Robino:
I'm asking about a hypothetical situation:
S.I. 216 of 2005:
(d) in the case of a rotorcraft or balloon, not being used for public transport, any place where
the aircraft may take-off or land without undue hazard to persons or property and in respect of
which the owner or occupier of that place shall have given permission for such use, except that,
in the case of a rotorcraft, where that place is of an elevated construction, located on the roof of
a building or a structure, it shall also be licensed by the Authority under this Order for such use
by that rotorcraft.
hypothetically:
1) The aircraft is operated Privately. (same Pilot)
2) The site is big enough for the heli to land safely. (same site in Bettystown)
3) They have site owner permision.
4) No accident occures.
Now have a read of the Hughes 500 AAIU report but replace the aircraft with the SK76 and remove the car parking attendant injury (hence no need for an AAIU report) and that they had permission.
My question is what laws or rules or guidelines are being breached in this scenario because as I see it, there are no issues landing a SK76 on a roof (provided it's stong enough) in a congested area, so what problems would there be landing in the carpark? I find the SI, AOM, SI(A) very cryptic.