"Unauthorised" air ambulance landing
Sec. 91.3
Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
(c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bronx
I've haven't got the other two documents to hand, but if you wish to push the point, you can also look at Article 118 of the Air Navigation Order 1995 as amended, which covers landing sites in uncongested areas. If the site is in a congested area, then specific permission must be granted by the UK CAA.
By the way, I am a UK licensed aircraft commander, are you? (Translation, I am becoming a little fed up of you second guessing me, when it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about.)
I've haven't got the other two documents to hand, but if you wish to push the point, you can also look at Article 118 of the Air Navigation Order 1995 as amended, which covers landing sites in uncongested areas. If the site is in a congested area, then specific permission must be granted by the UK CAA.
By the way, I am a UK licensed aircraft commander, are you? (Translation, I am becoming a little fed up of you second guessing me, when it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about.)
Finals,
There are more than a few Yanks that are equally licensed in the UK as you....thus it is not beyond consideration that Bronx may hold the same licenses as you and thus despite being in New York may very well have past experience in the UK.
The fact you are an aircraft commander does not make you an expert on the law....but should provide you the professional expertise whereby you might locate valid sources to back up your statements.
Perhaps if you provided some of those references he you might prove your point to Bronx and he would cease asking those questions of you.
There are more than a few Yanks that are equally licensed in the UK as you....thus it is not beyond consideration that Bronx may hold the same licenses as you and thus despite being in New York may very well have past experience in the UK.
The fact you are an aircraft commander does not make you an expert on the law....but should provide you the professional expertise whereby you might locate valid sources to back up your statements.
Perhaps if you provided some of those references he you might prove your point to Bronx and he would cease asking those questions of you.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens
Wow! That sounds very impressive.
Or is that what they call PPLs in England now?
Who said the Sheikh's estate is in a congested area? 
Anyways we're discussing land owner's permission not CAA permission to land in congested areas.
Yeah, I guess it must be very frustrating for a "licensed aircraft commander" to have someone suggesting they could actually be wrong. 
Would you care to prove I don't know what I'm talking about?
I'm basing what I say on what I've read here on Pprune over the years but I'm always happy to learn somehting new.
Google is your friend.
Here you go ~
Air Navigation Order 2005
Rules of the Air Regulations 1996
B.
I am a UK licensed aircraft commander, are you? (Translation, I am becoming a little fed up of you second guessing me, when it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about.)
Or is that what they call PPLs in England now?
If the site is in a congested area, then specific permission must be granted by the UK CAA.
Anyways we're discussing land owner's permission not CAA permission to land in congested areas.
I am becoming a little fed up of you second guessing me, when it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
Would you care to prove I don't know what I'm talking about?
I'm basing what I say on what I've read here on Pprune over the years but I'm always happy to learn somehting new.
I've haven't got the other two documents to hand
Here you go ~
Air Navigation Order 2005
Rules of the Air Regulations 1996
B.
Last edited by Bronx; 11th Jan 2009 at 16:44.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: land of fruits & nuts
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like an over officious security guard is the issue here. I can tell you that in the USA most states have laws against interference with police/fire/EMS personnel. Those law apply on private property too. It's sad when people allow their need to inflate their own egos to come before attending to a seriously injured human being.
If the guy is going to prevent the helicopter from landing, whats to prevent him from denying ems personnel access to the property also? It's common sense. The security geek obviously had very little. If you read the article, it's clear it's all about the guards ego. I'm a bit disappointed that the air crew didn't have the cajones to stand their ground, do the right thing & render aid to a seriously injured victim. Only a total meat head could fault them for that.
If the guy is going to prevent the helicopter from landing, whats to prevent him from denying ems personnel access to the property also? It's common sense. The security geek obviously had very little. If you read the article, it's clear it's all about the guards ego. I'm a bit disappointed that the air crew didn't have the cajones to stand their ground, do the right thing & render aid to a seriously injured victim. Only a total meat head could fault them for that.
Last edited by Stan Switek; 11th Jan 2009 at 16:39.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: swansea, wales
Age: 66
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under "common law" in the UK you can bet the medic's would be covered. You need to be able to demonstrate that a direct and urgent intervention was required whose nature precluded the need for consent. You also have to demonstate that you have the urgent treatment the person requires. If you opicked them up against their will and toook them to a hospitla that simply made them comfortable but did not provide an urgent medical input, I'd not want to be defending that one, you could be done for assault.
Sasless
Purely to clear up the UK regs and not comment on this case (at least for this post anyway).
Edited in response to XrayDice lower down the page, the purpose of me putting this here is to try and get pilots to notice that there appears to be nothing to stop a pilot landing were he likes in common law, which is one of the factors to encourage precautionary landings as acceptable to newly qualified or inexperienced pilots hence my opening line, and also to clear up what is and isn't current in the UK at this time.
It may help the you can't land there / oh yes I can argument if we cite some specifics.
It would be good if we had FLs input on this but until we do I'll offer some places to go and look.
The current version of the ANO can be found in CAP393 we are currently up to AMENDMENT 3/2008 of CAP393.
Several modifications have been made to the ANO since the 2005 version reference by Finals3Greens. The latest modification to my knowledge being the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2008 (SI 2008/1782).
The current Rules of the Air have also been modified since 1997 and they currently are described in 2007 SI 734
What this amounts to is that CAP393 Amendment 3/2008 contains the latest versions of the ANO (it is section 1 of the document) and The rules ot the Air (It is Section 2 of the document)
CAP393 can be found at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf
F3G
Article 118 has obviously changed as it now talks about use of simulators in testing and I can't find a copy of the 1995 Version of the ANO in my collection of part regs, so it may help if you give us a hint as to which bit you are tlking about.
I would imagine that an Air Ambulance operation would be carried out under several exemptions to the rules that apply to the rest of us anyway, the contents of those exemptions we may never see (its none of our business really).
Some people have mentioned the need for land owners permission in the UK, and I believe that is dealt with to death in this thread http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/255...ermission.html which includes comments from FL but not about this specific case.
The only thing the ANO seems to say about land owners is that
Which to me says the ANO doesn't give you the right to land, but what in English Law says you are prohibited from doing so ?
The only place the ANO appears to mention saving life is to allow the raising and lowering or dropping of people /articles and animals to save life
I hope this helps
GS
Purely to clear up the UK regs and not comment on this case (at least for this post anyway).
Edited in response to XrayDice lower down the page, the purpose of me putting this here is to try and get pilots to notice that there appears to be nothing to stop a pilot landing were he likes in common law, which is one of the factors to encourage precautionary landings as acceptable to newly qualified or inexperienced pilots hence my opening line, and also to clear up what is and isn't current in the UK at this time.
It may help the you can't land there / oh yes I can argument if we cite some specifics.
It would be good if we had FLs input on this but until we do I'll offer some places to go and look.
The current version of the ANO can be found in CAP393 we are currently up to AMENDMENT 3/2008 of CAP393.
Several modifications have been made to the ANO since the 2005 version reference by Finals3Greens. The latest modification to my knowledge being the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2008 (SI 2008/1782).
The current Rules of the Air have also been modified since 1997 and they currently are described in 2007 SI 734
What this amounts to is that CAP393 Amendment 3/2008 contains the latest versions of the ANO (it is section 1 of the document) and The rules ot the Air (It is Section 2 of the document)
CAP393 can be found at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf
F3G
Article 118 has obviously changed as it now talks about use of simulators in testing and I can't find a copy of the 1995 Version of the ANO in my collection of part regs, so it may help if you give us a hint as to which bit you are tlking about.
I would imagine that an Air Ambulance operation would be carried out under several exemptions to the rules that apply to the rest of us anyway, the contents of those exemptions we may never see (its none of our business really).
Some people have mentioned the need for land owners permission in the UK, and I believe that is dealt with to death in this thread http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/255...ermission.html which includes comments from FL but not about this specific case.
The only thing the ANO seems to say about land owners is that
Article 168(1)
Subject to articles 128 and 130, nothing in this Order or any regulations made thereunder shall confer any right to land in any place as against the owner of the land or other persons interested therein.
Subject to articles 128 and 130, nothing in this Order or any regulations made thereunder shall confer any right to land in any place as against the owner of the land or other persons interested therein.
The only place the ANO appears to mention saving life is to allow the raising and lowering or dropping of people /articles and animals to save life
I hope this helps
GS
Last edited by VeeAny; 11th Jan 2009 at 18:20. Reason: Explanantion for XRay Dice
Moderator
In Canada, the "for the purpose of saving human life" carries a lot of weight. My experience has been that Transport Canada generally defends the actions of a pilot who deviated from the regulations for the purpose of saving human life. I would not expect Transport Canada to give a private landowner much traction in such a situation, unless "wreckless operation" of the rescuing aircraft was apparent.
One of several references exemptions from regulation for saving human life can be seen here:
(2) A person may conduct a take-off or landing in an aircraft within a built-up area of a city or town at a place that is not located at an airport, heliport or a military aerodrome where
(amended 2007/06/30; previous version)
(a) the place is not set apart for the operation of aircraft;
(b) the flight is conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface; and
(c) the aircraft is operated
(i) for the purpose of a police operation that is conducted in the service of a police authority, or
(ii) for the purpose of saving human life.
One of several references exemptions from regulation for saving human life can be seen here:
(2) A person may conduct a take-off or landing in an aircraft within a built-up area of a city or town at a place that is not located at an airport, heliport or a military aerodrome where
(amended 2007/06/30; previous version)
(a) the place is not set apart for the operation of aircraft;
(b) the flight is conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface; and
(c) the aircraft is operated
(i) for the purpose of a police operation that is conducted in the service of a police authority, or
(ii) for the purpose of saving human life.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: land of fruits & nuts
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some possibly overlooked quotes from the article:
"But a security guard told them to stop – despite the crew being allowed by law to land anywhere and damage property to get to a patient."
‘The paramedic told him that they had to get to someone who was badly injured. ‘But the guard just replied, “You’ll have to take off again then.”
His head of security confirmed the helicopter had landed, saying: ‘It just plonked down outside the house, landing on private ground without permission, and that was the issue.
‘We don’t have a problem with the air ambulance landing here or cutting the fence. They’ve done it before, but we do need to be notified first."
Clearly way too much ego & lack of common sense by a security guard with no real legal authority beyond that of a private citizen.
"But a security guard told them to stop – despite the crew being allowed by law to land anywhere and damage property to get to a patient."
‘The paramedic told him that they had to get to someone who was badly injured. ‘But the guard just replied, “You’ll have to take off again then.”
His head of security confirmed the helicopter had landed, saying: ‘It just plonked down outside the house, landing on private ground without permission, and that was the issue.
‘We don’t have a problem with the air ambulance landing here or cutting the fence. They’ve done it before, but we do need to be notified first."
Clearly way too much ego & lack of common sense by a security guard with no real legal authority beyond that of a private citizen.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: airport
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
Seems you found what I was referring to. Sec. 135.19 would be another place to look.
That's what I said in the first place:
And this was a direct response (which is implied by me quoting his question) to Bronx if you need or don't need a landowners permission, and not a comment directly related to the Sheik case on hand.
I beg your pardon if my comment somehow increased your heart rate for a moment. Will try to be more specific next time, especially on all these little things that we youngsters consider common sense (such as ONE of the THREE responsibilities of the PIC).
Originally Posted by SASless
I fail to see how Helicopter EMS operations meet this FAR rule.... 91.3.
Originally Posted by Runway101
Now I know that this didn't happen in FAA country and that EMS services have their own rules and might not count as "emergency", but there might be something similar in the UK regs.
I beg your pardon if my comment somehow increased your heart rate for a moment. Will try to be more specific next time, especially on all these little things that we youngsters consider common sense (such as ONE of the THREE responsibilities of the PIC).
Last edited by Runway101; 11th Jan 2009 at 17:57.
Have some of you lost the horizon ?
It not the sort of fence you want to cut ( Clue; Crown Prince of Dubai ) ie not 3 strands of barb wire.
Security is not exactly the tv watching,crispmunching,sleeping barrieroperator we all know and love.
Willy waving over legislation, I'm suprised that we havent heard from AA crew to put us right , or prehaps they are enjoying the entertainment, after all its a Daily Mail story
It not the sort of fence you want to cut ( Clue; Crown Prince of Dubai ) ie not 3 strands of barb wire.
Security is not exactly the tv watching,crispmunching,sleeping barrieroperator we all know and love.
Willy waving over legislation, I'm suprised that we havent heard from AA crew to put us right , or prehaps they are enjoying the entertainment, after all its a Daily Mail story
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: here
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can tell you that in the USA most states have laws against interference with police/fire/EMS personnel
Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006 (c. 39)
HTC
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
From the Criminal Justice Service website:
Fine
Fines are penalties available to courts for a wide variety of offences. In the Magistrates' Courts offences that attract fines are subject to maximums from level 1 to level 5.
Level 1: £200
Level 2: £500
Level 3: £1,000
Level 4: £2,500
Level 5: £5,000
There's no limit to the amount the Crown Court can fine, but the amount will take into account the seriousness of the offence and the offender's ability to pay.
Fines are penalties available to courts for a wide variety of offences. In the Magistrates' Courts offences that attract fines are subject to maximums from level 1 to level 5.
Level 1: £200
Level 2: £500
Level 3: £1,000
Level 4: £2,500
Level 5: £5,000
There's no limit to the amount the Crown Court can fine, but the amount will take into account the seriousness of the offence and the offender's ability to pay.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of the legal references and assertions resulting here are worthless for this specific incident, since the Sheikh's estate is actually in Scotland. For example:
Magistrates Court ... don't have them.
Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act ... not applicable in Scotland.
The aviation law aspects are of course relevant to the whole of the UK
That said, I am sure there are relevant legal instruments in existence which could be used to defend the crew against any legal action undertaken by the estate.
Magistrates Court ... don't have them.
Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act ... not applicable in Scotland.
The aviation law aspects are of course relevant to the whole of the UK
That said, I am sure there are relevant legal instruments in existence which could be used to defend the crew against any legal action undertaken by the estate.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure most of you here know (or don't care) but I post it anyway :
In the US the right to land (or not) is not regulated by the FAA, it comes down to each state. That makes it pretty hard to pinpoint (or even to find out) in some states:
- For the lack of regulation in Pennsylvania for example: the authorities (PennDOT) I talked to are ok with one, two, or three times landings or take offs (not nearer defined), but wish to survey the area for only $10 for continued, but still temporary use. Certainly one would have to obtain a license for a permanent heliport.
- New Jersey on the other hand prohibits ALL landings at a private property without prior permission (N.J.S.A. 6:1-29): "If not specifically preempted by Federal standards, the ultimate authority over the regulating and licensing of aeronautical activities and facilities in New Jersey resides with the Commissioner" - I don't think that applies to EMS though (not sure)
:In the US the right to land (or not) is not regulated by the FAA, it comes down to each state. That makes it pretty hard to pinpoint (or even to find out) in some states:
- For the lack of regulation in Pennsylvania for example: the authorities (PennDOT) I talked to are ok with one, two, or three times landings or take offs (not nearer defined), but wish to survey the area for only $10 for continued, but still temporary use. Certainly one would have to obtain a license for a permanent heliport.
- New Jersey on the other hand prohibits ALL landings at a private property without prior permission (N.J.S.A. 6:1-29): "If not specifically preempted by Federal standards, the ultimate authority over the regulating and licensing of aeronautical activities and facilities in New Jersey resides with the Commissioner" - I don't think that applies to EMS though (not sure)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe not important ..
The Sheik, is a big time philanthroper, and is a not the 'run-of-the-mill' Sheiks as most arabs are painted as .. and is one of the most progressive Sheiks in the region, encouraging female education and euqality ..
I heard from the guys who had the privilege of working with Sheik Al Maktoum - all they had to do was 'inform in advance' and 100% permission would have been given if requested.
I guess with all the kidnapping and hijackings, nobody will be amused of a helicopter dropping in suddenly, regardless whether it was dressed as an air ambulance or not.
I heard from the guys who had the privilege of working with Sheik Al Maktoum - all they had to do was 'inform in advance' and 100% permission would have been given if requested.
I guess with all the kidnapping and hijackings, nobody will be amused of a helicopter dropping in suddenly, regardless whether it was dressed as an air ambulance or not.
Radar
I think this incident happened in Surrey.
A quote from the media article referenced in the first post.
And yes I know the photo is of the Kent one, but thats what the article used.
GS
I think this incident happened in Surrey.
A quote from the media article referenced in the first post.
Paramedics had been about to use bolt-cutters to cut the 6ft security fence around Sheik Mohammed Al Maktoum’s mansion to reach the rider lying on neighbouring Chobham Common in Surrey.
Rescue call: The Surrey Air Ambulance helicopter
And yes I know the photo is of the Kent one, but thats what the article used.
GS
Last edited by VeeAny; 12th Jan 2009 at 03:54.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Veeany
I agree with your comment about precautionary landings, clearly forced landings would also be covered.
What I am talking about is the necessity for the landowner to give the helicopter operator permission to land at a temporary landing site, i.e. one in operation for less than 28 days per year, assuming it is not in a congested area. Obviously, if it is in a congested area, then the CAA must give permission.
If there are exemptions for the EMS helicopters, then that removes the dilemma I thought may exist.
I agree with your comment about precautionary landings, clearly forced landings would also be covered.
What I am talking about is the necessity for the landowner to give the helicopter operator permission to land at a temporary landing site, i.e. one in operation for less than 28 days per year, assuming it is not in a congested area. Obviously, if it is in a congested area, then the CAA must give permission.
If there are exemptions for the EMS helicopters, then that removes the dilemma I thought may exist.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no law of trespass in Scotland. There has not been for....years and years and years, if ever. This is a little fact I remember learning many years ago, when there was such a law in England (I think), although I can't give you chapter and verse and where to find it. However, I do remember that when I used to hike in Scotland and asked landowners for permission to camp on their property, they were a little puzzled. "You can camp anywhere you like," said one, clearly confused as to why I was even asking. But he was Scottish and the long term law of the land was obviously part of his psyche. Not the case with the sheikh or his employees, maybe.