BBC filming guide & BBC criticised for using ENG helicopters too often (merged)
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BBC under fire for using ENG helicopters too often
Bravo73,
I can't speak for BBC News as they are a separate entity from BBC Outside Broadcast/BBC Resources of whom I do know a little!!
As for BBC digging up people who complain about themselves; well, just goes to prove that the Beeb ain't what they were.
Trouble is, they can't decide whether they are a state organisation or a commercial business.
Cheers
Whirls
I can't speak for BBC News as they are a separate entity from BBC Outside Broadcast/BBC Resources of whom I do know a little!!
As for BBC digging up people who complain about themselves; well, just goes to prove that the Beeb ain't what they were.
Trouble is, they can't decide whether they are a state organisation or a commercial business.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: BBC under fire for using ENG helicopters too often
Originally Posted by Bravo73
Or maybe, like HOVERJOCKI says, there just isn't the competition in the marketplace to merit it.
Post edited.
Please don't post allegations against other pilots. CAA personnel read this forum.
Heliport
Please don't post allegations against other pilots. CAA personnel read this forum.
Heliport
Last edited by Heliport; 20th Jan 2006 at 13:12.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Depending on where you were and the service he/she was operating under, that wouldn't necessarily be an issue. And 'farting around' off the heli lanes in a single (outside the specified area obviously) is more commonly referred to as Special VFR.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helibelly : You might find it useful to check your PMs. And then can we expect an apology/retraction ?
EESDL: You're an ATPL(H)IR on an AS355 and you're not up to date with the new Rule 5 introduced last April ? Oh dear. Maybe the pilot in the "whisk" knows more than you ? Surely the ANO has made it to Leeds ?
EESDL: You're an ATPL(H)IR on an AS355 and you're not up to date with the new Rule 5 introduced last April ? Oh dear. Maybe the pilot in the "whisk" knows more than you ? Surely the ANO has made it to Leeds ?
Last edited by headsethair; 19th Jan 2006 at 16:42.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Where as ever since the R44 came on scene it has been flying non stop due to it's cheap rates. Newsnight had one R44 on hire 24/7 durng the recent elections."
That's probably the waste they were whingeing about - hiring a day-only VFR machine 24/7!
That's probably the waste they were whingeing about - hiring a day-only VFR machine 24/7!
Heliport,
Is there any ban on allegations against the CAA on these forums?
Thousands of people who have to deal with the CAA read this forum.
Maybe if they read them and investigate the matter.....some positive good would come of it...maybe...possibly...ah heck...it was just a thought. I must quit eating anchovy sandwiches and drinking Black and Tan's before bedtime.
Is there any ban on allegations against the CAA on these forums?
Thousands of people who have to deal with the CAA read this forum.
Maybe if they read them and investigate the matter.....some positive good would come of it...maybe...possibly...ah heck...it was just a thought. I must quit eating anchovy sandwiches and drinking Black and Tan's before bedtime.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Headsethair - thanks for that. I'd sort of assumed that it would be PT work.
So what is the criteria for it to be aerial work? Does all the crew have to be employed by the operator or ?????
So what is the criteria for it to be aerial work? Does all the crew have to be employed by the operator or ?????
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be a CPL(H) minimum and those onboard must be working for the owners of the aircraft. (Although there was some recent debate here about whether you could lease an aircraft from one place, a CPL from another....).
And of course the key is not to be charging for cargo or seats - otherwise you are definitely into PT.
And of course the key is not to be charging for cargo or seats - otherwise you are definitely into PT.
Headset Hair
You're quite right of course - I guess I should have been more pedantic/correct in my initial query - Not withstanding the "1000ft above highest fixed obstacle radius 600m" bit and the fact that we've now built some tall 'fixed obstacles' up North in our city that varies from 300-500ft amsl........you do the maths. So, up North, those of us who fly around particular city, use 1500ft as a minima.
ATC said that the aircraft was below 1500ft over the city centre....Was more concerned with the 'land clear' part of Rule 5. It's a big, sprawled out city and a Robbo is not known for gliding v far:-(
Not in the same line of work by the way and thank you once again for allowing me to expand on the issue.
Call it a 'local' 1500ft rule if you like (in name only), even then it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt over certain areas.
Like I suggested - must be an excemption in place - but if I was a resident of said city - I'd be pretty pi55ed if I knew a robbo was rattling around over me with little chance of 'landing clear'
So if the helicopter was to offer seats to passengers to experience the trip over the city...................
Heliport - don't get too precious - no names were mentioned.
You're quite right of course - I guess I should have been more pedantic/correct in my initial query - Not withstanding the "1000ft above highest fixed obstacle radius 600m" bit and the fact that we've now built some tall 'fixed obstacles' up North in our city that varies from 300-500ft amsl........you do the maths. So, up North, those of us who fly around particular city, use 1500ft as a minima.
ATC said that the aircraft was below 1500ft over the city centre....Was more concerned with the 'land clear' part of Rule 5. It's a big, sprawled out city and a Robbo is not known for gliding v far:-(
Not in the same line of work by the way and thank you once again for allowing me to expand on the issue.
Call it a 'local' 1500ft rule if you like (in name only), even then it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt over certain areas.
Like I suggested - must be an excemption in place - but if I was a resident of said city - I'd be pretty pi55ed if I knew a robbo was rattling around over me with little chance of 'landing clear'
So if the helicopter was to offer seats to passengers to experience the trip over the city...................
Heliport - don't get too precious - no names were mentioned.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Come on EESDL you're now heaping coals on fire. Helicopters are exempt the land clear rule. Have a read http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%2...il%202005a.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EESDL: Hmmmm. So far you've misunderstood Rule 5 twice.
And you seem to think that an R44 can't glide far. The glide ratio from the POH is 4.7 : 1.
So - even if he was at 1000ft - he could glide for over half a mile to a green spot. And there are plenty of those around Leeds. Of course he has to be able to land "without endangering people or property on the surface" as ever. (I know it's a he - have spotted the heli many times).
So - in your twin Squirrel - hovering over the city at 1000ft or less. The tail rotor or the transmission goes and you have to do a forced landing. And because you thought you were immune from disaster with your two engines, you happen to hit someone. Feel any better than an engine failure in an R44 ?
Look - I have nothing to do with said operator. I just wish some of this unwarranted prejudice about singles would get real. And please don't infer that someone is breaking rules until you have read and understand them yourself.
And you seem to think that an R44 can't glide far. The glide ratio from the POH is 4.7 : 1.
So - even if he was at 1000ft - he could glide for over half a mile to a green spot. And there are plenty of those around Leeds. Of course he has to be able to land "without endangering people or property on the surface" as ever. (I know it's a he - have spotted the heli many times).
So - in your twin Squirrel - hovering over the city at 1000ft or less. The tail rotor or the transmission goes and you have to do a forced landing. And because you thought you were immune from disaster with your two engines, you happen to hit someone. Feel any better than an engine failure in an R44 ?
Look - I have nothing to do with said operator. I just wish some of this unwarranted prejudice about singles would get real. And please don't infer that someone is breaking rules until you have read and understand them yourself.
Appreciate what it says - thanks for the link though.
Are you seriously suggesting that as a professional aviator, you would fly over a city in a single piston-engined helicopter at 1000ft above the roof-tops with no where to 'land clear' and perhaps also SVFR?
I guess that's where we differ - for I feel that your estate would be pursued if..........
or perhaps I'm just a tad yellow?
No inference (if that is the word)
Who said anything about hovering below 1000ft?
Headset Hair, I guess that you've just hit the nail on the head.................why the eff would you be hovering less than 1000ft over a city with no where to land clear???????????
Am aware of the chopper's flight profile and the pilot - who operates the flight in such a way which allows for places to land (so atleast they prefer to have an option to 'land clear' - even though Rule 5 says that they are exempt - just goes to show that not all pilots ignore their own duty of care to themselves and those on the ground.
As far as tailrotor/trans failure goes - doesn't matter what you're in - don't get that part of the argument that you've introduced.
Have more hours on a civvy single than civvy twin - so not 'getting' at single operators just the attitude that all because the minimas are so and so - one should be careful flying to them when not actually required.
Are you seriously suggesting that as a professional aviator, you would fly over a city in a single piston-engined helicopter at 1000ft above the roof-tops with no where to 'land clear' and perhaps also SVFR?
I guess that's where we differ - for I feel that your estate would be pursued if..........
or perhaps I'm just a tad yellow?
No inference (if that is the word)
Who said anything about hovering below 1000ft?
Headset Hair, I guess that you've just hit the nail on the head.................why the eff would you be hovering less than 1000ft over a city with no where to land clear???????????
Am aware of the chopper's flight profile and the pilot - who operates the flight in such a way which allows for places to land (so atleast they prefer to have an option to 'land clear' - even though Rule 5 says that they are exempt - just goes to show that not all pilots ignore their own duty of care to themselves and those on the ground.
As far as tailrotor/trans failure goes - doesn't matter what you're in - don't get that part of the argument that you've introduced.
Have more hours on a civvy single than civvy twin - so not 'getting' at single operators just the attitude that all because the minimas are so and so - one should be careful flying to them when not actually required.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I just ask for clarification? If a helicopter operator requests one of his pilots and another of the operator's employees to take some aerial photos, that's classified as aerial work BUT if the person taking the photos is a BBC/ITV/SKY employee and the photo are being taken on behalf of said broadcaster and who is paying the invoice, then it's PT work?
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirls - that's my understanding. However I believe you also have to be the owner of the aircraft for the AW thing to work. The wording in the ANO gets a bit screwed up with its definition of "an air transport undertaking". There is a theory that the ANO says that an AOC holder must conduct ALL paid-for flights as PT.
EESDL: I think the FW "land clear" means being able to land clear of the congested area. Helis are not required to match this performance, given that they can still land in a congested area (other than R160) so long as they can do so without endangering people or property.
"Hovering over a city at 1000 ft" - well just yesterday on the river Thames there were a couple of twins doing so. And the police PAOC allows flights over congested at well less than 1000 ft.
My point about TR failure etc was that so much regulation is aimed at the prospect of a power unit failing, whereas it could easily be something else in the powertrain. And the last time a twin hit a house was a S Wales police twin about 6 years ago - TR failure I believe whilst in low level op.
But we haven't been beseiged with rules demanding two transmissions, two Trs etc.
Hey - sometimes I think our arguments gets a bit screwed up in writing. Hope you can see what I mean - if not lets meet up at Multiflight or Coney sometime!
EESDL: I think the FW "land clear" means being able to land clear of the congested area. Helis are not required to match this performance, given that they can still land in a congested area (other than R160) so long as they can do so without endangering people or property.
"Hovering over a city at 1000 ft" - well just yesterday on the river Thames there were a couple of twins doing so. And the police PAOC allows flights over congested at well less than 1000 ft.
My point about TR failure etc was that so much regulation is aimed at the prospect of a power unit failing, whereas it could easily be something else in the powertrain. And the last time a twin hit a house was a S Wales police twin about 6 years ago - TR failure I believe whilst in low level op.
But we haven't been beseiged with rules demanding two transmissions, two Trs etc.
Hey - sometimes I think our arguments gets a bit screwed up in writing. Hope you can see what I mean - if not lets meet up at Multiflight or Coney sometime!
Last edited by headsethair; 21st Jan 2006 at 21:00.
Guest
Posts: n/a
EESDL - I think you're mixing up a requirement to fly safely and deal with emergencies with the technical definition of 'Land Clear' in rule 5.
The technical definition of 'Land Clear' is to do with fixed wing a/c getting clear of a congested area in the event of engine failure, which given that they come ploughing in at motorway speeds, weigh at least half a ton, and take about 500m to stop makes some sense.
Helis have different capabilities, specifically the ability when properly handled to land at a low groundspeed in a relatively small space. Therefore they are subject to the the less stringent blanket rule that all a/c must be able to land without damage to persons or property on the surface in the event of engine failure.
Now that would depend on your assessemnt of your own skills, but I fancy my chances in a half a football pitch, and I regularly fly with people who I'd trust to get into a tennis court. So responsible flying in a helicopter simply needs your operator/pilot to use his/her judgement to fly 1000ft above the highest object within 600m, and where they could autorotate to a space that they could land in without causing etc. etc.
Now if you think they're abusing that priviledge then that's another matter.
Whirlygig, there was a very informative thread on this last year which I'll try and dig out and reference. Upshot of it was if I remember rightly that almost nothing could be defined as aerial work under the current ANO.
Edited - overlapped with my colleague sorry for duplication, here are the threads on aerial work.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=183255
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=183557
The technical definition of 'Land Clear' is to do with fixed wing a/c getting clear of a congested area in the event of engine failure, which given that they come ploughing in at motorway speeds, weigh at least half a ton, and take about 500m to stop makes some sense.
Helis have different capabilities, specifically the ability when properly handled to land at a low groundspeed in a relatively small space. Therefore they are subject to the the less stringent blanket rule that all a/c must be able to land without damage to persons or property on the surface in the event of engine failure.
Now that would depend on your assessemnt of your own skills, but I fancy my chances in a half a football pitch, and I regularly fly with people who I'd trust to get into a tennis court. So responsible flying in a helicopter simply needs your operator/pilot to use his/her judgement to fly 1000ft above the highest object within 600m, and where they could autorotate to a space that they could land in without causing etc. etc.
Now if you think they're abusing that priviledge then that's another matter.
Whirlygig, there was a very informative thread on this last year which I'll try and dig out and reference. Upshot of it was if I remember rightly that almost nothing could be defined as aerial work under the current ANO.
Edited - overlapped with my colleague sorry for duplication, here are the threads on aerial work.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=183255
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=183557
Last edited by puntosaurus; 21st Jan 2006 at 21:23.