK, that it isn't a good idea to land in these circumstances without first gaining permission because it could easily result in a court case being brought.

I have passed no personal judgement on the pilot's actions, except to jokingly call him a wimp for only having one pint.

Please read my posts again. Are we separated by a common language?

What is straightforward in the USA might not be so here. If you think the rules are bad in UK, try landing like this in France, with or without a landowner's permission....

BigMike

1st Aug 2006, 10:44

Interesting thread, apart from the sad, strange people making personal attacks.

What a lot of fuss about nothing. If I know ahead I'm going to be landing in a particular spot, then a call ahead is the done thing. If not, upon landing, walk over to the nearest Pub, house, etc, and ask if it's ok to park there. Any problems then I will move.

Selecting a site: far enough away as not to cause problems with downwash, and large enough to fit into, which will depend on your experience and the type.

Roll back a few years and a couple of 500's, or more, parked beside a country pub in New Zealand, after a days venison hunting, was the norm.

Bronx

1st Aug 2006, 11:03

Hi ST
I gave the two main things you said that I disagreed with. Just my 2 cents.

When I said about the British attitude I didn't mean the UK rules themselves. Although I reckon some of them are too strict I know the French are even stricter with helicopters and I think Germany is as well.
I meant the British attitude to the rules and to anyone who breaks one.

I agree with you and the other folk who say this pilot was taking a risk of getting into trouble landing without permission in the UK. Fair comment, good advice, but then you get all the pontifacating posts with people trying every which way to try to show he broke the law. That attitude just beats me. I just don't get it.

I guess its not surprising they get the rule wrong themselves because the UK low flying rules are so compliacted. All that consultation about a new simpler Rule 5 a while back and the new one still aint easy to understand.
Every time the UK Rule 5 comes up, people disagree over what some part of the rule means and forget you have to look at some other part somewhere else.
Brits always seem to be so quick to criticise another pilot. I don't understand that attitude.

The FAA's not perfect but our low flying rules are much more sensible and realistic for helicopters. Ask an American helo pilot what the low flying rule is and they'll tell you. They most likely won't be able to recite the actual words but they'll get what the rule says right because its written in plain English and easy to understand.

TOT
So you stand by your original post?
That's kinda strange because we now know a lot of what you said aint true.

B.

Whirlygig

1st Aug 2006, 11:15

I meant the British attitude to the rules and to anyone who breaks one.

Not necessarily true. Whilst there has been some sniping on this thread, there has also been some discussion and it is this sort of discussion that can lead to a consensus of opinion i.e. he should have phoned first - even Royston admitted that!

However, some, myself included, have received a clarification of Rule 5. I do not take it as criticism but part of a learning process. Comments are raised, others correct them and all is well. It's not a matter of pontificating but raising a query - a "what about this?"

If you want to talk about the British Character, then it's the "British Character" which means we could all sit in a pub and have a laugh and shake hands about it afterwards. Anything else just wouldn't be cricket what ho?

Cheers

Whirls

AuntyTalk!!!!!

1st Aug 2006, 11:25

Childish personal comments deleted.

Heliport

ShyTorque

1st Aug 2006, 11:50

"When I said about the British attitude I didn't mean the UK rules themselves. Although I reckon some of them are too strict I know the French are even stricter with helicopters and I think Germany is as well.
I meant the British attitude to the rules and to anyone who breaks one."

In which case I suggest you look up the threads on UK speed cameras - you might be a little surprised! :E

At least with speed cameras you get more than one chance and it's only a £60 fine. :ok:

lartsa

1st Aug 2006, 12:52

i still dont understand the new rule 5 or the old one come to think about it its a shame the caa dont put it in plain english so every one can complie

but for the benefit of me [and lots of other pilots but they wont ask ]
can we get each persons different defination of rule 5 I like fl but i dont want to employ him

cptjim

1st Aug 2006, 14:32

TOT,

Seeing as you like talking about dogs, how about "let sleeping dogs lie!"

I think being British you should understand that one! You have stirred the proverbial sh*t long enough now and it's time to move on.

What's done is done and should there be a next time I'm sure everyone on this thread will think twice before just setting down anywhere.

We're all pilots of some form so let's act like it and try and get on! :)

I'll get off my soap box now! :oh:

Cpt Jim :ok:

Mars

1st Aug 2006, 14:46

OK Bronx, I'll rise to the challenge - what are the FAA low flying rules?

Mars

thecontroller

1st Aug 2006, 15:05

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B—Flight Rules
General

Browse Previous | Browse Next
§ 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 those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(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.

Mars

1st Aug 2006, 15:10

Thanks Controller - so what part of FAR 91.119(d) is a rule rather than a judgement call?

Mars

thecontroller

1st Aug 2006, 15:36

mmm... well there's always this rule to catch anyone out!

So... landing in a car park unnanounced and spraying gravel over those little toddlers enjoying their pizza and chips could get you into trouble if you are flying an N-reg machine under Part 91 (UK or USA)

>>>>>>
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart A—General

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(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.

Efirmovich

1st Aug 2006, 18:06

Have to say, Great post Royston ! The account of the hair dye is hillarious !

For god's sake leave him alone, at least he's got the balls to admit both the landing and the dye, and it appears to be doing the trick !

Wear it with pride mate!

F*****G curtain twitchers.

E.

Bronx

1st Aug 2006, 18:38

Controller
The Brits have an endangering offense as well, as ShyTorque said earlier. It just takes the UK CAA three times as long to say what the rule is with 'therein' and such.

Mars
You've got to look at FAR § 91.119 as a whole not one part on its own. It don't take long because the whole rule it aint long and its written in plain English.
Even the 'new improved' UK CAA version is 5 times as long, overcomplicated and British pilots still have a problem understanding it as you can see every time it comes up.

Except when taking off or landing, the FAA minimums for all aircraft are -

(a) Anywhere.
High enough so if a power unit fails you can make an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Congested Areas and Open Air Assemblies.
1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Other than Congested Areas.
500 feet above the surface unless you're over open water or sparsely populated areas when you can go lower than 500 feet so long as you don't go closer than 500 feet to a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters.
Provided you don't cause a hazard to persons or property on the surface, helicopters don't have to comply with (b) and (c).
There are some places where you can't use this exception because the FAA has laid down specified routes or altitudes for helicopters.

Easy to understand and it works. :ok:
You don't get hours of discussion over what the rule means like you do over the CAA's Rule 5.

'Cause a hazard' is no more no less a judgement call than 'endangering' which I think most countries have.
If the FAA claims you caused a hazard and decides to prosecute you, the court decides if you did. Just like the courts decide if a pilot endangered a person or property.

B.

smallville

1st Aug 2006, 19:02

Ask your question here: R22 Corner (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=162839)

Heliport

ShyTorque

1st Aug 2006, 20:42

Not everyone in the USA understands the regulations.

http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/31/tommy-lees-chopper-pilot-charged/

Heliport

1st Aug 2006, 20:55

How does that story prove the pilot didn't understand the regulations? :confused:

ShyTorque

1st Aug 2006, 21:02

It doesn't. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt because the alternative is that he understood them and failed to comply with them.

SASless

1st Aug 2006, 22:53

Now lets really muddy the water....and perhaps Flying Lawyer might weigh in on this.

The Federal Air Regulations are the "rule". The "rule" sets forth how one does things one would think....right?

Wrong....The "rule" is defined by the standing case law that resulted from Federal Actions (certificate and other) against those accused of violations.

Thus, merely reading the "rule" and complying with the "rule" as one thinks the "rule" is.... does not save you from consequences for violations substantiated by standing legal precedents that you may never have heard of.

How's that for a pickle?

One simple situation.....What is a congested area? How does that apply to sling load operations?

JimL might have some ideas on this one too.

ShyTorque

2nd Aug 2006, 08:09

It's not clear! However, the definition I generally go by is that a congested area would have a "meeting place". This would include a village if it had (or appeared to have, from a map or from the air) a public house or a village hall.

metalman

2nd Aug 2006, 15:08

has this thread run it's time now/ i hope so.
Royston

Heliport

2nd Aug 2006, 15:34

Royston

I don't think anyone sensible would disagree that discussion of your particular incident has run its course.

We've moved on to a more general discussion of low flying rules now.
Differences in the laws in different countries etc.

Heliport

Flying Lawyer

3rd Aug 2006, 08:17

SASless
What you describe applies to all areas of law and in all countries with a developed legal system. ‘Case Law’ (often called Common Law or Legal Precedent) evolves from decisions by judges in the higher courts (not Magistrates Courts) concerning words and phrases in legislation.

It is ‘a pickle’ in some ways, and it can lead to people committing offences without realising it and being convicted of offences they didn't know existed, but I don’t know of any country where ignorance of the law is a defence. The principle applies whether the law is contained in a statute, a regulation or a previous case which created a precedent. It can operate unfairly on occasions – but an honest mistake should be reflected in the penalty imposed.

The principle can sometimes operate very unfairly in aviation cases in the UK because our aviation legislation is notoriously badly drafted. It can often be difficult even for an aviation lawyer to determine with certainty whether some conduct is lawful or unlawful – yet pilots/operators are expected to know the law and are at risk of prosecution if they get it wrong.
I don’t mean here just the interpretation of a word or phrase. I mean the incomprehensible language and numerous cross-references to sub sub sub sub clauses which only apply in circumstances set out in some other sub sub sub sub clause of a different section, and then only subject to the proviso in yet another sub sub sub sub sub clause.

The laws relating to Low Flying, what is or isn’t Public Transport or Aerial Work provide obvious examples of unnecessarily complicated, dreadfully drafted legislation - as illustrated by the variety of interpretations offered in numerous threads on those topics by people doing their best to understand what the legislation means and/or trying to work out whether something is legal or illegal.

The CAA eventually tacitly conceded that our old Rule 5 was virtually incomprehensible and in 2002 began the process of revising the rule. After three years, it came up with a version which, as discussions since show, is still difficult to understand and apply.

In contrast, FAR 91.119 is a model of how the legislation should be drafted, not only in its language but in its sensible realistic content.
It’s not perfect but it’s as good as can reasonably be achieved. It uses terms which don’t have a specific definition or objective standard, but that’s unavoidable.

‘What is a congested area?’
As you and ShyTorque say, it’s not clear.
For UK purposes, Article 155 of the ANO says: ‘Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes.
The OED defines ‘settlement’ as a place where people establish a community and ‘community’ as a group of people living together in one place.
As in America, what is or isn’t a congested area is determined on a case by case basis if any action is taken against the pilot. Precedents are of limited value unless the facts of two cases are virtually identical.

‘How does that apply to sling load operations?’
If in doubt, the safest course (in the UK) is to apply for an exemption from Rule 5. The CAA charges a fee, as it does for everything, but it could be less expensive option in the long term.
There’s little point in asking the CAA if they regard the location as a congested area because they almost certainly won’t tell you.

One phrase I’d almost certainly remove from the UK legislation is ”Normal aviation practice”.
It adds yet another imprecise element and provides great scope for unfairness when prosecuting pilots.

thecontroller

3rd Aug 2006, 09:13

can someone tell me where the full text of rule 5 is?

Flying Lawyer

3rd Aug 2006, 09:24

Full text of the UK Rule 5 here - Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051110.htm)

Full text of the FAR equivalent here - FAR 91.119 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&sid=3efaad1b0a259d4e48f1150a34d1aa77&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.10)

FL

JimL

3rd Aug 2006, 10:07

SASless,

Thanks for the invitation to comment.

Because of the difficulty of establishing the meaning of congested area, JAR-OPS 3 doesn't use the term (remember rules of the air are not in JAR-OPS 3). For the purpose of the performance regulations, built up areas are partitioned between a congested hostile environment and non-hostile. In the former, operations are restricted but in the latter they are not. It depends upon being able to perform a safe-forced-landing.

However, I cannot escape as easily as that and would like to post the FAA view - which has merit for the examples used.
9. Discussion of Terms

a. Congested Area; the term “congested” area has been applied on a case-by-case basis since it first appeared in the Air Commerce Regulations of 1926, no precise mathematical or geographic definition has yet been developed. The term has never been defined in any regulation. However, the following guidelines have been applied by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) (now National Transportation Safety Board) in attempting to give the term fair and equitable effect:

(1) The term is administered so as to protect persons and property in small, sparsely settled communities, as well as persons and property in large metropolitan areas, from the hazards and from the noise of low flying aircraft. Thus, the size of the area is not controlling, and violations of the rule have been sustained for operation of aircraft: (i) over a small congested area consisting of approximately 10 houses and a school; (ii) over the campus of a university; (iii) over a beach area along a highway; and (iv) over a boys camp where there were numerous people on the docks and children at play onshore.

(2) The presence of people is important to the determination of whether a particular area is "congested.” Thus, no violation was found in the case of a flight over a large shop building and four one-family dwellings because, in the words of the CAB Examiner, "it was not known whether the dwellings were occupied.” In that case, the area surrounding the buildings was open, flat, and semi-arid. For external-load operations, a factory with adjacent occupied parking lots, filled with employees and vehicles, might be considered a congested area unless the parking lots and employees are vacated and necessary precautions taken to prevent vehicles and persons from reentering the area.

(3) The term is administered to prohibit over-flights that cut the corners of large, heavily congested, residential areas.

(4) As stated in FAR 91.79, the congested area could be any area of a city, town, or settlement. However, no precise density of population, ground traffic, or congestion, or precise description of the proximity of buildings or number of residences, has yet been devised that will achieve both the intended protection of persons and property on the ground, and fair application of the rule to operators of aircraft.

b. Densely Populated Areas. A densely populated area could be considered almost synonymous with a congested area. Those areas of a city, town, or settlement, which contain a large number of occupied homes, factories, stores, schools, university and hospital-type buildings, and other related business structures, might be considered densely populated areas. Additionally, a densely populated area may not contain any buildings, but could consist of a large gathering of persons, such as on a beach area, an air-show, a ball game, fairgrounds, etc.

Jim

thecontroller

3rd Aug 2006, 11:56

mmmm...see below, from rule 5. what does the "within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome" mean. in the circuit?

(i) Manoeuvring helicopters

A helicopter shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when conducting manoeuvres in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome, or at other sites with the permission of the CAA: provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption the helicopter must not be operated closer than 60 metres to persons, vessels vehicles or structures located outside the aerodrome or site.

Heliport

3rd Aug 2006, 12:07

Maybe hovering manoeuvres on the airfield other than taking off and landing?

No idea what "manoeuvres in accordance with normal aviation practice" means.

:confused:

Pandalet

3rd Aug 2006, 13:32

(i) Manoeuvring helicopters

A helicopter shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when conducting manoeuvres in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome, or at other sites with the permission of the CAA: provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption the helicopter must not be operated closer than 60 metres to persons, vessels vehicles or structures located outside the aerodrome or site.

So does this mean that helicopters landing and taking off at unlicensed sites (eg. my mate Farmer Bob's top field), where the CAA hasn't specifically granted permission, are NOT exempt from the 500ft rule?

JimL

3rd Aug 2006, 13:51

Heliport,

It is exactly that you have described and was meant to include all of those manoeuvres that can be carried out without the take-off-transition (because the helicopter can be regarded as being "in flight" - see the definition of flight time in other threads).

Jim

thecontroller

3rd Aug 2006, 14:08

seems to me you can do whatever you like until someone complains. then the "rules" can be interpreted in any fashion!

Heliport

3rd Aug 2006, 14:55

Jim

I read it in a commentary somewhere.
If I hadn't, I would have been as puzzled as thecontroller.

Why the CAA didn't just say that in clear unambigous language is beyond me.

H.

SASless

3rd Aug 2006, 15:25

Are Quickstops a flight maneuver? After all the intent is not to "Takeoff" but one does a what would be a takeoff transistion prior to those infamous words of "Quick Stop, Quick Stop, Go!" (British Style Quick Stop).:oh:

thecontroller

3rd Aug 2006, 15:36

"Quick Stop, Quick Stop, Go!"

that is such a silly thing to say. the first time my old instructor said that i almost pissed myself laughing...

the UK has some daft things in its heli flying 'syllabus'. like the "HASEL" checks. you almost have to start them on upwind to give yourself time for the maneuver

Bravo73

3rd Aug 2006, 16:03

Er, and what exactly is daft about doing a HASEL check before carrying out a higher risk manoeuvre such as an auto or an EOL???? :confused: :confused:

:ugh:

SASless

3rd Aug 2006, 16:43

Execution of maneuver matters not....but uttering the CFS Gregorian Chants correctly is the standard by which success is determined. (NOT!)

Want to confuse an CFS QHI....call for a Quick Stop Maneuver upon Training Captain's call....and listen as he regurgitates that chant thenbegins the maneuver.....rather than just simply executing the maneuver when requested without the chant.

Fecking Cookbook Pilots!:mad:

Blue Rotor Ronin

3rd Aug 2006, 19:19

Once again a reasonable thread has developed a cultural divide with the Aussies looking past the sensibilities of the 'british prats' as the Chairknob of the bored so kindly described us poms. As a young pommie I worked as a Jackeroo (a stockman or cowboy for those that don't know) on three different cattle stations all over the Queesland bush and met some solid and sound blokes, it's a shame that there's always a few all mouth and no trousers characters in any culture, casually insulting whilst tapping keys yet strangely silent in the flesh. Aussie posturing aside, there really isn't much, bar skippy, to crash into or onto and therefore there is an element of 'getting away with it' bravado that is unacceptable on this crowded island. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't know anything about this pilot's circumstance from whether he owned the land to a non-alcoholic beer. However, car parks have children (largely facsinated by and unaware of helicopter safety) and as most of us know, choppers have a beautiful nack of biting you in the arse when you least expect it and shredding your cool arrival alongside potential vehicles and humans that consequently we in SAR or the fine people in HEMS will have to pick up the bodily parts or bits and pieces. Learn by other's mistakes as you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.:ok:

Heliport

3rd Aug 2006, 21:45

Once again .......... a cultural divide with the Aussies?

:confused:

From what I've seen over the years, when there are signs of a cultural divide in discussions in this forum, it tends to be between Brits and the rest of the world.

The sound of Brits pointing out that a pilot has or might have infringed some rule or other is sometimes matched by the sound of groans and yawns from posters from other parts of the world.

And some imaginative suggestions made about what might have gone wrong (but didn't) would be worthy of tabloid journos.

(Exceptions among Brits and non-Brits, of course.)

Bronx

3rd Aug 2006, 22:38

Puntosaurus (England)

if it's not in exercises 1-27 then it's probably not normal aviation practice.
You can't be serious! :eek:

What's the difference between "takeoff and landing" (FAR) and "landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice" (CAA)?

B.

Just seen you've deleted your post.
Maybe you weren't serious.
Or did you have second thoughts about what you wrote? ;)

rumline

3rd Aug 2006, 23:05

Hold on a minute...lessee if I got this straight:
A guy stops along the way for bite to eat and a little refreshment in what sounds, by all accounts to be an acceptable LZ ....and it merits this amount of navel gazing and rule quoting....
Christ....where has all the fun gone?:(
I'm gonna have cold frosty and climb in my float plane (PA-12) and enjoy the sunset up here where we still have a bit of freedom.....Canada.
Loosen up for god's sake before the entire industry is polluted with little ole women spouting rules and standing on holier than thou soap boxes. :yuk:

SASless

4th Aug 2006, 00:37

Exit 72, Interstate 5, Washington State....The Ribeye Restaurant....just after Sunrise.

Me..."'Scuse Me Guv...me and me mates reckon you do the best breakfast in the county...mind if I park me sky skooter in yer garden for a bit while we have our tucker?

The Guv...."Hell no...no at all....do you realize how much business you brought me when you landed and all the folks saw the helicopter? To the waitress...."Sally...his breakfast is on me!"

Some kids got to sit in the helicopter and get a good talk about flying...I got a second cup of coffee to drink while doing that for them and the pleasure of seeing little ones smile and giggle....the only folks that got miffed were the passengers when they found out they paid for their chow and I did not.

Helicopter flying is supposed to be fun....and different. If you are one of the Grinch's that steal that from others....you ought to consider alternative employment.

rumline

4th Aug 2006, 04:10

Torquestripe and Sasless...
Whew..just when I thought all the fun had been drained from aviation, I find at least a couple others who are enjoying it!
For the others..i suggest you head down to your local flying club and rent yourself out a little bug-smasher and try and remember what first captivated you all those years ago!

It was a glorious sunset this evening...touch down to an almost glassy lake:ok: ...
Gonna take the kids up tomorrow as well as some of their friends and spread the gospel according to Wright maybe a little from the Book of Igor. And yes...I might have a frosty between flights. (Note the 'a' and not 'some')

Gotta have some fun before I'm due back in the 2 by 12!

Gaseous

4th Aug 2006, 08:53

The cultural divide.

Britain = petty, awkward, officious, over regulated, over taxed, over populated, small minded, nosey, bossy, bigoted, insular, killjoy population in a dull, wet, windy cold miserable climate ruled by stupid ineffective arrogant deceitful corrupt politicians who want to be American but arent. Is it any wonder we are out of step with the rest of the world?

Worst of all I actually like it here.:ok:

muffin

4th Aug 2006, 09:00

Well said Gaseous - so do I. Despite all the things you list I would much rather live and fly here than anywhere else in the world.

jemax

4th Aug 2006, 09:45

Not so bad in blighty,

Flying through North Wales in an R22, getting blown round in the hills, felt sick so needed to land. Landed next to waht I thought was a youth Hostel, turned out to be a nice hotel/restaurant.

They came out, were chuffed to see me arrive and create a bit of excitement for the guests, got a free lunch and a couple of hours later revived and resfeshed went on my way.

Way I see people are people, you'll get t*ssers all around the world who'll complain and hospitable people too, can't see what geography has to do with it.

Happy to fly anywhere

vaqueroaero

4th Aug 2006, 15:23

Sadly there are people everywhere, that as soon as a helicopter lands somewhere that might be of question decide that it is automatically illegal or wrong. It is not confined to the UK by a long stretch.

There is a bakery outside San Diego in the tiny town of Santa Ysabel where those in the rotary world land in the car park and can go in and get breakfast or whatever they desire.

We landed there once, just as a Sheriff was driving down the road. He raced in to the car park lights blazing and after we shut down approached us with hand on gun. We climbed out and he proceeded to give us the ninth degree and claimed that the owner of the property had written a letter to them asking them to cite anyone for trespass who landed at the bakery. He wrote down certificate numbers, N number and everything else he could think of.
Unluckily for him the guy I was flying with is rather well connected in the social circles and a quick phone call revealed that the Sheriff was apparently making up his own laws and that the land owner new nothing of the forementioned letter.
In fact he said he was more than happy for people to land there as it was good for business and he wanted everyone to enjoy his property and what there is there to offer.

Needless to say nothing more was ever heard about it.

SASless

4th Aug 2006, 15:46

As I landed outside the Regional Office to pick up my executives....at the end of a cul-de-sac with no buildings near it....up slides a State Police car with the lights flashing. My immediate thought was it was off to the cells for me in that we had procrastinated in seeking permission for such landings (read that meaning we had never even considered asking....). The two Hiway Manoleum's approached the aircraft with radio in hand and I waved them to my door where upon I asked what I could do for them.

They quickly told me someone had shot at a fellow Trooper and could they charter my aircraft for a search. Alas, I had to tell them we were not an Air Taxi operator and were not authorized to do such things for hire. I did tell them to load up, strap in, and let's get cracking and there would be no charge, fee, nor expense incurred.

After a fruitless search....we landed back at the airport for fuel....walked around to the State Police Airplane Hanger and had a cup of coffee. A short flight back to their car, a handshake, picked up the Executives and off to work.

We had a fine working relationship with the local Police from that point forward and did several community service flights looking for lost little ones and similar events.