View Poll Results: What would you like to see happen to this pilot?
No harm done. Hope he's not traced and gets away with it.
267
59.07%
Hope he's traced, prosecuted and fined.
75
16.59%
He should be fined and have his licence pulled for a short period
85
18.81%
He should lose his licence for ever.
25
5.53%
Voters: 452. This poll is closed
Naughty, naughty! Helicopter pilot's bridge stunt
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just today I was flying with an Civil Aviation Inspector and HE asked me if we could go under a bridge(206L4), he said he always wanted to do that. So after analizing the scene......
If doing something like this every now and then was out of the question for me, I would be flying airplanes! Whatīs the use if you donīt have some careful fun?
Different point of view from Mexico, where you donīt fly by the rules, just by common sense.
If doing something like this every now and then was out of the question for me, I would be flying airplanes! Whatīs the use if you donīt have some careful fun?
Different point of view from Mexico, where you donīt fly by the rules, just by common sense.
To date, the poll result speaks volumes.
FWIW, we have two bridges here in Melbourne, the WestGate Bridge which has about 150 ft clearance, and the Bolte Bridge with about 60 ft clearance. My company dispensation for filming & photography allows flight under them, as does the same dispensation for a half dozen other local operators. Brett Newman got the guernsey for the first (legal) flight under the WestGate about 12 years ago, and it doesn't raise an eyebrow these days.
Much ado about nothing
However, the Sydney Harbour Bridge is now a no no, since the new harbourmaster decided a year or two ago that he would close the harbour to shipping the next time CASA authorised a flight under the bridge. Rather than remind him who controls airspace, they caved in and now refuse Harbour Bridge "underflights". Conversely, the much riskier practice of overflying the South Pylon of the Harbour Bridge with about 60 ft clearance is standard procedure for R409 flights
FWIW, we have two bridges here in Melbourne, the WestGate Bridge which has about 150 ft clearance, and the Bolte Bridge with about 60 ft clearance. My company dispensation for filming & photography allows flight under them, as does the same dispensation for a half dozen other local operators. Brett Newman got the guernsey for the first (legal) flight under the WestGate about 12 years ago, and it doesn't raise an eyebrow these days.
Much ado about nothing
However, the Sydney Harbour Bridge is now a no no, since the new harbourmaster decided a year or two ago that he would close the harbour to shipping the next time CASA authorised a flight under the bridge. Rather than remind him who controls airspace, they caved in and now refuse Harbour Bridge "underflights". Conversely, the much riskier practice of overflying the South Pylon of the Harbour Bridge with about 60 ft clearance is standard procedure for R409 flights
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah! We've now got 3 votes for taking his licence away for life.
Anyone who favours that care to say why?
And whether pilot / non-pilot?
Flight Safety
I don't think the '500ft flight restriction near the bridge' is specific to that bridge. In the UK we aren't allowed to fly closer than 500 feet to any structure except for taking off or landing, even in helicopters. Strange, but true. The equivalent FAA rule is much more sensible.
Heliport
Anyone who favours that care to say why?
And whether pilot / non-pilot?
Flight Safety
I don't think the '500ft flight restriction near the bridge' is specific to that bridge. In the UK we aren't allowed to fly closer than 500 feet to any structure except for taking off or landing, even in helicopters. Strange, but true. The equivalent FAA rule is much more sensible.
Heliport
Last edited by Heliport; 27th Jun 2003 at 14:33.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: floating around
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose people admire him, cause the CAA is just nowadays seen as the third Reich with so many super strict pointless laws, with absoloutly no leeway that seems to be aimed at the prevention of aviation, (General Aviation and Commercial)
So when any anti authority figure who goes out and has a bit of harmless fun (100 feet as opposed to 35 feet in Germany I think)by bending a few rules and gets away with, will now seen as some type of Steve Mcqueen type character, and the CAA can just ram it up there arse (Until he is caught of course, then he is screwed!)!!
So when any anti authority figure who goes out and has a bit of harmless fun (100 feet as opposed to 35 feet in Germany I think)by bending a few rules and gets away with, will now seen as some type of Steve Mcqueen type character, and the CAA can just ram it up there arse (Until he is caught of course, then he is screwed!)!!
Point taken about the height difference, and even if the helicopter hit the bridge, I doubt the structural integrity would suffer.(Of the bridge, not the heli.!)
What does suffer is the public perception of helicopters and general aviation as a whole. Where do you draw the line with how high the bridge has to be before it changes from harmless fun to a dangerous act? If the pilot is seen to get away with it how low does the next thrill seeker go?
A controlled exercise for filming with proper recces is one thing, a quick spur of the moment dash is another.
What does suffer is the public perception of helicopters and general aviation as a whole. Where do you draw the line with how high the bridge has to be before it changes from harmless fun to a dangerous act? If the pilot is seen to get away with it how low does the next thrill seeker go?
A controlled exercise for filming with proper recces is one thing, a quick spur of the moment dash is another.
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 66
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I voted for the lifetime ban and I am happy to point out why.
This is clearly a case of reckless endangerment. The pilot endangered himself, the people who were also on the helicopter who probably had no say in the matter, the people who would have had to recover the wreckage, who were on the bridge at the time or subsequently had to repair it.
How would the supporters of such grossly obscene acts feel if the headline was:
"Children orphaned in Skye Bridge helicopter crash."
Why do you moralise over bad driving, yet condone bad flying?
This is clearly a case of reckless endangerment. The pilot endangered himself, the people who were also on the helicopter who probably had no say in the matter, the people who would have had to recover the wreckage, who were on the bridge at the time or subsequently had to repair it.
How would the supporters of such grossly obscene acts feel if the headline was:
"Children orphaned in Skye Bridge helicopter crash."
Why do you moralise over bad driving, yet condone bad flying?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just cleared the tears from my eyes. Someone back there posted along the lines of "must be a GA pilot, can't believe a commercial pilot would do such a thing."
Having unravelled what you mean, I haven't laughed as much since my grandmother got her t*t caught in the mangle. (Les Dawson, 1977).
So - commercial helicopter pilots never do anything that could be considered stupid ?
Having unravelled what you mean, I haven't laughed as much since my grandmother got her t*t caught in the mangle. (Les Dawson, 1977).
So - commercial helicopter pilots never do anything that could be considered stupid ?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this has been said earlier (I cant seem to get page 1 of this topic) but :
Headsethair wrote "So - commercial helicopter pilots never do anything that could be considered stupid?" If you consider flying under a bridge stupid, read on------
If you'd been up and about early one Sunday morning a couple of weeks ago, you might just have seen a Twin Squirrel flying under a certain bridge on the River Thames - four times, I believe. (road deck raised, of course!) All done with the knowledge and (grudging) approval of the CAA.
And if you missed the event, watch out for "Thunderbirds", coming to a cinema near you in the not too distant future, for a pilots eye view.
Headsethair wrote "So - commercial helicopter pilots never do anything that could be considered stupid?" If you consider flying under a bridge stupid, read on------
If you'd been up and about early one Sunday morning a couple of weeks ago, you might just have seen a Twin Squirrel flying under a certain bridge on the River Thames - four times, I believe. (road deck raised, of course!) All done with the knowledge and (grudging) approval of the CAA.
And if you missed the event, watch out for "Thunderbirds", coming to a cinema near you in the not too distant future, for a pilots eye view.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is that little spot the helicopter under the bridge? this practice looks perfectly safe to me.
of couse, they are wearing life jackets!
as long as there is a safe distance of seperation why not? (apart from the regs)
also the speed at which the flight is done is a factor, 30kts would be pretty conservative, but 100kts would be different
of couse, they are wearing life jackets!
as long as there is a safe distance of seperation why not? (apart from the regs)
also the speed at which the flight is done is a factor, 30kts would be pretty conservative, but 100kts would be different
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen the bridge close up, there would be plenty of room. BUT if this pilot is blatently braking the rules, what other stupid things is he/she doing. Flying under the bridge may or may not be dangerous, but the pilot's attitude is dangerous. Dont care much if he/she kills themselves. Do very much care if he/she kills someone else or leaves kids without a father/mother.
As for disruption, a light helicopter will do very little damage. But it would take a civil/structural engineer a while to prove it.
As for disruption, a light helicopter will do very little damage. But it would take a civil/structural engineer a while to prove it.
Hovering AND talking
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So - commercial helicopter pilots never do anything that could be considered stupid ?
I did suffix the post saying that I might have a lot to learn! But I still find it hard to believe that a commercial pilot would risk his/her licence and job for such a stunt. Thankfully, all the pilots I know and have flown with are very professional and safety conscious. Am I lucky? Is this unusual?
As an analogy, there is a stretch near me that is open country road but has a thirty mph limit. It is a totally ridiculous limit; I cannot fathom out why it is there but IT IS there and as my driving licence matters to me, I stick to the limit and don't blatt through at the 60 mph that used to exist on that road.
Quite seriously though I would be interested to know what heli it was and, objectively how dodgy the maneouvre was.
Cheers
Whirlygig
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love this Forum. Here we are debating the sense or otherwise of a heli flying under a bridge - and not two clicks away is a posting from a UK pilot bemoaning the high cost of insurance rates here!
Maybe if our friend the "barnstormer" had considered in advance that, in this age of electronic whizzery, his little jolly would instantly be plastered around the globe (and onto the PCs of insurance brokers no doubt), he might have thought twice.
Look - helis are capable of much better things than flying under bridges. Just don't do it where someone can twitch the curtains and pick up a phone. And don't do it where you risk the lives of anyone other than yourself.
For your lack of consideration for other members of the UK helicopter community and the effect that your little stunt will have on the PR of helicopters, you should be sent on a night out with Chris Evans. But watch it - he can't afford his tab now.
Maybe if our friend the "barnstormer" had considered in advance that, in this age of electronic whizzery, his little jolly would instantly be plastered around the globe (and onto the PCs of insurance brokers no doubt), he might have thought twice.
Look - helis are capable of much better things than flying under bridges. Just don't do it where someone can twitch the curtains and pick up a phone. And don't do it where you risk the lives of anyone other than yourself.
For your lack of consideration for other members of the UK helicopter community and the effect that your little stunt will have on the PR of helicopters, you should be sent on a night out with Chris Evans. But watch it - he can't afford his tab now.
Repeat after me......I have never flown in the treetops....I have never scouted a Nudist Beach......I have never buzzed a friend's house....I have never done torque turns.....I have never flown down the river below the trees.....I have never flown under bridges in the Rose City......I have never been a real helicopter pilot!
Flying is fun....Really!!! Have you ever chased a Hippo....terrorized a Baboon.....messed with a Grizzly Bear's mind....set flight to a herd of goats....hovered over a railroad track at night with the landing lights on......white out'ed the screen of a drive-in movie theater?
The trick is to do it safely......without harm to anyone or anything!
Flying is fun....Really!!! Have you ever chased a Hippo....terrorized a Baboon.....messed with a Grizzly Bear's mind....set flight to a herd of goats....hovered over a railroad track at night with the landing lights on......white out'ed the screen of a drive-in movie theater?
The trick is to do it safely......without harm to anyone or anything!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
headsethair
On your insurance premiums point, I can't find the facts and figures to back this but I remember reading that most light a/c and heli accidents are weather related. I can't think of any accidents where the pilot was being reckless in the way you mean here. Reckless carrying on in bad weather maybe.
I think a lot of votes may depend on personal experience. If people have done corporate/VIP flying all their lives they may see things more conservatively than pilots who've done more challenging flying all over the world away from the nanny CAA.
Whirlygig
Maybe you've answered your own question. A lot of professional pilots wouldn't take the risk because the price of being caught is too high. Doesn't mean the idea doesn't appeal.
Objectively, it's not dangerous. If a pilot can't fly under a 100 bridge without any risk at all of hitting it he shouldn't be flying.
Always enjoy reading your post SASless. You tell it like it is.
Ban for life? Rubbish.
On your insurance premiums point, I can't find the facts and figures to back this but I remember reading that most light a/c and heli accidents are weather related. I can't think of any accidents where the pilot was being reckless in the way you mean here. Reckless carrying on in bad weather maybe.
I think a lot of votes may depend on personal experience. If people have done corporate/VIP flying all their lives they may see things more conservatively than pilots who've done more challenging flying all over the world away from the nanny CAA.
Whirlygig
Maybe you've answered your own question. A lot of professional pilots wouldn't take the risk because the price of being caught is too high. Doesn't mean the idea doesn't appeal.
Objectively, it's not dangerous. If a pilot can't fly under a 100 bridge without any risk at all of hitting it he shouldn't be flying.
Always enjoy reading your post SASless. You tell it like it is.
Ban for life? Rubbish.
"recklessly endangering their lives and those of others" or words to that effect!
Are you seriously telling me that to attempt to visually maintain S&L +/- 50', in excellent viz, justifies this point? Guess you had better re-take your flight test.
Stupid flying because he/she could get caught but it certainly wasn't reckless or dangerous........or was the pilot blindfolded as I see the safety net had been taken away.
Foolish flying to do it twice in a row...predictable tactics.
Sounds like a couple of pilots had been on the Scottish water and placed a wager......good luck to them.
Now flying to the South Pole in a glorified egg-whisk was brave/foolhardy/reckless/spunky (delete as required)
Are you seriously telling me that to attempt to visually maintain S&L +/- 50', in excellent viz, justifies this point? Guess you had better re-take your flight test.
Stupid flying because he/she could get caught but it certainly wasn't reckless or dangerous........or was the pilot blindfolded as I see the safety net had been taken away.
Foolish flying to do it twice in a row...predictable tactics.
Sounds like a couple of pilots had been on the Scottish water and placed a wager......good luck to them.
Now flying to the South Pole in a glorified egg-whisk was brave/foolhardy/reckless/spunky (delete as required)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The solution is clearly to ban barges.
Most people in that area didn't want the Skye brige and complain about the tolls.
We're getting aerated about an aircraft going under a bridge they didn't want anyway, in case it did damage it didn't and quite probably couldn't do?
Most people in that area didn't want the Skye brige and complain about the tolls.
We're getting aerated about an aircraft going under a bridge they didn't want anyway, in case it did damage it didn't and quite probably couldn't do?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mid 70,s with a new CPL I was one of two Aztecs taking pax ABZ to Broadford (Isle of Skye) in grotty wx as one did. We both got there shaky hands spilling tea, I said I let down over water to the north of Skye, my mate said he let down to the south and flew 100ft between mainland and Skye, I said did you fly under the power wires? He said, what power wires?