Robo Display at a Wedding
Hughes, An article 86 permission requires 42 days notice to display. This also covers special events too". Private gatherings(like weddings can be conducted without a permission - provided there is no advertising to the public (including those attendees associated with the wedding).
NOTHING, repeat NOTHING - allows any aircraft to fly within 150m (except for take off and landing only) of persons, vehicles, structures, vessels (knowingly). You also cannot overfly a property where it is known there are inhabitants.
* An exemption to this SERA 5005(f)(2) rule can be made on safety grounds. Or if applying for an article 86 permission.
The CAA will prosecute - trust me on this. They simply need proof of what went on or advance warning that an event like this is happening.
Regardless - in the event this idiot did crash, the CAA would be notified (and the AAIB on certain occasions) and the helicopter hull insurance would be null and void. IF their TP insurance was insufficent to pay off damages, the pilot first and then the owner or company 2nd would be pursued for damages. This normally has the effect of bankrupting some or all of the stakeholders in the helicopter.
[This is often referred to in insurance as - "an extinction event"].
EU 785/2004 legal insurance cover is often always insufficient to cover modern day damages.
Looking at the video. I can GUARANTEE that he was never allowed to close the crowd to less than 75m (exemption), nor would he EVER be allowed to overfly the spectators or the house.
Over to you.....................
NOTHING, repeat NOTHING - allows any aircraft to fly within 150m (except for take off and landing only) of persons, vehicles, structures, vessels (knowingly). You also cannot overfly a property where it is known there are inhabitants.
* An exemption to this SERA 5005(f)(2) rule can be made on safety grounds. Or if applying for an article 86 permission.
The CAA will prosecute - trust me on this. They simply need proof of what went on or advance warning that an event like this is happening.
Regardless - in the event this idiot did crash, the CAA would be notified (and the AAIB on certain occasions) and the helicopter hull insurance would be null and void. IF their TP insurance was insufficent to pay off damages, the pilot first and then the owner or company 2nd would be pursued for damages. This normally has the effect of bankrupting some or all of the stakeholders in the helicopter.
[This is often referred to in insurance as - "an extinction event"].
EU 785/2004 legal insurance cover is often always insufficient to cover modern day damages.
Looking at the video. I can GUARANTEE that he was never allowed to close the crowd to less than 75m (exemption), nor would he EVER be allowed to overfly the spectators or the house.
Over to you.....................
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC
LOL you have to "take off" in order to fly around and you need to "land" afterwards... So all you need to do is say you were taking off and then landing...
And as for "normal aviation practice", you can just say you were "practicing"...
NOTHING, repeat NOTHING - allows any aircraft to fly within 150m (except for take off and landing only) of persons, vehicles, structures, vessels (knowingly). You also cannot overfly a property where it is known there are inhabitants.
And as for "normal aviation practice", you can just say you were "practicing"...
So all you need to do is say you were taking off and then landing...
TC
All I said was the CAA will turn it round within a couple of days, I havent argued about anything else.
As for CAA prosecuting someone well here is a story for you
Pilot A runs ac out of fuel crashes, within 6 months attempts an instrument approach in a fixed wing with no IR losses it in cloud pulls out over city centre with 400 ft to spare. Does the same thing 9 months later. Then flies his heli through a set of wires, luckily they broke, 4 months later has a double engine failure in a plane taking off having run it out of fuel ( due to not having fuel selector in correct place ) MOR filed against him for landing at a large airfield in a single engine heli in less than 50 m vis in fog. been reported for flying heli with no CRS in force, flying machine grossly overloaded. Have the CAA prosecuted NO, had an interview without coffee, so i hardly think anyone is going to have their collar felt here.
All I said was the CAA will turn it round within a couple of days, I havent argued about anything else.
As for CAA prosecuting someone well here is a story for you
Pilot A runs ac out of fuel crashes, within 6 months attempts an instrument approach in a fixed wing with no IR losses it in cloud pulls out over city centre with 400 ft to spare. Does the same thing 9 months later. Then flies his heli through a set of wires, luckily they broke, 4 months later has a double engine failure in a plane taking off having run it out of fuel ( due to not having fuel selector in correct place ) MOR filed against him for landing at a large airfield in a single engine heli in less than 50 m vis in fog. been reported for flying heli with no CRS in force, flying machine grossly overloaded. Have the CAA prosecuted NO, had an interview without coffee, so i hardly think anyone is going to have their collar felt here.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
TC
All I said was the CAA will turn it round within a couple of days, I havent argued about anything else.
As for CAA prosecuting someone well here is a story for you
Pilot A runs ac out of fuel crashes, within 6 months attempts an instrument approach in a fixed wing with no IR losses it in cloud pulls out over city centre with 400 ft to spare. Does the same thing 9 months later. Then flies his heli through a set of wires, luckily they broke, 4 months later has a double engine failure in a plane taking off having run it out of fuel ( due to not having fuel selector in correct place ) MOR filed against him for landing at a large airfield in a single engine heli in less than 50 m vis in fog. been reported for flying heli with no CRS in force, flying machine grossly overloaded. Have the CAA prosecuted NO, had an interview without coffee, so i hardly think anyone is going to have their collar felt here.
All I said was the CAA will turn it round within a couple of days, I havent argued about anything else.
As for CAA prosecuting someone well here is a story for you
Pilot A runs ac out of fuel crashes, within 6 months attempts an instrument approach in a fixed wing with no IR losses it in cloud pulls out over city centre with 400 ft to spare. Does the same thing 9 months later. Then flies his heli through a set of wires, luckily they broke, 4 months later has a double engine failure in a plane taking off having run it out of fuel ( due to not having fuel selector in correct place ) MOR filed against him for landing at a large airfield in a single engine heli in less than 50 m vis in fog. been reported for flying heli with no CRS in force, flying machine grossly overloaded. Have the CAA prosecuted NO, had an interview without coffee, so i hardly think anyone is going to have their collar felt here.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughes, An article 86 permission requires 42 days notice to display. This also covers special events too". Private gatherings(like weddings can be conducted without a permission - provided there is no advertising to the public (including those attendees associated with the wedding).
NOTHING, repeat NOTHING - allows any aircraft to fly within 150m (except for take off and landing only) of persons, vehicles, structures, vessels (knowingly). You also cannot overfly a property where it is known there are inhabitants.
* An exemption to this SERA 5005(f)(2) rule can be made on safety grounds. Or if applying for an article 86 permission.
The CAA will prosecute - trust me on this. They simply need proof of what went on or advance warning that an event like this is happening.
Regardless - in the event this idiot did crash, the CAA would be notified (and the AAIB on certain occasions) and the helicopter hull insurance would be null and void. IF their TP insurance was insufficent to pay off damages, the pilot first and then the owner or company 2nd would be pursued for damages. This normally has the effect of bankrupting some or all of the stakeholders in the helicopter.
[This is often referred to in insurance as - "an extinction event"].
EU 785/2004 legal insurance cover is often always insufficient to cover modern day damages.
Looking at the video. I can GUARANTEE that he was never allowed to close the crowd to less than 75m (exemption), nor would he EVER be allowed to overfly the spectators or the house.
Over to you.....................
NOTHING, repeat NOTHING - allows any aircraft to fly within 150m (except for take off and landing only) of persons, vehicles, structures, vessels (knowingly). You also cannot overfly a property where it is known there are inhabitants.
* An exemption to this SERA 5005(f)(2) rule can be made on safety grounds. Or if applying for an article 86 permission.
The CAA will prosecute - trust me on this. They simply need proof of what went on or advance warning that an event like this is happening.
Regardless - in the event this idiot did crash, the CAA would be notified (and the AAIB on certain occasions) and the helicopter hull insurance would be null and void. IF their TP insurance was insufficent to pay off damages, the pilot first and then the owner or company 2nd would be pursued for damages. This normally has the effect of bankrupting some or all of the stakeholders in the helicopter.
[This is often referred to in insurance as - "an extinction event"].
EU 785/2004 legal insurance cover is often always insufficient to cover modern day damages.
Looking at the video. I can GUARANTEE that he was never allowed to close the crowd to less than 75m (exemption), nor would he EVER be allowed to overfly the spectators or the house.
Over to you.....................
I suspect we may even have been on the same FDD accreditation course at a sunlit spot near Swindon, where a nice man from the CAA made comment about things appearing on YouTube (other forms of social media are available) and how the CAA intend to deal with them. The pilot in this video has made himself a tad vulnerable to a chat with a magistrate, especially if he was working as an airborne FDD. After Shoreham its' not a question of "no prisoners" more a question of how many prisoners can we take and how many can we nail up. If the pilot here held any form of proffesional license he may find life really uncomfortable in Crown Court as ignorance is no defence in law and this flight contravened every distance from the crowd limit there is. The FDD course is fairly blood curdling in terms of the responsibilities the FDD carries, and the display pilot course these days no less so. (and the homework was a prize b#####d!)
SND
SND
ALL I HAVE SAID IS THESE PERMISSIONS ARE OFTEN TURNED ROUND WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS. Yes I know it is supposed to be 44 days and yes I am a display pilot so I am fully aware of what the rules are thank you very much.
As to prosecution if they are not willing to prosecute a pilot that has crashed and written off 2 aircraft by running them out of fuel, having a major wire strike putting the lights out in part of Somerset, losing control of 2 different aircraft on an IFR approach, landing at a major airfield in a VFR helicopter where the RVR was less than 50 m all within 3 years, do you honestly think they are going to bother with what you have just seen on you tube, I think not
ALL I HAVE SAID IS THESE PERMISSIONS ARE OFTEN TURNED ROUND WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS. Yes I know it is supposed to be 44 days and yes I am a display pilot so I am fully aware of what the rules are thank you very much.
As to prosecution if they are not willing to prosecute a pilot that has crashed and written off 2 aircraft by running them out of fuel, having a major wire strike putting the lights out in part of Somerset, losing control of 2 different aircraft on an IFR approach, landing at a major airfield in a VFR helicopter where the RVR was less than 50 m all within 3 years, do you honestly think they are going to bother with what you have just seen on you tube, I think not
Hugheds 500 - calm down....
It's 42 days by the way, not 44.
I can't comment on an individual case, as I don't know what the CAA know, if you know what I mean
Suffice to say, the CAA like easy cases where they have video evidence, the reg number, dates, witnesses - just like this one on this thread for instance.......
Chop - c'mon now, stop being a dick**ad as usual... You've had ample opportunity to resolve your problems in public and many of us have tried our best to 'guide' you towards common sense and away from silly comments like this. Show progress FFS
Can I suggest people go easy on 'stitching' someone like this Robbo pilot up, for fear of him losing his livelihood, perhaps? Keep the video evidence anonymous if you want to brag about something, eh?
It's 42 days by the way, not 44.
I can't comment on an individual case, as I don't know what the CAA know, if you know what I mean
Suffice to say, the CAA like easy cases where they have video evidence, the reg number, dates, witnesses - just like this one on this thread for instance.......
Chop - c'mon now, stop being a dick**ad as usual... You've had ample opportunity to resolve your problems in public and many of us have tried our best to 'guide' you towards common sense and away from silly comments like this. Show progress FFS
Can I suggest people go easy on 'stitching' someone like this Robbo pilot up, for fear of him losing his livelihood, perhaps? Keep the video evidence anonymous if you want to brag about something, eh?
SND
As to prosecution if they are not willing to prosecute a pilot that has crashed and written off 2 aircraft by running them out of fuel, having a major wire strike putting the lights out in part of Somerset, losing control of 2 different aircraft on an IFR approach, landing at a major airfield in a VFR helicopter where the RVR was less than 50 m all within 3 years, do you honestly think they are going to bother with what you have just seen on you tube, I think not
As to prosecution if they are not willing to prosecute a pilot that has crashed and written off 2 aircraft by running them out of fuel, having a major wire strike putting the lights out in part of Somerset, losing control of 2 different aircraft on an IFR approach, landing at a major airfield in a VFR helicopter where the RVR was less than 50 m all within 3 years, do you honestly think they are going to bother with what you have just seen on you tube, I think not
Maybe Zero G should change his handle to Zero IQ.............
