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
Is that why we 'Bong' it when it all goes pear-shaped?
Less of the English ladies form, more of the fact that numerous pilots seem to be getting too emotional and need to re-read some of the threads! Admiration for a stunt is not the same as condoning it or even wishing to do it.
Strange, but I never once went out and jumped over 18 DoubleDecker buses, or went and encouraged someone else to do it.
Hark the herald angels sing!
Less of the English ladies form, more of the fact that numerous pilots seem to be getting too emotional and need to re-read some of the threads! Admiration for a stunt is not the same as condoning it or even wishing to do it.
Strange, but I never once went out and jumped over 18 DoubleDecker buses, or went and encouraged someone else to do it.
Hark the herald angels sing!
Black eye for me!
I guess my copy of TIME/LIFE "The world at war" is wrong and I bow my head in shame of smearing Maj. Bong's name.
SASless and all others, I did 5 years of service on Fast Patrol Boats as an enlisted and later as an officer in my homecountry's navy, but now I am a civlian flight instructor. Again, so I may be harsh, but I still think that it is people like this that give us a bad reputation.
This is just like the other day, one of my students went out and did a little "low level flying" cruising around at 50 - 100 feet AGL, and even told the tower about it. I guess the consesus here is not to tell anyone about it? He should just get a WOOHOO get going dude!! and a slap on the back for a great show?
I belive in setting a good example, and we took him in the office, and gave him a "slap on the wrist" verbally, and entered a letter in his training file, which noone will ever see but us, unless he kills himself.
SO, should we condone this action by this wayward feller that flew under the bridge? I still think not, Maybe it is going too far taking his license away for ever, but he should atleast get a stiff fine, and have his license taken away for a while.
I guess my copy of TIME/LIFE "The world at war" is wrong and I bow my head in shame of smearing Maj. Bong's name.
SASless and all others, I did 5 years of service on Fast Patrol Boats as an enlisted and later as an officer in my homecountry's navy, but now I am a civlian flight instructor. Again, so I may be harsh, but I still think that it is people like this that give us a bad reputation.
This is just like the other day, one of my students went out and did a little "low level flying" cruising around at 50 - 100 feet AGL, and even told the tower about it. I guess the consesus here is not to tell anyone about it? He should just get a WOOHOO get going dude!! and a slap on the back for a great show?
I belive in setting a good example, and we took him in the office, and gave him a "slap on the wrist" verbally, and entered a letter in his training file, which noone will ever see but us, unless he kills himself.
SO, should we condone this action by this wayward feller that flew under the bridge? I still think not, Maybe it is going too far taking his license away for ever, but he should atleast get a stiff fine, and have his license taken away for a while.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little more information about Richard Bong:
"On August 6, 1945, while half a world away the Enola Gay dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Bong stepped into an airplane for the last time. His P-80 malfunctioned just after take-off, and while he bailed out, he never had a chance. He was just too close to the ground. After surviving two years of combat flying, Richard Ira Bong met his end while on a routine acceptance flight."
From this website:
www.acepilots.com
"On August 6, 1945, while half a world away the Enola Gay dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Bong stepped into an airplane for the last time. His P-80 malfunctioned just after take-off, and while he bailed out, he never had a chance. He was just too close to the ground. After surviving two years of combat flying, Richard Ira Bong met his end while on a routine acceptance flight."
From this website:
www.acepilots.com
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas Coupling,
Yes, nearly all Americans get medals just for turning up for work but not, I would venture to suggest, The Congressional Medal of Honour, Distinguished Service Cross or Distinguished Flying Cross and you do yourself, as well as a true hero a disservice in your rather snide implications.
Oh thou who art holier than all others, I recently visited the United Kingdom, land of rules and respecters thereof, and whilst driving upon thy motorways and byways didst witness many driving under bridges at velocities in excess of 100 miles per hour, driving through crowded town and city centres by day at velocities well in excess of 30 miles per hour. I wonder which is the more dangerous
Maybe one of thou who art the most righteous was amongst those I saw. Verily, let he who is without any sin cast the first stone
Yes, nearly all Americans get medals just for turning up for work but not, I would venture to suggest, The Congressional Medal of Honour, Distinguished Service Cross or Distinguished Flying Cross and you do yourself, as well as a true hero a disservice in your rather snide implications.
Oh thou who art holier than all others, I recently visited the United Kingdom, land of rules and respecters thereof, and whilst driving upon thy motorways and byways didst witness many driving under bridges at velocities in excess of 100 miles per hour, driving through crowded town and city centres by day at velocities well in excess of 30 miles per hour. I wonder which is the more dangerous
Maybe one of thou who art the most righteous was amongst those I saw. Verily, let he who is without any sin cast the first stone
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I think some folks here are over-reacting a tiny bit. It ought to be borne in mind that this sort of stuff is actually bread and butter stuff to military helicopter pilots and I don't think that we should need to make such a shock horror story out of it. It was ill-advised at best and possibly illegal (don't hang him without knowing the facts), but not particularly dangerous. Quoting the engine failure case is a bit spurious, the chances of that happening just there are really very small indeed. I and many others have spent much time in single engined helicopters or very underpowered twins winching folks up and down over rocks and water and ships and flying underslung loads with hookers up working under the aircraft. By the same argument this is unacceptably dangerous? Actually more chance of more folks getting hurt if a donk stops than by flying under a bridge.
On the other hand, the EMS pilot who went into the river last winter after hitting the ice with a skid as he attempted to go under a bridge too far was just plain stupid and not up to his own opinion of himself. He proved it with tragic consequences.
I don't condone any of it but I must say I see more dangerous stuff on the M1 just about every day. We seldom hear of a car or lorry driver having his licence pulled for ever, even where loss of life occurred as a result of bad driving. For example, one silly girl I saw tonight was drifting between the two narrow outer lanes of the M1 through road works. She was sending a series of text messages on her mobile phone and totally oblivious to all else going on around her and to the danger she was putting herself and others in. IMHO she deserved a large mallet applying to her phone and her cranium.
I can understand Roofus being wary though; he shouldn't go anywhere near bridges. Knowing his luck the tail rotor would probably let go again just at the critical moment
On the other hand, the EMS pilot who went into the river last winter after hitting the ice with a skid as he attempted to go under a bridge too far was just plain stupid and not up to his own opinion of himself. He proved it with tragic consequences.
I don't condone any of it but I must say I see more dangerous stuff on the M1 just about every day. We seldom hear of a car or lorry driver having his licence pulled for ever, even where loss of life occurred as a result of bad driving. For example, one silly girl I saw tonight was drifting between the two narrow outer lanes of the M1 through road works. She was sending a series of text messages on her mobile phone and totally oblivious to all else going on around her and to the danger she was putting herself and others in. IMHO she deserved a large mallet applying to her phone and her cranium.
I can understand Roofus being wary though; he shouldn't go anywhere near bridges. Knowing his luck the tail rotor would probably let go again just at the critical moment
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: floating around
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm
but yet
So its o.k if it crashes into a bridge as long as it is a military helicopter.
Strange world we live in.
MamboBaas, you don't really buy into all that crap that the government tries to sell you "land of the free and brave" and all that, do you?
You are all hero's, each and every one of you, in your own little way!!
Locals believe any collision between an aircraft and the £25m bridge would be catastrophic
this sort of stuff is actually bread and butter stuff to military helicopter pilots
Strange world we live in.
MamboBaas, you don't really buy into all that crap that the government tries to sell you "land of the free and brave" and all that, do you?
You are all hero's, each and every one of you, in your own little way!!
I voted for number 3. Why ? Partly because there's no information as yet that the flight was legally sanctioned by the CAA as part of some film-making activities, indeed the fact the CAA are actively helping the search for the pilot indicates otherwise.
If someone undertakes risky behaviour, it's likely that they'll keep pushing the boundaries until the risk taken exceeds both their own, and the aircraft's abilities and they die. If they do that, I don't want to be near them when they do, and I'm sure that their passengers won't appreciate the extremely intense but very short adrenalin rush which will result.
If someone undertakes risky behaviour, it's likely that they'll keep pushing the boundaries until the risk taken exceeds both their own, and the aircraft's abilities and they die. If they do that, I don't want to be near them when they do, and I'm sure that their passengers won't appreciate the extremely intense but very short adrenalin rush which will result.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the manoeuvre would be regarded as illegal in the States.
I also wonder why some people think it's hazardous to people on the bridge to fly a helicopter through a gap 100' high x quarter of a mile wide.
We Brits are well known for complying with rules, whether in aviation or otherwise. Might it be that we fall into the trap of subconsciously assuming illegal = dangerous?
Or that, if something is safe, the CAA would allow it and, if it's forbidden it must be dangerous?
FAR Section. 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
(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.
N/A
(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.
(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.
N/A
(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.
We Brits are well known for complying with rules, whether in aviation or otherwise. Might it be that we fall into the trap of subconsciously assuming illegal = dangerous?
Or that, if something is safe, the CAA would allow it and, if it's forbidden it must be dangerous?
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 1st Jul 2003 at 20:57.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to know how many of the "hope he gets away with it" voters are civvy flying instructors. May or may not be dangerous but there is no doubt that it is illegal. I hope that no instructors are actually telling their student "break the rules if it is safe and if you wont get caught".
People have been known to jump off the Skye bridge. Dont fancy flying under it myself!!
People have been known to jump off the Skye bridge. Dont fancy flying under it myself!!
Mambobaas, did you stop to think why all those people were speeding in their cars and breaking the law? It is because speeding is condoned by the authorities however much they may claim to deny it. A motorway cop won't bother with a speeding vehicle until it is over 85 mph (unless it is really blatant) and many magistrates courts regard speeding on a motorway as a far lesser crime than in built up areas. If the law were to be rigidly enforced then the roads in UK would come to a complete standstill (OK more of a standstill than they already are).
My point is that if you condone or approve of this guys stunt under the bridge then don't be surprised when it happens again and again until someone spears in doing it, killing himself and several onlookers and we all cry "How could this sort of flying indiscipline be allowed, what have the CAA been doing about it".
What the guy did wasn't difficult - a confined area requires more piloting skills - but it was illegal and ill advised and if and when he gets caught he has only himself to blame.
If he gets away with it then what might he try next?
My point is that if you condone or approve of this guys stunt under the bridge then don't be surprised when it happens again and again until someone spears in doing it, killing himself and several onlookers and we all cry "How could this sort of flying indiscipline be allowed, what have the CAA been doing about it".
What the guy did wasn't difficult - a confined area requires more piloting skills - but it was illegal and ill advised and if and when he gets caught he has only himself to blame.
If he gets away with it then what might he try next?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting thread guys. Just to add my tuppence worth, I was working on contract for BUTEC at Kyle of Lochalsh the week after the bridge had been officially opened. The engineer I was working with told me that the week before the opening, a French private pilots helicopter club who were touring the U.K had all flown under the bridge!! This consisted mainly of R22's but also included a B206 and H500, total of 6 or 7.
I also remember my CP telling me that if I tried it that I would be looking for new employment. (By the way, I didnt
)
I also remember my CP telling me that if I tried it that I would be looking for new employment. (By the way, I didnt
)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crab,
Yes I did stop to think why all those people were breaking the law. On the motorway, probably little harm is done, but in cities and towns it is your government's view that statistically you are far more likely to be killed if you are hit by a car doing 40 mph than one doing 30 mph. I have a friend in my country whose son was killed in town by a speeding driver. My point of view is that whether you feel the authorities condone breaking the law or not, if you personally condone it, or have broken the law by illegally speeding yourself (which I believe can be statistically proven to kill a much greater number of people every year than helicopters flying under bridges) then what right have you to sit in 'holier than thou' judgement on one of your fellows who has merely broken another law? Hypocritical or what
It seems that the UK is very much a country where people only respect and obey those laws they feel should apply to them. I guess it's better than where I am, where might is right - who knows
Yes I did stop to think why all those people were breaking the law. On the motorway, probably little harm is done, but in cities and towns it is your government's view that statistically you are far more likely to be killed if you are hit by a car doing 40 mph than one doing 30 mph. I have a friend in my country whose son was killed in town by a speeding driver. My point of view is that whether you feel the authorities condone breaking the law or not, if you personally condone it, or have broken the law by illegally speeding yourself (which I believe can be statistically proven to kill a much greater number of people every year than helicopters flying under bridges) then what right have you to sit in 'holier than thou' judgement on one of your fellows who has merely broken another law? Hypocritical or what
It seems that the UK is very much a country where people only respect and obey those laws they feel should apply to them. I guess it's better than where I am, where might is right - who knows
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine that if a boat or ship were to hit the footing of the bridge it would cause considerably more damage than an R-22. Must seagoing craft remain 500 feet from the bridge as well?
Risk is rather relative. Has a scientific risk assessment been conducted to assign the risk of the helicopter hitting the bridge? Can the authorities cite examples of helicopters unintentionally hitting bridges? Is there a documented case of a helicopter bringing down a bridge by collision? I saw a video of a CH-47 fall onto a bridge in Korea while placing an Olympic Torch. The bridge is still standing.
There are many helicopter operations around the world where helicopters routinely operate near or around structures at distances of less than 500 feet. As an example a tourist helicopter company in San Pedro, California made every take-off and landing under a bridge for years without incident.
I would be more concerned about the risk to the helicopter from dangling cables or litter thrown from the bridge and for that reason would consider the risk high.
Risk is rather relative. Has a scientific risk assessment been conducted to assign the risk of the helicopter hitting the bridge? Can the authorities cite examples of helicopters unintentionally hitting bridges? Is there a documented case of a helicopter bringing down a bridge by collision? I saw a video of a CH-47 fall onto a bridge in Korea while placing an Olympic Torch. The bridge is still standing.
There are many helicopter operations around the world where helicopters routinely operate near or around structures at distances of less than 500 feet. As an example a tourist helicopter company in San Pedro, California made every take-off and landing under a bridge for years without incident.
I would be more concerned about the risk to the helicopter from dangling cables or litter thrown from the bridge and for that reason would consider the risk high.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a non pilot, I still think it would be so cool to be able to fly under a bridge like that. I understand the sfety and economic concerns and I don't dismiss them, but it would be very cool, none the less.
So why do people speed? They are conciously taking a risk that they think they can deal with and don't think too long and hard about the consequences of their failure to deal with it. 90 mph in the outside lane of the motorway seems like a perfectly acceptable risk to take, after all aren't millions of others taking the same risk and getting away with it? Therefore if it's OK for them then why not me? Oh dear I seem to have forgotten that I am trying to steer a 1/2 ton car between two white lines about 7 feet apart at 132 feet per second...hmmmm suddenly the margin for error doesn't seem too large especially if I am less than 30 feet from the car/lorry in front who is kicking up spray 'cos it's just been raining and it's dark.
The point I am trying to make is that risk taking, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and once one person makes a risk look acceptable then others will follow ( I am not being holier than thou about speeding or trying to preach from the moral high ground, just trying to highlight some facts of life). Where one speeder has gone so will go many others and a certain proportion of them will die or kill others whilst taking their 'acceptable' risk.
Once one person flys under the bridge so will others (the story of the French aero club seems to back that up) - small potatoes in the big scheme of things but what happens next? More illegal low flying, more bridges with smaller clearances to get a bigger buzz - as the word spreads and publicity builds who wants their 15 minutes of fame down the Thames under all the bridges?
I would rather the bloke had flown into the bridge as it would have at least rid the world of another R22 and proved conclusively that the bridge is strong enough to withstand the impact.
Lots of things look cool right up until they go horribly wrong - see New Labour for details!!!
The point I am trying to make is that risk taking, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and once one person makes a risk look acceptable then others will follow ( I am not being holier than thou about speeding or trying to preach from the moral high ground, just trying to highlight some facts of life). Where one speeder has gone so will go many others and a certain proportion of them will die or kill others whilst taking their 'acceptable' risk.
Once one person flys under the bridge so will others (the story of the French aero club seems to back that up) - small potatoes in the big scheme of things but what happens next? More illegal low flying, more bridges with smaller clearances to get a bigger buzz - as the word spreads and publicity builds who wants their 15 minutes of fame down the Thames under all the bridges?
I would rather the bloke had flown into the bridge as it would have at least rid the world of another R22 and proved conclusively that the bridge is strong enough to withstand the impact.
Lots of things look cool right up until they go horribly wrong - see New Labour for details!!!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
I voted for "hope he gets away", mainly because where it happened and the authority responsible for that country.
I do not agree with doing stunts like this in a situation where GA is already at risk to get exstinct.
The following link has nothing to do with the case at hand or the CAA, but it shows the general ridicule involving laws and regulations in UK and Europe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/w...re/2981358.stm
You will find all the related links there, read it, it is quite ridiculous!
Now I understand the CAA is LOT worse than any traffic entity in the great UK!
It is a little difficult to judge whether this guy will go on and find more challenging and potentially dangerous thrills, but I doubt he will. The real thrill with this was most likely not to find out whether he could do the bridge (as was stated: any regular confined area is more difficult...), but could he get away with it!! I hope he can. But if they catch up with him I hope he still gets away with a medium stiff fine, lets say 4-5 flighthours worth.....
However as there are very few people in the CAA with any pilot skills and/or danger judging capabilities from a proffesional pilot point of view, but mostly law enforcers with little comon sense - I hope they do not get him/her!!!
If it was for the "bridge thrill" he should have looked for some less prominent bridge.
As Rich Lee mentioned, the real danger is more likely for the helicopter from anything coming down from the bridge.
Shy Torque! You got the cure, especially with those barges!!
For Winnie and all the other perfect law abiding people out there:
Take a vacation, come to Panama and enjoy some low level river tour - tree top level canopy tour and RELAX!!
Of course this may not be the most safe way to fly, but then the idea is to get a good and fun tour, which never the less is still reasonable save. No need to push the limits for some fun - neither did the guy with bridge. However here it is legal...
Sometimes you need a little fun and thrill in your live...
....or you might just die of boredom.
3top
I voted for "hope he gets away", mainly because where it happened and the authority responsible for that country.
I do not agree with doing stunts like this in a situation where GA is already at risk to get exstinct.
The following link has nothing to do with the case at hand or the CAA, but it shows the general ridicule involving laws and regulations in UK and Europe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/w...re/2981358.stm
You will find all the related links there, read it, it is quite ridiculous!
Now I understand the CAA is LOT worse than any traffic entity in the great UK!
It is a little difficult to judge whether this guy will go on and find more challenging and potentially dangerous thrills, but I doubt he will. The real thrill with this was most likely not to find out whether he could do the bridge (as was stated: any regular confined area is more difficult...), but could he get away with it!! I hope he can. But if they catch up with him I hope he still gets away with a medium stiff fine, lets say 4-5 flighthours worth.....
However as there are very few people in the CAA with any pilot skills and/or danger judging capabilities from a proffesional pilot point of view, but mostly law enforcers with little comon sense - I hope they do not get him/her!!!
If it was for the "bridge thrill" he should have looked for some less prominent bridge.
As Rich Lee mentioned, the real danger is more likely for the helicopter from anything coming down from the bridge.
Shy Torque! You got the cure, especially with those barges!!
For Winnie and all the other perfect law abiding people out there:
Take a vacation, come to Panama and enjoy some low level river tour - tree top level canopy tour and RELAX!!
Of course this may not be the most safe way to fly, but then the idea is to get a good and fun tour, which never the less is still reasonable save. No need to push the limits for some fun - neither did the guy with bridge. However here it is legal...
Sometimes you need a little fun and thrill in your live...
....or you might just die of boredom.
3top
Last edited by 3top; 2nd Jul 2003 at 08:35.