View Poll Results: What would you like to see happen to this pilot?
No harm done. Hope he's not traced and gets away with it.
267
59.07%
Hope he's traced, prosecuted and fined.
75
16.59%
He should be fined and have his licence pulled for a short period
85
18.81%
He should lose his licence for ever.
25
5.53%
Voters: 452. This poll is closed
Naughty, naughty! Helicopter pilot's bridge stunt
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, this topic certainly generated a lot of interest. Voting has now effectively stopped so it's time to take stock of what fellow helicopter people thought.
It was interesting to note that, although the number of votes gradually increased over the weeks, the percentage of votes for each of the four options remained almost unchanged throughout.
It was interesting to note that, although the number of votes gradually increased over the weeks, the percentage of votes for each of the four options remained almost unchanged throughout.
- A total of 311 people voted, of whom a massively overwhelming majority (60.77%) hoped the pilot would get away with it.
Some people seemed to think hoping the pilot would get away with it this time was the same as approving of what he did. I don't think the two necessarily run together. - 19.29% thought he should be prosecuted and fined, but didn't think any licensing action should be taken.
- Slightly fewer (15.11%) thought he should have his licence pulled for a short period.
- Only 15 people (4.82%) thought he should lose his licence forever. (I only put that one in as a joke, but there you go!
)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone saw the clips from chopperdr?
The SU-30 stunt makes the "bridge-chopper-pilot" look like a walking school lesson for little babies!
THis one is definitely on the edge!
And the Jet blasting at mach+ speeds must have ripped a couple of ear drums!
3top
The SU-30 stunt makes the "bridge-chopper-pilot" look like a walking school lesson for little babies!
THis one is definitely on the edge!
And the Jet blasting at mach+ speeds must have ripped a couple of ear drums!
3top
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there were no risk takers we would still be walking everywhere.
As the bridge was intact after the event, and the spectators got a free show, what's the problem.
If the risk is removed from every aspect of daily life we might as well not be born.
Nice to see some spirit remains BUT don't do it a third time as it will surely end in tears.
As the bridge was intact after the event, and the spectators got a free show, what's the problem.
If the risk is removed from every aspect of daily life we might as well not be born.
Nice to see some spirit remains BUT don't do it a third time as it will surely end in tears.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 50 ft AGL
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
back to the roots
>If there were no risk takers we would still be walking everywhere.
Or maybe even still be living in trees ?
Pretty superficial...
Although I do agree that some risks need to be taken I
think that line of thought is way too simple and weak
in this context - in civl aviation there's mostly really no point in
flying beneath bridges or other structures. It's been
done before and military aviators are still being trained
that stuff.
>As the bridge was intact after the event, and the spectators got
>a free show, what's the problem.
the problem, well the problem - by flying beneath bridges
the pilot takes a risk into account - an unnecessary risk.
At that moment he is not 'only' ignoring air laws, but also
recommendations for security margins. (a birdstrike/engine
failure or whatever may be distracting enough)
And that puts not only the pilot's life and the equipment
(probably not even his own!) in danger, but also other's lives and
property.
While it's certainly 'fun' and exciting to perform such maneuvers it
is definitely also risky and dangerous - the problem for a
pilot who's not been trained doing that stuff would also be the
decreasing threshold to do it over and over again -
"cause it went well the last time" - desensibilisation takes place.
And that's certainly a dominant factor for the dangerous attitude
to simply do 'it' because it's possible. There are numerous posts
on pprune regarding accidents - some obviously linked to non-
standard maneuvers and others where the exact cause couldn't
really be determined.
A while ago, probably at the beginning of the year, there was a
post (title 'deadly stupid stunt') here on
pprune regarding a crash of a German EMS helicopter (BO 105)
because the pilot wanted to flew beneath a bridge (max. 20
ft height) -
although he did successfully complete that maneuver he then
lost control over the machine about 50 ft
behind the bridge and it crashed into the river - one person
dead. Later it turned out that such maneuvers were no
exception, rather it had become a 'fun' way to make the flights
more exciting - if such a stunt had been reported to the
responsible officials at the first opportunity it might not even have
come to such a tragic end.
So while a year ago I would not necessarily have tried to
report such an incident but simply have been amazed, I am
now of the opinion that one should ignore the initial
amazement and "show effect" and merely look behind the
scenes: there's somebody doing something illegal and
dangerous.
As long as people are doing it with their own equipment on
their own ground I won't hinder anybody ...If they want
to they can build a bridge into their garden in order to
have some fun with their R22 ;-)
But not at the costs of others !
>If the risk is removed from every aspect of daily life we might as well not be born.
That's also pretty superficial ... I hope you don't mean what you say ...
>Nice to see some spirit remains BUT don't do it a third time as it will surely end in tears.
Here I do only agree with the latter part of the statement :
it will surely end in tears !
regs
AGL
Last edited by AlphaGolfLima; 25th Jul 2003 at 04:10.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AGL:
I see your point, BUT:
To the German EMS: THis guy was definitely out of his mind! Here you see the lack of education when it comes to professionalism. He never realised that EMS has not a whole lot of fun to provide in the first place. Maybe you can wring out the machine a little on a maintenace flight, but under a bridge like that is a no-no in ANY CONCEIVABLE instance - except you have someone on the winch, HOVER underneath, to pick a drowning person - HOVERspeed is the keyword!!
To the SU-30 inverted bridge stunt: I doubt this was done with out an Aerobatic Waver.
AND that is another very important point that should be pointed out in Flightschool - there is such a thing as an Aerobatic Waver to perform stunts, donīt even try it with out it and the necessary training.
However the guy with the Bridge who "started" this thread, really did a good job on judging the possible danger.
Again, he did it most likely for his own joy and really did not put anyone (but maybe himself - for falling debris from the bridge...) in danger - dispite it is prohibited by law to fly any closer than 500 ft.
The german EMS pilot had no judging ability in the first place!
3top
PS: I still would not report the thread-starter but very much the EMS-"professional". I definitely do not like to report on fellow pilots, everyone is a little on the other side of the law now and then, even unwillingly. But I do not consider the EMS guy a fellow pilot but an idiot! Bad reputation comes from people like him, not so much from the likes like the thread-starter!
I see your point, BUT:
To the German EMS: THis guy was definitely out of his mind! Here you see the lack of education when it comes to professionalism. He never realised that EMS has not a whole lot of fun to provide in the first place. Maybe you can wring out the machine a little on a maintenace flight, but under a bridge like that is a no-no in ANY CONCEIVABLE instance - except you have someone on the winch, HOVER underneath, to pick a drowning person - HOVERspeed is the keyword!!
To the SU-30 inverted bridge stunt: I doubt this was done with out an Aerobatic Waver.
AND that is another very important point that should be pointed out in Flightschool - there is such a thing as an Aerobatic Waver to perform stunts, donīt even try it with out it and the necessary training.
However the guy with the Bridge who "started" this thread, really did a good job on judging the possible danger.
Again, he did it most likely for his own joy and really did not put anyone (but maybe himself - for falling debris from the bridge...) in danger - dispite it is prohibited by law to fly any closer than 500 ft.
The german EMS pilot had no judging ability in the first place!
3top
PS: I still would not report the thread-starter but very much the EMS-"professional". I definitely do not like to report on fellow pilots, everyone is a little on the other side of the law now and then, even unwillingly. But I do not consider the EMS guy a fellow pilot but an idiot! Bad reputation comes from people like him, not so much from the likes like the thread-starter!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 50 ft AGL
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The winch theory wasn't a point in the said situation -
with a bridge approximately 6 m/20 ft in height with a BO 105.
So, I agree with most what you said ...
But I just wanted to mention that the said German pilot
did have the necessary training cause he was trained
by the German military - where such and even more risky
maneuvers are part of the overall training. So, regarding
the judging ability - maybe I would also lack that ability
if I had been trained that stuff for about 10 years and
have done it numerous times successfully - it's probably
pretty tempting...So, it wasn't really a spontaneous decision
like "let's see whether I can make it" - he did assume he could do
it.
And as there were eyewitnesses at the channel where the
helicopter crashed it could be determined that he managed to do
it (at hoverspeed) and after approx 50 ft behind the bridge
when he raised the collective in order to climb, some ice
from the frozen channel struck the backrotor and made
the machine impossible to control.
Just in case you want to have a look at the thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...y+stupid+stunt
regards
AGL
with a bridge approximately 6 m/20 ft in height with a BO 105.
So, I agree with most what you said ...
But I just wanted to mention that the said German pilot
did have the necessary training cause he was trained
by the German military - where such and even more risky
maneuvers are part of the overall training. So, regarding
the judging ability - maybe I would also lack that ability
if I had been trained that stuff for about 10 years and
have done it numerous times successfully - it's probably
pretty tempting...So, it wasn't really a spontaneous decision
like "let's see whether I can make it" - he did assume he could do
it.
And as there were eyewitnesses at the channel where the
helicopter crashed it could be determined that he managed to do
it (at hoverspeed) and after approx 50 ft behind the bridge
when he raised the collective in order to climb, some ice
from the frozen channel struck the backrotor and made
the machine impossible to control.
Just in case you want to have a look at the thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...y+stupid+stunt
regards
AGL
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, got it wrong with the bridge height, thought it was around 37ft or so. Of course, there is no excuse for that accident.
I also dismiss the ever repeating story about "Military training" and "Urge" to proof oneīs merits.
If he gets caught in a rescue-mission, even when it is marginal, at least he tried to help. In this case it was pure show off for nothing.
If a well trained pilot, regardless who trained him, cannot refrain from stupid acts like this, he is in no way professional and should not be allowed in any EMS ship.
There should be plenty of ways to check people psychologically before hiring them.
All this is of course theory, if the only requirements are hours. If a civilian pilot cannot aquire these specialized hours or gets trained for the job, their only recourse is ex-military.
Though I doubt that the military trains pilots to do stupid stunts, their equipment is extremly expensive too!
Then there is still the old Macho-Camaradery-Ex Servicemember-Can do! - Bulls**t, taken over to the civilian life. I wonder how many pilots of this station tried the stunt before it went wrong!
Granted the military trains for mission success - losses acceptable.
However now we are out of the sandbox and mission-safety is/should be the #1-rule. Especially in EMS!
At least me thinks so.........
3top
I also dismiss the ever repeating story about "Military training" and "Urge" to proof oneīs merits.
If he gets caught in a rescue-mission, even when it is marginal, at least he tried to help. In this case it was pure show off for nothing.
If a well trained pilot, regardless who trained him, cannot refrain from stupid acts like this, he is in no way professional and should not be allowed in any EMS ship.
There should be plenty of ways to check people psychologically before hiring them.
All this is of course theory, if the only requirements are hours. If a civilian pilot cannot aquire these specialized hours or gets trained for the job, their only recourse is ex-military.
Though I doubt that the military trains pilots to do stupid stunts, their equipment is extremly expensive too!
Then there is still the old Macho-Camaradery-Ex Servicemember-Can do! - Bulls**t, taken over to the civilian life. I wonder how many pilots of this station tried the stunt before it went wrong!
Granted the military trains for mission success - losses acceptable.
However now we are out of the sandbox and mission-safety is/should be the #1-rule. Especially in EMS!
At least me thinks so.........
3top
Guest
Posts: n/a
AGL
Your well crafted responses suggest that you have a high degree of professional airmanship. However, the somewhat pontificating stance you have chozen falters slightly in your response to the following statement from another PPRUNER...
...Nice to see some spirit remains BUT don't do it a third time as it will surely end in tears...
"HERE I DO AGREE".
Does this mean that you would be happy to fly under a bridge twice yourself? Just for the SPIRIT?
Your well crafted responses suggest that you have a high degree of professional airmanship. However, the somewhat pontificating stance you have chozen falters slightly in your response to the following statement from another PPRUNER...
...Nice to see some spirit remains BUT don't do it a third time as it will surely end in tears...
"HERE I DO AGREE".
Does this mean that you would be happy to fly under a bridge twice yourself? Just for the SPIRIT?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 50 ft AGL
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oops
...However, the somewhat pontificating stance you have chozen falters slightly in your response to the following statement from another PPRUNER...
...Nice to see some spirit remains BUT don't do it a third time as it will surely end in tears...
"HERE I DO AGREE".
...Nice to see some spirit remains BUT don't do it a third time as it will surely end in tears...
"HERE I DO AGREE".
while commenting on that statement and hence didn't read it
thourougly enough ... Actually, I was merely referring to the latter
part of the statement ("as it will surely end in tears...")
Does this mean that you would be happy to fly under a bridge twice yourself? Just for the SPIRIT?
the necessary qualifications/training as well as being a whimp and discouraged
by almost weekly accidents I am quite sure that something
like 'spirit' wouldn't be sufficient to make me risk my life by doing
anything like that. Thanks for the clarification !
regards
AGL - who likes to walk over bridges ;-)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is some more!
It seems that of all aviators the military has the most cases of "daredevils". In response to the thread starting R-22 bridge"stunt", a British Aviation mag wrote the following:
case A: Some time ago a RAF officer flew a Hawker Hunter up the Thames and under the London Bridge! Not to be blamed to have risky pilots, the service put their guy through a psychological exam as only a "head case" would do this stunt! After the press lost interest, the pilot ended up on the side street...
case B: Things change with numbers! After the Forth Road Bridge was constructed in the sixties, the Fleet Air Arm took care of that bridge: On a winter night a flight of four Blackburn Buccaneers on a "Night low level mission" flew under both bridges!!
As nobody saw this, the press didnīt bother, however people thought the nearby petrochemical plant blew up!!
8 Rolls-Royce Spey engines at full throttle probably make for some earsplitting noise!!
In this case however, the "Brass" could not afford to sack 8 front line officers or admit to have a whole bunch of lunatics in their rows, so they put this "show" down to high spirits and "Battle of Britain" stuff! (...loosly copied from the mag)
I guess the R-22 pilot will have to be quartered for his "dangerous" behavior, as he was all by himself and soo slow!!
3top
It seems that of all aviators the military has the most cases of "daredevils". In response to the thread starting R-22 bridge"stunt", a British Aviation mag wrote the following:
case A: Some time ago a RAF officer flew a Hawker Hunter up the Thames and under the London Bridge! Not to be blamed to have risky pilots, the service put their guy through a psychological exam as only a "head case" would do this stunt! After the press lost interest, the pilot ended up on the side street...
case B: Things change with numbers! After the Forth Road Bridge was constructed in the sixties, the Fleet Air Arm took care of that bridge: On a winter night a flight of four Blackburn Buccaneers on a "Night low level mission" flew under both bridges!!
As nobody saw this, the press didnīt bother, however people thought the nearby petrochemical plant blew up!!
8 Rolls-Royce Spey engines at full throttle probably make for some earsplitting noise!!
In this case however, the "Brass" could not afford to sack 8 front line officers or admit to have a whole bunch of lunatics in their rows, so they put this "show" down to high spirits and "Battle of Britain" stuff! (...loosly copied from the mag)
I guess the R-22 pilot will have to be quartered for his "dangerous" behavior, as he was all by himself and soo slow!!
3top
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer,
While maybe not considered reckless by the CFR you gave, we have to contend with the separate item:
91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
This gives the FAA the right to add that, when they cant hit you with any other regulation in an enforcement action.
My take on this is for that bridge, likely nothing would be said.
However for myself, it is not something that I might do, not so much for the danger to the bridge, I discount that, but more to the unknowns to myself and the aircraft.
The what if's of a possible wire hanging from it, or something falling from it as I pass under, or (far fetched but who knows) if someone decided, seeing my approach, to try throwing something down for a rotor kill as I pass under, lot of strange people out there...
While maybe not considered reckless by the CFR you gave, we have to contend with the separate item:
91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
This gives the FAA the right to add that, when they cant hit you with any other regulation in an enforcement action.
My take on this is for that bridge, likely nothing would be said.
However for myself, it is not something that I might do, not so much for the danger to the bridge, I discount that, but more to the unknowns to myself and the aircraft.
The what if's of a possible wire hanging from it, or something falling from it as I pass under, or (far fetched but who knows) if someone decided, seeing my approach, to try throwing something down for a rotor kill as I pass under, lot of strange people out there...
Strange, this thread materialising again after twelve years with no new entries.
One wonders whether Hedski didn't make it, his wreckage has finally beached on the coast and he is trying to tell us so.
One wonders whether Hedski didn't make it, his wreckage has finally beached on the coast and he is trying to tell us so.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 28th May 2015 at 12:12.
Nigerian In Law
Deja Vu ?
The same thing was undertaken in Warri, Nigeria in 1992 under the only bridge in the area. The pilot (who I knew VERY well 
) couldn't pay for his own beers for at least a month afterwards.
Aah, happy days
NEO
) couldn't pay for his own beers for at least a month afterwards.Aah, happy days
NEO
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sydney Harbour Bridge
I have fond memories of flying an Army Kiowa (206) in a 5 ship formation under the Harbour Bridge, back in the 80's. The local media chopper, who was filming the formation, decided at the last moment, to follow the formation under the bridge, (though he received a mild rocket from the regulator!) Happy days!
Delta, did the same in a formation of so many I forget as part of the Opera House opening. Hueys, Wessex from the Navy, not sure now what the RAAF contribution was, so long ago.
