Originally Posted by
Sir HC
It's a similar law in the US, CFR 91.119 outlines all. But the US is much more aviation friendly than the UK thanks to sentiments like yours.
One problem here in the US is that people need to go back and READ 91.119 every once in a while. It's pretty common on a BFR that I'll ask about minimum altitudes and I'll get the answer that "there aren't any for helicopters" ( and so then we get to spend 15 minutes talking about what 91.119 actually says )
For instance, 91.119(b) calls out a 1,000 foot minimum over a congested area ( and while there have been some pretty wild differences in how "congested" has been interpreted, over major or minor city centers is obviously a congested area). While it is true that paragraph (d) gives helicopters some latitude for operating lower, it has been pointed out to me that while paragraph (a) ( which discusses min altitudes when you have an engine failure ) says you must cause no UNDUE hazard to ppl/property on the ground, paragraph (d) does not use that word. Some people think this is significant, i.e when operating below the 500/1000 foot minimums, you must present absolutely no hazard to the ppl/property below you. Which is actually a pretty reasonable interpretation in my mind ( with great flexibility comes great responsibility ).
I do enjoy that we can fly over major metropolitan areas in singe engine helicopters here in the US. I wish more helicopter pilots would think carefully about 91.119 when choosing at which altitude they are going to exercise that privilege, as well as how much noise they will be making... And for goodness sake, if you can't autorotate to a safe landing at any point in the flight ( except maybe to & landing ) then you are TOO DAMN LOW!
( btw, people also tend to skip over the very first sentence in 91.119 which starts with "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing" which can lead to hours of fun hangar flying discussions as to how THAT modifies the following paragraphs).