Fleet Week in San Francisco

[MarcK]

Out by the Golden Gate, just snapping pictures. Yes, he really did fly under the bridge:
http://www.bluetonguehelicopters.com.au/pprune/ggt.jpg

[The Rotordog]

Yeah.....so...?

[Heliport]

Liked the picture, but enjoyed the puzzled reaction even more.

US = Safe + no big deal.

UK = Safe + very big deal = Interviews with the CAA Enforcement Branch + CAA lawyer telling the court it was only by chance and good luck that 50 people weren't killed. :rolleyes:



http://www.bluetonguehelicopters.com.au/pprune/actsm.gif

[Col]

... not to mention the disruption to the habitat of all those pigeons... tut, tut

[Hilico]

I remember reading in one of the mags years ago that when single-engined planks were being ferried to Hawaii, the a/c would be so heavy with fuel in the long-range tanks that they wouldn't get out of ground effect. It was an approved procedure to fly under the bridge, having taken off from a shoreside airport.

Apparently the FAA didn't really want to let them do that, but it was better than having to launch extreme-range SAR missions when they ditched out of fuel a thousand miles from the coast.

[SASless]

Ground effect over water??? Correct me if I am wrong here...in a helicopter...one does not get "Ground Effect" whilst hovering over water or so I have been told. Weigh in Nick....tell us about this.

[Hilico]

Hey, I'm only quoting the magazine (from memory). These were fixed-wing aircraft we're talking about for one thing; and for another, have you ever heard of Wing-In-Ground-Effect machines? They start off as boats and lift into ground effect when going fast enough. The Russians had the Caspian Sea Monster which was larger than a 747 and would do something like 400mph - in ground effect...over the sea.

[MD900 Explorer]

Lucky there are no serious wind conditions there circling up. :eek: As i know of a few suspension bridges in Norway that have had special aerofoils on them to stp the bridge from "wafting" around when there is a bit of lift, kinda like orographic lift but not off a mountain but off the waters surface, and they would be lethal to fly through,another likeness is kinda like extreme wake turbulence. :uhoh:

MD :suspect:

[Head Turner]

Surely it is aafer to fly under an obstacle than over it.

Logically if an emergency landing is to be performed then being above such obstacles endangers the helicopter and in the case of bridges all those who are on it at the time unless at such a height that these obstacles can easily be avoided.

However, being under the bridge or wires there is nothing to avoid until ground contact.

Therefore the pilot in the photo was flying at the safest place disturbing nobody, BUT breaking the statutory rules of being closer than 500 feet to .......etc

[Flying Lawyer]

BUT breaking the statutory rules of being closer than 500 feet to .......etc The pilot would be in breach of the 500' rule if he was in the UK, and no doubt incur the wrath of the CAA, but the pilot in the photograph wasn't committing an offence - unless there's some local Bay Area law relating to the bridge.

In America, helicopters flying over open water or sparsely populated areas are allowed to fly closer than 500 feet to persons, vessels, vehicles, or structures if they do so without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

FAR 91.119 is more sensible than our Rule 5 in that it reflects the different characteristics of rotary and fixed-wing aircraft. Helicopters are exempt from some parts of the rule if they're flying over uncongested areas provided there's no hazard to people/property on the surface.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/MWLogored2.jpg

[B Sousa]

"Therefore the pilot in the photo was flying at the safest place disturbing nobody, BUT breaking the statutory rules of being closer than 500 feet to .......etc"

Its not the U.K. and not necessarily a violation depending on what airspace its flying in ........
Someone from the Bay Area address this??

[MarcK]

From a local Tour Operator's brochure:
"The ...helicopter tour includes a flight under and over the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz, downtown San Francisco and many more landmarks as well as the Pacific Coastline, Marin Headlands and Sausalito."

So I guess it's OK, I just had never seen it before.

[XEMS]

No local rules or regulations that prohibit flying under the Golden Gate Bridge. As a matter of fact, as other people have pointed out, it can be (and often is) the safest way to get from the Bay to the open ocean. The FAA has seen it and never have I heard a peep of complaint from them.

Of course in this post 9/11 world that we live in, there is always the potential that someone will see a Bell 206 and know that Ossama is going to Allah while smacking into Alcatraz.

The only things to worry about are the chances of some idiot decideing that throwing a can or bottle into a rotor system would be fun, or worse, picking that exact moment to end it all! I don't know the exact stats, but when I was doing Bay tours, I remember that the number of jumpers was over 1,000. The way to fly under the bridge is to change course at the last second to hopefully avoid any potential conflicts. Another possible conflict is to look out for the nets that hand under the bridge. They are there as a safety device for the workers that are constantly doing maintenance on the bridge. Hate to have a hammer through the system as well.

On the plus side, it is one of the most spectacular moments most passengers will ever have in a helicopter.