Low Flying Twin Turbine

[XX621]

Hi,
Every Sat morning a twin turbine helicopter (being f/w my ignorance of heli types is pretty obvious) flies over the school fields in Surrey where I take my son to footie practice. Its low - around 250ft and noisy (not that that bothers me personally).

Being a PPL, a couple of my fellow parents have turned to me and asked "are they allowed to fly that low?". Give than the heli didn't appear to be in a descent, and simply in transit, my first reaction was no; but replied "well, not strictly speaking, but it's a complicated area ATC wise" (being near EGLL). To give you an idea how low, you could clearly make out the figures of the chaps up front.

Clearly, the 500ft rule was being disregarded. It was a built up area and over a school too.

Can someone explain under what circumstances would a heli be allowed to transit at less than 500ft in the Heathrow zone?

Incidentally, it was not a police helicopter - but one of those very plush looking machines; and we regularly see it flying over the same point.

Just curious.

[helimutt]

Someone smell something?

Get the registration of the a/c next time, go onto G-INFO on the CAA website and see who's and what type it is. Easy! Oh, and then let us know here too. We all enjoy a good laugh.:E
The pilot wasn't bald was he?
Helicopter wasn't dark in colour was it?



If he is 'busting' the 500' rule he's a d*ck as there really isn't any need to. Maybe he has a legitimate reason?

[ShyTorque]

Difficult to say without full info.

Could be taking off and landing when the 500 foot rule doesn't apply and/or operating under an exemption from the 1,000ft rule for landing in a congested area.

[Bravo73]

Pipeline/powerline inspection aircraft?

[manfromuncle]

Sounds like a private owner/private charter job.

[Flugplatz]

Oh well, it could have been worse...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUOwn5PDHP4&feature=related

[tegwin]

Just playing the devils advocate here...

Are you sure he was at 250ft and not 500?...........500ft looks a LOT lower than you think!:sad:

[tigerfish]

Helimutt, Your sense of smell is impressive! But I agree there is a distict whiff in the air!

XX621. If you really are as unaware as you make out, - How do you know it was a twin turbine? Unlike fixed wing where even the most basic of observers can count the engines, to the unitiated most people would not know a single engined machine from a twin!

So you are either press, - starting another rabit to run or a fishing expedition, or were you a genuine casual observer, perhaps looking at a military Chinook going about its lawful business?

Tigerfish

[helimutt]

Tigerfish, I thought the same hence my post. How would he know the height and how many engines it had?

[Alloa Akbar]

Errrrr chaps..

I'm all for giving the Press a good verbal slapping for using this site for unproductive ends, however...

A quick read of Mr XX's previous posts, does tend to suggest that you are perhaps being a little harsh..??

:confused:

[tigerfish]

Alloa Ackbar!

On looking, yes you might be right! XX621, - "Umble Apologies sir" -Umble Sir Umble.

Just don't like the press!

Tigerfish!

[rotornut]

In my neighbourhood of Toronto, a certain media helicopter takes liberties with the 1000' rule over the city - in other words they are always under
1000', often quite substantially. One of these days someone will take an incriminating picture and submit it to Transport Canada...

[tomotomp]

xx621
you dont live near bishopsgate per chance, I belive a punter flys into there quite offen.

[Alloa Akbar]

Just don't like the press!

Tigerfish old boy, you have my 100% support on that one!!:ok:

[XX621]

If I was a journo I would hope I had better stories than low flying helicopters to work on! (mind you given the state of the british media prob not).

Anyway, as a matter of fact I do live near bishopsgate!
re: "could have been at 500ft?" - yes my height estimation could be out - true. Can't be sure. I'll take my camera next time and post a pic! (only kidding, I'm really not that bothered).


However, even if it was at 500' I'm still curious if private heli's can get special VFR in the Heathrow zone on a regular basis??

[JimBall]

Tomotomp - if the guy said it was in Surrey, it was in Surrey. Not Bishopsgate. Notice how we use capitals in English.

XX621: you say you're not good with types, but you could see it was a twin. However you couldn't see a colour or reg. Hmmmm.
250 ft height is not illegal - so long as the heli remains 500ft AWAY from any person, vehicle, vessel or structure.
As you have not been precise with your location it's difficult to help - but "Surrey" would seem to imply that the aircraft was under FIS from Farnborough. Even if not, it would show as a blip on radar - although probably not if at 250ft.

So - best that you make an enquiry that way. I'm sure the Farnborough team have got plenty of time and manpower available to assist in your fishing. :O

Just seen your recent post However, even if it was at 500' I'm still curious if private heli's can get special VFR in the Heathrow zone on a regular basis?? Er - yes. 7 days a week with exemplary service from AlanM and his screenwatchers.

[tomotomp]

sooo sorry i didnt put a capital on my post but I think you will find that XX621 said that he was inside Htr ATZ, hense Bishopsgate:ok::ok:

[XX621]

Right, I've done some googling. From memory it looked very much like a Agusta 109 - certainly the shape and u/c config looks the same.

Anyway, just to clarify my intentions. As a fellow pilot I'm not interested in "reporting" anyone (even IF any regs had been broken). I'm just curious as to how low flying private aircraft can operate in the Heathrow zone on a regular basis (assuming it was private of course).

I assume it would have to be a twin to get special VFR in the zone for a start?

So, this is where my curiosity is leading me....if I were to purchase a twin engined aircraft could I then operate it from a field next to my house (well inside the zone) by simply requesting special VFR prior to departure everytime I wanted to fly to Chelski to see the Saturday match?! (which is what this helicopter might well be doing?). Surely not?

By the way, this is completely hypothetical. I don't own a large field, nor have the funds to purchase a flying machine! (Nor would I choose to attend Chelski games).:O

[JimBall]

Now the confusion clears!
Special VFR in the zone is available to helicopters with any number of engines. When cleared Special VFR the 1000ft rule does not apply - but the 500 does.
The heli routes are the way to route through London, but twins can get direct routings in certain areas where singles can't.
To operate an unlicensed landing site within Class A airspace (all of London zone west of Vauxhall Bridge) you need to operate with CAA permission and obviously with ATC clearance.
"Off" the heli routes in Class A you are subject to the 3 miles separation rule - this could affect your pad if you are near LHR.
And if you want to land or take off in a congested area you will also need CAA permission.

Most of the above is available in pdf form on the CAA website or through AIC.

[XX621]

Ok, thanks JimBall.

Now I'm sitting up...

When you say "To operate an unlicensed landing site within Class A airspace (all of London zone west of Vauxhall Bridge) you need to operate with CAA permission and obviously with ATC clearance."

So, permission to do so boils down to the discretion of the CAA. I take it then, the odd wealthy individual flying to the football game in his ("very unlikely to crash" machine) would be okay (subject to huge fee) but a farmer (I am not a farmer btw) wishing to operate a Jodel or similar (and not able to pay huge fee) to mind his flock would not?

This ultimately is what is driving my curiousity (perhaps I have thought about this too much!) . To what extent can the rules be waived for agreeable applicants/proposals.

[ShyTorque]

To what extent can the rules be waived for agreeable applicants/proposals.

How much can you afford? An ANO Rule 5.2 (c) exemption is a bit over £100 a pop these days, from those friendly folk at Belgrano Mansions (sounds of ringing tills in the background not heard since they began accepting credit cards). If you speak nicely, you can get an exemption valid for a whole year, a real bargain.

The only time I got one, I was really pleased with myself. Then the Met police put restricted airspace right in that area, which stopped me using it, even once. :ugh:

[JimBall]

XX: I don't think any of us here work for CAA SRG. They are the ones who can answer your questions with authority (unless they say "get your own legal advice" which is the standard answer to any question which threatens their pension...)

Your state of mind worries me. "Very unlikely to crash" isn't an expression I've ever encountered with regard to permissions/exemptions. Are you sure you took Aviation Law in your PPL ?

You must read Rule 5 before you even attempt to ask for a CAA Exemption. So get CAP 393 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=226) in pdf form and search for rule 5. And do some searches for Exemptions.

You seem to have shifted your interest in landing sites from helicopter to Jodel FW. Different kettle of fish. FW treated differently in our only Class A space. Helicopters derive great benefit from NATS-issued Non Standard Flight permissions. Since a Cessna single overflew the West End towing a banner a few Christmases ago I believe the answer to FW singles asking for an NSF over a lot of London is no.

[XX621]

JimBall: With respect, you are over-analysing my phraseology. When I say "less likely to crash" I am of course referring to the fact single engine aircraft are not permitted over central london.
My original curiousity was to ascertain if private heli flights are permitted special exceptions in the heathrow zone, how this is arranged, and if there any practical differences between the exemptions process for helicopters and the process for fixed wing. Question answered anyway, thank-you.

I may well be rusty on certain aspects of air law, I did it 12 years ago! Thanks for pointing that out anyway.

Anyway, I'll sign out on this thread before it descends into an unnecessary but typical Pprune slanging match.

[JimBall]

XX, without being a pedant When I say "less likely to crash" I am of course referring to the fact single engine aircraft are not permitted over central london.

That isn't the truth. The rules state "glide clear" for FW over any congested area - so it's a pilot decision. You have 2400ft of altitude available - what is your glide ratio ?

And SEPs aren't permitted over Central London, how do you account for the Reds, the BBMF etc. ? Did you see the Red Bull air race in Docklands last year ?

[XX621]

I re-iterate;

"Anyway, I'll sign out on this thread before it descends into an unnecessary but typical Pprune slanging match."

Otherwise you just end up in "thats not exactly what I meant" / " but thats what you said " / "yes, but you were taking it too literally" type exchange from which I derive little enjoyment to be honest. Thanks for an interesting thread up to this point anyway. All the best.

[ShyTorque]

And SEPs aren't permitted over Central London, how do you account for the Reds, the BBMF etc. ?

The Red Arrows....SEPs? What happened - more cutbacks? :eek:

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

And SEPs aren't permitted over Central London, how do you account for the Reds, the BBMF etc. ?

Military aircraft, not subject to civvie rules.

To what extent can the rules be waived for agreeable applicants/proposals.

AFAIK, the CAA SRG will agree ANY Exemption request where it's do-able for a good reason (and you pay the relevant fee of course). I think you could probably check your flock on a farm without an exemption as Rule 5 doesnt take into consideration animals, but Persons, vehicles, vessels and structures do count.

[ShyTorque]

Chuffer, you missed the point of my quote, I'm afraid.

Pedantry reared its head, so I couldn't help joining in the fun..... What does SEP mean? :ugh:

[Hover Bovver]

Shy Torque,
He was probably saying in a nice way that the hawk is a SSSingle EEEngine PPPlane

[ShyTorque]

Sorry, just pressed the wrong button while editing a spolling error..:O

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Sorry, been a long day.:rolleyes:

[somepitch]

rotornut,

CARS has an exemption for permissible low altitude flight for aerial photography by the holder of an air operator certificate...the media machine may be in the clear :}

[rotornut]

somepitch,
I know. But they still have been well below the 1000' limit on many occasions and hovering at 500' over a built up area even in a AS355 isn't cool.

[Bladecrack]

FW treated differently in our only Class A space

other than Manchester TMA? :hmm:

[Bravo73]

other than Manchester TMA? :hmm:

Huh? :confused: MAN CTR SFC-3500' is [D]. LONDON CTR SFC-2500' is [A].

[Verbatim03]

Why would you even want to be a helicopter pilot in the UK with such stupid restrictions?

[4ftHover]

Verbatim03

we dont have the luxury of space you guys have over the pond so these restrictions are kind of needed. :hmm: