Hill Helicopters HX50

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by Hughes500

Crab, surely 500 ft away not agl

Yes, quite correct, I was going for brevity r9ather than accuracy

[212man]

Originally Posted by Hughes500

Crab, surely 500 ft away not agl

Can be both, surely?

(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water, or 150 m (500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m (500 ft) from the aircraft.

So it's actually not even 500 ft away - it's 500 ft above the obstacle, that's within 500 ft away

[johni]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...of%20the%20CAA.

The low flying prohibitions

(a)Failure of power unit

• An aircraft shall not be flown below such 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.
  

(b)The 500 feet rule

• Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
  

[212man]

Originally Posted by johni

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...of%20the%20CAA.

The low flying prohibitions

(a)Failure of power unit

• An aircraft shall not be flown below such 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.
  

(b)The 500 feet rule

• Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
  

Things have changed since 2005.......several times

[[email protected]]

It's the same as what we used in the military as MSD (minimum separation distance)which was essentially a bubble around the aircraft.

[212man]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

It's the same as what we used in the military as MSD (minimum separation distance)which was essentially a bubble around the aircraft.

but it’s not- read it again. If an object is at a 450 ft radius you need to be 500 ft above it, which would give 650 ft separation

[johni]

this?

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4%20No.1496.pdf

[212man]

Originally Posted by johni

this?

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4%20No.1496.pdf

Basically, yes, or a more up to date reference: https://regulatorylibrary.caa.co.uk/...12-pdf/PDF.pdf

[megan]

GOM perchance? Sounds like a very risky operation with very light touch or non-existent oversight from authorities

Oz crab. Our C & T left to join the regulator as our Inspector, reduced our VMC to 3,000 metres and 350', not that it changed anything, other than now tooling about IMC at 350' when occasion dictated. Company had to hire in extra lift capacity at one stage, offshore were promptly asking questions as to why the contractor, a very reputable offshore operator, was not flying while the company aircraft were.

Don't confuse legal with safe

First started in the offshore on the Bell 205, is flying at 500' over water with 60 knots up your chuff a good idea if thinking the consequences of trying to ditch, even with an into wind entry the landing in the heavy seas will be interesting to say the least, even with the fixed floats which were required. I preferred to have at least 1,000' of air beneath me to get the machine turned around into wind, if that entailed going IMC so be it, single pilot in those days.

Have an email from senior oil company management that I should frame, "we've never had an accident which proves we're doing everything right".

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by 212man

but it’s not- read it again. If an object is at a 450 ft radius you need to be 500 ft above it, which would give 650 ft separation

It might be the Christmas cheer, but you might have to clarify that one - - back to the Gluhwein........

[P1tchlink]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

It might be the Christmas cheer, but you might have to clarify that one - - back to the Gluhwein........

I think 212 refers to Pythagoras’ theorem

[hargreaves99]

Blimey, looking at some of the reactions here, you would think the thing is already flying

You Tube

[212man]

Originally Posted by hargreaves99

Blimey, looking at some of the reactions here, you would think the thing is already flying




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jcjvKJMx2g

It’s the modern way

[Agile]

Originally Posted by 212man

It’s the modern way

Yep, "selling something you don't have", is how some of the best venture business are built
just make sure not to push it too far or you end up like, Elizabeth Holmes, Incarcerated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes

[Jetexec]

I was there for the reveal. They did an amazing job. Is some of what we saw hyped up at this point? Absolutely, even Hill would admit. I think you have to look at the purpose of this event. Many potential consumers have wavered between wheels and skids, this event 'checked that box' for them. Tall buffoons like me worried about pilot/passenger comfort and got to sit in either of the models presented. This tall guy 'checked' another box-all you fellow Bell fliers would have also checked this box. I don't think anyone attending this event thought they were going to smell burnt kerosene unless they stood on the tarmac and watched a turboprop take off. There is still lots of work to do-all of the Hill Team will tell you that (I asked a lot of questions). I don't remember a thread this lengthy for the Bell 525 relentless (who out there is flying one of these babies yet?), or even the R66.............could you imagine Frank Robinson convincing Rolls Royce to bringing a new engine on stream for this helicopter? Some of you grey haired guys like me might remember flying their first prototypes designed in the swinging 60's? These earlier models of this engine were designed amongst a bunch of smart guys chain smoking cigarettes around a table with over flowing ashtrays whilst maneuvering their slide rulers to get it precise. To the previous poster, comparing this event to anything remotely similar to what Elizabeth Holmes did is a real stretch, but I do actually get amused at watching the keyboard wizards rant. I see almost daily, people selling their Hill positions for sizeable profits. The keyboard warriors will naturally retort that the original investor is becoming wise to JH, but if you are closer to that circle, you hear the real reasons. You should have seen the look on my wife's face when I ordered two more......that was a moment that if I had any outside pressure to sell, that would have been the day, but she didn't waver. Many of us got to where we are today by taking chances-lots of chances. She's figured that out a long time ago as well and does very well by some of the chances I took in life (some were unsuccessful, I do admit). I don't plan on running a helicopter operation any time soon, but I am speculating the stock will go up on these marvels. I wish someone would do a quick poll on here (i'm too key board inept to do so myself). "If you had the disposable money, would you consider purchasing a Hill Helicopter?". This poll (if answered honestly by the brave anonymous posters) may shake out many living with champaign dreams on beer budgets. That's OK to be that way. At some point in my life I had beer budgets as well, but if I didn't follow the dreams of others at that time and get involved in some way, I'd still be sipping on Heineken pretending it tasted like Dom Pérignon. Matt Haasen. Calgary, Canada. HX50 # 24, HC50 # 243, 244. I'm not so anonymous anymore ;-)

[admikar]

Difference being that neither Bell nor Robinson asked for your money to make the bloody thing in the first place.
To answer your question: yes, I would BUT only after I see it flying and delivering what was promised by JH.

[hargreaves99]

quotes:

"..everything I though it would be, it's ten times better.."

"...thank you Jason, you did it!..."









​​​

[topradio]

[QUOTE=I see almost daily, people selling their Hill positions for sizeable profits[/QUOTE]

For me that's the very definition of a Ponzi

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by topradio

For me that's the very definition of a Ponzi

Absolutely, if you believe so passionately about what Hill is doing, why on earth would you sell to make a few bucks unless that is why you bought the slot in the first place.......

[admikar]

OK, but how is it any different to any other money making plan/aka investment?
You think it is good idea, you put some money and cash in later when that idea lifts off.