Reluctant that I am to join this conversation because the same subject pops up every couple of years or so.
Ask yourself this - probably not the first time this clown has done this. What about the times he did it practicing and screwed up?
I was in the military when the AS350 was introduced as an ab initio trainer replacing the UH1B.
So much excitement about the vastly superior rotor system- capable of anything!
Hold it what about all the little bolts that hold the tailboom on?
What about the engine/transmission/hydraulic oil systems?
And the engine fuel system?
The bloke's a goose with no thought for those who would fly the aircraft after him.
Idiot.

Look up the definition for aerobatic flight in your Regulations and stop being silly about this stunt.. It is not a normal manouvre in any book and it is not legal it is the flight manual So I see no point in defending this at all.

There's nothing wrong, I see a wide ag turn in a light, pilot only, AS350B3 on a crew pickup. That's probably the least stress on this helicopter during a normal work day in that region. Keep calm and carry on.

So ... you know the guy?
Ag turn? I thought we agreed on wing over?
I am absolutely sure, that this is a normal workday for that pilot. No doubt about it, but the region does not ask for this kind of flying.

do you know that for sure or are you just super-imposing your own views - the crews he was working with may well ask for this type of flying.

Crab quotes:

"I am looking at it from a career of 35 years of military flying that includes a great deal of low flying, fighter evasion, air combat manoeuvring and other similar disciplines so in that context a simple wingover really isn't a big deal.
If all you do is fly straight and level from A to B with pax at a safe height then it probably looks horrendous and seems the most heinous crime to fly such a manoeuvre.
Apart from anything else - it looks like fun - because it is - something that seems to be progressively legislated out of aviation."

and now......"the crews he was working with may well ask for this type of flying."

No matter how brilliant you try to tell us you were in the military (and I have no idea whether you were or not) it cannot have left you with much time in the civil helicopter world. I would therefore suggest that you are inexperienced in civil aviation and that there is no place for you or your cowboy attitude in commercial professional helicopter operations. The legislation to which you referred is there to try to stop stupid behaviour, and your latest comment ignores the commercial/owner pressure which has often been put on commercial helicopter pilots and which has subsequently led to fatal accidents.

The "right stuff" required in the military is not the same as the "right stuff" needed in commercial aviation.

Now go and willy wave somewhere else. (Sorry, I could only take so much self esteem)

I would second that, I would believe that the machine would receive much more stress with a fully loaded 500kg bucket on the sling through a little patch of turbulence.
As far as the risk factor I believe the pilot is more likely to become a casualty in another stupid case of inattention, in opposition to that dynamic maneuver were he most likely had his brain wired on.

My point is: the sweet spot for safety is not always doing the utmost conservative flying.

"Hey, pilot! Can you turn this thing upside down and fly under the Tower Bridge?"

(Pilot thinks..."Hmm. The crew is asking for a Crab Manoeuvre - lucky I spent 35 years just waiting for this to happen...")

Crab, so you would pull off such a show on request by some pax even though you know it's in gross violation of the regulations? :suspect:

What regulation is it a gross violation of and what about the manouevre particularly causes the transgression?

Previously I'd posted a link to a helicopter wingover I found on the net, amongst many. Was that therefore also a gross violation?

Agile, very well said.

DCLalphathingy, I would assume there's an equivalent to the 500ft rule in that part of the world. Wazzing past the pax, as part of your approach wouldn't, in this case, be considered by the 'man on the Clapham Omnibus' to be a normal or required manoeuvre to effect the landing. I think that alone would be considered a flagrant disregard for the regulations.
JJ

Goodness me there are some precious people out there who just love to attack anyone offering a different opinion!

Have I flown like that in the military? Yes, and usually for good reason.

Do I fly like that in the civil world? No, for good reason.

Now go and bother someone else with your self-righteous attitudes.

I must admit, other than about 5 hours of Fighter Affil, I haven't found the need to wingover....struggling to think of an occasion other than doing it during General Handling as a way to make things a bit more challenging. In the Lynx it was a matter of pride to execute a 45/45 wingover to the left!..right was easy.

45/45 was rather girly:) 45/90 was the standard ISTR, 30/45 was the very basic manoeuvre.

Put yourself in the position of the owner of a fleet of these helos trying to run a business and one day you just happen to be out and about with the ground troops for whatever reason. Coincidentally it is one of your cabs that comes to collect you.
Are you going to be saying to the pilot - "Hey big balls, you sure know how to fly one of those - the lads were impressed".
or will you say (after he walks into the office post shut down and out of ear shot from others), sunshine, here's you P45. Go fu*k someone else's aircraft up and frighten their prospective customers - dog breath".

You all know it - if it's your car, your bike, your house - which is treated like that..........it only happens the once!

coulda been the owner himself...just sayin

Nigel - you stalking me again?

that happened with many military helicopters as their use and hours matured, they were being used for military sortie profiles and not civilian ones and since the manufacturers couldn't have known in advance exactly how the aircraft were going to be used then its not a surprise. The Mil operated them within the Release to Service which the manufacturer had sight of so everything was legal.

Operating outside their guidance and operating outside the RFM (RTS) are not the same thing.