On the days when I am not flying, I would consider myself a member of the public and I would be in awe if I saw a helicopter flying under a bridge, I rember a couple of years ago watching helicopters flying under the Golden gate bridge in San Francisco, thought it was kind of cool, (but then again, maybe I have a slightly biased view)

The people who seem shocked by this are the people who havn't really flown outside the U.k. who have forgotten the reason they learned to fly in the first place, since all the crap that the CAA comes out with was forced upon them.
I doubt people learned to fly for the sole purpose of flying directly from A to B within the exact perameters set out by the Authorities (I doubt it, but I could be wrong!)

Imagine the CAA was in charge of the waterways, the economy would grind to a halt, no barges would be aloud within a couple of miles of any structure in case of engine failure or a rudder breaks and could possibly be blown onto a bridge.
Imagine the size of the MEL, the idea of having oil tankers would be laughed at, any body who wants to operate a watercraft including a simple Windsurfer would have to sit written exams and pass competency checks each year, and if you had passengers on board the qualifications you would need (A six year degree course from oxford!) every body would need medicals, would have to be type rated on any new watercraft that they want to use, and any other pointless hoops that they can think of to justify there exsistance.

Anybody reading this posting NEVER broken the speed limit with their respective land vehicles?

As Heliport mentioned, just because it is against the rules does not mean it is dangerous.

Yeah, and land vehicles go under bridges a hell of a lot closer than 100 feet. Just stand on a motorway bridge one time and look at the lorries thudering past. A few feet either way and... SPLAT !!!!

38 tons of cornflakes can make one hell of a mess :eek: but somehow they usually manage to miss...

So "What would have happened if ..." is missing the point. No-one did hit the bridge, so let's not blame anyone for something that didn't happen.

BUT rules were broken and fuel has been given to the media / anti-aviation machine, so from that point of view maybe it wasn't the best idea in the world....

Voted for loss of license for life!
 

I am a pilot, and I think it is behaviuor like this, that gives this fairly small industry a rotten name! The pilot was stupid, and did something that was totally unneccesary, things like that should be unheard and unseen and not done.

If it was a military pilot, doing tactical training or a mission, OK, but no civilian ever have a good enough excuse to fly under bridges or cablespans.

The stuck wing feller said he flew under to avoid seagulls? HORSEMANURE!!!

There is no justification, and stupidity should not be revarded simply and kindly, but rather extremely harsh, to show where the law stands.

I agree that there would probably have been little or no damage to the bridge, but that is beside the point! The point is that is was illegal, therefore stupid, therefore unneccesary!!!

My two kroners worth:suspect:

Has there been much media coverage?
At the moment, it's a storm in a Scottish tea-cup which will blow over quickly, but there'll be a lot more bad publicity if he's identified and the CAA prosecution machine goes into action.
Maybe best for everyone, including him, if he's not traced?

Winnie! Change yer moniker to Whiney.....lordy sakes man.....I would rather embrace a bit of daring do than put up with a crew room full of retired military pilots who cannot see the need for a pay raise.......talk about setting the industry back by one's actions (or in case of the retired mutts....inaction)....shhhhsh, give me a break!

We are obviously split into two groups here...
Theres the group that thinks 'S**t if I think my skills are up to it and the aircraft can manage it, then I'll do it and f**k what anybody else thinks.' Their attitude is justified by the thought that if they pull it off then there's no harm done, and anybody who disagrees is either a killjoy or some pond life who doesn't understand the first thing about aviation. Then there's the other group. This second group realise that aviation (especially in the UK ) does not operate in a vacuum. If we do not operate with due regard and consideration to the non-flying people around us, then we can only expect their continuing opposition to any sensible de-regulation that may make flying more practical and enjoyable.
But it's alright, I'm sure the press will take the view that helicopter pilots must be fantastic individuals to be able to pull off a stunt like that, they certainly won't think about using the angle of danger to the public, they're far too open minded:suspect:

Three groups, actually... or more.
What about those who recognise that aviation does not exist in a vacuum, but still think a chap shouldn't be crucified for poling a little helicopter through a hole a quarter mile across and 100 feet high?
We're like the chain gang in the movies... somebody makes a break for it and we all cheer. So he'll probably get blown away, but we go back to breaking rocks enriched by the experience.

Heliport - you questioned whether there was much media coverage. All I can say is that I received the initial BBC online news link from a non-aviation friend (who obviously has nothing better to do in their lunch hour) and does not live in Scotland but Basingstoke. If he can find it, then so can many others. It was also reported on Radio 4 news in the evening. May not be Sun headlines I know but has still reached the "general public"

Cheers

Whirly

There was a very brief mention on the local TV news and about one column inch in the Daily Record under a very daft headline along the lines of "bridge buzz copter hunt" or some such. They seem much more concerned about Chris Evans' ugly mug.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/ne...l&siteid=89488

Much more coverage was given last year to the local hero who painted the Port Appin lighthouse pink with yellow spots (a la Mr Blobby) on his way home from the pub :ok:

As Heli says, probably a case of "least said, soonest mended"

Well, I've been into lots of confined areas where the space was a lot smaller than 100 ft by the width of that river. And I'm not even all that experienced; I'm sure many people on here have been into far tighter places than I have. And we don't think it's a big deal, and neither does anyone else. We've been trained for it, that's what helicopters are for, and we know we can do it. Missing a bridge is no different from missing trees, wires, or whatever - easier actually; you can see bridges; you can't always see wires.

So the complaints on here can't be because it's dangerous...because it isn't...and we all know that, if we think about it. The objections must be purely because it's illegal, not for any other reason.

So now we've established that, do we all always always always keep well within the law? When we know we probably won't get found out, and it'll do no-one else any harm? And if so, why? And if not, why are you objecting here?

How can anybody vote or make a judgement on this issue, until we know more about this?

By voting or making a judgement you are reacting purely to media sensationalism / hype / BS.

Was this done with the approval of the authority? The fact that the BBC said the CAA are looking into it, means nothing!

Was it the FEDS themselves?

Two occaisions, sounds to me, like it could be a practice for something. Was it filming?

Could have been avoiding more birds!

Who knows at this stage?

Our (mil) limits were 6 metres clearance above, 3 metres lateral and 2 metres below the aircraft.

But I think the pilot's actions were ill-advised in the circumstances and doing it twice was silly. :rolleyes:

Lose their licence for life!

If you compare traffic offences and the subsequent prosecution with the non dangerous, but, illegal flight under the bridge.

For the guilty party to lose their licence for life would take death, major mayhem and most probably the involvement of alcohol and or drugs. This of course in many countries would involve a prison sentence.

So, do the ppruners in favour of a loss of licence, also favour a spell in Her Majesty’s?

Last year I remember some poor sod in the UK on a performance bike getting nicked for 100 mph over the speed limit and receiving a few months in the lock up for his troubles.

The public can only compare with what they know (traffic offences/prosecution) with the facts that the media turn into a sexy story. This is the same bemoaning public whom get hammered with a 200 pound fine for exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph.

Remember when sex was safe and flying was dangerous?



:O :*

Sex? Sex? Sex? Rings a bell somehow......give me a hint.....know I can remember it if I just had a clue!

Sasless,
If you are that hard up (no pun intended) and you are going to be in Florida next weekend, pop down to Madonna's in Miami, not much going on in Orlando, a couple of places, along south orange blossom trail. but not much in comparison to South Beach Miami, so I believe, not that I know for sure or anything...
:8 :8 :O :O

t'aint natural, I realise that my description of the first group was a little strong, It was friday and I felt a little bit of s**t stirring was necessary. However, I still feel your third group are part of my first group, no matter what way you dress up their reasoning.
:p
As to whether it was dangerous or not....
Lets assume that he /she/it had about 50 metres to go before getting under the bridge and the donkey stopped (whether single or twin is irrelevant). What were they going to do then!?
answers on a postcard.

http://www.gael-net.co.uk/travel/skyebrid.jpg


http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.u...dgepano450.jpg

And the view from the opposite direction ...

http://www.barvasmoor.freeserve.co.uk/skyebridge3.jpg

errrr.... make a safe emergency landing in the water and swim for it, I should imagine ..... As Whirly said, you've got a lot more options than in most confined areas and no reason I can see that an engine failure would lead to collision with the bridge ? what else did you have in mind john :confused:

Just for the pilots on here...
 

Who'd vote 'Yes' to:

'Know it's not dangerous if done with forethought, consideration, a little pre-planning, with good viz and at sufficiently low speed in case of donkey death,,,

,,, but wouldn't because I haven't got the b@lls and don't want to lose my license, but secretly admire the buggar(s) for having done it ???

Well that's me!

One vote cast!:}

Last time I checked.....when the donk expires....the laws of gravity....compel one to descend.

One may ascend by trading speed for height but ultimately....gravity wins every time. If you are lower than the bridge then colliding with the bridge following an engine failure is highly unlikely I would assume.

I dare say, the risk of some hairy legged , skirt wearing, highland ruffian, chunking an empty bottle of McEwans at you might far exceed that of hitting the bridge. Imagine explaining to the boss wallah how you got the windy broke by a beer bottle.....or how you cut up a bag of rubbish with the rotor blades?

The real question in my mind....is how Skye's charm has been ruined by construction of the bridge. I much prefer to think of the days when one had the opportunity to wait for the ferry and thus get to meet your neighbors. Of all the places I lived at in the UK....Skye ranks right up there as one of the two best.....right along with my time in Teeside.

Grainger - make a safe emergency landing and swim for it if the donkey failed?

If he (or she..) was flying mid-point vertically (s)he would have been 50' above the water. That doesnt give you a lot of time to set yourself up for a successful auto IMO. And if s(he) had been just approaching the bridge, then a zoom climb to trade speed for height would have been out of the question.

So contrary to what you said about the number of options available, there would be only one - dump, flare, check, level - splash. And it would probably happen as quick as you can read it.

However, if you are going to do a stunt like this, you probably weren't going to consider the donkey stopping anyway, so its all a bit academic really, I suppose!

Grainger, my point has been expressed by StevieT. However, there are obviously two main reasons to fly under the bridge ( or any similar obstacle for that matter )
1. Because you have to
2. Because you want to
Point 1 applies for a number of reasons, you are mil flying NOE and do not want to be aquired by radar, you are doing it for filming purposes (approved of course :rolleyes: ), you are doing it to avoid inserting yourself in cloud or perhaps a number of equally valid other reasons. Any old how, in this case (certainly for mil or bad wx, maybe not for filming) I would assume that you would use the low slow approach. In that case, should the donk stop then you are correct, fall, splash, sink, swim applies.

If point 2 is the reason that you are doing it then I assume that you will use the fast, low, wazz technique (That's a big assumption JP, why do you assume that then?). Oh alright, I'll tell you. You are doing it because you want a 'thrill' and try as I might, I can't see the thrill of doing a low slow approach under any obstacle (except maybe a very attractive limbo dancer! The gender of whom depends on your preference).
Hence, should the donk stop (in a single) the normal technique is to convert speed to altitude. But oh look, some idiot has built a bridge there. Ah, never mind it was worth it for the buzz.
And there are of course numerous other potential malfunctions that may cause you to regret having a couple of hundred tons of dual or single carriageway above you.

But in case you think I am a complete fascist, my vote was for catch and fine, and that was only because the option of anything more leniant, but not hero worship wasn't available :ooh:

Ah, here, there was a post just above this that seems to have been deleted , think the fellas name was Helibloke.
the final line was,

"and should now be big enough to own up to it."

Are you nuckin futs? imagine spending thousands upon thousands upon thousands of pounds and gone through years and years of hassle from the CAA, completed all the difficult yet very silly exams and jumped through all the hoops they put up, just to get a licence then get it taken away for something as small as this?

Whoever this Mythical superhero is, fairplay to ya, however it would be a smart move to keep your head down for a little while until this blows over or at least until the CAA hear of somebody else doing something as utterly outrageous as flying a single engine gas turbine around london or something Crahayhaezy like that.

Unless your reading this and would like to explain your actions or tell us when your going to do it next, there will probably be supporters out with Banners for ya.

:hmm::} :} :} :} :}

Confess.....not in a million years....and notwithstanding the video tapes...that is not me!

Get a grip guys.....until they track you down and confront you with an airtight case.....keep on trucking!

Do you think the kindly CAA wallahs will give a tihs that the guy voluntarily came forth.....wearing his ashes and torn clothing.....begging forgiveness?

There is nothing manly about putting your neck into the noose for them....make them work for it!

To my mind the key factor is the disregard for a) the rules and b) the publicity. The adverse publicity should be obvious and the potential for CAA action just as obvious. If he/she is this reckless/anti-authority here, what will happen when another 'rule' gets in the way.

HeloTeacher
Totally agree with you.

I find it strange that so called professional aviators are standing up for this idiot. We are all aware of the rules; if we are stupid enough to blatantly flaunt them then, if caught, we must expect to pay the penalty (whatever that may be) . If this particular person is prosecuted by the authority (and I sincerely hope he/she is), no sympathy, serves him/her right. Don't expect me to lobby the CAA for mercy when they invite him/her to Gatwick for a chat.

Bring back hanging I say,
Chopperman

Isn't it interesting how people who share our opinions are professional aviators and those who don't are 'so called' professional aviators? ;)

Rules can be so sacred to the sheep of this world.....BAAAAAAAH!

Better to be a die as a Wolf than to live like a Sheep I say. To never have had the courage to challenge authority must be so sad. New Worlds would not have been discovered....new discoveries might never have happened. Sometimes one must just poke a stick into the eye of the bureaucracy. I don't guess we should talk about the famous air heroes who have done this sort of things....Richard Bong....who looped a P-38 around the Golden Gate Bridge...and so on.....

Heliport, was it you that flew under that bridge looking at those beautiful pictures of the Skye Bridge you put on the last page?
:p :p :p :p

No serious now, many thanks for moderating this forum so well, putting up those pictures, for Rotorheads who are not familiar with that bridge, proves that again!


Ta (as they say in Skye)

Dear Sasless,

Your words about terrorizing a baboon, chasing hippos, and nudist beaches, brought some good memories :)

I agree with you, as long as you do it safely there is a whole world to explore, unfortunately some countries have many rules which impair most pilots from being able to exercise their own common sense :(

Unfortunately I don't have pictures of every ocasion but here are some I took a couple of years ago . . .

Taken in Guinea, West Africa from a Hughes 500D in 1991
http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PP...onsGuinea1.jpg

These baboons were running for their lives, but once you are down there they are dangerous
http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PP...onsGuinea2.jpg

Did everyone miss the sign?
http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PP...avoidbirds.jpg

Not a nudist beach but . . . . sorry the pic quality is not good:cool:
http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PPRuNe/azotea.jpg

SASless
I'm not military and never was, and I am a Helicopter pilot. I enjoy flying low and fast, and around obstacles, I love doing tight confine areas, but I don't intentionally break rules just because it seems fun!

To all:
I used to fly in the SanFransisco area, where there are a few very tall bridges, that you may fly under with no problem, howerver I never did. What is the point? Back home where I am from, (Bodoe, Norway) there is a big bridge crossing one of the worlds strongest tidal currents, it is probably 200 feet up and 1000 feet wide, foreign fighterjets used to fly under there for fun, but the problem is that there are people fishing from that bridge, how will you know that someoine got their line strung out below?

Somebody mentioned Richard Bong, who looped around the Golen Gate in a P38, are you aware that he got killed while trying to clip somebodys clothesline?:(

So it is a little harsh taking buddy's license away, but atleast that may prevent him from doing the same again, and maybe even killing himself/others. It is I feel, because of people like this we have such stringent rules in the first place. So I guess I'm ready to take more flak again:uhoh:

Winnie,

A simple Google search works miracles sometimes.

Major Richard Ira Bong

The first of nine children, born September 24, 1920 to a Swedish immigrant father and American-born mother (Carl and Dora Bong).

Richard was captivated by flying as a small boy. He would watch planes fly over the family farm carrying mail for President Calvin Coolidge's summer White House in Superior. He learned to fly in the Civilian Pilot Training program, as a college student. At the age of 20 he became a cadet in the US Army Air Corps. Around this same time America entered into World War II. Richard was the first fighter pilot handpicked by General George C. Kenney in the fall of 1942 for a P-38 squadron designed to strengthen the Fifth Air Force in Australia and New Guinea. Richard became America's all-time Ace of Aces, downing 40 enemy planes in the Pacific theater of the war while flying P-38 fighter planes.


In 1944 Richard Bong was awarded the nation's highest honor by General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of all U.S. Army units in the Far East, who said: "Major Richard Ira Bong, who has ruled the air from New Guinea to the Philippines, I now induct you into the society of the bravest of brave, the wearers of the Congressional Medal of Honor of the United States."

General Kenney pulled Richard Bong out of combat when his score reached 40 and sent him home to "marry Marjorie and start thinking about raising a lot of towheaded Swedes." Richard "Dick" and Marge Vattendahl were married February 10, 1945 in Superior, an event attended by 1,200 guests and covered by the international press. The couple honeymooned in California for several weeks before reporting to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, where Richard began training for a new assignment in Burbank, California: testing the plane that would take the Air Force into the jet age - the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star. On August 6, 1945 (the day the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima) Richard was killed when the P-80 stalled and crashed on take-off. He died at the age of 24 six months after his marriage to Marge.


Major Richard I Bong wore the following ribbons and medals: Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, Distinguished Flying Cross with 6 Oak Leaf Clusters, Air Medal with 14 Oak Leaf Clusters, Pre-Pearl Harbor Ribbon, American Defense Ribbon, Asiatic-Pacific Ribbon with 2 battle stars, Presidential Citation, and Distinguished Air Medal From Britain.


Excellent Post Blender Pilot....you are a real helicopter pilot in my book.....seems we have walked the same trail....must be the Fort Wolters education!

Winnie: Flak duly comin' up.
Quote: "So it is a little harsh taking buddy's license away, but at least that may prevent him from doing the same again, and maybe even killing himself/others."
There are a lot of people in this world who know that the only way to stop you killing yourself/others is to prevent you from flying. Rules don't come into it, they'll take your ticket.
Every time you walk to the aircraft you think, hey, let's try and make sure today's not the day I kill myself/others... I'm taking a calculated risk here, but I think I'll get away with it...
If you then let the little ol' hot dog out for a romp, it's all part of the same risk equation. We're talking about something that was illegal here, not something that was dangerous. Despite the hang-em, flog-em faction's attempts to make this chap out to have put the population of Skye in jeopardy, I remain unpersuaded.
If he'd gone in the water, then throw a wreath after him and say, "So long sucker, you weren't as good as you thought you were..."
And take a risk again tomorrow.

I hope I've misunderstood some of this thread....the impression I'm getting is that 'Real' helicopter pilots break the rules! Um...well that's utter :mad: !!!!

Should we as 'professional' pilots openly & publicly encourage & support such actions?? I kinda think not!

So...what to do? Well.....if ya can't do the time, don't do the crime blah blah. If he/she gets caught...I have a funny feeling the CAA will hang 'em out to dry. Right or wrong? I dunno....not enough details. Why was it done? etc etc. There may well have been operational reasons.....or was it a wazz? Was he solo or did he have crew or pax onboard?

Should we fly under bridges just because we can? Are you serious? No!!

I dunno what all you guys do with your machines for a living, but I know my job presents enough challenges & hazards........enough 'Buzz'....without me having to further increase the risks by throwing a bridge into the equation! Yeah...I'm a pilot, I love my job, I enjoy my job, I love to have the occasional play....but if I flew under a bridge the rest of the guys in the crew would string me up!

I'm still a bit shell shocked to find so many 'professionals' actively supporting this! STAGGERED would be a better word!

I'm gonna poodle off to my obviously very naive little corner & gaze with admiration at such daring aviators!

What is it they say?....there are old pilots & bold pilots...but no old & bold pilots! Gosh how little 'they' know huh! :hmm:

I find it strange that no-one has really mentioned what can happen when it goes pear-shaped, and when you are not alone. Take a look at this link....

http://www.uelzen-info.de/reportagen/200103.htm

Was it a different Richard Bong you had in mind, Winnie? :rolleyes:

Brilliant pics Blender ! :ok: :D

Looks like you have misunderstood some of the thread Roofus. Nobody's said "'Real' helicopter pilots break the rules!
Nobody's said he shouldn't get done by the CAA if they trace him but many hope he's not caught. (I wouldn't dream of expressing an opinion myself as a Mod, of course. ;) )
Should we as 'professional' pilots openly & publicly encourage & support such actions?? I always think of Rotorheads as a Crew Room. We might be 'overheard' of course, but if we worried too much about that the forum wouldn't be much fun.
Should we fly under bridges just because we can? Again, nobody's said that. Some people think it was harmless fun for which he's bound to be punished if he's caught but aren't buying the 'shock horror' danger stuff.
"old pilots & bold pilots" etc?
The gap is a quarter of a mile wide and 100 feet high? I don't know how old SASless is (for example) but he survived Vietnam and looks like he's still going strong. :)

Interesting discussion - and poll.
I wish there was a way of seeing whether there's a pattern of voting linked to country and/or flying background, but there's not.

Here's a point of view from a fixed-wing pilot and heli newbie ...

Having flown and taught thousands of hours professionally, I believe that there's nothing wrong with the occasional "insanity" (or whatever you wanna call it) - as long as it is safe. Last year, I couldn't resist chasing boats at 50 ft agl in the Chesapeake bay in a A75N1 (Stearman). Yep, I didn't maintain my 500 ft obstacle clearance but maintained my common sense for some fun.

P.S. atb1943, not to forget the tragic accident of the Luftwaffe Huey (?) that killed a couple of joyriders a few years ago. Bottom line: Judge your adrenalin... :eek:

SaSless: Major Bing Bong died at 24...great innings, eh?
It's a great idea dying like a wolf rather than living like a sheep, but if your time on this planet is measured in nano seconds, I really have to believe in:
Everything in moderation....{except women, and money, and sunshine, and Chablis, and that feeling when you settle into a hot bath initially, and....)

PS: Yanks get medals for turning up for work, so I'm not particularly impressed by his awards;)

Bing Bong...............