Is this legal or safe practice?

[Ludwig]

Forgive the intrusion here by a f/w pilot, but I have a question for those versed in helicopter air law stuff.

Now, I'm up for the propergation of more aviation, so don't get me wrong;

I live on the edge of avillage, and my neighbour has built a helipad (well, some slabs in the shape of an H) from which he operates his Agusta 109, all fine and dandy. On two side he has open fields, on the others are his house and mine.

His SOP is to lift to a low hover, and then climb backwards to about 100 feet before transitioning foward to depart over my house, and the rest of the village at about 100 feet climbing as he goes.

Given the direct access to open country this seems a good way of winding up local noise antis, but more, seems to me to be unsafe as I'm sure even Augsta's could come to grief on take-off.

What do you helicopter operator think please? Before I go round and remonstrate, am I worried about nothing. What is the legal position, does the 500' rule apply (it is not a licenced facility just a field)

Thanks very much

:(

[jayteeto]

Each case is different, but it sounds like your neighbour is being very sensible in how he departs. This looks like a Cat A Helipad type departure, designed to give him a reject option in case of engine failure. Noise is a by product of safety sometimes!!

[Ludwig]

Thanks for that, that's reassuring, but would it not be better to do it over the fileds rather than over building?

[Hilico]

It depends on the wind direction - just like fixed-wings, helis depart better into wind. If the wind is coming from the direction of the village, then safety dictates going in that direction.

To indicate how important the wind can be, consider this incident: a fully-loaded LongRanger once did an approach into a field, and the pilot misjudged the wind - it was 5kt on his tail, rather than the 5kt on the nose he thought he had. Crashed heavily, one serious injury.

[[email protected]]

Ludwig, it sounds like your neighbour is being a prat! Unless the wind is very strong he has a much safer option transitioning over the open fields - Cat A transitions are for public transport work. If he is carrying out this transition and has an engine failure, his margin for error (and therefore of missing your house) is small. He would appear to believe that and engine failure is the only thing that can cause a helicopter to crash - a tail rotor malfunction at 100' with houses in front of you is no time to discover that!

[Helinut]

If the situation is as you describe it, I suggest you quietly draw to your neighbour's attention the 1,500 ft rule .....................

[Flying Lawyer]

Ludwig

I'm puzzled. :confused:

You say the pilot is your next door neighbour. If you're concerned, why not simply discuss your concerns with him in a neighbourly, non-confrontational way?
You don't mention any previous discussion, yet you want to arm yourself with information (ammunition?) about the safety aspects, the air law relating to helicopter ops and the 500 foot rule in particular, before you "go round and remonstrate ...."
That seems rather a confrontational, and somewhat belligerent, approach for a first discussion with a neighbour.
Is there more between you and him than you've told us?

Please forgive me for being suspicious. Although concerns about 'safety' in such circumstances are sometimes genuine (and they may well be in your case), in my experience such instances are extremely rare - and are far more often than not simply a cover when the true objection is to noise.

You're neighbours. You're both pilots. Why not simply mention your your concerns to him and point out in a friendly way that if you (as a fellow pilot) are concerned, there's a real risk other villagers less sympathetic to general aviation might take things further, and he might wish to bear that in mind when planning his approach and departure paths.

(Edited for typos)

[SASless]

Ludwig,

Why not grab a jug of your favorite Scottish Whiskey....put on your leather flying jacket....pop over to the guy's house....knock on the door and offer to talk aviation to him. Ask to see his helicopter and ask if ever he has an empty seat then you would absolutely love to go for a ride....and see how that approach works. Heck Man....if you are a pilot....I would have figgered you would have done that already.

Flying Lawyer again demonstrates his ability to sort wheat from chaff!:ok:

[engineoff]

Congested area as per the ANO: Any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes....

This rule is massively subjective.. eg. you land on a golf course on the edge of a village.. Congested area? You would guess not but the CAA could quite easily interpret the above rule and decide to prosecute, although in practice it won't happen unless endangerment is also an issue. It would be interesting to know how many 'private' operators regularly apply for congested area exemptions from the CAA , as a large proportion of the private sites I can think of could be considered congested areas..


Crab: Not sure I agree about the Group A profiles being for Public Transport flights... If the aircraft is capable of doing so weight wise , I will always fly group A profiles (helipad as well as clear area) even when on a private flight, as these are supposedly the safest departure / arrival methods as determined by the manufacturer..(again hard to comment on this case as we aren't that sure of the layout of the village etc) I dont think we can seriously expect to have to consider tail rotor failures in terms of departure planning...

[[email protected]]

Engineoff - there are all sorts of malfunctions that can cause problems on departure so therefore if there is a choice between flying a Cat A departure over someones house and flying a crosswind departure over open fields, I will take the open fields every time. I have pratcised EOLs and running landings to grass and flat surfaces but never to someones roof! If this pilot is doing what is alleged then he needs to have an overriding safety reason for doing so - not a dogmatic adherence to Cat A profiles.

[SASless]

Ah but Crab....isn't "dogmatic adherence" the "done thing" in the UK? 212MAN talks about developing a "conditioned response" in pilots for later use during emergencies.

How does one adhere to the stated procedures....remain into wind...comply with Cat A procedures contained in the RFM...and operate out of such heliports as being described. First off, Ludwig did not provide any information to specify the exact dimensions and distances at hand. He suggests his "neighbor" but does not know the person....either that means it is one very cold and stuffy neighborhood...or it must be some fair distance between houses.

In my part of the woods.....despite having several neighbors...who I all know by name and sight....most of which I cannot see for the woods and distance we live apart.....we would welcome such activities and the good fortune to have a neighbor that could take us for a helicopter ride. When I discussed building my 1800 foot long sod strip....even the people whose houses I shall be making my approaches over....only wanted to know if rides were possible....except one wife who cussed me while saying she got little enough work out of her hubby and even that would dry up if I had an airplane in the neighborhood.

Why would I worry about a tail rotor failure anyway....does not the Cat A profile take into such considerations? If not, then all Cat A profiles are unsafe by your standards. After TDP/CDP, would we not merely continue the takeoff and fly away to land at some suitable location? Prior to TDP/CDP, sufficient clearway should exist for us to land back....or am I mistaken here?

[engineoff]

Crab:

Wasn't suggesting that I would always rigidly fly Cat A profiles, only if there was an option and the Cat A was possible safely then that would be my choice... How many times do you see 'presumably private' flights without floats launch out of Battersea in a standard sort of transition... Be interesting explaining to the insurance why they put the aircraft in the Thames when one engine went bang just after they cleared the platform!
Obviously in the circumstances given if they are accurate then an alternative departure should have been chosen... Not trying to justify flying over a house if it can be avoided!

[Thomas coupling]

My tenpennethworth:

I would definitely go round and have a friendly chat and ask why he employs that particular flight path, when the other is an option.

If his response was dodgy, or he was determined to stick to that route, then I would suggest to him that the open fields route would be the lesser of the 2 evils, if something went wrong. An agusta 109 in amongst a couple of houses would be far more serious that a heavy landing in the fields.

If he can't or won't see this point of view, AND I lived under his flight path then I would do everything in my power to pursuade him to change his route. This would also include (ultimately) contacting the CAA...I have to say!

Anyone who cares about safety would see the logic of this scenario, one would hope?

If all else fails, build a radio mast in your garden, 80-100' should do quite nicely!!

[Hover Bovver]

Engineoff

At battersea a cat A Profile in an A109(unless a power or a C and even the Cs profile to reject to the pad is nigh on unflyable.) is not available, so if you try anything other than a normal type of transition you are putting the aircraft into the avoid part of the graph.

[RobboRider]

A quick side question:

Could one of you UK types give me a quick explanation of the earlier mentioned "500 foot rule". I've seen it mentioned a few times and I presumed it was the same as our OZ rules about no flying below 500 ft unless you have a reason, approval from CASA etc OR while taking off or landing.

Since the taking off or landing is part of the question here and still the 500 foot rule was mentioned ... is there more to it?

Just curious!
:suspect:

[Bright-Ling]

Haven't got my ANO for the exact definition, but Rule 5 is roughly:

You may not fly less than 500 feet over any person, vehicle, vessel or structure........ unless taking off or landing.

B-L

[Helinut]

Subject to correction by FL, of course:

you are exempt from the 500 ft rule when taking off or landing.

Otherwise, it would all get rather difficult.

The same is not true of other bits of the low flying rules like the congested area 1,500 ft rule (unless the landing site is licensed).

[RobboRider]

We have a similar rule but it doesn't apply to flying over structures or people.
Its just not below 500 ft AGL unless you have a reason. approval etc.

We have to fly a minimum of 1000ft over populated areas. Of course there's variance of opinion at what constitues a populated area. Had one instructor say he considered a farm house a populated area. Others who felt you really needed at least a small village size.

[P Watts]

Hover Bovver, I have no experience of A109s, what makes the Cat A unflyable at Battersea?

[John Eacott]

RobboRider's description of our low flying rules (CAR 157) deals with not below 500ft. The parameters for flight over "city, town or populous area" are not below 1000ft above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it , within a radius of 300 metres (for helicopters) from a point vertically below the aircraft.

Fortunately, sub regulation 1 (the above) doesn't apply for weather, flying training, low level approved ops, taking off or landing, SAR, Polair or dropping from aircraft with approval.

But the 300 metre radius is a PITA, and liable to catch out the unwary :rolleyes:

Getting back to Ludwig's perceived problem, simple advice would be to talk nicely over a decent bottle of red, and sort out the problem before less reasonable neighbours make it into a major drama. Otherwise it can all end in tears.....:{

[FJJP]

As a long time FW vet, I know nothing about helio regs. I have no difficulty with anyone operating a helicopter from a field, but don't you have to have CAA certification, fire cover, etc?

I agree with those above, who suggest a friendly chat expressing your concerns and reservations (best on neutral ground - your local pub?). Much better to have an amicable solution than years of neighbourly hostility; it should work, considering you're both pilots...

[Heliport]

FJJP

Do you "have to have CAA certification, fire cover, etc" to fly a light aircraft in and out of a private strip?

[ShyTorque]

P Watts,

The FATO at EGLW is probably too small for the 109 helipad / vertical profile, just as it is too small for the S-76, so there's no guarantee that the pilot can reject and stop on it. An early forward transition is therefore probably less risky, at least "in the unfortunate event of", the aircraft should ditch level, rather than toppling off the end of the FATO and going in nose first......

It's about time Central London was better served by a larger site or a number of sites, including a proper facility at Heathrow and at Gatwick, but that's a different story. :\

[The Nr Fairy]

FJJP:

Fire cover and the like is only normally required if the site has more than about 5 movements a day AND is used for public transport.

Use of a field for your own private helipad isn't a problem as long as you comply with various planning regs which also apply to the f/w world.

As this is being written from memory with no fact checking, I stand ready to be corrected . . .

[Ludwig]

Thanks for all your sage advice, and to those that PM'ed me as well on this subject. I have no intention of going round and fighting the man, but it is useful to know in any thing what the boundaries are!

For my own education, can someone clarify the 500 foot rule. I know all about vehicle vessel and structure etc and that technicaly a fence or wall or roadway is a structure. I also know, as a f/w pilot that this is all ignored when lannding at a licenced airfield. Does this apply to Helicopters too? If a helicopter is not landing at a licenced facility, and ignoring maydays etc do they still have to obey the 500 rule on the way up and down?

I know too many stupid questions, but humour me it is christmas:O

[Evo]

For my own education, can someone clarify the 500 foot rule. I know all about vehicle vessel and structure etc and that technicaly a fence or wall or roadway is a structure. I also know, as a f/w pilot that this is all ignored when lannding at a licenced airfield.


IANAL, but i don't think that the 500 foot rule differentiates between licenced/unlicenced - otherwise you couldn't land at Popham, for example. Trevor Thom, which is the best I can do right now, just says that the 500 foot rule doesn't apply during takeoff/landing "in accordance with normal aviation practice"

[Flying Lawyer]

Ludwig

Here is Rule 5.

It has been repeated, with minor changes, in successive Rules of the Air Regulations and is virtually incomprehensible - or, as the CAA eventually conceded, "there is a general view that the rule is long, complex and, potentially, difficult to understand."
A new Rule 5 is likely to appear in 2004, following various consultations which began in 2002.

I'm always happy to help pilots in trouble or in need of help/advice in connection with the legal side of their flying. If you were, I'd clarify the rule in ordinary language - but you're not. You say "it is useful to know in any thing what the boundaries are!" I'm afraid I can't see why it is useful, and remain suspicious that you're trying to obtain ammunition to use in your dispute with your neighbour.
If asked professionally, my personal views are irrelevant and I'd be professionally bound to help; when helping informally, I have a free choice and only in exceptional circumstances would I say anything which might assist against a pilot.
I realise you're an aviator but, sadly, over the years I've encountered quite a few aviators who also fall into the NIMBY category when someone else's flying is in issue.
Obviously I don't know if you're a NIMBY but, since you're still asking for clarification of Rule 5 as it applies to helicopters despite the advice you've already been given, I'm being cautious. ;)

However, since it's Christmas, I'll go this far to save you time: The 500' rule doesn't apply to aircraft landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice.


Rules of the Air Regulations 1996: Rule 5 Low flying

5 (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3):

(a) An aircraft other than a helicopter shall not fly over any congested area of a city, town or settlement below:
(i) such height as would enable the aircraft to alight clear of the area and without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit and if such an aircraft is towing a banner such height shall be calculated on the basis that the banner shall not be dropped within the congested area;
or
(ii) a height of 1500 feet above the highest fixed object within 600
metres of the aircraft:
whichever is the higher;

(b) A helicopter shall not fly below such height as would enable it to alight without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit;

(c) Except with the permission in writing of the Authority and in accordance with any conditions therein specified a helicopter shall not fly:
(i) over a congested area of a city, town or settlement below a height of 1500 feet above the highest fixed object within 600 metres of the helicopter; or
(ii) over the area hereinafter specified, below such height as would enable it to alight clear of the area in the event of failure of a power unit, that is to say the area bounded by straight lines
joining successively the following points:
Kew Bridge (N5129.18 W00017.17).
The Eastern extremity of Brent Reservoir (N5134.30 W00014.02).
Gospel Oak Station (N5133.27 W00008.97).
The South East corner of Springfield Park (N5134.12
W00003.20).
Bromley-by-Bow Station (N5131.47 W00000.65).
The South West corner of Hither Green (N5126.72 W00000.63).
Herne Hill Station (N5127.18 W00006.07).
Wimbledon Station (N5125.23 W00012.27).
25 June 2003 Annex C Page 2 of 3
The North West corner of Castelnau Reservoir (N5128.87
W00014.03).
Kew Bridge (N5129.18 W00017.17):
excluding so much of the bed of the River Thames as lies within
that area between the ordinary high water marks on each of its
banks;

(d) (i) Subject to paragraph (ii) an aircraft shall not fly:
(aa) over, or within 1000 metres of, any assembly in the open air of more than 1000 persons assembled for the purpose of witnessing or participating in any organised event, except with the permission in writing of the Authority and in accordance with any conditions therein specified and with the consent in writing of the organisers of the event;
or
(bb) below such height as would enable it to alight clear of the assembly in the event of the failure of a power unit and if such an aircraft is towing a banner such height shall be calculated on the basis that the banner shall not be dropped within 1000 metres of the assembly:
(ii) Where a person is charged with an offence under the Order by reason of a contravention of sub-paragraph (d)(i), it shall be a good defence to prove that the flight of the aircraft over, or within 1000 metres of, the assembly was made at a reasonable height and for a reason not connected with the assembly or with the event which was the occasion for the assembly;

(e) An aircraft shall not fly closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

(2)
(a) The provisions of paragraphs (1)(a)(ii) and (1)(c)(i) shall not apply to an aircraft flying:
(i) on a route notified for the purposes of this rule; or
(ii) on a special VFR flight;
unless the aircraft is landing or taking off.

(b) Paragraphs (1)(a)(ii), (1)(c), (1)(d) and (1)(e) shall not apply to an aircraft flying under and in accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate.

(c) Paragraphs (1)(d)(i)(aa) and (1)(e) shall not apply to the flight of an aircraft over or within 1000 metres of an assembly of persons gathered for the purposes of witnessing or participating in an event which consists:
(i) wholly or partly of an aircraft race or contest if the aircraft is taking part in such race or contest or is engaged on a flight arranged by, or made with the consent in writing of, the organisers of the event;
(ii) wholly or partly of a flying display for which a permission under article 61 of the Order is required, if the aircraft is taking part in
such display or is engaged on a flight arranged by or made with
the consent of the organisers of the event and the flight is made:
(aa) in accordance with the terms of a permission granted to
the flying display director under article 61 of the Order;
and
(bb) in accordance with the conditions of a pilot display authorisation granted to the pilot under article 61 of the Order; or
(iii) wholly or principally of a flying display for which a permission under article 61 of the Order is not required, if the aircraft is taking part in such display or is engaged on a flight arranged by or made with the consent of the organisers of the event.

(d) Paragraph (1)(e) shall not apply to:
(i) any aircraft while it is landing or taking off in accordance with
normal aviation practice;
(ii) any glider while it is hill-soaring;
(iii) any aircraft while it is flying in accordance with article 48(3)(f) of the Order;
(iv) any aircraft while it is flying under and in accordance with the terms of an aerial application certificate granted to the operator thereof under article 50 of the Order; or
(v) any aircraft while it is flying for the purpose of picking up or
dropping tow ropes, banners or similar articles at an aerodrome in
accordance with article 47(2) or article 48(3)(e) of the Order.


(3) Nothing in this rule shall prohibit an aircraft from flying in such a manner as is necessary for the purpose of saving life.

(4)
(a) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), nothing in this rule shall prohibit any aircraft from flying in accordance with normal aviation practice, for the purpose of taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at, or checking navigational aids or procedures at, a Government aerodrome, an aerodrome owned or managed by the Authority or a licensed aerodrome in the United Kingdom or at any aerodrome in any other country.
(b) The practising of approaches to landing shall be confined to the airspace customarily used by aircraft when landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice at the aerodrome concerned.

(5) Nothing in this rule shall apply to any captive balloon or kite.