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: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3Top:
Hesitated somewhat but finally couldn't resist (sad or what).
I assume that's the method you use for all votes.
I think I see the connection.
We have to bow to your local knowledge there 3top!
You've tried Russian roulette then!
Love a logical and well constructed argument - don't you?
Hesitated somewhat but finally couldn't resist (sad or what).
I voted for "hope he gets away", mainly because where it happened and the authority responsible for that country.
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
Now I understand the CAA is LOT worse than any traffic entity in the great UK...
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...
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...
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
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
Love a logical and well constructed argument - don't you?
Last edited by Mars; 2nd Jul 2003 at 15:14.
I'm in the camp that thinks that if he/she gets caught, he/she's only got himself/herself to blame.
As for the CAA investigating it; they should spend more time investigating flying schools that permit their students and instructors to hover taxi single engined helis at 20ft+ agl. Far more risky than flying under a 100ft high bridge and far more prevalent. OK so it's not illegal, but the potential for injury to self and third parties is significantly greater than flying under said bridge.
J
As for the CAA investigating it; they should spend more time investigating flying schools that permit their students and instructors to hover taxi single engined helis at 20ft+ agl. Far more risky than flying under a 100ft high bridge and far more prevalent. OK so it's not illegal, but the potential for injury to self and third parties is significantly greater than flying under said bridge.
J
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 66
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to get right off topic for a moment ................
No. It's a good question but start a new thread.
No. It's a good question but start a new thread.
Last edited by Heliport; 3rd Jul 2003 at 06:29.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dreilandereck CH-DE-FR
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry. I know Crab brought speeding into the discussion and expressed some controversial views, but you're inviting a discussion purely about speeding laws.
Not on this thread. Check out JetBlast where there are frequently threads on that topic.
Heliport
Not on this thread. Check out JetBlast where there are frequently threads on that topic.
Heliport
Last edited by Heliport; 3rd Jul 2003 at 06:27.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mars:
a) I vote according to the local environment. Where I am, Panama, you will get a fine that may hurt finacially and will be an example for everyone, and that was it. In this case I would vote for this.
In the UK the guy will probably loose the licence if they get him. Despite that there is/was an according vote to that matter.
b) If you do not see the "connection" between different laws in a common country getting drawn into ridicule then I can´t help you.
(An Ambulance Driver on duty in danger to loose his licence for speeding on an empty motorway is ridiculous, as would be loosing a licence for "the bridge"). I do know about European ways and laws, I am from Europe. But by now I do not expect anymore that you will get the connection....
c) I read plenty of CAA reports (mostly accident reports) written by very competent people, mostly high-time pilots, ex military or airline. Unfortunately they are the very minority in the CAA. The majority SEEM to be lawyers without any leeway to fairly harmless actions. If it was illegal, fine the guy, but I can imagine the outcome if they get him/her.
d) No, I never tried R-Roulette and don´t plan too. But I guess you never had the chance to sample some relaxed flying, as you "expertly" classify it as R-Roulette.
e) I guess you ever only read logical arguments on this site and never put your feelings or heart to it......Sorry for you!
3top
a) I vote according to the local environment. Where I am, Panama, you will get a fine that may hurt finacially and will be an example for everyone, and that was it. In this case I would vote for this.
In the UK the guy will probably loose the licence if they get him. Despite that there is/was an according vote to that matter.
b) If you do not see the "connection" between different laws in a common country getting drawn into ridicule then I can´t help you.
(An Ambulance Driver on duty in danger to loose his licence for speeding on an empty motorway is ridiculous, as would be loosing a licence for "the bridge"). I do know about European ways and laws, I am from Europe. But by now I do not expect anymore that you will get the connection....
c) I read plenty of CAA reports (mostly accident reports) written by very competent people, mostly high-time pilots, ex military or airline. Unfortunately they are the very minority in the CAA. The majority SEEM to be lawyers without any leeway to fairly harmless actions. If it was illegal, fine the guy, but I can imagine the outcome if they get him/her.
d) No, I never tried R-Roulette and don´t plan too. But I guess you never had the chance to sample some relaxed flying, as you "expertly" classify it as R-Roulette.
e) I guess you ever only read logical arguments on this site and never put your feelings or heart to it......Sorry for you!
3top
Last edited by Heliport; 3rd Jul 2003 at 06:30.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3top,
This is my last post on this subject.[list=1][*]We should not prejudge the outcome but it is likely that the pilot (if caught and found guilty of a flouting of the rules of the air) will be fined – the probability that there were two incidents will not assist the defence.[*]The regulation that was (allegedly) breached, was a rule written in compliance with ICAO Annex 2 – Rules of the Air (with which all States have an obligation to comply – or file differences).[*]I take it as read that the Panama Republic complies with ICAO or files a difference![*]It is likely that, in the speeding incident that you have cited, the necessity for exceeding the limit was not established (the organ could have been delivered without speeding) - why the need to take the risk? However, most of us would agree that the matter could have been dealt with in a more discrete and sensitive way.[*]Accident reports are issued by the AAIB – no connection with the CAA.[*]The CAA Flight Operations Inspectorate is staffed with current civilian high-time pilots with training and/or managerial experience - who maintain their line flying skills.[*]The legal department is staffed with a small number of lawyers – but they are not responsible for enforcement.[*]The Enforcement Section is managed by a high time helicopter pilot from the military with a distinguished record – the other (non-clerical) staff are ex-policemen (it is a very small section)[*]All non clerical staff in the CAA are recruited for their knowledge and experience in the subject for which they are responsible (in view of that the demographic distribution of staff shows a bulge at around 50 - which ensures a regular turnover).[/list=1]I apologise for the cheap shot on Russian Roulette – it was unnecessary. As a former military pilot, I had ample opportunity to engage in, and enjoy, low flying.
Head or heart - just get the balance right.
And before you ask - no, I do not work for the CAA!
This is my last post on this subject.[list=1][*]We should not prejudge the outcome but it is likely that the pilot (if caught and found guilty of a flouting of the rules of the air) will be fined – the probability that there were two incidents will not assist the defence.[*]The regulation that was (allegedly) breached, was a rule written in compliance with ICAO Annex 2 – Rules of the Air (with which all States have an obligation to comply – or file differences).[*]I take it as read that the Panama Republic complies with ICAO or files a difference![*]It is likely that, in the speeding incident that you have cited, the necessity for exceeding the limit was not established (the organ could have been delivered without speeding) - why the need to take the risk? However, most of us would agree that the matter could have been dealt with in a more discrete and sensitive way.[*]Accident reports are issued by the AAIB – no connection with the CAA.[*]The CAA Flight Operations Inspectorate is staffed with current civilian high-time pilots with training and/or managerial experience - who maintain their line flying skills.[*]The legal department is staffed with a small number of lawyers – but they are not responsible for enforcement.[*]The Enforcement Section is managed by a high time helicopter pilot from the military with a distinguished record – the other (non-clerical) staff are ex-policemen (it is a very small section)[*]All non clerical staff in the CAA are recruited for their knowledge and experience in the subject for which they are responsible (in view of that the demographic distribution of staff shows a bulge at around 50 - which ensures a regular turnover).[/list=1]I apologise for the cheap shot on Russian Roulette – it was unnecessary. As a former military pilot, I had ample opportunity to engage in, and enjoy, low flying.
Head or heart - just get the balance right.
And before you ask - no, I do not work for the CAA!
Last edited by Mars; 3rd Jul 2003 at 20:57.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mars
Shame it's your last post on the subject. I'm curious how you know so much about the personnel employed by the CAA - and all so complimentary too.
Some of the things you say are worthy of threads in their own right. eg The frequently heard complaint that many people forget all about operating in the commercial world when they join the CAA? Or have little or no experience of operating commercially because they join directly or almost directly from the services? But all that's for another thread, not here.
3top
The FAA '500 feet rule' (see an earlier post) is significantly different from ours in the UK. What's the equivalent rule in Pamama?
Shame it's your last post on the subject. I'm curious how you know so much about the personnel employed by the CAA - and all so complimentary too.
Some of the things you say are worthy of threads in their own right. eg The frequently heard complaint that many people forget all about operating in the commercial world when they join the CAA? Or have little or no experience of operating commercially because they join directly or almost directly from the services? But all that's for another thread, not here.
3top
The FAA '500 feet rule' (see an earlier post) is significantly different from ours in the UK. What's the equivalent rule in Pamama?
Last edited by Heliport; 7th Jul 2003 at 08:41.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South East England
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking the 206 as the average:
How high does a 206 stand - 12' ?
Lets get this into perspective.
100' high bridge
12' high ship
leave say 10' for water clearence
Gives 78' spare - Christ thats half a football pitch to play with!
How high does a 206 stand - 12' ?
Lets get this into perspective.
100' high bridge
12' high ship
leave say 10' for water clearence
Gives 78' spare - Christ thats half a football pitch to play with!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: no longer on the Pond
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being as lazy as I am at the mo'- which is considerable- I won't look for the posters who stated that this kind of thing is run-of-the-mill for military types. That might be true for the guys actually in the helo at the time, it is not so for those higher up the food chain. back in '98 a Canuck Griffon crew decided to fly under the Confederation Bridge between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Isalnd provinces. With thousands of witnesses, their gooses were cooked. Both were suspended from flying during their courts-martial, their punishment after having been found guilty was to both be placed back in the left seat for "further training". Basically, their careers could have been ended right there.
Witness also an Apache crew at low-level: pilot asks gunner if they can whiz through a certain bunch of trees. Gunner says NO. Pilot says "oh yea of little faith". Next thing you know, blades start flying off, along with some very large branches.
Fun? Sure. But smart? Not usually.
Witness also an Apache crew at low-level: pilot asks gunner if they can whiz through a certain bunch of trees. Gunner says NO. Pilot says "oh yea of little faith". Next thing you know, blades start flying off, along with some very large branches.
Fun? Sure. But smart? Not usually.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MARS:
You are right about the right balance, sometimes I let go before cooling down….I apologize.
To the speeding ambulance: Ask any Transplant receiver whether they consider this case an emergency! Transplants save lives, and expire fast too.
I guess I was wrong about the CAA and AAIB (is it the same relation like FAA and NTSB?).
However if the CAA consists of so professional people, then I wonder why it is so difficult and expensive to get licenses and operate aircraft on a private level and why there are so many restrictions around compared to other continents. (Not just complaining about the CAA but Europe in general...)
I grant there will always be different attitudes according to where one grows up, where you get your license, where you get to work. This shows a lot on this forum.
Though Europe gets a little crowded, it still seems that many restrictions in rural areas are applied because of envy (if I cannot fly, you cannot either…) and nothing else to do than complain. When was the last time that you saw people running outside to wave at you, being happy to see an aircraft? Today in Europe an overflying aircraft is more often a reason to call authorities to complain about noise pollution than having fun observing it.
To the lowflying in Panama: This is not a spur of the moment hillbilly stunt. It is part of a tourist trip mainly offered to Cruiseline passengers, sampled and authorized by the respective legal departments of the Cruiselines. We also do not aspire to get as close as possible to trees, etc. just close enough to give the passengers a low level feel – min clearance at speed about 30 ft.
Normally people walk away with a new view about helicopters - sofar always a way positive one!
Panama has plenty of restricted areas around the city and is a member of the ICAO.
I take your word that the “bridge” pilot would not loose his license.
HELIPORT:
In Panama we have basically the same rules like the FAA:
WITH the exception that you are NOT allowed to descend below the 1000 ft mark over congested areas except when in an emergency or attending the emergency of another party (see part (d) below).
FAA-§ 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.
3top
You are right about the right balance, sometimes I let go before cooling down….I apologize.
To the speeding ambulance: Ask any Transplant receiver whether they consider this case an emergency! Transplants save lives, and expire fast too.
I guess I was wrong about the CAA and AAIB (is it the same relation like FAA and NTSB?).
However if the CAA consists of so professional people, then I wonder why it is so difficult and expensive to get licenses and operate aircraft on a private level and why there are so many restrictions around compared to other continents. (Not just complaining about the CAA but Europe in general...)
I grant there will always be different attitudes according to where one grows up, where you get your license, where you get to work. This shows a lot on this forum.
Though Europe gets a little crowded, it still seems that many restrictions in rural areas are applied because of envy (if I cannot fly, you cannot either…) and nothing else to do than complain. When was the last time that you saw people running outside to wave at you, being happy to see an aircraft? Today in Europe an overflying aircraft is more often a reason to call authorities to complain about noise pollution than having fun observing it.
To the lowflying in Panama: This is not a spur of the moment hillbilly stunt. It is part of a tourist trip mainly offered to Cruiseline passengers, sampled and authorized by the respective legal departments of the Cruiselines. We also do not aspire to get as close as possible to trees, etc. just close enough to give the passengers a low level feel – min clearance at speed about 30 ft.
Normally people walk away with a new view about helicopters - sofar always a way positive one!
Panama has plenty of restricted areas around the city and is a member of the ICAO.
I take your word that the “bridge” pilot would not loose his license.
HELIPORT:
In Panama we have basically the same rules like the FAA:
WITH the exception that you are NOT allowed to descend below the 1000 ft mark over congested areas except when in an emergency or attending the emergency of another party (see part (d) below).
FAA-§ 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.
3top
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: International
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3top:
You make an excellent and cogent observation about Europe (and in my opinion the US - look at the number of heliport closures in the last two years) - if it is the case that undue attention is unwelcome in this day and age, why does this incident garner so much support?
Those who have supported this industry over a long period resent the attention given to such an incident, because it will drown the goodwill earned on a daily basis by the HEMS, police and SAR communities.
The FAA rules of the air (FAR 91.119) for helicopters (paragraph (d)) do nothing to assist the industry in the US. They turn a blind eye to ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air; almost as though they are nothing to do with helicopters. These rules were intended to provide protection for third parties - both physically and environmentally.
Today in Europe an over-flying aircraft is more often a reason to call authorities to complain about noise pollution than having fun observing it.
Those who have supported this industry over a long period resent the attention given to such an incident, because it will drown the goodwill earned on a daily basis by the HEMS, police and SAR communities.
The FAA rules of the air (FAR 91.119) for helicopters (paragraph (d)) do nothing to assist the industry in the US. They turn a blind eye to ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air; almost as though they are nothing to do with helicopters. These rules were intended to provide protection for third parties - both physically and environmentally.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KOS
Does the industry in the US have a problem / need the assistance of a more restrictive low flying rule?
Genuine question - I don't know the answer.
My impression is that most Americans seem to regard helicopters as just another form of transport. I've noticed that when helicopters fly by at a height/distance which would be illegal in the UK, most people don't even bother to look up.
In this country people tend to start muttering about 'danger' and some (but not anyone whose company I'd wish to keep) ring the CAA or the police to complain.
FL
"The FAA rules of the air (FAR 91.119) for helicopters (paragraph (d)) do nothing to assist the industry in the US."
Genuine question - I don't know the answer.
My impression is that most Americans seem to regard helicopters as just another form of transport. I've noticed that when helicopters fly by at a height/distance which would be illegal in the UK, most people don't even bother to look up.
In this country people tend to start muttering about 'danger' and some (but not anyone whose company I'd wish to keep) ring the CAA or the police to complain.
FL
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KOS:
I do not think that anyone really supports the guy with the bridge, but rather the notion to let him get away with a blue eye.
Taking his license (which in the view of MARS would likely not happen anyway...) would not do any good either as this pilot would be out. Period.
With a blue eye (and be it just all the attention he gathers with the fear of possible finacial or legal retaliation), he hopefully get´s the message that his action did nothing to further General Aviation and hopefully he will prevent others from doing similar attention getting actions by mentioning his example.
The FAA regulations 91.119 are great as long as the pilot is consious about when and where he uses this privilege over fixed wing aircraft. Generally when I get the chance to fly with US-pilots they are amazed with the seriousness Rules are followed in Panama, at least near Citys.
It is one way to keep them from getting anymore restrictive...
I do not think they turn a blind eye on the ICAO specs, but give the pilot the freedom to use his machine according to his skills.
The safety of persons and property is covered in a different part of the law:
FAA-§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.
Unfortunately with the freedom to decide there is always the danger of abuse....
3top
I do not think that anyone really supports the guy with the bridge, but rather the notion to let him get away with a blue eye.
Taking his license (which in the view of MARS would likely not happen anyway...) would not do any good either as this pilot would be out. Period.
With a blue eye (and be it just all the attention he gathers with the fear of possible finacial or legal retaliation), he hopefully get´s the message that his action did nothing to further General Aviation and hopefully he will prevent others from doing similar attention getting actions by mentioning his example.
The FAA regulations 91.119 are great as long as the pilot is consious about when and where he uses this privilege over fixed wing aircraft. Generally when I get the chance to fly with US-pilots they are amazed with the seriousness Rules are followed in Panama, at least near Citys.
It is one way to keep them from getting anymore restrictive...
I do not think they turn a blind eye on the ICAO specs, but give the pilot the freedom to use his machine according to his skills.
The safety of persons and property is covered in a different part of the law:
FAA-§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.
Unfortunately with the freedom to decide there is always the danger of abuse....
3top
Last edited by 3top; 4th Jul 2003 at 05:03.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for info, a court has no power to suspend or revoke a pilot's licence. The CAA has but, in practice, the power is rarely exercised.
I'm relieved to see that only a small minority of voters would favour suspending this pilot's licence, and only a tiny percentage would favour a life ban.
I hate to think what they'd want to see happen to a pilot who injured or killed someone.
I'm relieved to see that only a small minority of voters would favour suspending this pilot's licence, and only a tiny percentage would favour a life ban.
I hate to think what they'd want to see happen to a pilot who injured or killed someone.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YAWWWN
You Chopper Guys have NO sense of adventure
3 out of 5 Spanish Microlight pilots on transit between Inverness and Oban flew under this a couple of days ago .....
Bad news for them is that many members of the public reported it and they have been sampling the hospitality of the Scottish Police since landing at Oban .. Flying Lawyer .. do you take on plank wing cases ?? could be some business
You Chopper Guys have NO sense of adventure
3 out of 5 Spanish Microlight pilots on transit between Inverness and Oban flew under this a couple of days ago .....
Bad news for them is that many members of the public reported it and they have been sampling the hospitality of the Scottish Police since landing at Oban .. Flying Lawyer .. do you take on plank wing cases ?? could be some business
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: International
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer:
I'm not sure a ‘change of the regulations’ is what is being discussed here. If you think that there is no problem in the US then you are not listening to the debate. It is a question of ‘sending the correct signals’.
The HAI, in awareness of the increasing public campaigns (mostly coordinated over the internet): forcing the closure of heliports; restricting flying in National Parks; public complaints etc., produced their 'flying neighbourly’ program. This was a proactive move to try to mitigate what was seen as a serious challenge to our industry.
In examining the text of FAR 91.119 one can see that the more destructive element of the alleviation (from the ICAO rules of the air) is the one that does not require compliance with the 1,000ft rule over built up areas. The rule, as written in the ICAO Annex, already provides for landing or take-off – what other reason would one have for flying below 1,000ft over a city.
Dr Leverton of the AHS has done great service to the industry in producing a number of scientific papers that postulate that one of the enemies of wider acceptance of the helicopter is ‘perceived noise’ (an overflying helicopter is perceived as being more noisy than say a passing heavy truck). That is why this is one of the top three issues for major manufacturers.
3tops introduced another element of this debate that has not been raised before – all regulations have an ‘endangerment’ clause. Never mind the endangerment that was present during the incident (which was not just a matter of measurement or physics but also one of judgement under the adrenaline rush) there is the danger to the industry at large – (esoterically) endangerment as well (but not a breach of regulations).
3tops in a previous posting, countered in a brief and well argued piece from Mars, introduced the important element
if the pilot was guilty of something it was that these skills were not evident in this incident.
In previous posts on other threads, Risk Assessment has been highlighted as an important element for: regulators; operators; and pilots. This, in the form of decision making skills for pilots, is being promoted by the FAA - we should wish them luck with this.
There is a well turned phrase in aviation ‘I learned about flying from that’; let’s hope that this debate will lead to a reduction in these incidents without an example having to be made.
I'm not sure a ‘change of the regulations’ is what is being discussed here. If you think that there is no problem in the US then you are not listening to the debate. It is a question of ‘sending the correct signals’.
The HAI, in awareness of the increasing public campaigns (mostly coordinated over the internet): forcing the closure of heliports; restricting flying in National Parks; public complaints etc., produced their 'flying neighbourly’ program. This was a proactive move to try to mitigate what was seen as a serious challenge to our industry.
In examining the text of FAR 91.119 one can see that the more destructive element of the alleviation (from the ICAO rules of the air) is the one that does not require compliance with the 1,000ft rule over built up areas. The rule, as written in the ICAO Annex, already provides for landing or take-off – what other reason would one have for flying below 1,000ft over a city.
Dr Leverton of the AHS has done great service to the industry in producing a number of scientific papers that postulate that one of the enemies of wider acceptance of the helicopter is ‘perceived noise’ (an overflying helicopter is perceived as being more noisy than say a passing heavy truck). That is why this is one of the top three issues for major manufacturers.
3tops introduced another element of this debate that has not been raised before – all regulations have an ‘endangerment’ clause. Never mind the endangerment that was present during the incident (which was not just a matter of measurement or physics but also one of judgement under the adrenaline rush) there is the danger to the industry at large – (esoterically) endangerment as well (but not a breach of regulations).
3tops in a previous posting, countered in a brief and well argued piece from Mars, introduced the important element
very few people in the CAA with any pilot skills and/or danger judging capabilities from a proffesional pilot point of view
In previous posts on other threads, Risk Assessment has been highlighted as an important element for: regulators; operators; and pilots. This, in the form of decision making skills for pilots, is being promoted by the FAA - we should wish them luck with this.
There is a well turned phrase in aviation ‘I learned about flying from that’; let’s hope that this debate will lead to a reduction in these incidents without an example having to be made.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another KOS
Sorry, when you said FAR 91.119 for helicopters (paragraph (d)) "did nothing to assist the industry in the US", I assumed you thought it should be changed.
Not listening?
I asked a question because I wanted to learn. My 'impression' was based on what I read from American contributors to Rotorheads, a small amount of flying in the States over the years (incl. flying a news-helicopter around LA, but only for a week) and, when on numerous visits to the US, making a point of watching the reactions of people around me when helicopters fly over at low level. I was well aware of the National Parks issue, but I didn't know the problems which protesters cause generally in the US were as bad as you describe. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
As you may have gathered, I'm an admirer of the FAA's approach generally. I think FAR 91.119 is reasonable and sensible, not least because it credits trained pilots with the ability to make a sensible judgment - subject, of course, to the over-riding safety provisions/sanctions to which 3Top has referred if they make a bad judgment.
Please don't think I've missed your 'wrong message' / environment points etc. I believe the answer to the problem if there is one lies in education such as the 'Fly Neighborly' programme to which you refer, and not in more restrictive legislation.
Sorry, when you said FAR 91.119 for helicopters (paragraph (d)) "did nothing to assist the industry in the US", I assumed you thought it should be changed.
Not listening?
I asked a question because I wanted to learn. My 'impression' was based on what I read from American contributors to Rotorheads, a small amount of flying in the States over the years (incl. flying a news-helicopter around LA, but only for a week) and, when on numerous visits to the US, making a point of watching the reactions of people around me when helicopters fly over at low level. I was well aware of the National Parks issue, but I didn't know the problems which protesters cause generally in the US were as bad as you describe. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.As you may have gathered, I'm an admirer of the FAA's approach generally. I think FAR 91.119 is reasonable and sensible, not least because it credits trained pilots with the ability to make a sensible judgment - subject, of course, to the over-riding safety provisions/sanctions to which 3Top has referred if they make a bad judgment.
Please don't think I've missed your 'wrong message' / environment points etc. I believe the answer to the problem if there is one lies in education such as the 'Fly Neighborly' programme to which you refer, and not in more restrictive legislation.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 4th Jul 2003 at 17:37.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10W
I always thought that you guys who fly kites with fans on the back were mad. Now I know you're mad!
Isnt that bridge on one of the fast jet low flying corridors? May be they could use the excuse they were trying to avoid a flock of Tornados. Good job there wasnt a helicopter going the other way!
Isnt that bridge on one of the fast jet low flying corridors? May be they could use the excuse they were trying to avoid a flock of Tornados. Good job there wasnt a helicopter going the other way!
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
Monkey see, monkey do!!!
Have the two Spanish pilots been identified? If so, do we know what punishment has been meted out to them in terms of their licencing?
Also, does anyone know if the Skye bridge pilot(s) has/have been identified? If not, I would suspect that the chances of catching up with them are now remote and that they probably have "got away with it". But what message have they sent out to other copy cat pilots?
Whirlygig
Also, does anyone know if the Skye bridge pilot(s) has/have been identified? If not, I would suspect that the chances of catching up with them are now remote and that they probably have "got away with it". But what message have they sent out to other copy cat pilots?
Whirlygig
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume the group of Spanish pilots has been identified, or we wouldn't know they were Spanish. But, if they decline to answer questions (which we're all entitled to do when questioned by an investigating authority) I doubt if anything will happen to them - unless witnesses are able to identify which 3 out of the 5 went under the bridge.
If the 3 offenders are identified, prosecuted and convicted they'll be fined.
I doubt if the CAA can take any licensing action - Spanish licences - but I've not researched the point.
Re the Skye bridge pilot(s)
It's early days yet. He/they may still be identified.
Message? Copycat pilots?
Bear in mind that hoping someone else gets away with doing something (the overwhelming vote in the poll) is very different from approving of what they've done, or being tempted to do it.
Helicopter pilots who fly responsibly and legally (the vast majority) don't suddenly change our outlook and start breaking the law just because someone else does something silly and gets away with it.
If the 3 offenders are identified, prosecuted and convicted they'll be fined.
I doubt if the CAA can take any licensing action - Spanish licences - but I've not researched the point.
Re the Skye bridge pilot(s)
It's early days yet. He/they may still be identified.
Message? Copycat pilots?
Bear in mind that hoping someone else gets away with doing something (the overwhelming vote in the poll) is very different from approving of what they've done, or being tempted to do it.
Helicopter pilots who fly responsibly and legally (the vast majority) don't suddenly change our outlook and start breaking the law just because someone else does something silly and gets away with it.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 4th Jul 2003 at 22:04.