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: