Require Wet Hire Twin Engined Helicopter

[noorpilot]

Hi I'm looking to hire, or contribute towards the cost of, a twin engined helicopter e.g. AS350 to drop me off at my wedding reception in Aug 2010 17:30. The reception is being held on the grounds of Syon Park TW8 8JF and I'm willing to travel to an aerodrome near London, although Damyns Hall (EGML) is my closest aerodrome. Was wondering if any pilot was interested in this job, preferably CPL holder or an experienced PPL holder with necessary type rating etc?

[FloaterNorthWest]

Oh no! Here we go again!!!!

[SilsoeSid]

noorpilot;

Incase you missed it on the thread Heli down - Devon here is something from the CAA you may like to read.

llegal Public Transport Campaign (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1196/20071015IllegalPublicTransportPRCampaign.pdf)

Whatever you do, choose carefully.
Would you go to a builders/DIY forum site to get someone to build an extension for you?

[thecontroller]

This guy may be able to help

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/303798-as350-nutter-ni.html

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ....

In anycase ... if you want a twin engined helicopter the AS350 won't do it for you ....

The AS355 might ...... :rolleyes:






PS .... has not anybody told you helicopters and marriage do NOT go together :E

[ShyTorque]

Noorpilot, would you instead consider using an unlicensed, un-insured and possibly inexperienced limo driver to take you from the church?

Enjoy your wedding day but please do it safely and legally. ;)

[topendtorque]

has not anybody told you helicopters and marriage do NOT go together


you missed two items spin, wires and cameras.

besides Helicopters are inherently unstable, is that the platform you wish to step off into a relationship?

[chopjock]

Noorpilot
Why a twin? Do you feel safer?

[JimBall]

Good luck with getting permission to land there. LHR traffic overhead at about 1500ft most days.

[chopjock]

Good luck with getting permission to land there

I imagine getting permission to land there would be no problem if you have booked the place for a wedding reception. Plenty of open spaces. :)

I've been there and Kew, no problems with ATC either. :ok:

[ShyTorque]

I imagine getting permission to land there would be no problem if you have booked the place for a wedding reception. Plenty of open spaces.

But CAA permission (£108) for exemption from Rule 5(3)(c) will also be needed.

[chopjock]

ST
But CAA permission (£108) for exemption from Rule 5(3)(c) will also be needed.

Are you sure about that?

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Chopjock;

Exemption from 5.3.C is mandatory for a flight into that area, and possibly 5.3.D for a single. Oh sorry, you won't get a single in there because its a confined area (defined by the CAA as surrounded by habitation, industry etc, not a postage stamp size piece of grass)

Noorpilot;

Why don't you go and talk to an AOC operator who can self authorise such a flight and do it legally in a twin. I've landed at Syon many times, it is a beautiful place for a wedding, and a wedding is no place for any form of illegal helicopter flying, which is what your first post suggested.

And the LHR traffic is below 1500' there

SND

[TeeS]

Hi Chopjock

Looks very much like what the CAA would call a built up area. So, yep a 5.3.c exemption is required.

Cheers

TeeS

[ShyTorque]

Chopjock, yes I am sure. I suggest you look up the rules regarding landing in the London Heathrow CTR.

(Unless, of course the rules have changed yet again very recently...I'll try to find a reference).

[chopjock]

The Air Navigation Order (http://www.caa.co.uk/cap393)defines a congested area as being ‘any area of a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes’

Well ok, I supposed it depends on how a Judge would interpret the word "substantial" .
If the place is private property, has masses of open spaces, fields and gardens etc and has published opening times, and spends more of it's time closed than it does open, I might be inclined to think the term "substantial" does not apply at that site.
For that matter, I don't think there are many substantial residential, industrial or commercial activities there either. :)

[Whirlygig]

If the area around Heathrow and West London isn't substantial, then where DO you consider "substantial". :hmm:

Cheers

Whirls

[chopjock]

If the area around Heathrow and West London isn't substantial, then where DO you consider "substantial"Places in a city like residential areas, commercial areas, industrial areas etc. They all sound pretty substantial to me. But a massive private estate, often closed to the public, largely consisting of open fields, gardens, wooded areas and over 1.5km of boggy river banks, easily accessible from the river are hardly "substantial" in my opinion. I suspect a judge may think the same. If it was me going in there again I would probably not inform the campaign.

Also the CAA designed the heli routes through the Heathrow CTR to avoid/minimize over flying congested areas. So there must be lots of "non congested" areas there.

[ShyTorque]

The CAA permission required exempts the pilot from rule 5(3)(c), i.e. the 1,000 foot rule. I regularly have to obtain such permissions (for a Class A performance twin engined helicopter).

In the last two weeks I've obtained another for a landing site within the LHR CTR and I need to apply for yet another tomorrow; the forms are actually on my desk.

All the ones I've obtained in the past (too many to count) give me as an individual permission but "only within 1 km of the said site at Grid reference TQ *** *** (of the landing point)".

Also, "Landing and takeoff shall not be made closer than 30 metres to any person, vehicle, vessel or fixed object".

There are other terms and conditions to be complied with but those are the most relevant ones. :)

Edit: Note the proposed landing site is 2 km from the nearest heliroute, at Kew Bridge. I for one would never risk a prosecution for illegal low flying (i.e. no permission applied for and received) with irrefutable evidence such as radar recordings, transponder codes squawked and radio transmissions from my callsign very firmly logged in the Heathrow archives! Whatever the outcome of a court case involving the Enforcement Branch of the CAA, I think a defence lawyer would cost very many times the required fee. :ugh:

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Chopjock;

Take a look at Leicester Race Course (It appears far less congested than Syon Park) on Google Earth. It meets all of YOUR criteria, but is very definately in a congested area as far as the CAA are concerned. I know this as I was there last year when the CAA started asking a lot of awkward questions of the R44, B206 and Gazelle pilots who had flown in for an evening race meeting, none of them had a permission from the GA dept, and so were all given a pretty stiff bollocking at the time. The four AOC aircraft that were there were all allowed to self authorise and were all twins.

As for what a judge would say, the legislation is drafted by lawyers and then goes through the parliamentary legal process. If you decide you know better and then fall foul of the law I wouldn't mind betting that the judge will come down very much against you. In fact I'd love to hear Flying Lawyer's learned opinion on this one.

SND

[chopjock]

What about landing at Pinewood studios anyone? Miles away from a heli route, within the LondonCTR and substantially used for industrial and commercial purposes? I suppose you would all apply for an exemption? I hope you are not all suggesting you can not land anywhere within the London CTR without an exemption? The rule only applies to a "city". So where does the city start? Somewhere further to the East of KEW perhaps?

[ShyTorque]

Chopjock, do us all a favour - please just go for it. :ok:

A congested area is definitely not just "a city"!

I was one pilot who saw the "trap" of Leicester Racecourse some years ago. I came back from leave to see on the programme that the first landing site of the day was that place. I asked where the Rule 5 permission was. It hadn't been applied for so I made myself unpopular by refusing to do the job.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Shy;

The desperately sad bit is that Chopjock doesn't realise that all these hundreds of rules are put in place to protect Joe Public and other aviators from people who think like him. Every time someone tries to be smart another rule comes along for the rest of us to abide by because one individual has acted like a total c**t.

Chopjock I don't know what your qualifications are as a helicopter pilot, nor do I know your level of experience. I do know that I have also landed at Pinewood many times and because it is in the CTR it used to get added to my monthly return to the CAA telling them how many 5.1.C sites I had landed at that month. (that return is no longer required, just a copy kept in the office)

This is supposed to be a forum for "professional helicopter pilots" not people who want to ride rough shod over some sensible rules (and some quite odd ones) because they think they know it all. Go do what you want Chopjock, when you have f***ed it all up for everyone else don't be surprised that the only sympathy you can find is in the dictionary.

SND

[ShyTorque]

Here is the relevant excerpt of CAP393 (note my bold and underline to highlight the correct paragraph):

CAP 393 Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Section 2 Page 7
Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
6 The exemptions from the low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(a) Landing and taking off;
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the low flying prohibitions in so far as it is flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of:
(aa) taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at; or
(bb) checking navigational aids or procedures at,
a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing
(b) Captive balloons and kites
None of the low flying prohibitions shall apply to any captive balloon or kite.
(c) Special VFR flight and notified routes
(i) Subject to paragraph (ii), any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1,000 feet
rule if:
(aa) it is flying on a special VFR flight; or
(bb) it is operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route
being flown.
(ii) Unless the written permission of the CAA has been obtained, landings may
only be made by an aircraft flying under this exemption at a licensed or
Government aerodrome.

[chopjock]

ST
(c) Special VFR flight and notified routes
(i) Subject to paragraph (ii), any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1,000 feet
rule if:
(aa) it is flying on a special VFR flight; or
(bb) it is operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route
being flown.
(ii) Unless the written permission of the CAA has been obtained, landings may
only be made by an aircraft flying under this exemption at a licensed or
Government aerodrome.Ok,
According to what you have highlighted, the last time I went into Kew gardens, it was a SVFR flight. So that was ok then? So what's the difference just across the other side of the river?
Also, going back to my "Pinewood" scenario, what with it not being a licenced aerodrome or government aerodrome, you must then be suggesting an exemption will be required? even landing on Iver Heath?
I don't think so.:)

Chopjock, do us all a favour - please just go for it.

I already have, several times with no problems

[ShyTorque]

Chopjock,

Er......NO! What that says is that mere overflight of a congested area, under a SVFR clearance, is legal - provided you don't bust the 500ft rule.

However, Para (ii) essentially says that you cannot use an SVFR clearance as a "let-out" to avoid having a written permission from the CAA for a congested area landing!

Interpreting the rules (i.e. ANO Rule 5) strictly to the letter, you would need a minimum of 600 metres clearance from a congested area. As I posted earlier, the CAA seem to give permission only to "low fly" no more than 1km from the landing point.

I wouldn't judge whether your previous landings were legal or not; I'm not familiar with the sites. My opinion is irrelevant anyway, as I don't work for the CAA's GA Department! I have to apply for permission (just like anyone else should) and comply with the conditions imposed by the CAA.

You will get away with it until either you have an incident, someone complains, or you get spotted by a CAA rep. I hope your insurance company will support you if it's an incident, but they may not, so good luck.

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

guys guys guys......stop feeding the chopc*ck :mad::mad::mad:
:ugh::ugh:

[chopjock]

Interpreting the rules (i.e. ANO Rule 5) strictly to the letter, you would need a minimum of 600 metres clearance from a congested area. As I posted earlier, the CAA seem to give permission only to "low fly" no more than 1km from the landing point.

Right so fly up river on H10, SVFR, (if cleared by ATC) to Kew Bridge, then report letting down at private site to the West, and land just in from the river bank, which is more than 600 m from a congested area. Just like what I did last time.:ok:

[ShyTorque]

It's up to you but I wouldn't personally want to risk my licence on it. I hope the CAA's interpretion of what comprises a congested area is the same as yours. It might not be, but only they can answer that. I would prefer to ask them, rather than hope to "just get away with it".

CAP393 is available online, btw. :)

My last input on the issue.

[stonedigger]

You brits crack me up.... where I'm from flying a few people to a wedding is neither dangeous nor illegal. I feel sorry for all fellow aviators in the UK - tight regulations like these must be mind-boggling... :{

[stix]

Second that, in Australia anywhere you consider to be a basic helipad is a legitimate landing site as long as you have assessed all the risks, it's considered safe and it isn't used frequently.

[JulieAndrews]

Let's assume noorpilot has some piloting experience - and request for twin-engined type is a keyman insurance requirement or because they're aware of some possible regulations........
and the single-engine 350 reference was a typo......
and the fact that some chopper pilot out there is willing to take the offer up......
As it is for a wedding, I'm also going to assume that noorpilot is an adult and over the legal age for prosecution.....so we can rest assured that if there is any wrong doing then the legal beavers can look forward to making some money.
Precedent has already been set in what is and is not a congested area....to a point, just depends upon how good your advice is. More to the point....is it safe for me to land at a particular spot iaw ano?
The fact that overflight exemption is required is in black and white.

Cost sharing is legal - and clearly defined. Leasing a helicopter and hiring your own crew is also legal and suggest that as a pilot, noorpilot, might easily fulfill role of 'operator'. Is helicopter maintained to PT schedule? etc etc

Lot simpler to use an aoc company but perhaps noorpilot has more about them than opting to go the easy route.
Can only encourage such an attitude and, once noorpilot discovers the arrangement could jeopardise the important day when the pilot gets cold feet, then they might want to revert to the aoc route but it might be too late to save the day.

It could probably be in the same aircraft - and could easily be with the same pilot, just more expensive, more paperwork, more restrictions, not necessarily 'safer' but with the knowledge that it's 'kosher'.

I think what I'm trying to say is:

If money is your reason for wanting to self-fly, lease, cost share etc, then there are many regulations to consider - seemingly contradictory and often disguised in their reference - but it is possible.

If it is because you think you 'can' and there is no need to use an AOC company, then more power to your elbow - you're an adult and therefore responsible for your actions - and as 'operator' of the aircraft, responsible for actions of others you might not know!

good luck on the day and hope weather behaves.
It's eye-opening what you are allowed to do with-in the ANO.
"Tolerate this and your children will be next"

[JimBall]

And of course, the catering team cooking the wedding feast have to comply with numerous food safety rules in order to ensure that they don't poison the guests.

That doesn't stop the glass washer/plate handler from wiping their bum, not washing their hands etc. It just means that whilst you are knees-down over the porcelain, he/she is safely at home not giving a damn.

But a reputable catering company would be much less of a risk.......

[topendtorque]

noorpilot, It would appear to me, just a humble pilot from down hunder,
that you have been given sage advice, numerous times.

Now;

Either you are a professional, in which case you may wish your pompous self to be viewed as such on YOUR special day, so if that is the case, well employ a professional to do the job, there are heaps of them here on pprune living quite close by you.

However I say that with tongue in cheek just a little, as it seems that it is you who wishes to be delivered, but if it is your new wife on her special day, which is what it is supposed to be all about and with great graciousness I might add, then look after her with the best pro that you can find.
They are also in abundance right here on this thread, but I say again maybe you have forgotten to tell us who is going to be delivered.

You know, don't tie yourself up with great compexities on this great day, after all you have to give a speech, very soon.

or maybe you are but an amater;

If so, I suggest forget it. You will have noticed my comments in response to spinwing.

I knew exactly what he was saying, I twisted it to portray memories of mistakes of others for people to learn from, about such occasions having turned into downright tragedies because the euphoria of the event betrayed any training of professionalism, and dead bodies and smashed machines was the result.

This will also be my last post on the issue and I think I have said just what needs to be said.

After that, all the best to you and your new wile, and your happy union, savour every day as sometimes they run short.

cheers tet