CAA UK prosecutions
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
HUGHES 500 - Why do you ask me questions about the subject you are qualified to teach??? Confined areas are part of the PPL(H) Syllabus, but surely you would explain to the PPL(H) student the risks of operating inside the avoid part of the H/V chart when PAX are carried.
If this chart appears in the limitations section, as I think we have already established, it is a limitation. If it is in the performance section - it is available to help us determine when we do not have a safe forced landing should we need this option.
However, the crucial point here is, regardless which damned section of the RFM the chart appears in the result, should your engine fail, is exactly the same!!!
If you carry a fare-paying PAX in the UK, without any alleviations, you must operate JAR-OPS 3 - PC3 as a minimum. This means you should endevour to operate at all times with a Safe Forced Landing.
The problem with PC3 is that it is highly subjective and requires a degree of common sense on behalf of the pilot.
PC1 on the otherhand is nearly always Black and White, using numbers and profiles with definitive points in space to provide a landing or fly-away option.
Of course H500, as a TRE(H) you know all this so why oh why do you persist asking stupid questions that you know the answer to.
Here is one for you - DO YOU FOLLOW/ADHERE TO THE RULES - and if so which rules do you believe are unworkable?
DB
If this chart appears in the limitations section, as I think we have already established, it is a limitation. If it is in the performance section - it is available to help us determine when we do not have a safe forced landing should we need this option.
However, the crucial point here is, regardless which damned section of the RFM the chart appears in the result, should your engine fail, is exactly the same!!!
If you carry a fare-paying PAX in the UK, without any alleviations, you must operate JAR-OPS 3 - PC3 as a minimum. This means you should endevour to operate at all times with a Safe Forced Landing.
The problem with PC3 is that it is highly subjective and requires a degree of common sense on behalf of the pilot.
PC1 on the otherhand is nearly always Black and White, using numbers and profiles with definitive points in space to provide a landing or fly-away option.
Of course H500, as a TRE(H) you know all this so why oh why do you persist asking stupid questions that you know the answer to.
Here is one for you - DO YOU FOLLOW/ADHERE TO THE RULES - and if so which rules do you believe are unworkable?
DB
Well seeing as you didnt know what a double angle approach was and you seemed to imply that the rules prevented anyone from entering the avoid curve. One of the reasons you have been getting such a pasting
The rules, in some respects probably break them everytime one goes flying.
For instance training at my home airfield, supposed to be 67m away from perimeter while conducting training flights, well thats impossible as the refueling pump is 25 m from the public highway and the same distance from a cafe. Therefore if I hav e astudent on board i break the rules.
I break the rules when doing an EOL to the ground, rules according to chief flying examiner mean we have to teach power recovery
The rules, in some respects probably break them everytime one goes flying.
For instance training at my home airfield, supposed to be 67m away from perimeter while conducting training flights, well thats impossible as the refueling pump is 25 m from the public highway and the same distance from a cafe. Therefore if I hav e astudent on board i break the rules.
I break the rules when doing an EOL to the ground, rules according to chief flying examiner mean we have to teach power recovery
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ross-on-Wye
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA laws
I deem a change from HV curves, VORs, and the current slanging match is overdue. So just to warn others ... Entering the hire car return station at Madrid Airport, my co-pilot called ... "police car following us." Quite possible as I had been changing lanes too much in an effort to locate the Europcar depot.
With some misgivings I braked to a halt behind the police who wanted to know if we were carrying drugs or large amounts of cash. I was highly suspicious but didn't fancy driving off followed by a bullet. With our bags searched, an amount of Irish £20s (Northern) Sterling and Euros on show totalled £2k, The villains snatched the lot including co-pilot's cell phone and jumped into the open door of their car. I had time to take the registration but co-pilot was more determined and leaped after the car but was swiped aside fortunately at a bare 20 mph.
At the Madrid Airport police station we met a couple who had just suffered the same scam. The Airport guys were good but I've little doubt we will never see our money.
I know its obvious, but the sensible course of action has to be to keep the car doors locked and continue to drive at reduced speed to a more secure place. I'm still a learnin' tho'
Now back to the PP scrap! Much more fun ... Regards to all. Dennis K.
With some misgivings I braked to a halt behind the police who wanted to know if we were carrying drugs or large amounts of cash. I was highly suspicious but didn't fancy driving off followed by a bullet. With our bags searched, an amount of Irish £20s (Northern) Sterling and Euros on show totalled £2k, The villains snatched the lot including co-pilot's cell phone and jumped into the open door of their car. I had time to take the registration but co-pilot was more determined and leaped after the car but was swiped aside fortunately at a bare 20 mph.
At the Madrid Airport police station we met a couple who had just suffered the same scam. The Airport guys were good but I've little doubt we will never see our money.
I know its obvious, but the sensible course of action has to be to keep the car doors locked and continue to drive at reduced speed to a more secure place. I'm still a learnin' tho'
Now back to the PP scrap! Much more fun ... Regards to all. Dennis K.
The problem with PC3 is that it is highly subjective and requires a degree of common sense on behalf of the pilot.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
H500 - I have never implied that operating in the H/V curve is ALWAYs prohibited. I have explained in crystal clear language WHEN it is prohibited. I have expressed an opinion that being in it for no good reason is poor airmanship. Just what is the point YOU are trying to make??
DOUBLE ANGLE APPROACHES - For a TRE(H) you do not seem possessed of the normal required empathy when someone admits they do not know the answer.
67m FROM THE FUEL INSTALLATION - I do not know where you get this figure. I can help you I think, by drawing your attention to ICAO Annex 14 - The Heliport Manual. In this document it lays down the minimum safety distances for taxiways, air taxiways, buildings, obstacles, and I think, fuel installations. It would be the responsibility of the Aerodorme Licence holder to demonstrate compliance with ICAO Annex 14. Seeing as this thread is about the rules, it may interest you to know that part of the reason for mandating training only at licenced aerodromes is precisley for this kind of provision, that the aerodrome should at least meet minimum sepcifications.
Having said this you would need to let me know where you are quoting these distances from if you really want me to respond properly...or are you just winding me up....AGAIN!!!
Also, I do not feel that I have recieved an "Pasting" for sticking up for the rules. More like a slap with a wet fish!!! Even CRAB seems to be weakining and coming across into the light and the deep warm womb -like comfort of compliance!!
By they way - I have a clean driving licence - just for Ze CRAB!!!
DOUBLE ANGLE APPROACHES - For a TRE(H) you do not seem possessed of the normal required empathy when someone admits they do not know the answer.
67m FROM THE FUEL INSTALLATION - I do not know where you get this figure. I can help you I think, by drawing your attention to ICAO Annex 14 - The Heliport Manual. In this document it lays down the minimum safety distances for taxiways, air taxiways, buildings, obstacles, and I think, fuel installations. It would be the responsibility of the Aerodorme Licence holder to demonstrate compliance with ICAO Annex 14. Seeing as this thread is about the rules, it may interest you to know that part of the reason for mandating training only at licenced aerodromes is precisley for this kind of provision, that the aerodrome should at least meet minimum sepcifications.
Having said this you would need to let me know where you are quoting these distances from if you really want me to respond properly...or are you just winding me up....AGAIN!!!
Also, I do not feel that I have recieved an "Pasting" for sticking up for the rules. More like a slap with a wet fish!!! Even CRAB seems to be weakining and coming across into the light and the deep warm womb -like comfort of compliance!!
By they way - I have a clean driving licence - just for Ze CRAB!!!
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 21st Nov 2012 at 12:16.
DB you have done enough winding yourself into a frenzy without anyone else needing to help.
Perhaps if you showed any tolerance towards others you might be forgiven for the odd slip in knowledge
Perhaps if you showed any tolerance towards others you might be forgiven for the odd slip in knowledge
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,582
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
Seeing as this thread is about the rules, it may interest you to know that part of the reason for mandating training only at licenced aerodromes is precisley for this kind of provision
If you look at training requirements it very clearly states you may not operate within 67m of airfield boundary or buildings etc etc A rule that I have to break everytime I fly
Shytorque Yes you can train from unlicensed sites, but the requirement is about the same as a normal airfield but without the fire cover. I gained the first approval to be issued, bit of a joke as the CAA hadnt thought through the contact with the ground requirement. I was asked to write a paper on it, so a case in point of the rules being made up as you go along or more correctly lets put into law without consulting anyone
DB the problem with the rules they are not thought through or put to people working at the sharp end hence contributor's stating you cant stay within the rules.
Here is an engineering one for you to show how ridiculous the rules are.
About 20 years a go a Hughes500C ( the old 4 blades variety) had an engine fire on start up in UK. The pilot did not immediately realise until told by atc. CAA's reaction a fire wire had to be fitted to the engines ( about £ 3500 at the time) BUT only fitted to D and E models ( 5 blades T tail) neither had ever caught fire on start up, the HS and c model ones didnt need it dispite the culprit being a C model to make matters worse no other machine with a A250C20 series engine had to have one fitted, think of all the 206's out there.
Also remember the name of the site, there are lots happy to wind you up !
Shytorque Yes you can train from unlicensed sites, but the requirement is about the same as a normal airfield but without the fire cover. I gained the first approval to be issued, bit of a joke as the CAA hadnt thought through the contact with the ground requirement. I was asked to write a paper on it, so a case in point of the rules being made up as you go along or more correctly lets put into law without consulting anyone
DB the problem with the rules they are not thought through or put to people working at the sharp end hence contributor's stating you cant stay within the rules.
Here is an engineering one for you to show how ridiculous the rules are.
About 20 years a go a Hughes500C ( the old 4 blades variety) had an engine fire on start up in UK. The pilot did not immediately realise until told by atc. CAA's reaction a fire wire had to be fitted to the engines ( about £ 3500 at the time) BUT only fitted to D and E models ( 5 blades T tail) neither had ever caught fire on start up, the HS and c model ones didnt need it dispite the culprit being a C model
to make matters worse no other machine with a A250C20 series engine had to have one fitted, think of all the 206's out there. Also remember the name of the site, there are lots happy to wind you up !
Hughes500
Rule6 states:
Manoeuvring helicopters
(i) Subject to paragraph (ii), a helicopter shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule if it is conducting manoeuvres, in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome or, with the written permission of the CAA, at other sites.
(ii) When flying in accordance with this exemption the helicopter must not be operated closer than 60 metres to any persons, vessels, vehicles or structures located outside the aerodrome or site.
I reckon that makes it OK to do what you're doing and therefore not breaking the rules.
JJ
Rule6 states:
Manoeuvring helicopters
(i) Subject to paragraph (ii), a helicopter shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule if it is conducting manoeuvres, in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome or, with the written permission of the CAA, at other sites.
(ii) When flying in accordance with this exemption the helicopter must not be operated closer than 60 metres to any persons, vessels, vehicles or structures located outside the aerodrome or site.
I reckon that makes it OK to do what you're doing and therefore not breaking the rules.
JJ
Quote:
Seeing as this thread is about the rules, it may interest you to know that part of the reason for mandating training only at licenced aerodromes is precisley for this kind of provision
Is this still the case? I thought the rules had changed.
DOH!
Seeing as this thread is about the rules, it may interest you to know that part of the reason for mandating training only at licenced aerodromes is precisley for this kind of provision
Is this still the case? I thought the rules had changed.
DOH!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Applies at licensed airfields too...
chopperchap:
the 60m rule applies - so a very small airfield (like a helipad) would have to have a diameter of 130meters to permit manoeuvering in the central 10m circle
the 60m rule applies - so a very small airfield (like a helipad) would have to have a diameter of 130meters to permit manoeuvering in the central 10m circle
Not necessarily; The exemption in rule 6 for manoeuvring helicopters is a clarification of the status of helicopters conducting ground cushion manoeuvres such as training. This does not apply to helicopters landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice. Normal aviation practise includes making your final approach and, if necesserary hover taxiing to your landing spot.
So your minimum landing site is governed by the helipad size required by the flight or operations manual you are working to and not the 60m rule.
So your minimum landing site is governed by the helipad size required by the flight or operations manual you are working to and not the 60m rule.
Last edited by misterbonkers; 22nd Nov 2012 at 07:13.
Hughes 500, and that is where so much of the legislation really falls down-it is open to interpretation because it isn't written in plain English.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
CRABBY - If you are still working for HM, why do you find the CAA frustrating as surely you do not have to deal with them?
Also, apart from the Rules of The Air, which I hope you find acceptable as they are ICAO and I presume you have to follow as a Military Pilot, what rules are giving you so much grief???
Or is it that I have sorely misjudged you and that you are only sticking up for the rest of us that are subjected to the CAA and Civil Air Legislation just because you are a thoroughly nice man!!!
Finally I apologise. Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I am sorry if any of my previous posts gave you the impression that this was not the case!!
There, a wee leeetel olivey type branch offered mostly as I respect the incredible work that you and your collegues do in SAR and I guess above all the risks you take to help people entitle you to the odd rant and opinion. Said from the heart!!!
Keep up the good work
DB
Also, apart from the Rules of The Air, which I hope you find acceptable as they are ICAO and I presume you have to follow as a Military Pilot, what rules are giving you so much grief???
Or is it that I have sorely misjudged you and that you are only sticking up for the rest of us that are subjected to the CAA and Civil Air Legislation just because you are a thoroughly nice man!!!
Finally I apologise. Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I am sorry if any of my previous posts gave you the impression that this was not the case!!
There, a wee leeetel olivey type branch offered mostly as I respect the incredible work that you and your collegues do in SAR and I guess above all the risks you take to help people entitle you to the odd rant and opinion. Said from the heart!!!
Keep up the good work
DB
CRABBY - If you are still working for HM, why do you find the CAA frustrating as surely you do not have to deal with them?
Olivey type branch thingy accepted with thanks on behalf of the brave people I work with.
