Alleged low flying prosecution
Thread Starter
Alleged low flying prosecution
Neighbour 'buzzed my home with helicopter'
By Richard Savill
(Filed: 11/04/2006)
Visitors to an open day at the 17th century home of a former Royal Navy captain were terrified when a neighbour "buzzed" them in his helicopter, a court heard yesterday.
William Gueterbock, who was second in command of Ark Royal in the early 1970s, told magistrates that the helicopter, piloted by Martin Perrett, was flying so low that he feared that the downdraft would damage his thatched roof.
Perrett, 49, denies a charge of flying within 500ft of personal property without permission from the Civil Aviation Authority.
Perrett, who runs an agricultural waste disposal business and lives on a farm 200 yards from Capt Gueterbock in the Dorset village of Buckland Newton, flew over his neighbour's house at 100ft, it was alleged.
Capt Gueterbock's wife, Jeanette, had to duck, and children burst into tears because of the noise, magistrates in Sherborne heard. At one stage, Perrett allegedly started to "rock" his Enstrom 280C aircraft from side to side as it hovered over the garden.
Following the incident on April 3 last year, Capt Gueterbock, 75, wrote a letter of complaint to the Civil Aviation Authority, which brought the prosecution.
The court heard that Capt Gueterbock and his wife had opened up the gardens of their home, Dominey's Yard, to the public as part of the National Garden Scheme.
About 40 adults and children were assembled in the garden when Perrett allegedly made his first of three runs at 2.30pm.
Capt Gueterbock told the court: "Our garden was open under the scheme. We have been doing it for a long time and last year was our 20th anniversary.
"People came to visit from 2pm to 6pm and at one point we had over 100 people. They were all ages, from quite elderly down to families with children.
"I was in the house just after 2pm and heard a very loud noise of a helicopter flying over, and I went outside. I was horrified anybody should do that.
"It was flying towards our house and cottages from the south, south-east direction.
"I knew this helicopter was owned by Mr Perrett from Court Farm and he flew from there, but I had never seen it fly on this route before.
"The people in the garden - a lot of them were children - were absolutely terrified.
"My first view was one of total disbelief that this should happen, bearing in mind we have a thatched roof and there were people in the garden.
"I would estimate it was 80ft, maybe 100ft from the ground.
"It was just above the roof of our house and level with the top of the lime tree.
"It was doing very tight turns when it came round and was also rocking as well."
Mrs Gueterbock told magistrates: "We heard a helicopter approaching and it became louder and louder. Suddenly you couldn't hear what people were saying.
"I looked up and it was almost overhead and I instinctively ducked because it was so low.
"It was coming over the house, it was overhead. It came up from the field and across the back garden and over our house.
"There were lots of children and they were very distressed, and some were crying."
Alison Slater, prosecuting for the CAA, said Perrett normally took off and landed in a different direction to the route he took on the day in question.
She said: "There were a number of low flights from the helicopter over and around and close to the house and people in the garden.
"You will hear witness statements that normally when this helicopter is taking off or landing it does so over open land and away from the village. When Mr Perrett was interviewed he admitted he was the commander of the helicopter and to making the flights, but denied flying over the house and considered his actions to be in accordance with normal aircraft procedure."
Keith Thomas, flight standards officer for the CAA, told the court: "There is absolutely no excuse for a single engine helicopter to fly over someone's property at 100ft.
"If I was issuing a permit for this activity, which I was not asked to do, I would not have. It is not considered to be safe in my view."
The Gueterbocks' son, Richard, who had been selling cut flowers on the day for charity, took photographs of Perrett's helicopter and sent them to the CAA. The helicopter is registered to Perrett's company, Buckland Newton Hire Ltd.
During his 30-year naval career Capt Gueterbock commanded a number of ships, including the minesweeper Wotton, the frigate Russell, and the frigate Galatea in the Cod War in the 1970s.
He retired from the Royal Navy in 1982.
The trial continues.
By Richard Savill
(Filed: 11/04/2006)
Visitors to an open day at the 17th century home of a former Royal Navy captain were terrified when a neighbour "buzzed" them in his helicopter, a court heard yesterday.
William Gueterbock, who was second in command of Ark Royal in the early 1970s, told magistrates that the helicopter, piloted by Martin Perrett, was flying so low that he feared that the downdraft would damage his thatched roof.
Perrett, 49, denies a charge of flying within 500ft of personal property without permission from the Civil Aviation Authority.
Perrett, who runs an agricultural waste disposal business and lives on a farm 200 yards from Capt Gueterbock in the Dorset village of Buckland Newton, flew over his neighbour's house at 100ft, it was alleged.
Capt Gueterbock's wife, Jeanette, had to duck, and children burst into tears because of the noise, magistrates in Sherborne heard. At one stage, Perrett allegedly started to "rock" his Enstrom 280C aircraft from side to side as it hovered over the garden.
Following the incident on April 3 last year, Capt Gueterbock, 75, wrote a letter of complaint to the Civil Aviation Authority, which brought the prosecution.
The court heard that Capt Gueterbock and his wife had opened up the gardens of their home, Dominey's Yard, to the public as part of the National Garden Scheme.
About 40 adults and children were assembled in the garden when Perrett allegedly made his first of three runs at 2.30pm.
Capt Gueterbock told the court: "Our garden was open under the scheme. We have been doing it for a long time and last year was our 20th anniversary.
"People came to visit from 2pm to 6pm and at one point we had over 100 people. They were all ages, from quite elderly down to families with children.
"I was in the house just after 2pm and heard a very loud noise of a helicopter flying over, and I went outside. I was horrified anybody should do that.
"It was flying towards our house and cottages from the south, south-east direction.
"I knew this helicopter was owned by Mr Perrett from Court Farm and he flew from there, but I had never seen it fly on this route before.
"The people in the garden - a lot of them were children - were absolutely terrified.
"My first view was one of total disbelief that this should happen, bearing in mind we have a thatched roof and there were people in the garden.
"I would estimate it was 80ft, maybe 100ft from the ground.
"It was just above the roof of our house and level with the top of the lime tree.
"It was doing very tight turns when it came round and was also rocking as well."
Mrs Gueterbock told magistrates: "We heard a helicopter approaching and it became louder and louder. Suddenly you couldn't hear what people were saying.
"I looked up and it was almost overhead and I instinctively ducked because it was so low.
"It was coming over the house, it was overhead. It came up from the field and across the back garden and over our house.
"There were lots of children and they were very distressed, and some were crying."
Alison Slater, prosecuting for the CAA, said Perrett normally took off and landed in a different direction to the route he took on the day in question.
She said: "There were a number of low flights from the helicopter over and around and close to the house and people in the garden.
"You will hear witness statements that normally when this helicopter is taking off or landing it does so over open land and away from the village. When Mr Perrett was interviewed he admitted he was the commander of the helicopter and to making the flights, but denied flying over the house and considered his actions to be in accordance with normal aircraft procedure."
Keith Thomas, flight standards officer for the CAA, told the court: "There is absolutely no excuse for a single engine helicopter to fly over someone's property at 100ft.
"If I was issuing a permit for this activity, which I was not asked to do, I would not have. It is not considered to be safe in my view."
The Gueterbocks' son, Richard, who had been selling cut flowers on the day for charity, took photographs of Perrett's helicopter and sent them to the CAA. The helicopter is registered to Perrett's company, Buckland Newton Hire Ltd.
During his 30-year naval career Capt Gueterbock commanded a number of ships, including the minesweeper Wotton, the frigate Russell, and the frigate Galatea in the Cod War in the 1970s.
He retired from the Royal Navy in 1982.
The trial continues.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: EGDN
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel for this guy. We have a serial complainer nearby who is a typical NIMBY, who accused me of flying over his house at 75', when in fact I was 600' on the radalt and 300m laterally. People on the ground, particularly those with a grudge always underestimate the height of aircraft. Anyway, I thought you were allowed to fly below 500' when on an approach to land. I wish the CAA would stick up for aviators for a change instead of jumping in to a prosecution at the first opportunity. 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought you were allowed to fly below 500' when on an approach to land
And I think you'll find that it's been proved many times before that a helicopter landing and taking off within 500 ft of any building is not "normal" except an a govt or licensed airfield. If the building is also occupied by people, then you're in double jeopardy.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
headsethair
Are you sure?
Does that mean a pilot can't legally land closer than 500' to his house? Or the hangar at the bottom of his garden?
Are you possibly confusing two different exemptions from the low flying prohibitions?
Exemption from any low flying prohibition if flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off, landing etc at a government or licensed aerodrome, and an exemption from the 500' rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice.
Does that mean you're in triple jeopardy if there’s a vehicle parked outside the house?
And quadruple jeopardy if there’s a vessel on a trailer attached to the vehicle?
I think you'll find that it's been proved many times before that a helicopter landing and taking off within 500 ft of any building is not "normal" except an a govt or licensed airfield.
Does that mean a pilot can't legally land closer than 500' to his house? Or the hangar at the bottom of his garden?
Are you possibly confusing two different exemptions from the low flying prohibitions?
Exemption from any low flying prohibition if flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off, landing etc at a government or licensed aerodrome, and an exemption from the 500' rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice.
You're in double jeopardy if the building is occupied?
And quadruple jeopardy if there’s a vessel on a trailer attached to the vehicle?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport: I tug my forelock - but stand by my assertion.
My point is based on real things demanded by the CAA. Whenever we get a low flying exemption from the CAA it specifically does not permit low flying over buildings occupied by people. They could therefore argue that "normal aviation practice" forbids the oveflying of occupied buildings at less than 500ft. The counter to this would be at an airfield (licensed or Govt) where there are established procedures - and those procedures may take you closer than 500ft to occupied buildings. You would be able to claim, therefore, that you are indeed complying with normal aviation practice.
I am making no comment about the ongoing case - but the fact that the CAA Flight Standards Officer has given evidence about "no exemption was applied for" would seem to suggest that they will attempt to nail this pilot for not following normal aviation practice if he tries to say that he was landing or taking off.
As for "jeopardy" - I am merely pointing to the fact that m'learneds for the CAA will no doubt try to lay as many offences into this as possible in the hope of making things look as bleak as possible for the defendant.
OK - I'll make one comment about the evidence so far. Feel free to delete it if you wish. There were children who cried. That's it then - forget the law - this man made children cry. It'll be endangerment.
Rule 5(3)(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice.
I am making no comment about the ongoing case - but the fact that the CAA Flight Standards Officer has given evidence about "no exemption was applied for" would seem to suggest that they will attempt to nail this pilot for not following normal aviation practice if he tries to say that he was landing or taking off.
As for "jeopardy" - I am merely pointing to the fact that m'learneds for the CAA will no doubt try to lay as many offences into this as possible in the hope of making things look as bleak as possible for the defendant.
OK - I'll make one comment about the evidence so far. Feel free to delete it if you wish. There were children who cried. That's it then - forget the law - this man made children cry. It'll be endangerment.
Whichever way you look at it i think the pilot is wrong and playing into the "Antis" hands. There is no possible reason for coming low over a house if there is an open way in , which in this case there was. Why did he not come in down the open route and save all this trouble ? I would be pissed off if my neighbour did that, especially if it was in an Enstrom....
ps and dont argue it was down wind....who cares ?
ps and dont argue it was down wind....who cares ?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever we get a low flying exemption from the CAA it specifically does not permit low flying over buildings occupied by people.
I'm sure you're right the CAA will say it's not "normal aviation practice" to overfly buildings at less than 500ft and tell the court the taking off and landing exemption doesn't apply - but that's not what Rule 5 says. The danger is the magistrates are likely to assume the CAA must be right because the CAA regulates aviation in the UK.
I noticed the Flight Standards Officer's comments. Many people think it's wrong the CAA uses in-house tame experts.
Making things look as bleak as possible for the pilot? SOP from what I hear. The same reason they used the evidence (claims anyway) about children crying. Nothing to do with the offence - but all good prejudicial stuff.
There must be some very tall people in that part of the world. Some of them 'ducked' when the helicopter flew over at allegedly 100 feet!
nigelh
"Whichever way you look at it i think the pilot is wrong"
" and dont argue it was down wind....who cares ?"
Err .... some pilots?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that this case has received wide coverage across the National press today - and no doubt even more when a conclusion is reached - might be a good idea for heli pilots to give a wide berth to certain areas over the Easter weekend. Particularly if we get fine weather.
They've all got camera phones now.
They've all got camera phones now.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Belgium
Age: 60
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The neighbour was not only complaining about the flying, he had been complaining about a lot for the last few years. Martin did not fly over the house and there are no pictures to prove that.
An interesting fact is that Buckland Newton is in the middle of the Yeovilton South Training Area. There are all kinds of helicopters and airplanes flying very, very low all the time. Chinooks coming over very low is common practice. So (almost) everybody in this area is used to helicopters.
An interesting fact is that Buckland Newton is in the middle of the Yeovilton South Training Area. There are all kinds of helicopters and airplanes flying very, very low all the time. Chinooks coming over very low is common practice. So (almost) everybody in this area is used to helicopters.
Heliport. I think you sound very defensive . We are almost all pilots here and of course would defend each other, but surely not at any cost ! IF it is true that he flew over at 100" or less you must admit that is poor PR on our behalf at least and probably poor airmanship. I also repeat that i would do the clear entry down wind .....what is your problem with that ???
I know plenty of people who operate in sensitive areas and upset nobody due to common sense ( and downwind landings shock horror !!!)
some moderators
I know plenty of people who operate in sensitive areas and upset nobody due to common sense ( and downwind landings shock horror !!!)
some moderators
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigelh
If thinking it's wrong to condemn someone before hearing both sides is defensive, then I'm defensive. (I wonder if the press will report both sides.)
If thinking it's wrong to condemn someone on the strength of some complainers' version of events is defensive, then I'm defensive.
If being extra suspicious when the complainers are neighbours is defensive, then I'm defensive.
The pilot says he didn't break the law. If it's defensive to assume that's true at this early stage, then I'm defensive.
"IF" - that's an improvement.
It's not what you said originally.
No, I don't "admit that is poor PR on our behalf at least and probably poor airmanship."
I'd need more information, in particular to know what the pilot says about it, before I could decide.
I think you sound very defensive .
If thinking it's wrong to condemn someone on the strength of some complainers' version of events is defensive, then I'm defensive.
If being extra suspicious when the complainers are neighbours is defensive, then I'm defensive.
The pilot says he didn't break the law. If it's defensive to assume that's true at this early stage, then I'm defensive.
IF it is true that he flew over at 100" or less ......
It's not what you said originally.
No, I don't "admit that is poor PR on our behalf at least and probably poor airmanship."
I'd need more information, in particular to know what the pilot says about it, before I could decide.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: North of Eq
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As, with the exception of Heliport (God Bless his socks), we seem to have skipped the presentation of the defence’s argument, the deliberation of the Court, and the verdict, can we look at the sentence?
In my part of the world the maximum penalty is one year in prison and a US$ 3,100 / GBP 1,775 (approx) fine. What is it where you operate?
In my part of the world the maximum penalty is one year in prison and a US$ 3,100 / GBP 1,775 (approx) fine. What is it where you operate?
.......Keith Thomas, flight standards officer for the CAA, told the court: "There is absolutely no excuse for a single engine helicopter to fly over someone's property at 100ft.......
Admittedly the operation of helicopters in the UK is pretty strange stuff to the rest of us pirates, but "no excuse for a single engine helicopter"? If poor Captain Perrett traded in his Enstrom for an S61, would he be scot-free (I know, probably a poor choice of expression for you Aberdeen locals)?
malabo
Admittedly the operation of helicopters in the UK is pretty strange stuff to the rest of us pirates, but "no excuse for a single engine helicopter"? If poor Captain Perrett traded in his Enstrom for an S61, would he be scot-free (I know, probably a poor choice of expression for you Aberdeen locals)?
malabo
Here's a thought. IF the single, engined aircraft was flying 100ft above the house, might not the CAA's primary concern (or grounds for prosecution) be Rule 5, (2) (a):
Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such a height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.
As far as I know, there aren't any exemptions that can get you around this rule but prosecution on this point could possibly be avoided by malabo's example of using a (light!) S61...?
Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such a height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.
As far as I know, there aren't any exemptions that can get you around this rule but prosecution on this point could possibly be avoided by malabo's example of using a (light!) S61...?
Last edited by Bravo73; 12th Apr 2006 at 11:21. Reason: Correcting a typo
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"IF the single engined aircraft was flying 100ft above the house"
Actually theres another quotient there. It also depends on how fast at 100'.. Have done many high speed autos, low level and one can float a long ways......... Maybe even end up two neighbors away. ha ha
Actually theres another quotient there. It also depends on how fast at 100'.. Have done many high speed autos, low level and one can float a long ways......... Maybe even end up two neighbors away. ha ha
Guest
Posts: n/a
One of the most important things that most of you have missed is the fact that they have a photo of the helicopter flying low.
I got busted for this in OZ; flying low on a prec-search on a field when I technically didn't have permission to land there. Someone took a photo and sent it to the law makers and I was BUSTED!
A possible defence here would be that if "someone" had invited him to fly over the house (ie. implied permission to land or fly low over the property), you might be ok. (atleast in OZ anyway). If it happens to turn out later that the person that gave permission but wasn't authorised by the property owner to do so; the pilot may have an out, because he didn't know that.
I got busted for this in OZ; flying low on a prec-search on a field when I technically didn't have permission to land there. Someone took a photo and sent it to the law makers and I was BUSTED!
A possible defence here would be that if "someone" had invited him to fly over the house (ie. implied permission to land or fly low over the property), you might be ok. (atleast in OZ anyway). If it happens to turn out later that the person that gave permission but wasn't authorised by the property owner to do so; the pilot may have an out, because he didn't know that.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Western Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Runway37
One of the most important things that most of you have missed is the fact that they have a photo of the helicopter flying low.
If the aforementioned image that I've seen is in fact the evidence, it proves nothing. Could have been taken with a zoom lens and it could've been taken anywhere.
So, my question is, has anyone seen an image with more detail (besides one of a chopper in blue sky) that incriminates the pilot more than the sad sorry image I've been witness to?!
Incidentally, has there been a history of these neighbours not getting along?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practise....is the precise wording of rule 5.
And I think you'll find that it's been proved many times before that a helicopter landing and taking off within 500 ft of any building is not "normal" except at a govt or licensed airfield.
And I think you'll find that it's been proved many times before that a helicopter landing and taking off within 500 ft of any building is not "normal" except at a govt or licensed airfield.
Surely landing and taking off within 500ft of buildings (with consent of the landowner of the landing site) is the whole point of helicopters and therefore "normal aviation practise"? No?!
Why can't the CAA just spell it out (just a bit at least) so that the rules aren't so open to interpretation/confusion?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 5 nM S of TNT, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not guilty
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4903372.stm
Sense prevails. I would imagine the planning dispute had something to do with it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4903372.stm
Sense prevails. I would imagine the planning dispute had something to do with it.