Naughty, naughty! Helicopter pilot's bridge stunt

[Whirlygig]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3022948.stm

Not really much excuse is there!

Helicopter pilot's bridge stunt

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39210000/jpg/_39210848_bridge203.jpg

Police and aviation officials have launched a search for a helicopter pilot who flew under the 100ft high Skye Bridge.
Local people and tourists crossing the bridge at the time watched in astonishment as an aircraft skimmed the water below them. The stunt happened on two successive days and an eyewitness said he believed it was the same aircraft responsible for both incidents. It is illegal to fly within 500ft of the structure.
Last year a pilot avoided prosecution for flying his light plane under the bridge after claiming he only did so to avoid a flock of seagulls. Locals believe any collision between an aircraft and the £25m bridge would be catastrophic as it is the only road link to the mainland. They claim Skye's ferry service would not be able to cope with the extra load if the bridge is damaged and closed down.
What would happen if it hit the bridge? Without it, we wouldn't have a link to the mainland.
Kyleakin resident Ian Sikorski witnessed both incidents and reported them to police. He said: "I saw the first one on Saturday, 14 June and then the very next day, another one did exactly the same. "There's not an awful lot of distance between the bridge and the water so it's a very dangerous practice. "It appears to be the same helicopter. "What would happen if it hit the bridge? Without it, we wouldn't have a link to the mainland." He added: "There's only two ferries still operating but they would never cope with the volume of traffic here at the height of the season."
Bridge closure
Skye Bridge manager Russell Thompson added: "We are very concerned - any aircraft striking the bridge, no matter what size, would close the bridge down until our engineers and the Scottish Executive could assess the damage. "A decision would then have to be made on the advisability of re-opening it." Inspector Andy Brown, of the Northern Constabulary, said he was concerned that it might set a precedence of people wanting to take a joyride under the bridge. He added: "From a police perspective, if an aircraft hits the bridge we have a major incident to deal with. "We would have to recover persons from the water in terms of any fatalities or injuries, as well as dealing with the crashed aircraft itself. "There would also be the major issue of integrity of the bridge which could see it closed, effectively cutting off the entire island in the winter months."
Civil Aviation Authority inspectors have been informed of both incidents and they are checking all flight information and air traffic radio transmissions which could lead them to the culprit.

Hope you don't mind me adding a poll to your post Whirlygig.
I thought it would be interesting to see where the concensus would fall between the hardliners and the more forgiving posters.
Heliport

[SSC]

And the helicopter spotter is one Mr I. Sikorski....

[Whirlygig]

And if it wasn't the good ol' Beeb, I'd think they were havin' a larf with that name!! :)

[Grainger]

It wasn't me !!!!!

[Cornish Jack]

Beeb R4 1800 News reports that a helicopter was flown under the centre span of the Isle of Skye road bridge. It went on to report that this was the second time in 2(?) days! - not necessarily by the same pilot. Centre span clearance, apparently, 100'. Further said that this had been done last year by a plank wing who escaped prosecution having claimed that it was a bird avoidance manoeuvre. :confused:
Comments?

[Kace]

Here's the article. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3022948.stm)

[PPRuNe Radar]

Kyleakin resident Ian Sikorski witnessed both incidents and reported them to police.

Very apt name for the eyewitness :)

[Hoverman]

Hee hee hee. :D
It's nice to see there's someone with a bit of the ol' barnstorming spirit left in aviation in spite of all the thousands of rules and regs the nannies control the rest of us with.
What a load of melodramatic baloney about hitting the bridge. If any pilot isn't capable of flying safely through a 100 foot gap he shouldn't be flying.

Hope the CAA don't find him.

Loved the bit about the guy who got off saying he was avoiding a flock of seagulls. ;) ;)

[126,7]

It was probably a Bell, Hughes or maybe a Eurocopter, hence the report to the police by MR SIKORSKI:}

[vaqueroaero]

And to think what used to happen under a certain bridge in the heart of San Diego......

[Flying Lawyer]

This one by any chance?

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

Good to see you on line V. You should post more often.

[Hummingfrog]

I hope he paid the toll for crossing under the bridge. Usual melodramatic press coverage. If a light helicopter can structurally damage a cantilever bridge such as this then it hasn't been well designed.

In a former life I have flown under the Severn Bridge, the cantilever bridge at Pembroke in S Wales and the Kessock bridge by Inverness looking for "jumpers". It is perfectly safe to do and my biggest fear was that some kind member of the public may have tried to drop a brick through my rotor!!:(

HF

[Flight Safety]

I doubt seriously that a light helo or airplane could actually bring down a bridge by impacting it, but the concern of the people living on the island is extremely valid.

This is from memory so I hope the details are close.

My then future wife and I had a vacation planned in late October of 2001 at South Padre Island in far south Texas. Airline tickets were bought, deposit on the condo was paid, etc. About a week after 9-11, a barge got outside the channel and hit the one and only bridge connecting the island to the mainland, and knocked down 2 long spans, killing 5 people. Needless to say, after 9-11 and the bridge going down, I followed events pretty closely praying the vacation could be salvaged.

There are about 5000 people who reside on the island, most of whom work off the island, and many of the employees who work the tourist businesses on the island, live off the island. So the disruption was terrific.

Boats were able to carry people and supplies back and forth to the mainland right away, but it took several days to get 2 small car ferries to the island. Then for several more days they were used strickly to get stranded cars off the island. Then for several more days, they were used to get resident's cars to the mainland, so they could drive to work after the passenger boats carried them back and forth each day.

It wasn't until mid October that enough large ferries were brought into the area that they finally allowed 2-way car traffic to and from the island to be carried on the ferries. We arrived on the island about 2 weeks later. They had no gasoline on the island (all the tanks at the stations were dry), so we got on the ferry in the rental car with a full gas tank, and did not use it all before we returned to the mainland near the end of the vacation. By the time we arrived, most of the businesses were open, but many had reduced hours of operation, and the island was unusually quite.

The disruption was enormous economically for both residents and the local tourist businesses, and after the bridge was repaired (took about 4 months), the city government started work on funding the construction of a second bridge.

So the concerns of the people who both live on the island, and who profit from the island's tourism, is extremely valid.

[Hilico]

Oh come on, a barge? Versus a light helicopter?

[Flight Safety]

Hilico, I agree. I'm just saying that this is what the local community there is worried about. This is also probably why the law exists concerning a 500ft flight restriction near the bridge.

[Whirlygig]

When I first saw the story on BBC online, I had to smile but then my serious side took over.

I think it was a silly thing to do not least because of safety but stunts like this do not do anything to improve the image of GA in the eyes of the public. (I assume he/she is a GA pilot - I can't believe a commercial pilot would take such risks).

Whether the public's concerns are valid or not is irrelevant; their concern is real in their eyes.

As a student PPL(H), I am surprised, nay shocked, at the results of the poll. [Heliport - of course I don't mind you adding a poll - it has been an eye opener].

Maybe I have a lot to learn(?)

Whirlygig

[vaqueroaero]

That's the one F.L.!!

Sadly nowadays our military friends aren't so accomodating with their airspace.

Were you flying chase in an R22 for that shot?!

[Heliport]

Possibly the difference between something appearing to be dangerous and actually being dangerous? The fact that something is unlawful doesn't necessarily mean it's dangerous.
Maybe some of the votes reflect a sneaking admiration even though the voters wouldn't do it themsleves?

[Flying Lawyer]

No - I was in a 206 when it overtook! ;)

Such a shame about the new security measures. It used to be the ultimate 'Trip Round the Bay'.

FL

[pohm1]

It wasn't long ago that ppruners were discussing the terrible events in Germany when a pilot had done the same thing, except he misjudged the clearance and killed himself, the crew and the casualty that they were supposed to be taking care of.

In this intance the bridge looks a little higher, but the difference between a hero and a dead idiot can be a couple of feet.

As with all stunts, its all fun and games until someone loses an eye! Would it have been BARNSTORMING SPIRIT if it had gone horribly wrong?


(According to the reports, the bridge is 100 feet over the water. Heliport.)

[BlenderPilot]

Just today I was flying with an Civil Aviation Inspector and HE asked me if we could go under a bridge(206L4), he said he always wanted to do that. So after analizing the scene......

If doing something like this every now and then was out of the question for me, I would be flying airplanes! What´s the use if you don´t have some careful fun?

Different point of view from Mexico, where you don´t fly by the rules, just by common sense.

[I have control]

Flock of seagulls?

Crock of bulls**t!

[Steve76]

I think flying under wires is more hazardous....

[crop duster]

Flying under the wires: it's part of the job.
Barryb

[John Eacott]

To date, the poll result speaks volumes.

FWIW, we have two bridges here in Melbourne, the WestGate Bridge which has about 150 ft clearance, and the Bolte Bridge with about 60 ft clearance. My company dispensation for filming & photography allows flight under them, as does the same dispensation for a half dozen other local operators. Brett Newman got the guernsey for the first (legal) flight under the WestGate about 12 years ago, and it doesn't raise an eyebrow these days.

Much ado about nothing :rolleyes:

However, the Sydney Harbour Bridge is now a no no, since the new harbourmaster decided a year or two ago that he would close the harbour to shipping the next time CASA authorised a flight under the bridge. Rather than remind him who controls airspace, they caved in and now refuse Harbour Bridge "underflights". Conversely, the much riskier practice of overflying the South Pylon of the Harbour Bridge with about 60 ft clearance is standard procedure for R409 flights :confused:

[Heliport]

Ah! We've now got 3 votes for taking his licence away for life.

Anyone who favours that care to say why?
And whether pilot / non-pilot?


Flight Safety
I don't think the '500ft flight restriction near the bridge' is specific to that bridge. In the UK we aren't allowed to fly closer than 500 feet to any structure except for taking off or landing, even in helicopters. Strange, but true. The equivalent FAA rule is much more sensible.


Heliport

[Watchoutbelow]

I suppose people admire him, cause the CAA is just nowadays seen as the third Reich with so many super strict pointless laws, with absoloutly no leeway that seems to be aimed at the prevention of aviation, (General Aviation and Commercial)

So when any anti authority figure who goes out and has a bit of harmless fun (100 feet as opposed to 35 feet in Germany I think)by bending a few rules and gets away with, will now seen as some type of Steve Mcqueen type character, and the CAA can just ram it up there arse (Until he is caught of course, then he is screwed!)!!

[pohm1]

Point taken about the height difference, and even if the helicopter hit the bridge, I doubt the structural integrity would suffer.(Of the bridge, not the heli.!)

What does suffer is the public perception of helicopters and general aviation as a whole. Where do you draw the line with how high the bridge has to be before it changes from harmless fun to a dangerous act? If the pilot is seen to get away with it how low does the next thrill seeker go?

A controlled exercise for filming with proper recces is one thing, a quick spur of the moment dash is another.

[What Limits]

I voted for the lifetime ban and I am happy to point out why.

This is clearly a case of reckless endangerment. The pilot endangered himself, the people who were also on the helicopter who probably had no say in the matter, the people who would have had to recover the wreckage, who were on the bridge at the time or subsequently had to repair it.

How would the supporters of such grossly obscene acts feel if the headline was:

"Children orphaned in Skye Bridge helicopter crash."

Why do you moralise over bad driving, yet condone bad flying?

[headsethair]

Just cleared the tears from my eyes. Someone back there posted along the lines of "must be a GA pilot, can't believe a commercial pilot would do such a thing."
Having unravelled what you mean, I haven't laughed as much since my grandmother got her t*t caught in the mangle. (Les Dawson, 1977).

So - commercial helicopter pilots never do anything that could be considered stupid ?

[StevieTerrier]

Apologies if this has been said earlier (I cant seem to get page 1 of this topic) but :

Headsethair wrote "So - commercial helicopter pilots never do anything that could be considered stupid?" If you consider flying under a bridge stupid, read on------

If you'd been up and about early one Sunday morning a couple of weeks ago, you might just have seen a Twin Squirrel flying under a certain bridge on the River Thames - four times, I believe. (road deck raised, of course!) All done with the knowledge and (grudging) approval of the CAA.

And if you missed the event, watch out for "Thunderbirds", coming to a cinema near you in the not too distant future, for a pilots eye view.

[vorticey]

is that little spot the helicopter under the bridge? this practice looks perfectly safe to me. :rolleyes:
of couse, they are wearing life jackets!:=
as long as there is a safe distance of seperation why not? (apart from the regs):ok:
also the speed at which the flight is done is a factor, 30kts would be pretty conservative, but 100kts would be different:confused:

[Crashondeck]

Having seen the bridge close up, there would be plenty of room. BUT if this pilot is blatently braking the rules, what other stupid things is he/she doing. Flying under the bridge may or may not be dangerous, but the pilot's attitude is dangerous. Dont care much if he/she kills themselves. Do very much care if he/she kills someone else or leaves kids without a father/mother.

As for disruption, a light helicopter will do very little damage. But it would take a civil/structural engineer a while to prove it.

[Whirlygig]

So - commercial helicopter pilots never do anything that could be considered stupid ?

I dunno, Headsethair - you tell me?!?!

I did suffix the post saying that I might have a lot to learn! But I still find it hard to believe that a commercial pilot would risk his/her licence and job for such a stunt. Thankfully, all the pilots I know and have flown with are very professional and safety conscious. Am I lucky? Is this unusual?

As an analogy, there is a stretch near me that is open country road but has a thirty mph limit. It is a totally ridiculous limit; I cannot fathom out why it is there but IT IS there and as my driving licence matters to me, I stick to the limit and don't blatt through at the 60 mph that used to exist on that road.

Quite seriously though I would be interested to know what heli it was and, objectively how dodgy the maneouvre was.

Cheers

Whirlygig

[headsethair]

I love this Forum. Here we are debating the sense or otherwise of a heli flying under a bridge - and not two clicks away is a posting from a UK pilot bemoaning the high cost of insurance rates here!
Maybe if our friend the "barnstormer" had considered in advance that, in this age of electronic whizzery, his little jolly would instantly be plastered around the globe (and onto the PCs of insurance brokers no doubt), he might have thought twice.
Look - helis are capable of much better things than flying under bridges. Just don't do it where someone can twitch the curtains and pick up a phone. And don't do it where you risk the lives of anyone other than yourself.
For your lack of consideration for other members of the UK helicopter community and the effect that your little stunt will have on the PR of helicopters, you should be sent on a night out with Chris Evans. But watch it - he can't afford his tab now.

[SASless]

Repeat after me......I have never flown in the treetops....I have never scouted a Nudist Beach......I have never buzzed a friend's house....I have never done torque turns.....I have never flown down the river below the trees.....I have never flown under bridges in the Rose City......I have never been a real helicopter pilot!

Flying is fun....Really!!! Have you ever chased a Hippo....terrorized a Baboon.....messed with a Grizzly Bear's mind....set flight to a herd of goats....hovered over a railroad track at night with the landing lights on......white out'ed the screen of a drive-in movie theater?

The trick is to do it safely......without harm to anyone or anything!

[Datcon]

headsethair
On your insurance premiums point, I can't find the facts and figures to back this but I remember reading that most light a/c and heli accidents are weather related. I can't think of any accidents where the pilot was being reckless in the way you mean here. Reckless carrying on in bad weather maybe.

I think a lot of votes may depend on personal experience. If people have done corporate/VIP flying all their lives they may see things more conservatively than pilots who've done more challenging flying all over the world away from the nanny CAA.

Whirlygig
Maybe you've answered your own question. A lot of professional pilots wouldn't take the risk because the price of being caught is too high. Doesn't mean the idea doesn't appeal. ;)
Objectively, it's not dangerous. If a pilot can't fly under a 100 bridge without any risk at all of hitting it he shouldn't be flying.

Always enjoy reading your post SASless. You tell it like it is. :ok:

Ban for life? Rubbish. :mad:

[EESDL]

"recklessly endangering their lives and those of others" or words to that effect!

Are you seriously telling me that to attempt to visually maintain S&L +/- 50', in excellent viz, justifies this point? Guess you had better re-take your flight test.

Stupid flying because he/she could get caught but it certainly wasn't reckless or dangerous........or was the pilot blindfolded as I see the safety net had been taken away.

Foolish flying to do it twice in a row...predictable tactics.

Sounds like a couple of pilots had been on the Scottish water and placed a wager......good luck to them.

Now flying to the South Pole in a glorified egg-whisk was brave/foolhardy/reckless/spunky (delete as required)

[nomdepprune]

The solution is clearly to ban barges.
Most people in that area didn't want the Skye brige and complain about the tolls.
We're getting aerated about an aircraft going under a bridge they didn't want anyway, in case it did damage it didn't and quite probably couldn't do?

[Croqueteer]

Mid 70,s with a new CPL I was one of two Aztecs taking pax ABZ to Broadford (Isle of Skye) in grotty wx as one did. We both got there shaky hands spilling tea, I said I let down over water to the north of Skye, my mate said he let down to the south and flew 100ft between mainland and Skye, I said did you fly under the power wires? He said, what power wires?

[Watchoutbelow]

On the days when I am not flying, I would consider myself a member of the public and I would be in awe if I saw a helicopter flying under a bridge, I rember a couple of years ago watching helicopters flying under the Golden gate bridge in San Francisco, thought it was kind of cool, (but then again, maybe I have a slightly biased view)

The people who seem shocked by this are the people who havn't really flown outside the U.k. who have forgotten the reason they learned to fly in the first place, since all the crap that the CAA comes out with was forced upon them.
I doubt people learned to fly for the sole purpose of flying directly from A to B within the exact perameters set out by the Authorities (I doubt it, but I could be wrong!)

Imagine the CAA was in charge of the waterways, the economy would grind to a halt, no barges would be aloud within a couple of miles of any structure in case of engine failure or a rudder breaks and could possibly be blown onto a bridge.
Imagine the size of the MEL, the idea of having oil tankers would be laughed at, any body who wants to operate a watercraft including a simple Windsurfer would have to sit written exams and pass competency checks each year, and if you had passengers on board the qualifications you would need (A six year degree course from oxford!) every body would need medicals, would have to be type rated on any new watercraft that they want to use, and any other pointless hoops that they can think of to justify there exsistance.

[dzeroplus]

Anybody reading this posting NEVER broken the speed limit with their respective land vehicles?

As Heliport mentioned, just because it is against the rules does not mean it is dangerous.

[Grainger]

Yeah, and land vehicles go under bridges a hell of a lot closer than 100 feet. Just stand on a motorway bridge one time and look at the lorries thudering past. A few feet either way and... SPLAT !!!!

38 tons of cornflakes can make one hell of a mess :eek: but somehow they usually manage to miss...

So "What would have happened if ..." is missing the point. No-one did hit the bridge, so let's not blame anyone for something that didn't happen.

BUT rules were broken and fuel has been given to the media / anti-aviation machine, so from that point of view maybe it wasn't the best idea in the world....

[Winnie]

I am a pilot, and I think it is behaviuor like this, that gives this fairly small industry a rotten name! The pilot was stupid, and did something that was totally unneccesary, things like that should be unheard and unseen and not done.

If it was a military pilot, doing tactical training or a mission, OK, but no civilian ever have a good enough excuse to fly under bridges or cablespans.

The stuck wing feller said he flew under to avoid seagulls? HORSEMANURE!!!

There is no justification, and stupidity should not be revarded simply and kindly, but rather extremely harsh, to show where the law stands.

I agree that there would probably have been little or no damage to the bridge, but that is beside the point! The point is that is was illegal, therefore stupid, therefore unneccesary!!!

My two kroners worth:suspect:

[Heliport]

Has there been much media coverage?
At the moment, it's a storm in a Scottish tea-cup which will blow over quickly, but there'll be a lot more bad publicity if he's identified and the CAA prosecution machine goes into action.
Maybe best for everyone, including him, if he's not traced?

[SASless]

Winnie! Change yer moniker to Whiney.....lordy sakes man.....I would rather embrace a bit of daring do than put up with a crew room full of retired military pilots who cannot see the need for a pay raise.......talk about setting the industry back by one's actions (or in case of the retired mutts....inaction)....shhhhsh, give me a break!

[john du'pruyting]

We are obviously split into two groups here...
Theres the group that thinks 'S**t if I think my skills are up to it and the aircraft can manage it, then I'll do it and f**k what anybody else thinks.' Their attitude is justified by the thought that if they pull it off then there's no harm done, and anybody who disagrees is either a killjoy or some pond life who doesn't understand the first thing about aviation. Then there's the other group. This second group realise that aviation (especially in the UK ) does not operate in a vacuum. If we do not operate with due regard and consideration to the non-flying people around us, then we can only expect their continuing opposition to any sensible de-regulation that may make flying more practical and enjoyable.
But it's alright, I'm sure the press will take the view that helicopter pilots must be fantastic individuals to be able to pull off a stunt like that, they certainly won't think about using the angle of danger to the public, they're far too open minded:suspect:

[t'aint natural]

Three groups, actually... or more.
What about those who recognise that aviation does not exist in a vacuum, but still think a chap shouldn't be crucified for poling a little helicopter through a hole a quarter mile across and 100 feet high?
We're like the chain gang in the movies... somebody makes a break for it and we all cheer. So he'll probably get blown away, but we go back to breaking rocks enriched by the experience.

[Whirlygig]

Heliport - you questioned whether there was much media coverage. All I can say is that I received the initial BBC online news link from a non-aviation friend (who obviously has nothing better to do in their lunch hour) and does not live in Scotland but Basingstoke. If he can find it, then so can many others. It was also reported on Radio 4 news in the evening. May not be Sun headlines I know but has still reached the "general public"

Cheers

Whirly

[Grainger]

There was a very brief mention on the local TV news and about one column inch in the Daily Record under a very daft headline along the lines of "bridge buzz copter hunt" or some such. They seem much more concerned about Chris Evans' ugly mug.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=13114778&method=full&siteid=89488

Much more coverage was given last year to the local hero who painted the Port Appin lighthouse pink with yellow spots (a la Mr Blobby) on his way home from the pub :ok:

As Heli says, probably a case of "least said, soonest mended"

[Whirlybird]

Well, I've been into lots of confined areas where the space was a lot smaller than 100 ft by the width of that river. And I'm not even all that experienced; I'm sure many people on here have been into far tighter places than I have. And we don't think it's a big deal, and neither does anyone else. We've been trained for it, that's what helicopters are for, and we know we can do it. Missing a bridge is no different from missing trees, wires, or whatever - easier actually; you can see bridges; you can't always see wires.

So the complaints on here can't be because it's dangerous...because it isn't...and we all know that, if we think about it. The objections must be purely because it's illegal, not for any other reason.

So now we've established that, do we all always always always keep well within the law? When we know we probably won't get found out, and it'll do no-one else any harm? And if so, why? And if not, why are you objecting here?

[Jed A1]

How can anybody vote or make a judgement on this issue, until we know more about this?

By voting or making a judgement you are reacting purely to media sensationalism / hype / BS.

Was this done with the approval of the authority? The fact that the BBC said the CAA are looking into it, means nothing!

Was it the FEDS themselves?

Two occaisions, sounds to me, like it could be a practice for something. Was it filming?

Could have been avoiding more birds!

Who knows at this stage?

[ShyTorque]

Our (mil) limits were 6 metres clearance above, 3 metres lateral and 2 metres below the aircraft.

But I think the pilot's actions were ill-advised in the circumstances and doing it twice was silly. :rolleyes:

[Heliport]

I'm absolutely fascinated by the people who think he should lose his licence for ever. :eek:
I realise some people may have voted for that option for a laugh, but can I encourage anyone who seriously thinks he should to post their reasons.

[dzeroplus]

Lose their licence for life!

If you compare traffic offences and the subsequent prosecution with the non dangerous, but, illegal flight under the bridge.

For the guilty party to lose their licence for life would take death, major mayhem and most probably the involvement of alcohol and or drugs. This of course in many countries would involve a prison sentence.

So, do the ppruners in favour of a loss of licence, also favour a spell in Her Majesty’s?

Last year I remember some poor sod in the UK on a performance bike getting nicked for 100 mph over the speed limit and receiving a few months in the lock up for his troubles.

The public can only compare with what they know (traffic offences/prosecution) with the facts that the media turn into a sexy story. This is the same bemoaning public whom get hammered with a 200 pound fine for exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph.

Remember when sex was safe and flying was dangerous?



:O :*

[SASless]

Sex? Sex? Sex? Rings a bell somehow......give me a hint.....know I can remember it if I just had a clue!

[Watchoutbelow]

Sasless,
If you are that hard up (no pun intended) and you are going to be in Florida next weekend, pop down to Madonna's in Miami, not much going on in Orlando, a couple of places, along south orange blossom trail. but not much in comparison to South Beach Miami, so I believe, not that I know for sure or anything...
:8 :8 :O :O

[john du'pruyting]

t'aint natural, I realise that my description of the first group was a little strong, It was friday and I felt a little bit of s**t stirring was necessary. However, I still feel your third group are part of my first group, no matter what way you dress up their reasoning.
:p
As to whether it was dangerous or not....
Lets assume that he /she/it had about 50 metres to go before getting under the bridge and the donkey stopped (whether single or twin is irrelevant). What were they going to do then!?
answers on a postcard.

[Heliport]

http://www.gael-net.co.uk/travel/skyebrid.jpg


http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/skye/bridge/images/bridgepano450.jpg

And the view from the opposite direction ...

http://www.barvasmoor.freeserve.co.uk/skyebridge3.jpg

[Grainger]

errrr.... make a safe emergency landing in the water and swim for it, I should imagine ..... As Whirly said, you've got a lot more options than in most confined areas and no reason I can see that an engine failure would lead to collision with the bridge ? what else did you have in mind john :confused:

[Dantruck]

Who'd vote 'Yes' to:

'Know it's not dangerous if done with forethought, consideration, a little pre-planning, with good viz and at sufficiently low speed in case of donkey death,,,

,,, but wouldn't because I haven't got the b@lls and don't want to lose my license, but secretly admire the buggar(s) for having done it ???

Well that's me!

One vote cast!:}

[SASless]

Last time I checked.....when the donk expires....the laws of gravity....compel one to descend.

One may ascend by trading speed for height but ultimately....gravity wins every time. If you are lower than the bridge then colliding with the bridge following an engine failure is highly unlikely I would assume.

I dare say, the risk of some hairy legged , skirt wearing, highland ruffian, chunking an empty bottle of McEwans at you might far exceed that of hitting the bridge. Imagine explaining to the boss wallah how you got the windy broke by a beer bottle.....or how you cut up a bag of rubbish with the rotor blades?

The real question in my mind....is how Skye's charm has been ruined by construction of the bridge. I much prefer to think of the days when one had the opportunity to wait for the ferry and thus get to meet your neighbors. Of all the places I lived at in the UK....Skye ranks right up there as one of the two best.....right along with my time in Teeside.

[StevieTerrier]

Grainger - make a safe emergency landing and swim for it if the donkey failed?

If he (or she..) was flying mid-point vertically (s)he would have been 50' above the water. That doesnt give you a lot of time to set yourself up for a successful auto IMO. And if s(he) had been just approaching the bridge, then a zoom climb to trade speed for height would have been out of the question.

So contrary to what you said about the number of options available, there would be only one - dump, flare, check, level - splash. And it would probably happen as quick as you can read it.

However, if you are going to do a stunt like this, you probably weren't going to consider the donkey stopping anyway, so its all a bit academic really, I suppose!

[john du'pruyting]

Grainger, my point has been expressed by StevieT. However, there are obviously two main reasons to fly under the bridge ( or any similar obstacle for that matter )
1. Because you have to
2. Because you want to
Point 1 applies for a number of reasons, you are mil flying NOE and do not want to be aquired by radar, you are doing it for filming purposes (approved of course :rolleyes: ), you are doing it to avoid inserting yourself in cloud or perhaps a number of equally valid other reasons. Any old how, in this case (certainly for mil or bad wx, maybe not for filming) I would assume that you would use the low slow approach. In that case, should the donk stop then you are correct, fall, splash, sink, swim applies.

If point 2 is the reason that you are doing it then I assume that you will use the fast, low, wazz technique (That's a big assumption JP, why do you assume that then?). Oh alright, I'll tell you. You are doing it because you want a 'thrill' and try as I might, I can't see the thrill of doing a low slow approach under any obstacle (except maybe a very attractive limbo dancer! The gender of whom depends on your preference).
Hence, should the donk stop (in a single) the normal technique is to convert speed to altitude. But oh look, some idiot has built a bridge there. Ah, never mind it was worth it for the buzz.
And there are of course numerous other potential malfunctions that may cause you to regret having a couple of hundred tons of dual or single carriageway above you.

But in case you think I am a complete fascist, my vote was for catch and fine, and that was only because the option of anything more leniant, but not hero worship wasn't available :ooh:

[Watchoutbelow]

Ah, here, there was a post just above this that seems to have been deleted , think the fellas name was Helibloke.
the final line was,

"and should now be big enough to own up to it."

Are you nuckin futs? imagine spending thousands upon thousands upon thousands of pounds and gone through years and years of hassle from the CAA, completed all the difficult yet very silly exams and jumped through all the hoops they put up, just to get a licence then get it taken away for something as small as this?

Whoever this Mythical superhero is, fairplay to ya, however it would be a smart move to keep your head down for a little while until this blows over or at least until the CAA hear of somebody else doing something as utterly outrageous as flying a single engine gas turbine around london or something Crahayhaezy like that.

Unless your reading this and would like to explain your actions or tell us when your going to do it next, there will probably be supporters out with Banners for ya.

:hmm::} :} :} :} :}

[SASless]

Confess.....not in a million years....and notwithstanding the video tapes...that is not me!

Get a grip guys.....until they track you down and confront you with an airtight case.....keep on trucking!

Do you think the kindly CAA wallahs will give a tihs that the guy voluntarily came forth.....wearing his ashes and torn clothing.....begging forgiveness?

There is nothing manly about putting your neck into the noose for them....make them work for it!

[HeloTeacher]

To my mind the key factor is the disregard for a) the rules and b) the publicity. The adverse publicity should be obvious and the potential for CAA action just as obvious. If he/she is this reckless/anti-authority here, what will happen when another 'rule' gets in the way.

[chopperman]

HeloTeacher
Totally agree with you.

I find it strange that so called professional aviators are standing up for this idiot. We are all aware of the rules; if we are stupid enough to blatantly flaunt them then, if caught, we must expect to pay the penalty (whatever that may be) . If this particular person is prosecuted by the authority (and I sincerely hope he/she is), no sympathy, serves him/her right. Don't expect me to lobby the CAA for mercy when they invite him/her to Gatwick for a chat.

Bring back hanging I say,
Chopperman

[Heliport]

Isn't it interesting how people who share our opinions are professional aviators and those who don't are 'so called' professional aviators? ;)

[SASless]

Rules can be so sacred to the sheep of this world.....BAAAAAAAH!

Better to be a die as a Wolf than to live like a Sheep I say. To never have had the courage to challenge authority must be so sad. New Worlds would not have been discovered....new discoveries might never have happened. Sometimes one must just poke a stick into the eye of the bureaucracy. I don't guess we should talk about the famous air heroes who have done this sort of things....Richard Bong....who looped a P-38 around the Golden Gate Bridge...and so on.....

[finalchecksplease]

Heliport, was it you that flew under that bridge looking at those beautiful pictures of the Skye Bridge you put on the last page?
:p :p :p :p

No serious now, many thanks for moderating this forum so well, putting up those pictures, for Rotorheads who are not familiar with that bridge, proves that again!


Ta (as they say in Skye)

[BlenderPilot]

Dear Sasless,

Your words about terrorizing a baboon, chasing hippos, and nudist beaches, brought some good memories :)

I agree with you, as long as you do it safely there is a whole world to explore, unfortunately some countries have many rules which impair most pilots from being able to exercise their own common sense :(

Repeat after me......I have never flown in the treetops....I have never scouted a Nudist Beach......I have never buzzed a friend's house....I have never done torque turns.....I have never flown down the river below the trees.....I have never flown under bridges in the Rose City......I have never been a real helicopter pilot!

Flying is fun....Really!!! Have you ever chased a Hippo....terrorized a Baboon.....messed with a Grizzly Bear's mind....set flight to a herd of goats....hovered over a railroad track at night with the landing lights on......white out'ed the screen of a drive-in movie theater?

The trick is to do it safely......without harm to anyone or anything!

Unfortunately I don't have pictures of every ocasion but here are some I took a couple of years ago . . .

Taken in Guinea, West Africa from a Hughes 500D in 1991
http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PPRuNe/BaboonsGuinea1.jpg

These baboons were running for their lives, but once you are down there they are dangerous
http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PPRuNe/BaboonsGuinea2.jpg

Did everyone miss the sign?
http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PPRuNe/toavoidbirds.jpg

Not a nudist beach but . . . . sorry the pic quality is not good:cool:
http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PPRuNe/azotea.jpg

[Winnie]

SASless
I'm not military and never was, and I am a Helicopter pilot. I enjoy flying low and fast, and around obstacles, I love doing tight confine areas, but I don't intentionally break rules just because it seems fun!

To all:
I used to fly in the SanFransisco area, where there are a few very tall bridges, that you may fly under with no problem, howerver I never did. What is the point? Back home where I am from, (Bodoe, Norway) there is a big bridge crossing one of the worlds strongest tidal currents, it is probably 200 feet up and 1000 feet wide, foreign fighterjets used to fly under there for fun, but the problem is that there are people fishing from that bridge, how will you know that someoine got their line strung out below?

Somebody mentioned Richard Bong, who looped around the Golen Gate in a P38, are you aware that he got killed while trying to clip somebodys clothesline?:(

So it is a little harsh taking buddy's license away, but atleast that may prevent him from doing the same again, and maybe even killing himself/others. It is I feel, because of people like this we have such stringent rules in the first place. So I guess I'm ready to take more flak again:uhoh:

[SASless]

Winnie,

A simple Google search works miracles sometimes.

Major Richard Ira Bong

The first of nine children, born September 24, 1920 to a Swedish immigrant father and American-born mother (Carl and Dora Bong).

Richard was captivated by flying as a small boy. He would watch planes fly over the family farm carrying mail for President Calvin Coolidge's summer White House in Superior. He learned to fly in the Civilian Pilot Training program, as a college student. At the age of 20 he became a cadet in the US Army Air Corps. Around this same time America entered into World War II. Richard was the first fighter pilot handpicked by General George C. Kenney in the fall of 1942 for a P-38 squadron designed to strengthen the Fifth Air Force in Australia and New Guinea. Richard became America's all-time Ace of Aces, downing 40 enemy planes in the Pacific theater of the war while flying P-38 fighter planes.


In 1944 Richard Bong was awarded the nation's highest honor by General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of all U.S. Army units in the Far East, who said: "Major Richard Ira Bong, who has ruled the air from New Guinea to the Philippines, I now induct you into the society of the bravest of brave, the wearers of the Congressional Medal of Honor of the United States."

General Kenney pulled Richard Bong out of combat when his score reached 40 and sent him home to "marry Marjorie and start thinking about raising a lot of towheaded Swedes." Richard "Dick" and Marge Vattendahl were married February 10, 1945 in Superior, an event attended by 1,200 guests and covered by the international press. The couple honeymooned in California for several weeks before reporting to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, where Richard began training for a new assignment in Burbank, California: testing the plane that would take the Air Force into the jet age - the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star. On August 6, 1945 (the day the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima) Richard was killed when the P-80 stalled and crashed on take-off. He died at the age of 24 six months after his marriage to Marge.


Major Richard I Bong wore the following ribbons and medals: Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, Distinguished Flying Cross with 6 Oak Leaf Clusters, Air Medal with 14 Oak Leaf Clusters, Pre-Pearl Harbor Ribbon, American Defense Ribbon, Asiatic-Pacific Ribbon with 2 battle stars, Presidential Citation, and Distinguished Air Medal From Britain.


Excellent Post Blender Pilot....you are a real helicopter pilot in my book.....seems we have walked the same trail....must be the Fort Wolters education!

[t'aint natural]

Winnie: Flak duly comin' up.
Quote: "So it is a little harsh taking buddy's license away, but at least that may prevent him from doing the same again, and maybe even killing himself/others."
There are a lot of people in this world who know that the only way to stop you killing yourself/others is to prevent you from flying. Rules don't come into it, they'll take your ticket.
Every time you walk to the aircraft you think, hey, let's try and make sure today's not the day I kill myself/others... I'm taking a calculated risk here, but I think I'll get away with it...
If you then let the little ol' hot dog out for a romp, it's all part of the same risk equation. We're talking about something that was illegal here, not something that was dangerous. Despite the hang-em, flog-em faction's attempts to make this chap out to have put the population of Skye in jeopardy, I remain unpersuaded.
If he'd gone in the water, then throw a wreath after him and say, "So long sucker, you weren't as good as you thought you were..."
And take a risk again tomorrow.

[Roofus]

I hope I've misunderstood some of this thread....the impression I'm getting is that 'Real' helicopter pilots break the rules! Um...well that's utter :mad: !!!!

Should we as 'professional' pilots openly & publicly encourage & support such actions?? I kinda think not!

So...what to do? Well.....if ya can't do the time, don't do the crime blah blah. If he/she gets caught...I have a funny feeling the CAA will hang 'em out to dry. Right or wrong? I dunno....not enough details. Why was it done? etc etc. There may well have been operational reasons.....or was it a wazz? Was he solo or did he have crew or pax onboard?

Should we fly under bridges just because we can? Are you serious? No!!

I dunno what all you guys do with your machines for a living, but I know my job presents enough challenges & hazards........enough 'Buzz'....without me having to further increase the risks by throwing a bridge into the equation! Yeah...I'm a pilot, I love my job, I enjoy my job, I love to have the occasional play....but if I flew under a bridge the rest of the guys in the crew would string me up!

I'm still a bit shell shocked to find so many 'professionals' actively supporting this! STAGGERED would be a better word!

I'm gonna poodle off to my obviously very naive little corner & gaze with admiration at such daring aviators!

What is it they say?....there are old pilots & bold pilots...but no old & bold pilots! Gosh how little 'they' know huh! :hmm:

[atb1943]

I find it strange that no-one has really mentioned what can happen when it goes pear-shaped, and when you are not alone. Take a look at this link....

http://www.uelzen-info.de/reportagen/200103.htm

[Heliport]

Was it a different Richard Bong you had in mind, Winnie? :rolleyes:

Brilliant pics Blender ! :ok: :D

Looks like you have misunderstood some of the thread Roofus. Nobody's said "'Real' helicopter pilots break the rules!
Nobody's said he shouldn't get done by the CAA if they trace him but many hope he's not caught. (I wouldn't dream of expressing an opinion myself as a Mod, of course. ;) )
Should we as 'professional' pilots openly & publicly encourage & support such actions?? I always think of Rotorheads as a Crew Room. We might be 'overheard' of course, but if we worried too much about that the forum wouldn't be much fun.
Should we fly under bridges just because we can? Again, nobody's said that. Some people think it was harmless fun for which he's bound to be punished if he's caught but aren't buying the 'shock horror' danger stuff.
"old pilots & bold pilots" etc?
The gap is a quarter of a mile wide and 100 feet high? I don't know how old SASless is (for example) but he survived Vietnam and looks like he's still going strong. :)

Interesting discussion - and poll.
I wish there was a way of seeing whether there's a pattern of voting linked to country and/or flying background, but there's not.

[Squawk7777]

Here's a point of view from a fixed-wing pilot and heli newbie ...

Having flown and taught thousands of hours professionally, I believe that there's nothing wrong with the occasional "insanity" (or whatever you wanna call it) - as long as it is safe. Last year, I couldn't resist chasing boats at 50 ft agl in the Chesapeake bay in a A75N1 (Stearman). Yep, I didn't maintain my 500 ft obstacle clearance but maintained my common sense for some fun.

P.S. atb1943, not to forget the tragic accident of the Luftwaffe Huey (?) that killed a couple of joyriders a few years ago. Bottom line: Judge your adrenalin... :eek:

[Thomas coupling]

SaSless: Major Bing Bong died at 24...great innings, eh?
It's a great idea dying like a wolf rather than living like a sheep, but if your time on this planet is measured in nano seconds, I really have to believe in:
Everything in moderation....{except women, and money, and sunshine, and Chablis, and that feeling when you settle into a hot bath initially, and....)

PS: Yanks get medals for turning up for work, so I'm not particularly impressed by his awards;)

Bing Bong...............

[EESDL]

Is that why we 'Bong' it when it all goes pear-shaped?
Less of the English ladies form, more of the fact that numerous pilots seem to be getting too emotional and need to re-read some of the threads! Admiration for a stunt is not the same as condoning it or even wishing to do it.
Strange, but I never once went out and jumped over 18 DoubleDecker buses, or went and encouraged someone else to do it.

Hark the herald angels sing!

[trimpot]

Let Ye who has not sinned cast the first stone (but not into the rotors):E

[Winnie]

Black eye for me!

I guess my copy of TIME/LIFE "The world at war" is wrong and I bow my head in shame of smearing Maj. Bong's name.

SASless and all others, I did 5 years of service on Fast Patrol Boats as an enlisted and later as an officer in my homecountry's navy, but now I am a civlian flight instructor. Again, so I may be harsh, but I still think that it is people like this that give us a bad reputation.

This is just like the other day, one of my students went out and did a little "low level flying" cruising around at 50 - 100 feet AGL, and even told the tower about it. I guess the consesus here is not to tell anyone about it? He should just get a WOOHOO get going dude!! and a slap on the back for a great show?
I belive in setting a good example, and we took him in the office, and gave him a "slap on the wrist" verbally, and entered a letter in his training file, which noone will ever see but us, unless he kills himself.
SO, should we condone this action by this wayward feller that flew under the bridge? I still think not, Maybe it is going too far taking his license away for ever, but he should atleast get a stiff fine, and have his license taken away for a while. :uhoh:

[Flight Safety]

A little more information about Richard Bong:

"On August 6, 1945, while half a world away the Enola Gay dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Bong stepped into an airplane for the last time. His P-80 malfunctioned just after take-off, and while he bailed out, he never had a chance. He was just too close to the ground. After surviving two years of combat flying, Richard Ira Bong met his end while on a routine acceptance flight."

From this website:

www.acepilots.com (http://www.acepilots.com/)

[MamboBaas]

Thomas Coupling,
Yes, nearly all Americans get medals just for turning up for work but not, I would venture to suggest, The Congressional Medal of Honour, Distinguished Service Cross or Distinguished Flying Cross and you do yourself, as well as a true hero a disservice in your rather snide implications.
:ugh:

Oh thou who art holier than all others, I recently visited the United Kingdom, land of rules and respecters thereof, and whilst driving upon thy motorways and byways didst witness many driving under bridges at velocities in excess of 100 miles per hour, driving through crowded town and city centres by day at velocities well in excess of 30 miles per hour. I wonder which is the more dangerous:confused: Maybe one of thou who art the most righteous was amongst those I saw. Verily, let he who is without any sin cast the first stone:rolleyes:

[ShyTorque]

I think some folks here are over-reacting a tiny bit. It ought to be borne in mind that this sort of stuff is actually bread and butter stuff to military helicopter pilots and I don't think that we should need to make such a shock horror story out of it. It was ill-advised at best and possibly illegal (don't hang him without knowing the facts), but not particularly dangerous. Quoting the engine failure case is a bit spurious, the chances of that happening just there are really very small indeed. I and many others have spent much time in single engined helicopters or very underpowered twins winching folks up and down over rocks and water and ships and flying underslung loads with hookers up working under the aircraft. By the same argument this is unacceptably dangerous? Actually more chance of more folks getting hurt if a donk stops than by flying under a bridge.

On the other hand, the EMS pilot who went into the river last winter after hitting the ice with a skid as he attempted to go under a bridge too far was just plain stupid and not up to his own opinion of himself. He proved it with tragic consequences.

I don't condone any of it but I must say I see more dangerous stuff on the M1 just about every day. We seldom hear of a car or lorry driver having his licence pulled for ever, even where loss of life occurred as a result of bad driving. For example, one silly girl I saw tonight was drifting between the two narrow outer lanes of the M1 through road works. She was sending a series of text messages on her mobile phone and totally oblivious to all else going on around her and to the danger she was putting herself and others in. IMHO she deserved a large mallet applying to her phone and her cranium.

I can understand Roofus being wary though; he shouldn't go anywhere near bridges. Knowing his luck the tail rotor would probably let go again just at the critical moment ;)

[Watchoutbelow]

Hmmm
Locals believe any collision between an aircraft and the £25m bridge would be catastrophic

but yet this sort of stuff is actually bread and butter stuff to military helicopter pilots

So its o.k if it crashes into a bridge as long as it is a military helicopter.
Strange world we live in.
:confused: :bored: :ugh:


MamboBaas, you don't really buy into all that crap that the government tries to sell you "land of the free and brave" and all that, do you?
You are all hero's, each and every one of you, in your own little way!!

[The Nr Fairy]

I voted for number 3. Why ? Partly because there's no information as yet that the flight was legally sanctioned by the CAA as part of some film-making activities, indeed the fact the CAA are actively helping the search for the pilot indicates otherwise.

If someone undertakes risky behaviour, it's likely that they'll keep pushing the boundaries until the risk taken exceeds both their own, and the aircraft's abilities and they die. If they do that, I don't want to be near them when they do, and I'm sure that their passengers won't appreciate the extremely intense but very short adrenalin rush which will result.

[Flying Lawyer]

I wonder if the manoeuvre would be regarded as illegal in the States. FAR Section. 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

(a) Anywhere.
An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas.
N/A

(c) Over other than congested areas.
An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters.
Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

I also wonder why some people think it's hazardous to people on the bridge to fly a helicopter through a gap 100' high x quarter of a mile wide.

We Brits are well known for complying with rules, whether in aviation or otherwise. Might it be that we fall into the trap of subconsciously assuming illegal = dangerous?
Or that, if something is safe, the CAA would allow it and, if it's forbidden it must be dangerous?

[Crashondeck]

It would be interesting to know how many of the "hope he gets away with it" voters are civvy flying instructors. May or may not be dangerous but there is no doubt that it is illegal. I hope that no instructors are actually telling their student "break the rules if it is safe and if you wont get caught".

People have been known to jump off the Skye bridge. Dont fancy flying under it myself!!

[Heliport]

Do you think any FI's give their students that advice even if they are in the 'hope he gets away with it' camp?

[[email protected]]

Mambobaas, did you stop to think why all those people were speeding in their cars and breaking the law? It is because speeding is condoned by the authorities however much they may claim to deny it. A motorway cop won't bother with a speeding vehicle until it is over 85 mph (unless it is really blatant) and many magistrates courts regard speeding on a motorway as a far lesser crime than in built up areas. If the law were to be rigidly enforced then the roads in UK would come to a complete standstill (OK more of a standstill than they already are).

My point is that if you condone or approve of this guys stunt under the bridge then don't be surprised when it happens again and again until someone spears in doing it, killing himself and several onlookers and we all cry "How could this sort of flying indiscipline be allowed, what have the CAA been doing about it".

What the guy did wasn't difficult - a confined area requires more piloting skills - but it was illegal and ill advised and if and when he gets caught he has only himself to blame.

If he gets away with it then what might he try next?

[902Jon]

An interesting thread guys. Just to add my tuppence worth, I was working on contract for BUTEC at Kyle of Lochalsh the week after the bridge had been officially opened. The engineer I was working with told me that the week before the opening, a French private pilots helicopter club who were touring the U.K had all flown under the bridge!! This consisted mainly of R22's but also included a B206 and H500, total of 6 or 7.
I also remember my CP telling me that if I tried it that I would be looking for new employment. (By the way, I didnt :* )

[MamboBaas]

crab,
Yes I did stop to think why all those people were breaking the law. On the motorway, probably little harm is done, but in cities and towns it is your government's view that statistically you are far more likely to be killed if you are hit by a car doing 40 mph than one doing 30 mph. I have a friend in my country whose son was killed in town by a speeding driver. My point of view is that whether you feel the authorities condone breaking the law or not, if you personally condone it, or have broken the law by illegally speeding yourself (which I believe can be statistically proven to kill a much greater number of people every year than helicopters flying under bridges) then what right have you to sit in 'holier than thou' judgement on one of your fellows who has merely broken another law? Hypocritical or what:hmm:
It seems that the UK is very much a country where people only respect and obey those laws they feel should apply to them. I guess it's better than where I am, where might is right - who knows:confused:

[Rich Lee]

I would imagine that if a boat or ship were to hit the footing of the bridge it would cause considerably more damage than an R-22. Must seagoing craft remain 500 feet from the bridge as well?

Risk is rather relative. Has a scientific risk assessment been conducted to assign the risk of the helicopter hitting the bridge? Can the authorities cite examples of helicopters unintentionally hitting bridges? Is there a documented case of a helicopter bringing down a bridge by collision? I saw a video of a CH-47 fall onto a bridge in Korea while placing an Olympic Torch. The bridge is still standing.

There are many helicopter operations around the world where helicopters routinely operate near or around structures at distances of less than 500 feet. As an example a tourist helicopter company in San Pedro, California made every take-off and landing under a bridge for years without incident.

I would be more concerned about the risk to the helicopter from dangling cables or litter thrown from the bridge and for that reason would consider the risk high.

[T_richard]

As a non pilot, I still think it would be so cool to be able to fly under a bridge like that. I understand the sfety and economic concerns and I don't dismiss them, but it would be very cool, none the less.

[JimL]

It's also cool in the slammer!

[[email protected]]

So why do people speed? They are conciously taking a risk that they think they can deal with and don't think too long and hard about the consequences of their failure to deal with it. 90 mph in the outside lane of the motorway seems like a perfectly acceptable risk to take, after all aren't millions of others taking the same risk and getting away with it? Therefore if it's OK for them then why not me? Oh dear I seem to have forgotten that I am trying to steer a 1/2 ton car between two white lines about 7 feet apart at 132 feet per second...hmmmm suddenly the margin for error doesn't seem too large especially if I am less than 30 feet from the car/lorry in front who is kicking up spray 'cos it's just been raining and it's dark.

The point I am trying to make is that risk taking, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and once one person makes a risk look acceptable then others will follow ( I am not being holier than thou about speeding or trying to preach from the moral high ground, just trying to highlight some facts of life). Where one speeder has gone so will go many others and a certain proportion of them will die or kill others whilst taking their 'acceptable' risk.

Once one person flys under the bridge so will others (the story of the French aero club seems to back that up) - small potatoes in the big scheme of things but what happens next? More illegal low flying, more bridges with smaller clearances to get a bigger buzz - as the word spreads and publicity builds who wants their 15 minutes of fame down the Thames under all the bridges?

I would rather the bloke had flown into the bridge as it would have at least rid the world of another R22 and proved conclusively that the bridge is strong enough to withstand the impact.

Lots of things look cool right up until they go horribly wrong - see New Labour for details!!!

[Heliport]

R22? Isn't it still type unknown?
That aside, wishing he'd killed himself is a little extreme ins't it Crab?
:confused:

[3top]

Hi all,

I voted for "hope he gets away", mainly because where it happened and the authority responsible for that country.
I do not agree with doing stunts like this in a situation where GA is already at risk to get exstinct.
The following link has nothing to do with the case at hand or the CAA, but it shows the general ridicule involving laws and regulations in UK and Europe:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/west_yorkshire/2981358.stm

You will find all the related links there, read it, it is quite ridiculous!

Now I understand the CAA is LOT worse than any traffic entity in the great UK!

It is a little difficult to judge whether this guy will go on and find more challenging and potentially dangerous thrills, but I doubt he will. The real thrill with this was most likely not to find out whether he could do the bridge (as was stated: any regular confined area is more difficult...), but could he get away with it!! I hope he can. But if they catch up with him I hope he still gets away with a medium stiff fine, lets say 4-5 flighthours worth.....
However as there are very few people in the CAA with any pilot skills and/or danger judging capabilities from a proffesional pilot point of view, but mostly law enforcers with little comon sense - I hope they do not get him/her!!!

If it was for the "bridge thrill" he should have looked for some less prominent bridge.

As Rich Lee mentioned, the real danger is more likely for the helicopter from anything coming down from the bridge.

Shy Torque! You got the cure, especially with those barges!!

For Winnie and all the other perfect law abiding people out there:

Take a vacation, come to Panama and enjoy some low level river tour - tree top level canopy tour and RELAX!!

Of course this may not be the most safe way to fly, but then the idea is to get a good and fun tour, which never the less is still reasonable save. No need to push the limits for some fun - neither did the guy with bridge. However here it is legal...
Sometimes you need a little fun and thrill in your live...


....or you might just die of boredom.


3top
:cool:

[Mars]

3Top:

Hesitated somewhat but finally couldn't resist (sad or what).

I voted for "hope he gets away", mainly because where it happened and the authority responsible for that country.I assume that's the method you use for all votes.The following link has nothing to do with the case at hand or the CAA, but it shows the general ridicule involving laws and regulations in UK and EuropeI think I see the connection.Now I understand the CAA is LOT worse than any traffic entity in the great UK...

However as there are very few people in the CAA with any pilot skills and/or danger judging capabilities from a proffesional pilot point of view, but mostly law enforcers with little comon sense...We have to bow to your local knowledge there 3top!Take a vacation, come to Panama and enjoy some low level river tour - tree top level canopy tour and RELAX!!

Of course this may not be the most safe way to fly, but then the idea is to get a good and fun tour, which never the less is still reasonable saveYou've tried Russian roulette then!

Love a logical and well constructed argument - don't you?

[jellycopter]

I'm in the camp that thinks that if he/she gets caught, he/she's only got himself/herself to blame.

As for the CAA investigating it; they should spend more time investigating flying schools that permit their students and instructors to hover taxi single engined helis at 20ft+ agl. Far more risky than flying under a 100ft high bridge and far more prevalent. OK so it's not illegal, but the potential for injury to self and third parties is significantly greater than flying under said bridge.

J

[What Limits]

Just to get right off topic for a moment ................

No. It's a good question but start a new thread.

[cjp]

Sorry. I know Crab brought speeding into the discussion and expressed some controversial views, but you're inviting a discussion purely about speeding laws.
Not on this thread. Check out JetBlast where there are frequently threads on that topic.
Heliport

[3top]

Mars:

a) I vote according to the local environment. Where I am, Panama, you will get a fine that may hurt finacially and will be an example for everyone, and that was it. In this case I would vote for this.
In the UK the guy will probably loose the licence if they get him. Despite that there is/was an according vote to that matter.

b) If you do not see the "connection" between different laws in a common country getting drawn into ridicule then I can´t help you.
(An Ambulance Driver on duty in danger to loose his licence for speeding on an empty motorway is ridiculous, as would be loosing a licence for "the bridge"). I do know about European ways and laws, I am from Europe. But by now I do not expect anymore that you will get the connection....

c) I read plenty of CAA reports (mostly accident reports) written by very competent people, mostly high-time pilots, ex military or airline. Unfortunately they are the very minority in the CAA. The majority SEEM to be lawyers without any leeway to fairly harmless actions. If it was illegal, fine the guy, but I can imagine the outcome if they get him/her.

d) No, I never tried R-Roulette and don´t plan too. But I guess you never had the chance to sample some relaxed flying, as you "expertly" classify it as R-Roulette.

e) I guess you ever only read logical arguments on this site and never put your feelings or heart to it......Sorry for you!


3top

[Mars]

3top,

This is my last post on this subject.[list=1] We should not prejudge the outcome but it is likely that the pilot (if caught and found guilty of a flouting of the rules of the air) will be fined – the probability that there were two incidents will not assist the defence. The regulation that was (allegedly) breached, was a rule written in compliance with ICAO Annex 2 – Rules of the Air (with which all States have an obligation to comply – or file differences). I take it as read that the Panama Republic complies with ICAO or files a difference! It is likely that, in the speeding incident that you have cited, the necessity for exceeding the limit was not established (the organ could have been delivered without speeding) - why the need to take the risk? However, most of us would agree that the matter could have been dealt with in a more discrete and sensitive way. Accident reports are issued by the AAIB – no connection with the CAA. The CAA Flight Operations Inspectorate is staffed with current civilian high-time pilots with training and/or managerial experience - who maintain their line flying skills. The legal department is staffed with a small number of lawyers – but they are not responsible for enforcement. The Enforcement Section is managed by a high time helicopter pilot from the military with a distinguished record – the other (non-clerical) staff are ex-policemen (it is a very small section) All non clerical staff in the CAA are recruited for their knowledge and experience in the subject for which they are responsible (in view of that the demographic distribution of staff shows a bulge at around 50 - which ensures a regular turnover).[/list=1]I apologise for the cheap shot on Russian Roulette – it was unnecessary. As a former military pilot, I had ample opportunity to engage in, and enjoy, low flying.

Head or heart - just get the balance right.

And before you ask - no, I do not work for the CAA!

[Heliport]

Mars
Shame it's your last post on the subject. I'm curious how you know so much about the personnel employed by the CAA - and all so complimentary too. ;)
Some of the things you say are worthy of threads in their own right. eg The frequently heard complaint that many people forget all about operating in the commercial world when they join the CAA? Or have little or no experience of operating commercially because they join directly or almost directly from the services? But all that's for another thread, not here.

3top
The FAA '500 feet rule' (see an earlier post) is significantly different from ours in the UK. What's the equivalent rule in Pamama?

[Happy Landing !]

Taking the 206 as the average:

How high does a 206 stand - 12' ?

Lets get this into perspective.

100' high bridge
12' high ship
leave say 10' for water clearence

Gives 78' spare - Christ thats half a football pitch to play with!

[Huron Topp]

Being as lazy as I am at the mo'- which is considerable- I won't look for the posters who stated that this kind of thing is run-of-the-mill for military types. That might be true for the guys actually in the helo at the time, it is not so for those higher up the food chain. back in '98 a Canuck Griffon crew decided to fly under the Confederation Bridge between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Isalnd provinces. With thousands of witnesses, their gooses were cooked. Both were suspended from flying during their courts-martial, their punishment after having been found guilty was to both be placed back in the left seat for "further training". Basically, their careers could have been ended right there.

Witness also an Apache crew at low-level: pilot asks gunner if they can whiz through a certain bunch of trees. Gunner says NO. Pilot says "oh yea of little faith". Next thing you know, blades start flying off, along with some very large branches.

Fun? Sure. But smart? Not usually.

[3top]

MARS:

You are right about the right balance, sometimes I let go before cooling down….I apologize.

To the speeding ambulance: Ask any Transplant receiver whether they consider this case an emergency! Transplants save lives, and expire fast too.

I guess I was wrong about the CAA and AAIB (is it the same relation like FAA and NTSB?).
However if the CAA consists of so professional people, then I wonder why it is so difficult and expensive to get licenses and operate aircraft on a private level and why there are so many restrictions around compared to other continents. (Not just complaining about the CAA but Europe in general...)

I grant there will always be different attitudes according to where one grows up, where you get your license, where you get to work. This shows a lot on this forum.
Though Europe gets a little crowded, it still seems that many restrictions in rural areas are applied because of envy (if I cannot fly, you cannot either…) and nothing else to do than complain. When was the last time that you saw people running outside to wave at you, being happy to see an aircraft? Today in Europe an overflying aircraft is more often a reason to call authorities to complain about noise pollution than having fun observing it.

To the lowflying in Panama: This is not a spur of the moment hillbilly stunt. It is part of a tourist trip mainly offered to Cruiseline passengers, sampled and authorized by the respective legal departments of the Cruiselines. We also do not aspire to get as close as possible to trees, etc. just close enough to give the passengers a low level feel – min clearance at speed about 30 ft.
Normally people walk away with a new view about helicopters - sofar always a way positive one!

Panama has plenty of restricted areas around the city and is a member of the ICAO.

I take your word that the “bridge” pilot would not loose his license.


HELIPORT:

In Panama we have basically the same rules like the FAA:

WITH the exception that you are NOT allowed to descend below the 1000 ft mark over congested areas except when in an emergency or attending the emergency of another party (see part (d) below).


FAA-§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.



3top

[Another KOS]

3top:

Today in Europe an over-flying aircraft is more often a reason to call authorities to complain about noise pollution than having fun observing it.You make an excellent and cogent observation about Europe (and in my opinion the US - look at the number of heliport closures in the last two years) - if it is the case that undue attention is unwelcome in this day and age, why does this incident garner so much support?

Those who have supported this industry over a long period resent the attention given to such an incident, because it will drown the goodwill earned on a daily basis by the HEMS, police and SAR communities.

The FAA rules of the air (FAR 91.119) for helicopters (paragraph (d)) do nothing to assist the industry in the US. They turn a blind eye to ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air; almost as though they are nothing to do with helicopters. These rules were intended to provide protection for third parties - both physically and environmentally.

[Flying Lawyer]

KOS
"The FAA rules of the air (FAR 91.119) for helicopters (paragraph (d)) do nothing to assist the industry in the US."

Does the industry in the US have a problem / need the assistance of a more restrictive low flying rule?
Genuine question - I don't know the answer.

My impression is that most Americans seem to regard helicopters as just another form of transport. I've noticed that when helicopters fly by at a height/distance which would be illegal in the UK, most people don't even bother to look up.

In this country people tend to start muttering about 'danger' and some (but not anyone whose company I'd wish to keep) ring the CAA or the police to complain.


FL

[3top]

KOS:

I do not think that anyone really supports the guy with the bridge, but rather the notion to let him get away with a blue eye.

Taking his license (which in the view of MARS would likely not happen anyway...) would not do any good either as this pilot would be out. Period.

With a blue eye (and be it just all the attention he gathers with the fear of possible finacial or legal retaliation), he hopefully get´s the message that his action did nothing to further General Aviation and hopefully he will prevent others from doing similar attention getting actions by mentioning his example.

The FAA regulations 91.119 are great as long as the pilot is consious about when and where he uses this privilege over fixed wing aircraft. Generally when I get the chance to fly with US-pilots they are amazed with the seriousness Rules are followed in Panama, at least near Citys.
It is one way to keep them from getting anymore restrictive...
I do not think they turn a blind eye on the ICAO specs, but give the pilot the freedom to use his machine according to his skills.

The safety of persons and property is covered in a different part of the law:

FAA-§91.13 Careless or reckless operation.


(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Unfortunately with the freedom to decide there is always the danger of abuse....


3top

[Flying Lawyer]

Just for info, a court has no power to suspend or revoke a pilot's licence. The CAA has but, in practice, the power is rarely exercised.


I'm relieved to see that only a small minority of voters would favour suspending this pilot's licence, and only a tiny percentage would favour a life ban.
I hate to think what they'd want to see happen to a pilot who injured or killed someone. :eek:

[10W]

YAWWWN ;)

You Chopper Guys have NO sense of adventure :rolleyes:

3 out of 5 Spanish Microlight pilots on transit between Inverness and Oban flew under this a couple of days ago .....

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/uswallpaper/wallpaperimages/ballachulishbridge-800.jpg

Bad news for them is that many members of the public reported it and they have been sampling the hospitality of the Scottish Police since landing at Oban .. Flying Lawyer .. do you take on plank wing cases ?? could be some business :ok: :E

[Another KOS]

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

[Flying Lawyer]

Another KOS
Sorry, when you said FAR 91.119 for helicopters (paragraph (d)) "did nothing to assist the industry in the US", I assumed you thought it should be changed.

Not listening? :confused: I asked a question because I wanted to learn. My 'impression' was based on what I read from American contributors to Rotorheads, a small amount of flying in the States over the years (incl. flying a news-helicopter around LA, but only for a week) and, when on numerous visits to the US, making a point of watching the reactions of people around me when helicopters fly over at low level. I was well aware of the National Parks issue, but I didn't know the problems which protesters cause generally in the US were as bad as you describe. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

As you may have gathered, I'm an admirer of the FAA's approach generally. I think FAR 91.119 is reasonable and sensible, not least because it credits trained pilots with the ability to make a sensible judgment - subject, of course, to the over-riding safety provisions/sanctions to which 3Top has referred if they make a bad judgment.

Please don't think I've missed your 'wrong message' / environment points etc. I believe the answer to the problem if there is one lies in education such as the 'Fly Neighborly' programme to which you refer, and not in more restrictive legislation.

[Crashondeck]

I always thought that you guys who fly kites with fans on the back were mad. Now I know you're mad!

Isnt that bridge on one of the fast jet low flying corridors? May be they could use the excuse they were trying to avoid a flock of Tornados. Good job there wasnt a helicopter going the other way!

[Whirlygig]

Have the two Spanish pilots been identified? If so, do we know what punishment has been meted out to them in terms of their licencing?

Also, does anyone know if the Skye bridge pilot(s) has/have been identified? If not, I would suspect that the chances of catching up with them are now remote and that they probably have "got away with it". But what message have they sent out to other copy cat pilots?

Whirlygig

[Flying Lawyer]

I assume the group of Spanish pilots has been identified, or we wouldn't know they were Spanish. But, if they decline to answer questions (which we're all entitled to do when questioned by an investigating authority) I doubt if anything will happen to them - unless witnesses are able to identify which 3 out of the 5 went under the bridge.

If the 3 offenders are identified, prosecuted and convicted they'll be fined.
I doubt if the CAA can take any licensing action - Spanish licences - but I've not researched the point.


Re the Skye bridge pilot(s)
It's early days yet. He/they may still be identified.

Message? Copycat pilots?
Bear in mind that hoping someone else gets away with doing something (the overwhelming vote in the poll) is very different from approving of what they've done, or being tempted to do it.

Helicopter pilots who fly responsibly and legally (the vast majority) don't suddenly change our outlook and start breaking the law just because someone else does something silly and gets away with it.

[Heliport]

Oops!
Sorry Happy Landing! Deleted your post while trying (and failing) to get your link up. Lucky I'd made a copy. :) This is the link to the news wire on the Two Spanish Plank Flyers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3043308.stm

Got away with it apparently. CAA taking no action !

[Grainger]

I love the reported eyewitness statement:

"I didn't see the whites of the pilot's eyes but I did see his hat and his goggles." :)

... and his handlebar moustache, presumably accompanied by a shout of "chocks away !" or "wizard prang, Ginger !" :D

[Squawk7777]

That reminds me of a pilot who flew through the Arc de Triomphe in the mid-80s...

Now where were we? Ah right; responsibility ....:rolleyes:

[Hilico]

The flight of that Rallye under the Arc de Triomphe was described in detail by Bernard Chabbert in Pilot. Alas, it was so long ago that I no longer have the magazine to hand. What I do remember is that the chap in question researched the venue thoroughly beforehand, had planned escape routes and cut-off points where he would abort the run if he felt anything was amiss, it was recorded by a television crew (the Pilot article had stills from the film), and - as far as I can remember - the court regarded it as a genuine aviation exploit. I don't remember him losing his licence.

[Crashondeck]

Just seen footage of the two Spanish planks going under the bridge. 1st one was established in level flight at about 15 foot and seemed well controlled. The second one dived under and seemed to clear the bridge by very little. 1st was as safe as it could have been, the 2nd was madness.

Demonstrates that flying under bridges can be safe (ish) when the pilot sets about it in the right way and how dangerous it is when a pilot just seems to blag it without a great deal of fore thought.

[Flying Lawyer]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39245000/jpg/_39245594_ballachthree203.jpg http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39245000/jpg/_39245624_ballachone203.jpg


Hotel worker Alewyn Rens, who was trying out his new video camera, caught the latest incident on film.
He said: "It could have been very dangerous but I really enjoyed it, I'm quite into planes." :D :D :D

[3top]

Hi Kos:

If you refer to quotes in my replies, please extend them enough to keep things straight. I believe I wrote " it SEEMS" the CAA, etc.
The way I read it in your post it is a factual statement, which it was not...

About the Bridge pilots judment: I would say his judgement is pretty well on from a flying skill point of view (maybe even twice!) as he made it unscattered through it.
No question, he was completely off by ANY other standard:
Bad publicity for GA generally.
Bad example for other pilots.
Breaching a restricted area except for an emergency is not considered good airmanship either.

But as mentioned various times in this thread, even pilots whom one would like to consider being professional to the core strike a stupid string at times.
The EMS pilot in Germany - the Army pilots in GB chopping trees mentioned in this thread. I guess there are plenty of unknown cases, that just got away...

Obviously there is something to learn FOR INSTRUCTORS here too. They are the first ones to instill certain behavior when it comes to flying. One way would be to show a Student (at some advanced level) how to enjoy some of the fun without endangering others, himself or braking rules. Lowflying is fun, but do it ONLY where it is safe.
This way the urge to do seemingly fun stuff does not automatically lead to illegal and/or dangerous and stupid behavior.

Unfortunately Bridges seem to have a pull that certain people cannot resist...

3top
:cool:

Just read the report about the spanish guys.

I am really surprised on the CAA stand on this!! Does not reflect the general opinion about them at all!

I guess I owe them a big apology!!

However if this keeps on going, I guess the CAA has no joice than to act and set an example!

3top

[Spaced]

While not having anything to say other than repeating some comments already made I though I could add a piece of video (http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Web/Site/QT/Eiffel.html) , that is well worth a look.

http://209.41.125.134/Art/eiffel.jpg

[Heliport]

3top

You can be sure this was a 'practical' decision by the CAA, not a generous one. The pilots couldn't be forced to stay in the UK while the matter was investigated, no guarantee they'd return, foreign licences not issued by the CAA etc etc
The CAA prosecutes British pilots for far less serious things than this.

[Another KOS]

Heliport:The CAA prosecutes British pilots for far less serious things than this.An example would be in order here or you might incur the wrath of Mars!

[Squawk7777]

Since we're already at it...

... what about the Boeing test pilot that barrel-rolled the prototype Dash 80 N70707 at a rather low altitude (400 feet)? Now he's seen as a hero (kinda).

:eek: :rolleyes: :cool:

more here (http://www.historylink.org/output.cfm?file_id=390)

7 7 7 7

[HALF A PILOT]

Here is a photo of a Bell 47 flying under the Crumlin viaduct in South Wales, during the making of the film "Arabesque in 1965". Built in 1857 Crumlin viaduct was the highest in Britain standing at 255 feet AGL. Sadly, shortly after this scene was taken, the viaduct was demolished.
http://www.welshcoalmines.co.uk/crymlyn/images/Arab1.jpg

[Squawk7777]

Heliport & co.

What in your own opinion would a "typical" CAA action be? I am not too familiar with the CAA regs anymore ...

[normally left blank]

Bird avoidance.

I keep wondering about the lightplane pilot getting away with the "Has to avoid birds, so must dive under bridge"- story. :O

Same defence must/could apply, if the helicopter pilot is found.

The French and Spanish pilots. Are they only doing this "on tour", or is it everyday happenings at home?

According to the link Tex Johnston did "aileron roll" the Dash 80, and not "barrel LOOP!" it. :eek: No wonder the onlookers needed heart medicine. :p

[Heliport]

Squawk7777

Please expand. :confused:

Heliport???

[Flying Lawyer]

Nothing new under the sun ...............


WW1 ace (9 credited kills), Maj. Christopher Draper, DFC continued flying after the war as a stunt pilot at airshows and for the movie industry.

In 1930, as a protest against the abysmal way the government had treated its war veterans, he undertook to fly under all the bridges on the River Thames in London. On the day, he managed only two bridges because of adverse winds, but the event was captured on film.


http://people.aero.und.edu/~draper/bridge2.jpg



http://people.aero.und.edu/~draper/bridge1.jpg



In 1953 he decided to finish the work he'd started nearly 25 years earlier. Protesting once again over the same issue, he was able to complete almost all of them.



http://people.aero.und.edu/~draper/bridge-again1.jpg



http://people.aero.und.edu/~draper/bridge-again2.jpg



http://people.aero.und.edu/~draper/bridge-again3.jpg



This time, the authorities decided to prosecute him.
Here's the court summons, and a promotional poster circulated at the time.



http://people.aero.und.edu/~draper/summons.jpg



http://people.aero.und.edu/~draper/mad-major-poster.jpg


The Major's license was revoked. :*

He died in 1979, after a long and very colourful life. In his time he maintained one of the oldest and longest running pilot's licenses in history (Royal Aero Club certificate #646), and flew everything from Bristol Boxkites to Hawker Hurricanes and Glostor Meteors.


And before anyone asks ....... No, I did not represent him! I'm not that old. :eek:

Wish I had though - it would have been an honour. :D

[Squawk7777]

Heliport

I am curious how severe the CAA is. As a former assistant chief pilot in the US, I had to stick my head out for one or two nut-cases. I discovered however, that the FAA can be quite reasonable (after I mentioned my form of punishment though :E :E :E )

... but I have an idea now, after what flying lawyer posted :uhoh:

[3top]

7777, whipe that grin of your post! ....and let us know what the stunt was and how you got to punish them!!

3top
:E :E :E

[Squawk7777]

Ok, ok, here's only the part I can mention without being charged with uncool crimes against flight students.

As a matter of fact one student was low-flying above a lake. Approach called the flight school advising us that they had lost radar contact... :uhoh: and when he came he downplayed the whole incident. So ...

:suspect:

knowing this guy to be a party animal I scheduled every class at 9 o'clock in the morning Mon-Sun. Additionally, he had to write down some FARs a couple of times (I applied my school experience here :eek: :rolleyes: ), plus cleaning my desk etc.

It worked, and he turned out to be a very good pilot. :)

7 7 7 7

[chopperdr]

have seen an mpeg video of an su-30 doing the bridge thing upside down with the smoke on very impressive, if anyone is interested drop me an email
dr

[3top]

chopperdr:

Dropping e-mail!!!

[email protected]

I want to see that stunt!

3top
:D :D :D

[Heliport]

Well, this topic certainly generated a lot of interest. Voting has now effectively stopped so it's time to take stock of what fellow helicopter people thought.
It was interesting to note that, although the number of votes gradually increased over the weeks, the percentage of votes for each of the four options remained almost unchanged throughout.


A total of 311 people voted, of whom a massively overwhelming majority (60.77%) hoped the pilot would get away with it.
Some people seemed to think hoping the pilot would get away with it this time was the same as approving of what he did. I don't think the two necessarily run together.
19.29% thought he should be prosecuted and fined, but didn't think any licensing action should be taken.
Slightly fewer (15.11%) thought he should have his licence pulled for a short period.
Only 15 people (4.82%) thought he should lose his licence forever. (I only put that one in as a joke, but there you go! :rolleyes: )

We don't know if the CAA has traced the pilot but, it's early days, so they might do so yet. I hope he's got the good sense not to go for the hat-trick or third time might not be so lucky for him - Mr Sikorski's probably bought some binoculars by now!

[3top]

Anyone saw the clips from chopperdr?

The SU-30 stunt makes the "bridge-chopper-pilot" look like a walking school lesson for little babies!

THis one is definitely on the edge!

And the Jet blasting at mach+ speeds must have ripped a couple of ear drums!

3top:D

[Head Turner]

If there were no risk takers we would still be walking everywhere.
As the bridge was intact after the event, and the spectators got a free show, what's the problem.
If the risk is removed from every aspect of daily life we might as well not be born.

Nice to see some spirit remains BUT don't do it a third time as it will surely end in tears.

[AlphaGolfLima]

>If there were no risk takers we would still be walking everywhere.

Or maybe even still be living in trees ?
Pretty superficial...
Although I do agree that some risks need to be taken I
think that line of thought is way too simple and weak
in this context - in civl aviation there's mostly really no point in
flying beneath bridges or other structures. It's been
done before and military aviators are still being trained
that stuff.


>As the bridge was intact after the event, and the spectators got
>a free show, what's the problem.


the problem, well the problem - by flying beneath bridges
the pilot takes a risk into account - an unnecessary risk.
At that moment he is not 'only' ignoring air laws, but also
recommendations for security margins. (a birdstrike/engine
failure or whatever may be distracting enough)
And that puts not only the pilot's life and the equipment
(probably not even his own!) in danger, but also other's lives and
property.

While it's certainly 'fun' and exciting to perform such maneuvers it
is definitely also risky and dangerous - the problem for a
pilot who's not been trained doing that stuff would also be the
decreasing threshold to do it over and over again -
"cause it went well the last time" - desensibilisation takes place.
And that's certainly a dominant factor for the dangerous attitude
to simply do 'it' because it's possible. There are numerous posts
on pprune regarding accidents - some obviously linked to non-
standard maneuvers and others where the exact cause couldn't
really be determined.
A while ago, probably at the beginning of the year, there was a
post (title 'deadly stupid stunt') here on
pprune regarding a crash of a German EMS helicopter (BO 105)
because the pilot wanted to flew beneath a bridge (max. 20
ft height) -
although he did successfully complete that maneuver he then
lost control over the machine about 50 ft
behind the bridge and it crashed into the river - one person
dead. Later it turned out that such maneuvers were no
exception, rather it had become a 'fun' way to make the flights
more exciting - if such a stunt had been reported to the
responsible officials at the first opportunity it might not even have
come to such a tragic end.

So while a year ago I would not necessarily have tried to
report such an incident but simply have been amazed, I am
now of the opinion that one should ignore the initial
amazement and "show effect" and merely look behind the
scenes: there's somebody doing something illegal and
dangerous.

As long as people are doing it with their own equipment on
their own ground I won't hinder anybody ...If they want
to they can build a bridge into their garden in order to
have some fun with their R22 ;-)
But not at the costs of others !



>If the risk is removed from every aspect of daily life we might as well not be born.

That's also pretty superficial ... I hope you don't mean what you say ...

>Nice to see some spirit remains BUT don't do it a third time as it will surely end in tears.

Here I do only agree with the latter part of the statement :
it will surely end in tears !


regs

AGL

[3top]

AGL:

I see your point, BUT:

To the German EMS: THis guy was definitely out of his mind! Here you see the lack of education when it comes to professionalism. He never realised that EMS has not a whole lot of fun to provide in the first place. Maybe you can wring out the machine a little on a maintenace flight, but under a bridge like that is a no-no in ANY CONCEIVABLE instance - except you have someone on the winch, HOVER underneath, to pick a drowning person - HOVERspeed is the keyword!!

To the SU-30 inverted bridge stunt: I doubt this was done with out an Aerobatic Waver.

AND that is another very important point that should be pointed out in Flightschool - there is such a thing as an Aerobatic Waver to perform stunts, don´t even try it with out it and the necessary training.

However the guy with the Bridge who "started" this thread, really did a good job on judging the possible danger.
Again, he did it most likely for his own joy and really did not put anyone (but maybe himself - for falling debris from the bridge...) in danger - dispite it is prohibited by law to fly any closer than 500 ft.
The german EMS pilot had no judging ability in the first place!

3top

PS: I still would not report the thread-starter but very much the EMS-"professional". I definitely do not like to report on fellow pilots, everyone is a little on the other side of the law now and then, even unwillingly. But I do not consider the EMS guy a fellow pilot but an idiot! Bad reputation comes from people like him, not so much from the likes like the thread-starter!

[AlphaGolfLima]

The winch theory wasn't a point in the said situation -
with a bridge approximately 6 m/20 ft in height with a BO 105.

So, I agree with most what you said ...
But I just wanted to mention that the said German pilot
did have the necessary training cause he was trained
by the German military - where such and even more risky
maneuvers are part of the overall training. So, regarding
the judging ability - maybe I would also lack that ability
if I had been trained that stuff for about 10 years and
have done it numerous times successfully - it's probably
pretty tempting...So, it wasn't really a spontaneous decision
like "let's see whether I can make it" - he did assume he could do
it.
And as there were eyewitnesses at the channel where the
helicopter crashed it could be determined that he managed to do
it (at hoverspeed) and after approx 50 ft behind the bridge
when he raised the collective in order to climb, some ice
from the frozen channel struck the backrotor and made
the machine impossible to control.

Just in case you want to have a look at the thread:


http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79214&highlight=deadly+stupid+stunt

regards

AGL

[3top]

Sorry, got it wrong with the bridge height, thought it was around 37ft or so. Of course, there is no excuse for that accident.

I also dismiss the ever repeating story about "Military training" and "Urge" to proof one´s merits.

If he gets caught in a rescue-mission, even when it is marginal, at least he tried to help. In this case it was pure show off for nothing.

If a well trained pilot, regardless who trained him, cannot refrain from stupid acts like this, he is in no way professional and should not be allowed in any EMS ship.
There should be plenty of ways to check people psychologically before hiring them.

All this is of course theory, if the only requirements are hours. If a civilian pilot cannot aquire these specialized hours or gets trained for the job, their only recourse is ex-military.
Though I doubt that the military trains pilots to do stupid stunts, their equipment is extremly expensive too!
Then there is still the old Macho-Camaradery-Ex Servicemember-Can do! - Bulls**t, taken over to the civilian life. I wonder how many pilots of this station tried the stunt before it went wrong!

Granted the military trains for mission success - losses acceptable.
However now we are out of the sandbox and mission-safety is/should be the #1-rule. Especially in EMS!

At least me thinks so.........

3top

[crusty scab]

AGL

Your well crafted responses suggest that you have a high degree of professional airmanship. However, the somewhat pontificating stance you have chozen falters slightly in your response to the following statement from another PPRUNER...

...Nice to see some spirit remains BUT don't do it a third time as it will surely end in tears...

"HERE I DO AGREE".

Does this mean that you would be happy to fly under a bridge twice yourself? Just for the SPIRIT?

[AlphaGolfLima]

...However, the somewhat pontificating stance you have chozen falters slightly in your response to the following statement from another PPRUNER...
...Nice to see some spirit remains BUT don't do it a third time as it will surely end in tears...

"HERE I DO AGREE".
Yes, sorry - you are right, I was probably in a hurry
while commenting on that statement and hence didn't read it
thourougly enough ... Actually, I was merely referring to the latter
part of the statement ("as it will surely end in tears...")
Does this mean that you would be happy to fly under a bridge twice yourself? Just for the SPIRIT? Haven't ever yet done anything like that and lacking
the necessary qualifications/training as well as being a whimp and discouraged
by almost weekly accidents I am quite sure that something
like 'spirit' wouldn't be sufficient to make me risk my life by doing
anything like that. Thanks for the clarification !


regards

AGL - who likes to walk over bridges ;-)

[Rommel]

That is so "undangerous".

Cool stuff.
Rommel

[3top]

Here is some more!

It seems that of all aviators the military has the most cases of "daredevils". In response to the thread starting R-22 bridge"stunt", a British Aviation mag wrote the following:

case A: Some time ago a RAF officer flew a Hawker Hunter up the Thames and under the London Bridge! Not to be blamed to have risky pilots, the service put their guy through a psychological exam as only a "head case" would do this stunt! After the press lost interest, the pilot ended up on the side street...

case B: Things change with numbers! After the Forth Road Bridge was constructed in the sixties, the Fleet Air Arm took care of that bridge: On a winter night a flight of four Blackburn Buccaneers on a "Night low level mission" flew under both bridges!!
As nobody saw this, the press didn´t bother, however people thought the nearby petrochemical plant blew up!!
8 Rolls-Royce Spey engines at full throttle probably make for some earsplitting noise!!

In this case however, the "Brass" could not afford to sack 8 front line officers or admit to have a whole bunch of lunatics in their rows, so they put this "show" down to high spirits and "Battle of Britain" stuff! (...loosly copied from the mag)

I guess the R-22 pilot will have to be quartered for his "dangerous" behavior, as he was all by himself and soo slow!!

3top
:D :D :D

[RW-1]

Flying Lawyer,

While maybe not considered reckless by the CFR you gave, we have to contend with the separate item:

91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

This gives the FAA the right to add that, when they cant hit you with any other regulation in an enforcement action.


My take on this is for that bridge, likely nothing would be said.

However for myself, it is not something that I might do, not so much for the danger to the bridge, I discount that, but more to the unknowns to myself and the aircraft.

The what if's of a possible wire hanging from it, or something falling from it as I pass under, or (far fetched but who knows) if someone decided, seeing my approach, to try throwing something down for a rotor kill as I pass under, lot of strange people out there...

[Hedski]

Flying under bridges is fun, the lower the better I say, in fact I going to do it right now

See ya later

[Fareastdriver]

Strange, this thread materialising again after twelve years with no new entries.

One wonders whether Hedski didn't make it, his wreckage has finally beached on the coast and he is trying to tell us so.

[Nige321]

Something to do with this...?? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-32909867)

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

The same thing was undertaken in Warri, Nigeria in 1992 under the only bridge in the area. The pilot (who I knew VERY well ;) ) couldn't pay for his own beers for at least a month afterwards.

Aah, happy days :)

NEO

[Delta Torque]

I have fond memories of flying an Army Kiowa (206) in a 5 ship formation under the Harbour Bridge, back in the 80's. The local media chopper, who was filming the formation, decided at the last moment, to follow the formation under the bridge, (though he received a mild rocket from the regulator!) Happy days!

[megan]

_txdqnVP3-c

Delta, did the same in a formation of so many I forget as part of the Opera House opening. Hueys, Wessex from the Navy, not sure now what the RAAF contribution was, so long ago.