Eh......are we having reading problems??

S.I. 216 of 2005:
(d) in the case of a rotorcraft or balloon, not being used for public transport, any place where
the aircraft may take-off or land without undue hazard to persons or property and in respect of
which the owner or occupier of that place shall have given permission for such use, except that,
in the case of a rotorcraft, where that place is of an elevated construction, located on the roof of
a building or a structure, it shall also be licensed by the Authority under this Order for such use
by that rotorcraft.

hypothetically:
1) The aircraft is operated Privately. (same Pilot)
2) The site is big enough for the heli to land safely. (It wasnt....)
3) They have site owner permision.
4) No accident occures. ( it did )

Whats that? :} I thought pilots fly for the love of flying.

JAA CPL with FAA PPL, workin commercially within a JAA state on FAA private machine? would this be considered a technicality?

better than FAA PPL, no JAR licence workin commercially? :=

maybe to leave pandora and her box alone? :E

If the aircraft has been out of the US for more than 6 months or doesn't do at least 60% of it's flying in the US, it may not actually qualify as being a US aircraft.

The "grey" may become more "black and white".

Robino:
I'm asking about a hypothetical situation::ugh:

S.I. 216 of 2005:
(d) in the case of a rotorcraft or balloon, not being used for public transport, any place where
the aircraft may take-off or land without undue hazard to persons or property and in respect of
which the owner or occupier of that place shall have given permission for such use, except that,
in the case of a rotorcraft, where that place is of an elevated construction, located on the roof of
a building or a structure, it shall also be licensed by the Authority under this Order for such use
by that rotorcraft.

hypothetically:
1) The aircraft is operated Privately. (same Pilot)
2) The site is big enough for the heli to land safely. (same site in Bettystown)
3) They have site owner permision.
4) No accident occures.

Now have a read of the Hughes 500 AAIU report but replace the aircraft with the SK76 and remove the car parking attendant injury (hence no need for an AAIU report) and that they had permission.

My question is what laws or rules or guidelines are being breached in this scenario because as I see it, there are no issues landing a SK76 on a roof (provided it's stong enough) in a congested area, so what problems would there be landing in the carpark? I find the SI, AOM, SI(A) very cryptic.

As the B model has EAPS fitted sand off the beach shouldn't have been a problem.. Assuming of course it was switched on at the time.

I was taught gear down EAPS - ON, and GEAR UP EAPS OFF.. Seemed to work for me for several years without incident

Very recent advert??
 

Is this the same company and have changes happened so soon?

.............Successful applicants should hold a UK/JAA ATPLH (IR) and ideally be S76 type rated. A Minimum of 3000 hours flying time with at lease 500 Twin PLC hours essential. Type rating training may be offered to suitable applicants. ...

Job Position: Permanent | Location: Global | Company: Haughey Air Limited | Published Date: 2008-09-26 16:05:24

No mention of Confined area landing experience/training.....:8

Were did you come across this??

Floater, i must of heard correctly then about him looking a pilot??

NRDK, Different company to the crashed aircraft.

The position advertised is in the North of Ireland.

Davy07 try an international flight website :ok:

Davy,

Looks like you were right.

Helicopter Captain - 200198839 - Flight Jobs

Took a while to find it as it isn't listed in the usual places.

The ink can't be dry on their type ratings. Not unexpected seeing as one of the pilots has been emailing his CV around.

They don't make pilots as robust as they used to or as thick skinned.

FNW

Il be curious to see now will he fill the position quickly. Haven't seen the ship around here in 2 or 3 months, must be over in the england!

I am pleased to hear there were no injuries...

I'm wondering...

Early in the thread, there was mention of marine regulations which would restrict operation of the helicopter on the beach, which has an obvious open area, and presumably a suitable arrival/departure path which would enabel safe flight. For reasons of his own, the pilot chose not to use the beach (I'm presuming, based upon what I've read here).

If the government of Ireland has realized the need for regulation of aircraft operations on beaches, I would presume that the regulation of helicopter operations in car parks would already have been addressed. In Canada, we have this regulation:

602.13 (1) Except if otherwise permitted under this section, section 603.66 or Part VII, no person shall conduct a take-off, approach or landing in an aircraft within a built-up area of a city or town, unless that take-off, approach or landing is conducted at an airport, heliport or a military aerodrome.
(amended 2007/06/30; previous version)

to consider.

During my helicopter training, (and I'm certain that I would not be alone in this) instructors were constantly temping me to land into unsuitable or non-conforming landing areas, and "bullying" me into justifying why I would not. The aforementioned regulation was one of my reasons, and I got satisfied smiles when I quoted it.

The regulation of landing in built up areas in Ireland is much less restrictive than Canada (for comparison only) but the beaches are locked up tight?

Pilot DAR

DAR,

My question is on the same line, when you go to an event in Ireland, of more then 1000 people, you must have an exemption to Rule 3. This was defined to me be John Steel: '1000 people, 1000 meters' regardless of AOC, Commercial or Private operations.
During the Galway races, Punchestown, Irish Open, a blanket exemption to Rule 3 is submitted to the IAA, but when I looked through the SI's and OAM's, I couldn't find it, other then recommend distance from buildings for landing site construction. Certainly, if this accident had been a machine on an AOC, The OAM is very clear on landing sites.
My take on it would be: If I was planning to land on Dollymount strand in Dublin, I would have to seek approval from the IAA OSD in writting for an exemption to Rule 3 and from Dublin City County Council as they are in charge for the beeches in Dublin.
I have meet many pilots who have received MOR's from the IAA for not having exemptions so it is enforced.

Ketchup, I had seen your comments....

Without putting too fine a point on it, the "public interest" would probably play a role in the decision making process as to allowing helicopter operations in non-heliport areas in built up areas. The quoted Canadian regulation does go on to state exemptions for police type operations.

It does not sound to me that the operation in this discussion met the terms of police operations.

So, some passengers, who can afford to beckon a helicopter, are unwilling to walk to a suitable landing area, or hire a car to take them there? Are those passengers being fair to the pilot, and assuring that he is not feeling pressured to conduct an operation which might not comply with the spirit of a regulation, or a risk of reduced safety?

I think that sometimes passengers fail to adequately imagine the possible consequenses of what they are requesting, and pilots are too eager to please to tell them.

Pilot DAR

DAR,
This is certainly a strong issue that may or may not have had an input into this accident. The IAA and CAA (UK) have strict guide lines for the operation of Public Transport to safe guard the passengers, and pilot, hence if the OAM says the site is too small, you legally can not land there or if you do, you AOC can be revoked.
Pressure from passenger or commercial pressure is a hot topic. What defines it, what causes it, the characteristic of you pax, owners, respect received and given all have a vital roll into how situations are dealt with. But this is why we should always fall back to the rules and laws set out. They are gospel.

Yes,

An operator I work with recently endured complaints from passengers, in the case where the pilot refused to let them off in the toe in/hover on a mountain side, because the pilot thought that it was not safe. He very simply felt that there was an unacceptable risk that they would fall down the mountain. He let them off elsewhere. They complained. The company supported the pilot all the way, and reminded all of the pilots that they would be similarly supported, should they have to make that decision in the future.

Responsible management at work before regulators have to step in and do it for them! Aviation safety as it should be!

Pilot DAR

Sounds like a fantastic company to work for to have such vital support from management to the pilot.
Unfortunately, if your a private operator, you just don't have this type of support, and more then likely, you have low hours, it's your first real job in the industry and you need the money. No matter what you have learnt in class or read in any book, at that one moment in time, you are determined to keep you new boss happy.
I do wonder what the authorities could do or will do to help this.

Some years ago when a working group was providing regulations for General Aviation (i.e. that which is not Air Transport nor AW) in the JAA, we produced this text (which is from ICAO Annex 2 - with a little twist):
This may (or may not) have found its way into EASA Ops but I'm not quite sure. It was provided exactly for the case that is being discussed here.

Jim

Ahh the rules and regs!

"Will permit" - during the operation right up to the event of the emergency arising, it probably did. Nobody here has any idea yet of the nature of the emergency that arose.

"Undue" - Excessive - as compared to what? A petrol tanker driving into the same place?

"Hazard" - used as a Noun, Literary Noun or Verb?

I am not defending anything, just pointing out that the legal fraternity will have a field day here.

I guess Flying Lawyer can't comment any more on this type of thing due to his current position. :(

Ah yes, I see the knives are out from the holier than thou helicopter pilots of Ireland as usual. Perhaps we could split the thread between kicking the pilot versus useful comment? :rolleyes:

How about:

JAR-OPS 0.485 Performance and compliance with the Rules of the Air

(a) The commander shall satisfy himself (without fear that any one else will disagree with hindsight) that aircraft performance is adequate to enable compliance with the rules of the air and any restrictions applicable to the airspace in which the flight is being conducted; and shall ensure that an aircraft is:

(1) Except when necessary for take-off or landing at an approved landing site, or except where permitted by the appropriate Authority, not flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons if, in the event of an emergency arising, they will cause injury & / or damage to property on the ground.

No runway

"No Blades

"JAA CPL with FAA PPL working commercially within a JAA state on an FAA PPL on N reg aircraft would it not be considered a technicallity"

Are you for real?"

:E what do you think? (just fishing, aware it common claim of freelance brigade)

Was this aircraft managed by this pilot's company for long? If he was acting as a hired gun for management company, was any training given (CRM, etc), and if he was, surely he would have a legal comeback on his employer for lack of on the job training?

If builder put forklift driver at controls of crane without proper training, the builder would be held to account when something brown hits the fan?

PVT Ops.

read Sasless's post.

"incidental" to the job.

Think of it as the house and forklift belong to builder. Builders bricklayer can drive the forklift but thats not his primary job just like most people can drive a car or truck.

Maybe this guy was the accountant or something, if NOT, it's a big problem.

The operation would still be Part 91 but you need an FAA CPL minimum.

The FAA these days will only give you a "based on" validation to PPL level. Otherwise you have to meet the requirements of a full CPL. Pretty common arrangement around the world.

I'm wondering...

Early in the thread, there was mention of marine regulations which would restrict operation of the helicopter on the beach, which has an obvious open area, and presumably a suitable arrival/departure path which would enabel safe flight. For reasons of his own, the pilot chose not to use the beach (I'm presuming, based upon what I've read here).

No Marine regs just permission to land from the local County Council which in this case is Meath Co Co as Bettystown falls under their control as a public area.

Both the beach and the car park are NOT excempt from rule 3.....the beach because its a public area and the car park due to its proximity to a built up area i.e. Bettystown Town centre.

Whatever about the accident the insurance company will have a field day with this one!!!!!

Again well done to the pilot for getting out alive:D

If the insurance was valid.........................

So what have the IAA done or have they being doing to regulate this clearly gray area?
Why does it always take an accident for OSD to start jumping around the place patching regs that they knew for so long being breached?
Is this an EASA problem now?

Maybe time to start doing things by the book....... Anytime i get land owners permission to land i get it in writing because when things happen verbal permission seems to cause confusion.

And for rule 3, always allow yourself time from the IAA! If an accident does happen at least the suit from the insurance co cant do much once all the paperwork is in place.

It's the getting permission from the IAA thats the problem. (14 days I think) What happens on Saturday morning when you get a call from the boss who wants to go to the races in Fairyhouse?

Sorry Boss, cant go cause the IAA haven't replied?

This removes the entire use of a helicopter to do last minute work. Now I know you always do have the option of going to a site more then 1km from the event, but then, if there more then 3 helis using it (3 in 3 out) you need H1 fire cover.... oh boy, this is a head ache....

Should OSD get more funding or a better directive or just re-write the regs to make them more understandable so we know clear as crystal what we can and can't do?

An EASA version of the FAR/AIM might be an idea? (could you imagine the size of it???)

Wouldn't fancy tabing that FAR out..

Anyone see this?
 

They're using the word 'Hero' in parentheses now...
Crash 'hero' pilot Bill Curry comes under scrutiny - Times Online
The whole thing stinks if you ask me...

A very thought provoking article, in several meaningful ways!

Pilot DAR

From the Times Online:



"In fact the press may use it"

It's at the bottom of every page of PPRuNe :hmm:

I don't know where the idea that the IAA "can't touch" N-reg aircraft or their pilots who hold FAA licences comes from. There is ample legal provision for prosecution of any pilot in breach of legislation.

In summary, S.13 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act of 1946 makes it an offence to be in breach of any order or regulation made under any order made under the Act. This Section has not been repealed since then (so far as I can tell) and thus remains the legal basis upon which any prosecution can be brought for any one of a number of offences arising from breaches of the various Orders and Regulations.

The Irish Aviation Authority has become empowered by the Irish Aviation Authority Act, 1993 as the responsible authority for the enforcement of legislation.

So, if we take Rule 2 of the Irish Aviation Authority (Rules of the Air) Order as an example -

Rule 2. Negligent or Reckless Operation

An aircraft shall not be operated in a negligent or reckless manner so as to endanger life or property.

The Rule (or the Order itself) doesn't say anything about the nationality of the aircraft or the licence of the pilot.

The only reason prosecutions haven't been taken against offenders for breaches of this rule (and many others) would seem to be simply because the IAA haven't done it - not because they can't do it.

Why not, I wonder?

bureaucrat |ˈbyoŏrəˌkrat|
noun
an official in a government department.
• an administrator concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people's needs.

Yes, there's an increasing and understandable need for unqualified pilots to turn helicopters into burning heaps in the middle of residential areas. Hopefully those bureaucrats will turn their attention to more pressing areas.

So whats gona happen to the pilot now? Will he lose the PPL?

Well it looks like he's starting to hang out there, drying in the wind. If he qualified in 2006, how many hours do we think he has, especially on twins?
Anyone know, just purely out of interest. ??

Ah come on HM. Us MS FlightSim jockeys have already been told this unlucky pilot is one of the most experienced in Ireland. :hmm:

Perhaps Coatsey et al will enlighten you :uhoh:

I have now been suitably enlightened, and will post no further on this thread, for fear of just being called plain mean! :E

PS, I have just realised, if he only had an US CPL then doesn't that allow you to fly anything within certain weight categories, rather than type?:eek:

FAA Webs site says PPL with IR, issued 30/10/2006

It has been recently reported that there was the violation and fining of a pilot for landing an R44 within the built up area of a town, somewhere in Quebec. The fine was in the order of $3500 for the single event. Fines seem to usually be in the low hundreds, not the mid thousands for a single event. It would appear that Transport Canada takes this very seriously!

It would appear that the event at Bettystown validates their concern!

Pilot DAR