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
very few people in the CAA with any pilot skills and/or danger judging capabilities from a proffesional pilot point of view
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.