no new information here, beyond what a quick google search will find him anyways. I'm sure all these nimby's have a pretty good grasp on the "legal" books of google
the added bonus is he could take the ignorant replies from here with him as proof that the "professional" pilots lack any professionalism. and who do you think wins that fight?

Probably be better to just shut him down with facts, than troll him with ignorant comments.

In an R22 so will coming down, after a long quiet bit.

i would hardly call any of this from either side as "evidence" at this point. but if you can look into that mythical crystal ball you possess and see past the fog, then be my guest. i still stand by my belief that professionalism and facts are the correct way to go. raise the bar Nigel, dont lower it.

Lockwood 16,

It takes a very large amount of power for a helicopter to ascend vertically to 1,000 feet, compared to a more normal angled climb, as your neighbour appears to sensibly fly. Also, if the engine stopped during such a manoeuvre, it puts the aircraft in an aerodynamic situation that may be unrecoverable. Someone already mentioned the "dead man's curve". This is a combination of speeds and height (a curve on a graph, determined by extensive testing by the manufacturer's test pilots) that would be highly likely to result in a crash if the engine did lose power. A vertical climb (of more than an ascent of just a few feet, not much more than the rotor diameter) puts a single engined helicopter right in that situation, so it's a manoeuvre that really must be avoided. If an accident resulted from a pilot flying in this way, the insurers would be greatly "displeased" to say the least.

As far as a vertical landing from a 1,000 foot hover is concerned, the above is of a similar concern, but for slightly different aerodynamic reasons. If you search for and read up about the phenomenon known as "Vortex ring state", with reference to helicopters, you will hopefully begin to understand why this isn't done - again it is likely to result in a major accident! Also, descending vertically means that the pilot can't actually see where he's going!

Here's one reference: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Vortex_Ring

Actually, in the R22 once you pass 400' you are out of your "dead man's curve" and an auto from a hover is doable...especially if your landing area is right below you,...and yes I have done them,...well, from 500' anyway.

As for landing, he can easily come in quietly, its a simple technique, someone just needs to show him how,...if he cares to learn?

But as for doing this on every departure from and approach to a garden, (especially as your practice EOLs would have had you poised and ready to react ... and from a climb)?

I don't think the aircraft noise made was the main reason for the OP's concern. It seems to me the concern was more about "rules" being broken.

Must not break the "golden rule": give all of your neighbors frequent rides ;)

Hmm, never thought about doing an auto from a climb? There's something to bring up next time I go to the safety course.

Don't tempt fate, Butters, the aircraft has vertical momentum and lots of pitch pulled. When the engine quits, you have further to shove the lever down, and it takes longer for the upwards momentum (airflow coming from top) to convert to downwards flight (airflow coming from below) and the RRPM will decay so much more.

For that reason, most single-engine helicopters have a rate of climb limitation of 2000'/min. Not something that worries an R22, but 407 and the like can easily do it when light.

The engine is working hardest when in a climb. If there's any weakness, it might well let go at high power.

Happened to me on my licence test. We did the (expected) engine failure, so on the climb out after recovery I was very relaxed, with a 'glad that's over' attitude. Instructor rolled the throttle off on the climb-out and said 'engine failure' again. Certainly got my attention !