Autorotate
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 1
From: UK
For the record however the one of the 500D was actually shot at the Taupo Airshow in front of 15,000 people so I am pretty sure I wasnt the only one who has that image, and CAA reps were there as well.
In that case, can we have that one back at least? It was a great shot.
It's obviously entirely up to you whether you repost the others. Use your own judgement. FWIW, I've now seen them and think they were fairly harmless.
Heliport
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 814
Likes: 1
From: Iceland
I really think that GCN overreacted a bit to these photograps that Autorotate posted. (No disrespect meant Giovanni!).
Pictures like the one below can be found all over the internet after brief search.
Seeing airplanes or helicopter doing unusual maneuvers are not necessarily dangerous or illegal! Its not like fare paying passengers are carried on board. (I hope).
I would just feel better about flying one of the types of helicopters shown knowing that they can stand a bit of abuse, not that semi roll or split S or semi-Immelman done properly would put any unusual stress to a aircraft.
If done properly these manuvers can be executed within 1-1.5 G´s.
The pics look great and are not necessarily showing anything illegal if unusual attitudes are not specifically prohibited in the flight manual. Which I dont remember seeing in the H-500 or AS-350 RFM!
"Pic removed by Aesir!"
Pictures like the one below can be found all over the internet after brief search.
Seeing airplanes or helicopter doing unusual maneuvers are not necessarily dangerous or illegal! Its not like fare paying passengers are carried on board. (I hope).
I would just feel better about flying one of the types of helicopters shown knowing that they can stand a bit of abuse, not that semi roll or split S or semi-Immelman done properly would put any unusual stress to a aircraft.
If done properly these manuvers can be executed within 1-1.5 G´s.
The pics look great and are not necessarily showing anything illegal if unusual attitudes are not specifically prohibited in the flight manual. Which I dont remember seeing in the H-500 or AS-350 RFM!
"Pic removed by Aesir!"
Last edited by Aesir; 25th April 2004 at 22:22.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
From: oceanside
ned: please keep the pictures coming, as not all your pictures can be in HO, its nice to see the rest as well. also don't be shy with the spirited flying shots either.
G.C.N, has a valid point, however if the pictures posted showed; wenatchee snatches, engine exceedences, or over grossing on an external load, then that truly would be negligent.
some of the most spirited flying i have seen has been in full view of the paying public. to neds credit, few have his eye for the view finder. keep up the good work
dr
G.C.N, has a valid point, however if the pictures posted showed; wenatchee snatches, engine exceedences, or over grossing on an external load, then that truly would be negligent.
some of the most spirited flying i have seen has been in full view of the paying public. to neds credit, few have his eye for the view finder. keep up the good work
dr
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: TI
Thanks Autorotate
Appreciate that you see my point.
The issue of the tar if you care to read the post which you are in possession of, mean't that what you post here may not stick to you but it does reflect on ALL pilots.
As for the fact that the D model was in front of a crowd at an airshow hardly qualifies it as legal or condoned just because nobody did anything. I suppose you asked Kieth - or doesn't he have any rights if you took the photo.
Aesir - read the section, normally 4 in any flight manual - Limitations. Obviously it is not going to say "none". FAA Part 27 and 29 refer to Normal category not Aerobatic.
The issue of the tar if you care to read the post which you are in possession of, mean't that what you post here may not stick to you but it does reflect on ALL pilots.
As for the fact that the D model was in front of a crowd at an airshow hardly qualifies it as legal or condoned just because nobody did anything. I suppose you asked Kieth - or doesn't he have any rights if you took the photo.
Aesir - read the section, normally 4 in any flight manual - Limitations. Obviously it is not going to say "none". FAA Part 27 and 29 refer to Normal category not Aerobatic.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
From: 48 Deg South
I dont have the original post as when I deleted mine all the rest went along with it as well. Therefore I wont say argue the point re the tar as I have no evidence to support my comments now.
With regards to Keith, if I had been shooting the images in a special photo shoot somewhere that was just a me and him event then yes I would certainly get his Ok to post them, however he performed this at an airshow, as one of the acts, in full public view and with the full knowledge that people would be taking photos of it, therefore it is public domain and, in my opinion, there is no right to approve of or disaprove of the images being posted. Its the same with the MD Explorer images you refer to. I told ET, a kiwi flying it at the time, what I was planning on doing and he had no issues with it. However the only person that had an issue with it was the Grand Canyon National Park and they also said that if the helo didnt have NPS painted across the bottom they also wouldnt have cared. Never heard from the FAA, nor did ET or Papillon.
If Keith had an issue with people taking photos of a manouver like that then the answer is plain and simple, he shouldnt have done it in the first place, especially not at an airshow with thousands in attendance. I am not saying that what Keith did was legal or illegal, there were plenty of CAA people in attendance who are better qualified than me to judge that. I was there to shoot some images and got what I was after. After the issue with the 902 on the cover they certainly wont be going in the magazine but it was just something to share with members of the forum thats all.
Its the same when I went flying with AP in the BK on the Sydney Fires. I posted some pics of him flying and got heaps of emails complaining that I shouldnt be showing him with his flight suit not done up properly, and with only his lapbelt on etc. Now I will clearly admit I am not a current rated helo pilot and am not up with the do's and dont's of each part of the industry so if a pilot sees me taking photos of him working and he is not abiding by all the rules and regs he should, is that my problem?. If I dumped every photo I had someone email me about I would have next to nothing I was allowed to publish.
You may not think it, but I do use discretion when deciding what to post or print. I have hundreds of images showing helos in situations which make all these ones look completely tame, but would I ever publish them, not in a million years. I have grown up in this industry, love it and enjoy it. Do I wish to see anyone get their ass in a sling because of my photos, no way in the world and the 902 shots taught me that lesson that just because I think it looks cool, others may not.
Just my two cents worth.
Autorotate.
With regards to Keith, if I had been shooting the images in a special photo shoot somewhere that was just a me and him event then yes I would certainly get his Ok to post them, however he performed this at an airshow, as one of the acts, in full public view and with the full knowledge that people would be taking photos of it, therefore it is public domain and, in my opinion, there is no right to approve of or disaprove of the images being posted. Its the same with the MD Explorer images you refer to. I told ET, a kiwi flying it at the time, what I was planning on doing and he had no issues with it. However the only person that had an issue with it was the Grand Canyon National Park and they also said that if the helo didnt have NPS painted across the bottom they also wouldnt have cared. Never heard from the FAA, nor did ET or Papillon.
If Keith had an issue with people taking photos of a manouver like that then the answer is plain and simple, he shouldnt have done it in the first place, especially not at an airshow with thousands in attendance. I am not saying that what Keith did was legal or illegal, there were plenty of CAA people in attendance who are better qualified than me to judge that. I was there to shoot some images and got what I was after. After the issue with the 902 on the cover they certainly wont be going in the magazine but it was just something to share with members of the forum thats all.
Its the same when I went flying with AP in the BK on the Sydney Fires. I posted some pics of him flying and got heaps of emails complaining that I shouldnt be showing him with his flight suit not done up properly, and with only his lapbelt on etc. Now I will clearly admit I am not a current rated helo pilot and am not up with the do's and dont's of each part of the industry so if a pilot sees me taking photos of him working and he is not abiding by all the rules and regs he should, is that my problem?. If I dumped every photo I had someone email me about I would have next to nothing I was allowed to publish.
You may not think it, but I do use discretion when deciding what to post or print. I have hundreds of images showing helos in situations which make all these ones look completely tame, but would I ever publish them, not in a million years. I have grown up in this industry, love it and enjoy it. Do I wish to see anyone get their ass in a sling because of my photos, no way in the world and the 902 shots taught me that lesson that just because I think it looks cool, others may not.
Just my two cents worth.
Autorotate.
Gatvol
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,197
Likes: 1
From: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Nothing to do with this thread but Paco, love your logo. Reminds me a lot of my own computer skills.
Giovanni?? is this guy one of those anal retentives?? After having logged 56 hours in the last two weeks, I certainly dont want to hear what some book worm has to comment on and besides Im OUT OF TONIC. Im off to a Birthday party...Mine, 61 this week........OK, I will quit while Im still on PPrune
Giovanni?? is this guy one of those anal retentives?? After having logged 56 hours in the last two weeks, I certainly dont want to hear what some book worm has to comment on and besides Im OUT OF TONIC. Im off to a Birthday party...Mine, 61 this week........OK, I will quit while Im still on PPrune
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: TI
Auto,
Never confuse legality and safety or vice versa, big mistake in this business.
As to the fact that the authority didn't "do" anything is possibly because they didn't "see" it.
Some of the points you may appreciate after having drawn them to your attention.
As for that Page mob with his flight suit undone - scary. BTW he knows me personally as well.
B Sousa
Well done, I see at 61 your not getting overworked. Careful you don't go blue in the face, I know what you mean.
Never confuse legality and safety or vice versa, big mistake in this business.
As to the fact that the authority didn't "do" anything is possibly because they didn't "see" it.
Some of the points you may appreciate after having drawn them to your attention.
As for that Page mob with his flight suit undone - scary. BTW he knows me personally as well.
B Sousa
Well done, I see at 61 your not getting overworked. Careful you don't go blue in the face, I know what you mean.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
From: USA
For the record, the Hughes 500D or MD500D or whatever you want to call it, is certified under the old Civil Air Regulation 6 and not FAR Part 27.
In the late '70's and early '80's I was doing fully aerobatic routines in the H500D civil and military variants all around the world. The displays were legal because the original certification did not include a "no aerobatic flight" restriction. That restriction came later only because the FAA requested it. The company complied with the request primarily because the FAA took the position that ANY maneuver not conducted during the original certification is not an "approved" maneuver. That interpretation has some huge logical inconsistancies when taken to conclusion, but that is the way it is.
Once that restriction was added we were forced to obtain a special airworthiness certificate with additional inspection requirements and continued certification requirements when returning the aircraft to normal category. Hughes/McDonnell Douglas/Boeing pilots have performed aerobatic displays in the H300C, H500 series, MD520N, and MD900. To my knowledge, we never did any aerobatic displays in the MD600N.
The MD520N was instrumented and tested for aerobatic maneuvers so that it would be certified under Part 27 as an aerobatic capable aircraft but the FAA was unable to define the basic rules for the certification and the request was dropped.
Aerobatic flying is always risky and should always be approached with caution. The approval of authorities in the country where the aircraft and pilot are certified is essential.
Anyone who peforms aerobatic maneuvers at a public or private display without approval should not feel wronged when photographs are published of the aircraft in high angle shots.
"If we complain about the tune, there is no reason to attack the monkey when the organ grinder is present."
In the late '70's and early '80's I was doing fully aerobatic routines in the H500D civil and military variants all around the world. The displays were legal because the original certification did not include a "no aerobatic flight" restriction. That restriction came later only because the FAA requested it. The company complied with the request primarily because the FAA took the position that ANY maneuver not conducted during the original certification is not an "approved" maneuver. That interpretation has some huge logical inconsistancies when taken to conclusion, but that is the way it is.
Once that restriction was added we were forced to obtain a special airworthiness certificate with additional inspection requirements and continued certification requirements when returning the aircraft to normal category. Hughes/McDonnell Douglas/Boeing pilots have performed aerobatic displays in the H300C, H500 series, MD520N, and MD900. To my knowledge, we never did any aerobatic displays in the MD600N.
The MD520N was instrumented and tested for aerobatic maneuvers so that it would be certified under Part 27 as an aerobatic capable aircraft but the FAA was unable to define the basic rules for the certification and the request was dropped.
Aerobatic flying is always risky and should always be approached with caution. The approval of authorities in the country where the aircraft and pilot are certified is essential.
Anyone who peforms aerobatic maneuvers at a public or private display without approval should not feel wronged when photographs are published of the aircraft in high angle shots.
"If we complain about the tune, there is no reason to attack the monkey when the organ grinder is present."
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 1
From: USA
To support Rich, and also to ask Autorotate to keep the photos coming, I can also attest to having done aerobatic displays in front of large crowds in helicopters that would have otherwise have been restricted to non-aerobatic flight. All legally, and none having produced any damage to any part of the machine.
Please, let's not try to be lawyers, and respect Flying Lawyer on this one!!
Please, let's not try to be lawyers, and respect Flying Lawyer on this one!!
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
From: 48 Deg South
In reference to Keith's display I know for a fact that the display was witnessed by the CAA as John Lanham, GM of the General Aviation division of CAA was standing right beside me when we watched it because he was also flying a Harvard there. We both commented on the display and that was it.
With regards to whats safe and legal I make a point of not mixing the two, again 902 in Grand Canyon was classic example. Having grown up in this industry since I was 12 I have a good idea of what is safe and what isnt. When it comes to legal or not, then No I am not ofay with that and dont pretend to be. For example anything over 45 degrees, or is it 60 degs, angle of bank in the US is classed as an aerobatic manouver, something I didnt know. Then the FAA are hipocrits because ag pilots do +45 degree banks and turns every day when they are out working. So whats the difference between an ag pilot doing it and someone else. One set of rules for one person and another for someone else by the sounds of it. But thats getting off the topic.
The images of the AS350B3 going vertical is something I discussed with the pilot, whom I also am very good friends with. I asked him what I would like to try and get, we talked about it and he said he would do it. Now, again I dont know the rules and regs in SA, nor the performance manual for an AS350 series, but if he had said "Sorry cant do that its against the rules or against what the manual says" then I would have come up with something less dramatic. In my opinion if I ask someone to try and do a specific shot then it is up to them to say yes or no, as they are the PIC of the aircraft, true?
Would I ask some 150hr guy to try the same shot in an R-22, not in this lifetime. Would I ask someone like Rich Lee to try it, Hell yes. One thing I can say and that is that every image I have of a helo being pushed to the limits, is being flown by pilots with extensive flight time and whom I respect fully. If they said no because its too dangerous or not legal, end of story case closed.
Just my two cents worth and will I endeavour to capture those "holy !!!!" images again if the occasion arises, Yes I will, but will they go into the magazine, NO, will they go onto the forums, NO. Will they go onto my "I love Me Wall" at home, YES.
You asked about why I would post them in the first place. Well plain and simple, to show that in the right hands a helicopter is a very very dynamic piece of hardware, hell just look at some of Rich's displays. Nearly all images we see are of helicopters doing the normal 'mundane' (no offence intended) type of tasks, but not many of them in attitudes as I posted. I just decided it would be something different to showcase, thats all. Not to get attacked for posting them. Thats the only motive behind posting them.
Autorotate.
With regards to whats safe and legal I make a point of not mixing the two, again 902 in Grand Canyon was classic example. Having grown up in this industry since I was 12 I have a good idea of what is safe and what isnt. When it comes to legal or not, then No I am not ofay with that and dont pretend to be. For example anything over 45 degrees, or is it 60 degs, angle of bank in the US is classed as an aerobatic manouver, something I didnt know. Then the FAA are hipocrits because ag pilots do +45 degree banks and turns every day when they are out working. So whats the difference between an ag pilot doing it and someone else. One set of rules for one person and another for someone else by the sounds of it. But thats getting off the topic.
The images of the AS350B3 going vertical is something I discussed with the pilot, whom I also am very good friends with. I asked him what I would like to try and get, we talked about it and he said he would do it. Now, again I dont know the rules and regs in SA, nor the performance manual for an AS350 series, but if he had said "Sorry cant do that its against the rules or against what the manual says" then I would have come up with something less dramatic. In my opinion if I ask someone to try and do a specific shot then it is up to them to say yes or no, as they are the PIC of the aircraft, true?
Would I ask some 150hr guy to try the same shot in an R-22, not in this lifetime. Would I ask someone like Rich Lee to try it, Hell yes. One thing I can say and that is that every image I have of a helo being pushed to the limits, is being flown by pilots with extensive flight time and whom I respect fully. If they said no because its too dangerous or not legal, end of story case closed.
Just my two cents worth and will I endeavour to capture those "holy !!!!" images again if the occasion arises, Yes I will, but will they go into the magazine, NO, will they go onto the forums, NO. Will they go onto my "I love Me Wall" at home, YES.
You asked about why I would post them in the first place. Well plain and simple, to show that in the right hands a helicopter is a very very dynamic piece of hardware, hell just look at some of Rich's displays. Nearly all images we see are of helicopters doing the normal 'mundane' (no offence intended) type of tasks, but not many of them in attitudes as I posted. I just decided it would be something different to showcase, thats all. Not to get attacked for posting them. Thats the only motive behind posting them.
Autorotate.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
From: At home
Hmmmmm, I wonder
Ned, you don't suppose there's the odd cyclic attendant out there stuck in some older design machine that simply cannot cope with a spirited handling display.
Who knows, some folks in that scenario just might get a little miffed. Sour grapes and things like that.
STL
Who knows, some folks in that scenario just might get a little miffed. Sour grapes and things like that.
STL
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: TI
Autorotate
Agricultural aircraft in the US are normally in the RESTRICTED Category.
Rich Lee
And the category still doesn't exist.
Nick Lappos
In the RESTRICTED or EXPERIMENTAL category but not NORMAL, can vouch for that, S76 Fantail, Le Bourget 1990 or 91, Awesome.
Well no permanent damage anyway, ex SK guy next to me MIGHT refute that statement.
STL
An EC135 is as spirited as any of them and would appear to be relatively modern.
It would appear that Rich and Nick operate aircraft in a controlled premeditated environment and perform manoeuvres that the aircraft are entirely capable of. The aircraft are, or either have been previously, instrumented for these operations and they are well aware of what they are doing. The aircraft are closely inspected and monitored.
People take photographs and they get posted, so what.
Somebody in a NORMAL category aircraft decides to put on an impromptu private airshow for a photographer showing manouevres well outside POSSIBLY what it was tested for by a pilot who POSSIBLY has never seen any results of instrumented flight testing and has NO training as a Test pilot. Then calmly puts the aircraft back in the hangar for the next person to fly.
The previous POSSIBLY happens once a week.
Then the images get posted in the PUBLIC domain as NORMAL.
Nah, sorry thats the bit I just don't get.
Agricultural aircraft in the US are normally in the RESTRICTED Category.
Rich Lee
The MD520N was instrumented and tested for aerobatic maneuvers so that it would be certified under Part 27 as an aerobatic capable aircraft but the FAA was unable to define the basic rules for the certification and the request was dropped.
Nick Lappos
I can also attest to having done aerobatic displays in front of large crowds in helicopters that would have otherwise have been restricted to non-aerobatic flight. All legally, and none having produced any damage to any part of the machine.
Well no permanent damage anyway, ex SK guy next to me MIGHT refute that statement.
STL
An EC135 is as spirited as any of them and would appear to be relatively modern.
It would appear that Rich and Nick operate aircraft in a controlled premeditated environment and perform manoeuvres that the aircraft are entirely capable of. The aircraft are, or either have been previously, instrumented for these operations and they are well aware of what they are doing. The aircraft are closely inspected and monitored.
People take photographs and they get posted, so what.
Somebody in a NORMAL category aircraft decides to put on an impromptu private airshow for a photographer showing manouevres well outside POSSIBLY what it was tested for by a pilot who POSSIBLY has never seen any results of instrumented flight testing and has NO training as a Test pilot. Then calmly puts the aircraft back in the hangar for the next person to fly.
The previous POSSIBLY happens once a week.
Then the images get posted in the PUBLIC domain as NORMAL.
Nah, sorry thats the bit I just don't get.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
From: New York City
Autorotate
Some of us didn't get to see the pictures. Please can you post them again. You've got some big guns on your side. Why are you so bothered what one person who goes the other way thinks?
The majority of pilots love seeing 'Holy Sh1t' photos. Don't see why a minority should spoil it for the rest of us.
Giovanni
The public don't know the difference between test pilots and other pilots doing aeros. Are you saying pics of test pilots flying unusual attitudes shouldn't get into the public domain.
Or only if they carry a 'Don't Try This At Home' warning?
Some of us didn't get to see the pictures. Please can you post them again. You've got some big guns on your side. Why are you so bothered what one person who goes the other way thinks?
The majority of pilots love seeing 'Holy Sh1t' photos. Don't see why a minority should spoil it for the rest of us.
Giovanni
The public don't know the difference between test pilots and other pilots doing aeros. Are you saying pics of test pilots flying unusual attitudes shouldn't get into the public domain.
Or only if they carry a 'Don't Try This At Home' warning?
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,670
Likes: 1
From: UK
GCN: You're missing the whole point here. We aren't discussing violations with FAR/JAR/CAA/BAA!
The real issue here is:
What gives you the right to control what is available for public consumption? You are not qualified in the art of aviation law, nor are you the editor of Pprune. You are simply another minion like the rest of us. In this country (Uk) the freedom of rights act 2000 would be as much a threat to you having now done your devious act as the threat you are purporting to make to Autorotate!
You need to realise that there is nothing offensive in his behaviour, slanderous/libelous/pornographic or otherwise.
Please get off your pedestal and join the rest of us at the bar
An apology to:
Auto - for insulting his intelligence
Flying Lawyer - for ignoring his advice
Heliport - for usurping his authority
Ppruners - for doubting their integrity
You're a good guy....don't spoil that image
The real issue here is:
What gives you the right to control what is available for public consumption? You are not qualified in the art of aviation law, nor are you the editor of Pprune. You are simply another minion like the rest of us. In this country (Uk) the freedom of rights act 2000 would be as much a threat to you having now done your devious act as the threat you are purporting to make to Autorotate!
You need to realise that there is nothing offensive in his behaviour, slanderous/libelous/pornographic or otherwise.
Please get off your pedestal and join the rest of us at the bar
An apology to:
Auto - for insulting his intelligence
Flying Lawyer - for ignoring his advice
Heliport - for usurping his authority
Ppruners - for doubting their integrity
You're a good guy....don't spoil that image
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
From: 48 Deg South
Bronx - You ask why I listen to what one person has to say, well I spend nearly every day working in this industry due to my magazine and in the past I didnt give a !!!! about what people said or thought about me, well as you get older you come to realise that everyone's opinion matters, no matter who they are or where they are. I have debated this issue with GCN and can see his points, but I also have my own views as well, and have taken onboard the views of many of my peers here.
I dont claim to be a high time helo pilot or the be all and end all of magazine publishing but I do know a good photo when I see it. One of my goals has always been to share some of the more "extreme" images I capture, but not at the expense of those on the end of the lens. GCN makes some valid points in his posts, as do many others here, and these have all been taken onboard.
I have posted below the photos in question again for people to enjoy. GCN, I checked with the friend of mine flying the AS350 and he is ok for them to be posted, so if he is ok and hes the one flying it then I am happy. The other ones were performed in a public place as part of an airshow display, therefore they are, in my opinion quite ok to display, and as per my post above CAA were present and aware of everything he did. In fact Keith has done displays at other shows which make this one look tame, if you can imagine that.
I apologise if you take offence with me posting these again but I have decided that if I have images that were shot in a "controlled" environment that I want to post, then I will get the OK of the pilot concerned. If he says no then case closed, they dont get posted. If he says yes I have no problem with them being posted then I feel it is ok to post them.
Autorotate.
I dont claim to be a high time helo pilot or the be all and end all of magazine publishing but I do know a good photo when I see it. One of my goals has always been to share some of the more "extreme" images I capture, but not at the expense of those on the end of the lens. GCN makes some valid points in his posts, as do many others here, and these have all been taken onboard.
I have posted below the photos in question again for people to enjoy. GCN, I checked with the friend of mine flying the AS350 and he is ok for them to be posted, so if he is ok and hes the one flying it then I am happy. The other ones were performed in a public place as part of an airshow display, therefore they are, in my opinion quite ok to display, and as per my post above CAA were present and aware of everything he did. In fact Keith has done displays at other shows which make this one look tame, if you can imagine that.
I apologise if you take offence with me posting these again but I have decided that if I have images that were shot in a "controlled" environment that I want to post, then I will get the OK of the pilot concerned. If he says no then case closed, they dont get posted. If he says yes I have no problem with them being posted then I feel it is ok to post them.
Autorotate.
Last edited by Autorotate; 26th April 2004 at 21:24.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,330
Likes: 74
From: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Hmmm. Can't really see what the fuss is about. TC is quite right - the only person to be altering threads is the mod.
Back to Jerry Springer - now there's one thing that should be taken off!
Phil
Back to Jerry Springer - now there's one thing that should be taken off!
Phil
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
From: USA
GCN
Yes, there is no aerobatic helicopter category. It was implied when I said the FAA was unable to agree on the rules or certification basis that there was no such category.
Most everyone seems to agree with your thoughts concerning pilots who exceed the flight envelope without authority or appropriate consideration of the consequences of that action.
You're opinions that it is wrong for Autorotate to post a photograph because it might get somebody in trouble, or that those photographs might cause somebody to do the same thing are what have been challenged.
My opinion is that any pilot must be personally accountable for their actions. If somebody does something wrong, and is found out, regardless of how that might occur, it is not right to blame somebody else. Imagine a well known celebrity hitting a pedestrian crossing a street while driving his sports car intoxicated. He flees the scene and nobody would know but for a professional photographer who happens to capture the incident in a photograph. Would you censor a newspaper because it published the photograph or condem the photographer because he submitted the photograph?
In addition, I do not agree that it is right to limit the type of photos on this thread because somebody might see them and try to do the same thing. Were that logic valid, we must kill all the birds and insects that fly as they continue to inspire men to fly.
To quote my Mother, "just because your friends jump off a cliff doesn't mean you should do the same thing, does it?"
And the category still doesn't exist.
Most everyone seems to agree with your thoughts concerning pilots who exceed the flight envelope without authority or appropriate consideration of the consequences of that action.
You're opinions that it is wrong for Autorotate to post a photograph because it might get somebody in trouble, or that those photographs might cause somebody to do the same thing are what have been challenged.
My opinion is that any pilot must be personally accountable for their actions. If somebody does something wrong, and is found out, regardless of how that might occur, it is not right to blame somebody else. Imagine a well known celebrity hitting a pedestrian crossing a street while driving his sports car intoxicated. He flees the scene and nobody would know but for a professional photographer who happens to capture the incident in a photograph. Would you censor a newspaper because it published the photograph or condem the photographer because he submitted the photograph?
In addition, I do not agree that it is right to limit the type of photos on this thread because somebody might see them and try to do the same thing. Were that logic valid, we must kill all the birds and insects that fly as they continue to inspire men to fly.
To quote my Mother, "just because your friends jump off a cliff doesn't mean you should do the same thing, does it?"