Robo Display at a Wedding

[Zero G]

Hi all,

Interesting video! Lovely bikes 🏍 and some interesting flying 1:35 onwards 😳

https://youtu.be/C_ZRZ7wktJQ

[SASless]

Typical....Pilot going on about motorbikes and helicopters when all those other beautiful young things are present in large numbers!

[BigMike]

The gentleman talking in the video is a well known supercar owner, and vblogger, https://www.mrjww.com

He does own some highly desirable cars... however as Sasless says, there was much more to look at at that wedding than a Robbie doing pedal turns... ;)

[[email protected]]

Hmmm - 500' rule is the first thing that springs to mind - that and trying to do bows, nods and high nose down in a teetering head helicopter is asking for trouble

BTW a pedal turn is a vertical (or close to it) manoeuvre - level, yawing turns are not 'pedal turns'.

[RVDT]

SAS,

There was an old bull and a young bull on top of a hill.................................you know the rest of it!

[krypton_john]

What could *possibly* go wrong?

[Bell_ringer]

Do you know what his experience was? He may well be a highly trained military pilot. Judging the performance on a small piece of video. It looked nice and smooth, probably no wear on the components...
Whoops sorry, wrong thread.
:}

[Ascend Charlie]

When will people ever realise that holding the phone horizontal gives them a better chance of keeping the action on the screen?

[nigelh]

The sort of naff wedding that you would expect to have an R44 at !!
nb ....if he is a blogger then how come he doesnt know how to hold a phone to video ???? Idiot !!

[gator2]

The only amazing thing you can do with a helicopter at a wedding is crash it.

[Self loading bear]

Do you know what his experience was? He may well be a highly trained military pilot. Judging the performance on a small piece of video. It looked nice and smooth, probably no wear on the components...
Whoops sorry, wrong thread.
:}

Move on nothing to be seen here. It is as special mission and they have to practise for that in every condition. All things a side this looks a special safe 4 bladed R44.

or am I also on the wrong thread(s)

cheer SLB

[ShyTorque]

Obviously, the chap taking the video was the FDD and the pilot would have informed the CAA 28 days in advance to obtain permission and had the necessary display authority in place. Everything will have been in order, bearing in mind that the aircraft registration is part of the title of the video and a quick look makes it very obvious who the company involved are.

[[email protected]]

And them being a CAA approved flying school as well......tsk tsk

[chopjock]

AC
When will people ever realise that holding the phone horizontal gives them a better chance of keeping the action on the screen?

Would that depend on whether the action is in the horizontal or vertical plane?

[Bell_ringer]

AC

Would that depend on whether the action is in the horizontal or vertical plane?
The selfie plane

[nigelh]

in any plain . All video need to be done in the horizontal!

[Lonewolf_50]

The star of the show finally gets on screen between 1:09 and 1:12.
Someone needs to provide training to the camera man about composition and subject. :E

[SASless]

Luff yer Sails....Sailor!

[Thomas coupling]

Shytorque: its 42 days notice and there is NO permission available that allows a helo to fly over a crowd or property that is inhabited.
All in all this has all the ingredients of a disaster which would result in a very very sad ending indeed.
shame there are still cowboys around after the shoreham crash.
But hey _ lets not be a spoilsport eh? It is after all a wedding and a gathering together of friends family and children.
No harm done was there....FFS

[Hughes500]

TC you can get most permissions within a couple of days. I think you will find that you can fly over people, otherwise no one could fly anywhere. Law only really kicks in at a gathering of over 1000 people, but you are quite right you cant fly over the crowd.
The biggest problem is in the CAA, they will almost never prosecute anyone, so most of the cowboys will fly knowing there is almost no risk in having one's collar felt

[Thomas coupling]

Hughes, An article 86 permission requires 42 days notice to display. This also covers special events too". Private gatherings(like weddings can be conducted without a permission - provided there is no advertising to the public (including those attendees associated with the wedding).
NOTHING, repeat NOTHING - allows any aircraft to fly within 150m (except for take off and landing only) of persons, vehicles, structures, vessels (knowingly). You also cannot overfly a property where it is known there are inhabitants.
* An exemption to this SERA 5005(f)(2) rule can be made on safety grounds. Or if applying for an article 86 permission.
The CAA will prosecute - trust me on this. They simply need proof of what went on or advance warning that an event like this is happening.
Regardless - in the event this idiot did crash, the CAA would be notified (and the AAIB on certain occasions) and the helicopter hull insurance would be null and void. IF their TP insurance was insufficent to pay off damages, the pilot first and then the owner or company 2nd would be pursued for damages. This normally has the effect of bankrupting some or all of the stakeholders in the helicopter.
[This is often referred to in insurance as - "an extinction event"].
EU 785/2004 legal insurance cover is often always insufficient to cover modern day damages.

Looking at the video. I can GUARANTEE that he was never allowed to close the crowd to less than 75m (exemption), nor would he EVER be allowed to overfly the spectators or the house.
Over to you.....................

[chopjock]

TC
NOTHING, repeat NOTHING - allows any aircraft to fly within 150m (except for take off and landing only) of persons, vehicles, structures, vessels (knowingly). You also cannot overfly a property where it is known there are inhabitants.

LOL you have to "take off" in order to fly around and you need to "land" afterwards... So all you need to do is say you were taking off and then landing...
And as for "normal aviation practice", you can just say you were "practicing"...

[[email protected]]

So all you need to do is say you were taking off and then landing... not when someone plasters the evidence to the contrary all over youtube.........

[Hughes500]

TC

All I said was the CAA will turn it round within a couple of days, I havent argued about anything else.
As for CAA prosecuting someone well here is a story for you

Pilot A runs ac out of fuel crashes, within 6 months attempts an instrument approach in a fixed wing with no IR losses it in cloud pulls out over city centre with 400 ft to spare. Does the same thing 9 months later. Then flies his heli through a set of wires, luckily they broke, 4 months later has a double engine failure in a plane taking off having run it out of fuel ( due to not having fuel selector in correct place ) MOR filed against him for landing at a large airfield in a single engine heli in less than 50 m vis in fog. been reported for flying heli with no CRS in force, flying machine grossly overloaded. Have the CAA prosecuted NO, had an interview without coffee, so i hardly think anyone is going to have their collar felt here.

[ShyTorque]

TC

All I said was the CAA will turn it round within a couple of days, I havent argued about anything else.
As for CAA prosecuting someone well here is a story for you

Pilot A runs ac out of fuel crashes, within 6 months attempts an instrument approach in a fixed wing with no IR losses it in cloud pulls out over city centre with 400 ft to spare. Does the same thing 9 months later. Then flies his heli through a set of wires, luckily they broke, 4 months later has a double engine failure in a plane taking off having run it out of fuel ( due to not having fuel selector in correct place ) MOR filed against him for landing at a large airfield in a single engine heli in less than 50 m vis in fog. been reported for flying heli with no CRS in force, flying machine grossly overloaded. Have the CAA prosecuted NO, had an interview without coffee, so i hardly think anyone is going to have their collar felt here.

Crikey, Hughes. You've got a chequered history and were very lucky to get away with all of that.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Hughes, An article 86 permission requires 42 days notice to display. This also covers special events too". Private gatherings(like weddings can be conducted without a permission - provided there is no advertising to the public (including those attendees associated with the wedding).
NOTHING, repeat NOTHING - allows any aircraft to fly within 150m (except for take off and landing only) of persons, vehicles, structures, vessels (knowingly). You also cannot overfly a property where it is known there are inhabitants.
* An exemption to this SERA 5005(f)(2) rule can be made on safety grounds. Or if applying for an article 86 permission.
The CAA will prosecute - trust me on this. They simply need proof of what went on or advance warning that an event like this is happening.
Regardless - in the event this idiot did crash, the CAA would be notified (and the AAIB on certain occasions) and the helicopter hull insurance would be null and void. IF their TP insurance was insufficent to pay off damages, the pilot first and then the owner or company 2nd would be pursued for damages. This normally has the effect of bankrupting some or all of the stakeholders in the helicopter.
[This is often referred to in insurance as - "an extinction event"].
EU 785/2004 legal insurance cover is often always insufficient to cover modern day damages.

Looking at the video. I can GUARANTEE that he was never allowed to close the crowd to less than 75m (exemption), nor would he EVER be allowed to overfly the spectators or the house.
Over to you.....................

TC's Right;

I suspect we may even have been on the same FDD accreditation course at a sunlit spot near Swindon, where a nice man from the CAA made comment about things appearing on YouTube (other forms of social media are available) and how the CAA intend to deal with them. The pilot in this video has made himself a tad vulnerable to a chat with a magistrate, especially if he was working as an airborne FDD. After Shoreham its' not a question of "no prisoners" more a question of how many prisoners can we take and how many can we nail up. If the pilot here held any form of proffesional license he may find life really uncomfortable in Crown Court as ignorance is no defence in law and this flight contravened every distance from the crowd limit there is. The FDD course is fairly blood curdling in terms of the responsibilities the FDD carries, and the display pilot course these days no less so. (and the homework was a prize b#####d!)

SND

[Hughes500]

SND

ALL I HAVE SAID IS THESE PERMISSIONS ARE OFTEN TURNED ROUND WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS. Yes I know it is supposed to be 44 days and yes I am a display pilot so I am fully aware of what the rules are thank you very much.
As to prosecution if they are not willing to prosecute a pilot that has crashed and written off 2 aircraft by running them out of fuel, having a major wire strike putting the lights out in part of Somerset, losing control of 2 different aircraft on an IFR approach, landing at a major airfield in a VFR helicopter where the RVR was less than 50 m all within 3 years, do you honestly think they are going to bother with what you have just seen on you tube, I think not

[Thomas coupling]

Hugheds 500 - calm down....
It's 42 days by the way, not 44.

I can't comment on an individual case, as I don't know what the CAA know, if you know what I mean:)
Suffice to say, the CAA like easy cases where they have video evidence, the reg number, dates, witnesses - just like this one on this thread for instance.......:suspect:

Chop - c'mon now, stop being a dick**ad as usual... You've had ample opportunity to resolve your problems in public and many of us have tried our best to 'guide' you towards common sense and away from silly comments like this. Show progress FFS :ugh:

Can I suggest people go easy on 'stitching' someone like this Robbo pilot up, for fear of him losing his livelihood, perhaps? Keep the video evidence anonymous if you want to brag about something, eh?

[Pittsextra]

SND
As to prosecution if they are not willing to prosecute a pilot that has crashed and written off 2 aircraft by running them out of fuel, having a major wire strike putting the lights out in part of Somerset, losing control of 2 different aircraft on an IFR approach, landing at a major airfield in a VFR helicopter where the RVR was less than 50 m all within 3 years, do you honestly think they are going to bother with what you have just seen on you tube, I think not

I heard that quite recently the authority did try to bring charges against a helicopter pilot but it was thrown out of court citing the reliability of the authorities representatives evidence.

[JBL99]

I see the video has been taken down. Wonder why?

[Thomas coupling]

Cos "Zero G" has realised he could get his mate into deep pooh!
Bit slow Zero, but got there in the end eh?
TC

[Hughes500]

TC

Think it has gone past the point of no return !

[[email protected]]

Maybe Zero G should change his handle to Zero IQ.............