Landing in public areas - no marshalling?
Thread Starter
Landing in public areas - no marshalling?
Hi folks, I am not a heli pilot, so I have searched for the answer to my question which is: Are helicopters allowed to land in public carparks, with no marshallers on the ground?
I presume they are, since an air ambulance, or it might have been a SAR, has just landed on our local car park, and there were no marshallers, nor a cordoned off area. However, they took no passenger on or off, so were not landing for an incident, nor was there any technical trouble, since after chatting to a few dog walkers, they took off again. I was too far away to go and ask myself.
I am not having a go but am just curious how a helicopter is allowed to land on a public area such as a car park without ground marshalling. Cars were driving in and out of the car park all the while, so it had not been closed. What if a car, dog, child, or adult, drove, ran or walked into the helicopter? I realise most people would stay clear but just wondering what the risks are and who would be liable and what the insurance position would be?
I presume they are, since an air ambulance, or it might have been a SAR, has just landed on our local car park, and there were no marshallers, nor a cordoned off area. However, they took no passenger on or off, so were not landing for an incident, nor was there any technical trouble, since after chatting to a few dog walkers, they took off again. I was too far away to go and ask myself.
I am not having a go but am just curious how a helicopter is allowed to land on a public area such as a car park without ground marshalling. Cars were driving in and out of the car park all the while, so it had not been closed. What if a car, dog, child, or adult, drove, ran or walked into the helicopter? I realise most people would stay clear but just wondering what the risks are and who would be liable and what the insurance position would be?
Perhaps better clarity with "certain operators with CAA dispensations can".
Marshallers are never needed by the helicopter, they are superfluous to helicopter ops in almost all cases. What can be be needed is spectator control which isn't quite the same thing.
Marshallers are never needed by the helicopter, they are superfluous to helicopter ops in almost all cases. What can be be needed is spectator control which isn't quite the same thing.
Any air ambulance carrying the HEMS exemptions are exempt from a number of normal rules and regulations that a ‘normal’ aircraft might require.
They usually pick their landing sites from overhead taking into account the risk to the public and property on the ground before committing to the site. If things change such as a child runs out then ordinarily the approach would be aborted and they’d go somewhere else. It’s a constant dynamic risk assessment.
No Marshallers are ever required and sometimes an enthusiastic member of the public might decide to do their best impression of one but those are usually given a stiff ignoring.
If the helicopter and crew weren’t there long before leaving it’s likely that they weren’t required on that particular job.
They usually pick their landing sites from overhead taking into account the risk to the public and property on the ground before committing to the site. If things change such as a child runs out then ordinarily the approach would be aborted and they’d go somewhere else. It’s a constant dynamic risk assessment.
No Marshallers are ever required and sometimes an enthusiastic member of the public might decide to do their best impression of one but those are usually given a stiff ignoring.
If the helicopter and crew weren’t there long before leaving it’s likely that they weren’t required on that particular job.
They need to learn and train landing at remote places. This permit is typically included in their emergency assistance air vehicle privileges. It doesn't mean everybody else can do it. In my country you would need a local special permit by the local government and the owner of the place you want to land at and they would tell you what is required. However a marshaller would be pretty exotic, fencing off crowds not so much.
Any air ambulance carrying the HEMS exemptions are exempt from a number of normal rules and regulations that a ‘normal’ aircraft might require.
They usually pick their landing sites from overhead taking into account the risk to the public and property on the ground before committing to the site. If things change such as a child runs out then ordinarily the approach would be aborted and they’d go somewhere else. It’s a constant dynamic risk assessment.
No Marshallers are ever required and sometimes an enthusiastic member of the public might decide to do their best impression of one but those are usually given a stiff ignoring.
If the helicopter and crew weren’t there long before leaving it’s likely that they weren’t required on that particular job.
They usually pick their landing sites from overhead taking into account the risk to the public and property on the ground before committing to the site. If things change such as a child runs out then ordinarily the approach would be aborted and they’d go somewhere else. It’s a constant dynamic risk assessment.
No Marshallers are ever required and sometimes an enthusiastic member of the public might decide to do their best impression of one but those are usually given a stiff ignoring.
If the helicopter and crew weren’t there long before leaving it’s likely that they weren’t required on that particular job.
On SAR we could land pretty much anywhere to get the job done and in remote areas this wasn't often a problem - and you made sure you didn't damage property or frighten livestock.
In crowded areas - beaches for example - we would often use the Coastguard ground units or RNLI Lifeguards to clear an area.
Trouble is, holiday makers can be very territorial when comes to their selected beach area and sometimes only a slight sandblasting would persuade them that the casualty's need was greater than theirs
Lifesaving tends to trump petty issues like landowners permission.
In crowded areas - beaches for example - we would often use the Coastguard ground units or RNLI Lifeguards to clear an area.
Trouble is, holiday makers can be very territorial when comes to their selected beach area and sometimes only a slight sandblasting would persuade them that the casualty's need was greater than theirs
Lifesaving tends to trump petty issues like landowners permission.
Thread Starter
Thank you. Interesting - and quite agree that life saving is important.
Us fixed wing mob are not allowed to walk across an airport taxiway, even with our Hi Viz jackets, training and knowledge of the dangers and hazards etc., so I am just trying to get my head around having general public, dogs, children etc loose and unrestrained while a helicopter lands in a public carpark.
helimutt, Apologies for my lack of knowledge. I heard it fly overhead while working in my garage, and later noticed it had landed in a carpark in the valley below us, about a mile away. It was tail-on to me, so I could not see any markings. When it left, it stayed tail-on to my viewpoint, so I could not tell if it was Ambulance or SAR, sorry. It was twin engined, coloured red and orange/amber. It was not a Sikorsky S61, or a Bolkow 105 or a Eurocopter, or a Squirrel, or an Agusta 109, or a Dauphin. (Nor was it a Jetranger, or a Hughes or a Robinson or a Schwitzer or an Enstrom). It had a tail rotor which was angled upwards and was mounted on the top, starboard side of a single central tail fin. It had horizontal stabilisers on both sides of the boom. It looked a bit like an Agusta 109, but wasn't. That's all I can say.
bell ringer, I was not suggesting the heli would crash into anything, but that something uncontrolled might hit it.
Us fixed wing mob are not allowed to walk across an airport taxiway, even with our Hi Viz jackets, training and knowledge of the dangers and hazards etc., so I am just trying to get my head around having general public, dogs, children etc loose and unrestrained while a helicopter lands in a public carpark.
helimutt, Apologies for my lack of knowledge. I heard it fly overhead while working in my garage, and later noticed it had landed in a carpark in the valley below us, about a mile away. It was tail-on to me, so I could not see any markings. When it left, it stayed tail-on to my viewpoint, so I could not tell if it was Ambulance or SAR, sorry. It was twin engined, coloured red and orange/amber. It was not a Sikorsky S61, or a Bolkow 105 or a Eurocopter, or a Squirrel, or an Agusta 109, or a Dauphin. (Nor was it a Jetranger, or a Hughes or a Robinson or a Schwitzer or an Enstrom). It had a tail rotor which was angled upwards and was mounted on the top, starboard side of a single central tail fin. It had horizontal stabilisers on both sides of the boom. It looked a bit like an Agusta 109, but wasn't. That's all I can say.
bell ringer, I was not suggesting the heli would crash into anything, but that something uncontrolled might hit it.
Thank you. Interesting - and quite agree that life saving is important.
Us fixed wing mob are not allowed to walk across an airport taxiway, even with our Hi Viz jackets, training and knowledge of the dangers and hazards etc., so I am just trying to get my head around having general public, dogs, children etc loose and unrestrained while a helicopter lands in a public carpark.
helimutt, Apologies for my lack of knowledge. I heard it fly overhead while working in my garage, and later noticed it had landed in a carpark in the valley below us, about a mile away. It was tail-on to me, so I could not see any markings. When it left, it stayed tail-on to my viewpoint, so I could not tell if it was Ambulance or SAR, sorry. It was twin engined, coloured red and orange/amber. It was not a Sikorsky S61, or a Bolkow 105 or a Eurocopter, or a Squirrel, or an Agusta 109, or a Dauphin. (Nor was it a Jetranger, or a Hughes or a Robinson or a Schwitzer or an Enstrom). It had a tail rotor which was angled upwards and was mounted on the top, starboard side of a single central tail fin. It had horizontal stabilisers on both sides of the boom. It looked a bit like an Agusta 109, but wasn't. That's all I can say.
bell ringer, I was not suggesting the heli would crash into anything, but that something uncontrolled might hit it.
Us fixed wing mob are not allowed to walk across an airport taxiway, even with our Hi Viz jackets, training and knowledge of the dangers and hazards etc., so I am just trying to get my head around having general public, dogs, children etc loose and unrestrained while a helicopter lands in a public carpark.
helimutt, Apologies for my lack of knowledge. I heard it fly overhead while working in my garage, and later noticed it had landed in a carpark in the valley below us, about a mile away. It was tail-on to me, so I could not see any markings. When it left, it stayed tail-on to my viewpoint, so I could not tell if it was Ambulance or SAR, sorry. It was twin engined, coloured red and orange/amber. It was not a Sikorsky S61, or a Bolkow 105 or a Eurocopter, or a Squirrel, or an Agusta 109, or a Dauphin. (Nor was it a Jetranger, or a Hughes or a Robinson or a Schwitzer or an Enstrom). It had a tail rotor which was angled upwards and was mounted on the top, starboard side of a single central tail fin. It had horizontal stabilisers on both sides of the boom. It looked a bit like an Agusta 109, but wasn't. That's all I can say.
bell ringer, I was not suggesting the heli would crash into anything, but that something uncontrolled might hit it.
Yonks ago we had a job associated with Radio 2 going digital. We picked up a bunch of lads known to the general populace as BROS. We arrived at the first site and there was our landing site with some blokes in black shirts holding back the crowd. We landed and immediately there was this avalanche of nubile women rushing to the aircraft. We pulled the throttles through to shut off and switched on the rotor brake,
As any fule knows this stops a S76A rotor turning in about two revs.
As any fule knows this stops a S76A rotor turning in about two revs.
I wonder who would be liable for the insurance payout if said helicopters' rotor wash damaged vehicles in the car park with flying stones and debris chipping windscreens and paint (there are plenty of examples of it on YouTube) ??
I know how I'd feel if my pride and joy was damaged !!
I know how I'd feel if my pride and joy was damaged !!
I wonder who would be liable for the insurance payout if said helicopters' rotor wash damaged vehicles in the car park with flying stones and debris chipping windscreens and paint (there are plenty of examples of it on YouTube) ??
I know how I'd feel if my pride and joy was damaged !!
I know how I'd feel if my pride and joy was damaged !!
Someone decided to have the aircraft static display park at Fairford one year (1990 I think) upwind of one of the car parks. When it came to depart, air and ground taxying wasn't possible due to the clutter on the airfield so it was a 'pull pitch and go' - quite a few cars had a lot more scratches on them and chipped windscreens after that.
Thread Starter
@ helimutt Yes, I think it must have been an AW139 - the rear horizontal stabilisers had that little up-turn at the outer ends. And it had a wheeled undercarriage.
@ Para1234: Yes
@ Fareastdriver, that was my thought too. Having landed and winding down; (or prior to taking off), If someone approached the heli from the rear, the pilot would not be able to see them walking into the tail rotor.
@ Para1234: Yes
@ Fareastdriver, that was my thought too. Having landed and winding down; (or prior to taking off), If someone approached the heli from the rear, the pilot would not be able to see them walking into the tail rotor.
That would be the AW 169 Cornwall Air Ambulance then
Thread Starter
Probably. I don't know what make and model it was and as I say, I only saw it tail-on from a mile away, and it didn't turn side-on to me when it left.
Anyway, the point is, I thought it was an interesting health and safety situation !
Anyway, the point is, I thought it was an interesting health and safety situation !
From Regulation (EU) No 965/2012,
ANNEX V (Part-SPA),
SUBPART J, HELICOPTER EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE OPERATIONS,
GM1 SPA.HEMS.100(a) Helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) operations,
THE HEMS PHILOSOPHY:
ANNEX V (Part-SPA),
SUBPART J, HELICOPTER EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE OPERATIONS,
GM1 SPA.HEMS.100(a) Helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) operations,
THE HEMS PHILOSOPHY:
(d) Air ambulance
In regulatory terms, air ambulance is considered to be a normal transport task where the risk is no higher than for operations to the full OPS.CAT and Part-ORO compliance. This is not intended to contradict/complement medical terminology but is simply a statement of policy; none of the risk elements of HEMS should be extant and therefore none of the additional requirements of HEMS need be applied. To provide a road ambulance analogy:
(1) if called to an emergency: an ambulance would proceed at great speed, sounding its siren and proceeding against traffic lights - thus matching the risk of operation to the risk of a potential death (= HEMS operations);
(2) for a transfer of a patient (or equipment) where life and death (or consequential injury of ground transport) is not an issue: the journey would be conducted without sirens and within normal rules of motoring - once again matching the risk to the task (= air ambulance operations).
The underlying principle is that the aviation risk should be proportionate to the task.
It is for the medical professional to decide between HEMS or air ambulance - not the pilot. For that reason, medical staff who undertake to task medical sorties should be fully aware of the additional risks that are (potentially) present under HEMS operations (and the pre-requisite for the operator to hold a HEMS approval). (For example in some countries, hospitals have principal and alternative sites. The patient may be landed at the safer alternative site (usually in the grounds of the hospital) thus eliminating risk - against the small inconvenience of a short ambulance transfer from the site to the hospital.)
Once the decision between HEMS or air ambulance has been taken by the medical professional, the commander makes an operational judgement over the conduct of the flight.
In regulatory terms, air ambulance is considered to be a normal transport task where the risk is no higher than for operations to the full OPS.CAT and Part-ORO compliance. This is not intended to contradict/complement medical terminology but is simply a statement of policy; none of the risk elements of HEMS should be extant and therefore none of the additional requirements of HEMS need be applied. To provide a road ambulance analogy:
(1) if called to an emergency: an ambulance would proceed at great speed, sounding its siren and proceeding against traffic lights - thus matching the risk of operation to the risk of a potential death (= HEMS operations);
(2) for a transfer of a patient (or equipment) where life and death (or consequential injury of ground transport) is not an issue: the journey would be conducted without sirens and within normal rules of motoring - once again matching the risk to the task (= air ambulance operations).
It is for the medical professional to decide between HEMS or air ambulance - not the pilot. For that reason, medical staff who undertake to task medical sorties should be fully aware of the additional risks that are (potentially) present under HEMS operations (and the pre-requisite for the operator to hold a HEMS approval). (For example in some countries, hospitals have principal and alternative sites. The patient may be landed at the safer alternative site (usually in the grounds of the hospital) thus eliminating risk - against the small inconvenience of a short ambulance transfer from the site to the hospital.)
Once the decision between HEMS or air ambulance has been taken by the medical professional, the commander makes an operational judgement over the conduct of the flight.