Is that why we 'Bong' it when it all goes pear-shaped?
Less of the English ladies form, more of the fact that numerous pilots seem to be getting too emotional and need to re-read some of the threads! Admiration for a stunt is not the same as condoning it or even wishing to do it.
Strange, but I never once went out and jumped over 18 DoubleDecker buses, or went and encouraged someone else to do it.

Hark the herald angels sing!

Let Ye who has not sinned cast the first stone (but not into the rotors):E

Black eye for me!

I guess my copy of TIME/LIFE "The world at war" is wrong and I bow my head in shame of smearing Maj. Bong's name.

SASless and all others, I did 5 years of service on Fast Patrol Boats as an enlisted and later as an officer in my homecountry's navy, but now I am a civlian flight instructor. Again, so I may be harsh, but I still think that it is people like this that give us a bad reputation.

This is just like the other day, one of my students went out and did a little "low level flying" cruising around at 50 - 100 feet AGL, and even told the tower about it. I guess the consesus here is not to tell anyone about it? He should just get a WOOHOO get going dude!! and a slap on the back for a great show?
I belive in setting a good example, and we took him in the office, and gave him a "slap on the wrist" verbally, and entered a letter in his training file, which noone will ever see but us, unless he kills himself.
SO, should we condone this action by this wayward feller that flew under the bridge? I still think not, Maybe it is going too far taking his license away for ever, but he should atleast get a stiff fine, and have his license taken away for a while. :uhoh:

A little more information about Richard Bong:

"On August 6, 1945, while half a world away the Enola Gay dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Bong stepped into an airplane for the last time. His P-80 malfunctioned just after take-off, and while he bailed out, he never had a chance. He was just too close to the ground. After surviving two years of combat flying, Richard Ira Bong met his end while on a routine acceptance flight."

From this website:

www.acepilots.com

Thomas Coupling,
Yes, nearly all Americans get medals just for turning up for work but not, I would venture to suggest, The Congressional Medal of Honour, Distinguished Service Cross or Distinguished Flying Cross and you do yourself, as well as a true hero a disservice in your rather snide implications.
:ugh:

Oh thou who art holier than all others, I recently visited the United Kingdom, land of rules and respecters thereof, and whilst driving upon thy motorways and byways didst witness many driving under bridges at velocities in excess of 100 miles per hour, driving through crowded town and city centres by day at velocities well in excess of 30 miles per hour. I wonder which is the more dangerous:confused: Maybe one of thou who art the most righteous was amongst those I saw. Verily, let he who is without any sin cast the first stone:rolleyes:

I think some folks here are over-reacting a tiny bit. It ought to be borne in mind that this sort of stuff is actually bread and butter stuff to military helicopter pilots and I don't think that we should need to make such a shock horror story out of it. It was ill-advised at best and possibly illegal (don't hang him without knowing the facts), but not particularly dangerous. Quoting the engine failure case is a bit spurious, the chances of that happening just there are really very small indeed. I and many others have spent much time in single engined helicopters or very underpowered twins winching folks up and down over rocks and water and ships and flying underslung loads with hookers up working under the aircraft. By the same argument this is unacceptably dangerous? Actually more chance of more folks getting hurt if a donk stops than by flying under a bridge.

On the other hand, the EMS pilot who went into the river last winter after hitting the ice with a skid as he attempted to go under a bridge too far was just plain stupid and not up to his own opinion of himself. He proved it with tragic consequences.

I don't condone any of it but I must say I see more dangerous stuff on the M1 just about every day. We seldom hear of a car or lorry driver having his licence pulled for ever, even where loss of life occurred as a result of bad driving. For example, one silly girl I saw tonight was drifting between the two narrow outer lanes of the M1 through road works. She was sending a series of text messages on her mobile phone and totally oblivious to all else going on around her and to the danger she was putting herself and others in. IMHO she deserved a large mallet applying to her phone and her cranium.

I can understand Roofus being wary though; he shouldn't go anywhere near bridges. Knowing his luck the tail rotor would probably let go again just at the critical moment ;)

Hmmm
but yet So its o.k if it crashes into a bridge as long as it is a military helicopter.
Strange world we live in.
:confused: :bored: :ugh:


MamboBaas, you don't really buy into all that crap that the government tries to sell you "land of the free and brave" and all that, do you?
You are all hero's, each and every one of you, in your own little way!!

I voted for number 3. Why ? Partly because there's no information as yet that the flight was legally sanctioned by the CAA as part of some film-making activities, indeed the fact the CAA are actively helping the search for the pilot indicates otherwise.

If someone undertakes risky behaviour, it's likely that they'll keep pushing the boundaries until the risk taken exceeds both their own, and the aircraft's abilities and they die. If they do that, I don't want to be near them when they do, and I'm sure that their passengers won't appreciate the extremely intense but very short adrenalin rush which will result.

I wonder if the manoeuvre would be regarded as illegal in the States. I also wonder why some people think it's hazardous to people on the bridge to fly a helicopter through a gap 100' high x quarter of a mile wide.

We Brits are well known for complying with rules, whether in aviation or otherwise. Might it be that we fall into the trap of subconsciously assuming illegal = dangerous?
Or that, if something is safe, the CAA would allow it and, if it's forbidden it must be dangerous?

It would be interesting to know how many of the "hope he gets away with it" voters are civvy flying instructors. May or may not be dangerous but there is no doubt that it is illegal. I hope that no instructors are actually telling their student "break the rules if it is safe and if you wont get caught".

People have been known to jump off the Skye bridge. Dont fancy flying under it myself!!

Do you think any FI's give their students that advice even if they are in the 'hope he gets away with it' camp?

Mambobaas, did you stop to think why all those people were speeding in their cars and breaking the law? It is because speeding is condoned by the authorities however much they may claim to deny it. A motorway cop won't bother with a speeding vehicle until it is over 85 mph (unless it is really blatant) and many magistrates courts regard speeding on a motorway as a far lesser crime than in built up areas. If the law were to be rigidly enforced then the roads in UK would come to a complete standstill (OK more of a standstill than they already are).

My point is that if you condone or approve of this guys stunt under the bridge then don't be surprised when it happens again and again until someone spears in doing it, killing himself and several onlookers and we all cry "How could this sort of flying indiscipline be allowed, what have the CAA been doing about it".

What the guy did wasn't difficult - a confined area requires more piloting skills - but it was illegal and ill advised and if and when he gets caught he has only himself to blame.

If he gets away with it then what might he try next?

An interesting thread guys. Just to add my tuppence worth, I was working on contract for BUTEC at Kyle of Lochalsh the week after the bridge had been officially opened. The engineer I was working with told me that the week before the opening, a French private pilots helicopter club who were touring the U.K had all flown under the bridge!! This consisted mainly of R22's but also included a B206 and H500, total of 6 or 7.
I also remember my CP telling me that if I tried it that I would be looking for new employment. (By the way, I didnt :* )

crab,
Yes I did stop to think why all those people were breaking the law. On the motorway, probably little harm is done, but in cities and towns it is your government's view that statistically you are far more likely to be killed if you are hit by a car doing 40 mph than one doing 30 mph. I have a friend in my country whose son was killed in town by a speeding driver. My point of view is that whether you feel the authorities condone breaking the law or not, if you personally condone it, or have broken the law by illegally speeding yourself (which I believe can be statistically proven to kill a much greater number of people every year than helicopters flying under bridges) then what right have you to sit in 'holier than thou' judgement on one of your fellows who has merely broken another law? Hypocritical or what:hmm:
It seems that the UK is very much a country where people only respect and obey those laws they feel should apply to them. I guess it's better than where I am, where might is right - who knows:confused:

I would imagine that if a boat or ship were to hit the footing of the bridge it would cause considerably more damage than an R-22. Must seagoing craft remain 500 feet from the bridge as well?

Risk is rather relative. Has a scientific risk assessment been conducted to assign the risk of the helicopter hitting the bridge? Can the authorities cite examples of helicopters unintentionally hitting bridges? Is there a documented case of a helicopter bringing down a bridge by collision? I saw a video of a CH-47 fall onto a bridge in Korea while placing an Olympic Torch. The bridge is still standing.

There are many helicopter operations around the world where helicopters routinely operate near or around structures at distances of less than 500 feet. As an example a tourist helicopter company in San Pedro, California made every take-off and landing under a bridge for years without incident.

I would be more concerned about the risk to the helicopter from dangling cables or litter thrown from the bridge and for that reason would consider the risk high.

As a non pilot, I still think it would be so cool to be able to fly under a bridge like that. I understand the sfety and economic concerns and I don't dismiss them, but it would be very cool, none the less.

It's also cool in the slammer!

So why do people speed? They are conciously taking a risk that they think they can deal with and don't think too long and hard about the consequences of their failure to deal with it. 90 mph in the outside lane of the motorway seems like a perfectly acceptable risk to take, after all aren't millions of others taking the same risk and getting away with it? Therefore if it's OK for them then why not me? Oh dear I seem to have forgotten that I am trying to steer a 1/2 ton car between two white lines about 7 feet apart at 132 feet per second...hmmmm suddenly the margin for error doesn't seem too large especially if I am less than 30 feet from the car/lorry in front who is kicking up spray 'cos it's just been raining and it's dark.

The point I am trying to make is that risk taking, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and once one person makes a risk look acceptable then others will follow ( I am not being holier than thou about speeding or trying to preach from the moral high ground, just trying to highlight some facts of life). Where one speeder has gone so will go many others and a certain proportion of them will die or kill others whilst taking their 'acceptable' risk.

Once one person flys under the bridge so will others (the story of the French aero club seems to back that up) - small potatoes in the big scheme of things but what happens next? More illegal low flying, more bridges with smaller clearances to get a bigger buzz - as the word spreads and publicity builds who wants their 15 minutes of fame down the Thames under all the bridges?

I would rather the bloke had flown into the bridge as it would have at least rid the world of another R22 and proved conclusively that the bridge is strong enough to withstand the impact.

Lots of things look cool right up until they go horribly wrong - see New Labour for details!!!

R22? Isn't it still type unknown?
That aside, wishing he'd killed himself is a little extreme ins't it Crab?
:confused:

Hi all,

I voted for "hope he gets away", mainly because where it happened and the authority responsible for that country.
I do not agree with doing stunts like this in a situation where GA is already at risk to get exstinct.
The following link has nothing to do with the case at hand or the CAA, but it shows the general ridicule involving laws and regulations in UK and Europe:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/w...re/2981358.stm

You will find all the related links there, read it, it is quite ridiculous!

Now I understand the CAA is LOT worse than any traffic entity in the great UK!

It is a little difficult to judge whether this guy will go on and find more challenging and potentially dangerous thrills, but I doubt he will. The real thrill with this was most likely not to find out whether he could do the bridge (as was stated: any regular confined area is more difficult...), but could he get away with it!! I hope he can. But if they catch up with him I hope he still gets away with a medium stiff fine, lets say 4-5 flighthours worth.....
However as there are very few people in the CAA with any pilot skills and/or danger judging capabilities from a proffesional pilot point of view, but mostly law enforcers with little comon sense - I hope they do not get him/her!!!

If it was for the "bridge thrill" he should have looked for some less prominent bridge.

As Rich Lee mentioned, the real danger is more likely for the helicopter from anything coming down from the bridge.

Shy Torque! You got the cure, especially with those barges!!

For Winnie and all the other perfect law abiding people out there:

Take a vacation, come to Panama and enjoy some low level river tour - tree top level canopy tour and RELAX!!

Of course this may not be the most safe way to fly, but then the idea is to get a good and fun tour, which never the less is still reasonable save. No need to push the limits for some fun - neither did the guy with bridge. However here it is legal...
Sometimes you need a little fun and thrill in your live...


....or you might just die of boredom.


3top
:cool:

3Top:

Hesitated somewhat but finally couldn't resist (sad or what).

I assume that's the method you use for all votes.I think I see the connection.We have to bow to your local knowledge there 3top!You've tried Russian roulette then!

Love a logical and well constructed argument - don't you?

I'm in the camp that thinks that if he/she gets caught, he/she's only got himself/herself to blame.

As for the CAA investigating it; they should spend more time investigating flying schools that permit their students and instructors to hover taxi single engined helis at 20ft+ agl. Far more risky than flying under a 100ft high bridge and far more prevalent. OK so it's not illegal, but the potential for injury to self and third parties is significantly greater than flying under said bridge.

J

Just to get right off topic for a moment ................

No. It's a good question but start a new thread.

Mars:

a) I vote according to the local environment. Where I am, Panama, you will get a fine that may hurt finacially and will be an example for everyone, and that was it. In this case I would vote for this.
In the UK the guy will probably loose the licence if they get him. Despite that there is/was an according vote to that matter.

b) If you do not see the "connection" between different laws in a common country getting drawn into ridicule then I can´t help you.
(An Ambulance Driver on duty in danger to loose his licence for speeding on an empty motorway is ridiculous, as would be loosing a licence for "the bridge"). I do know about European ways and laws, I am from Europe. But by now I do not expect anymore that you will get the connection....

c) I read plenty of CAA reports (mostly accident reports) written by very competent people, mostly high-time pilots, ex military or airline. Unfortunately they are the very minority in the CAA. The majority SEEM to be lawyers without any leeway to fairly harmless actions. If it was illegal, fine the guy, but I can imagine the outcome if they get him/her.

d) No, I never tried R-Roulette and don´t plan too. But I guess you never had the chance to sample some relaxed flying, as you "expertly" classify it as R-Roulette.

e) I guess you ever only read logical arguments on this site and never put your feelings or heart to it......Sorry for you!


3top

3top,

This is my last post on this subject.[list=1][*]We should not prejudge the outcome but it is likely that the pilot (if caught and found guilty of a flouting of the rules of the air) will be fined – the probability that there were two incidents will not assist the defence.[*]The regulation that was (allegedly) breached, was a rule written in compliance with ICAO Annex 2 – Rules of the Air (with which all States have an obligation to comply – or file differences).[*]I take it as read that the Panama Republic complies with ICAO or files a difference![*]It is likely that, in the speeding incident that you have cited, the necessity for exceeding the limit was not established (the organ could have been delivered without speeding) - why the need to take the risk? However, most of us would agree that the matter could have been dealt with in a more discrete and sensitive way.[*]Accident reports are issued by the AAIB – no connection with the CAA.[*]The CAA Flight Operations Inspectorate is staffed with current civilian high-time pilots with training and/or managerial experience - who maintain their line flying skills.[*]The legal department is staffed with a small number of lawyers – but they are not responsible for enforcement.[*]The Enforcement Section is managed by a high time helicopter pilot from the military with a distinguished record – the other (non-clerical) staff are ex-policemen (it is a very small section)[*]All non clerical staff in the CAA are recruited for their knowledge and experience in the subject for which they are responsible (in view of that the demographic distribution of staff shows a bulge at around 50 - which ensures a regular turnover).[/list=1]I apologise for the cheap shot on Russian Roulette – it was unnecessary. As a former military pilot, I had ample opportunity to engage in, and enjoy, low flying.

Head or heart - just get the balance right.

And before you ask - no, I do not work for the CAA!

Mars
Shame it's your last post on the subject. I'm curious how you know so much about the personnel employed by the CAA - and all so complimentary too. ;)
Some of the things you say are worthy of threads in their own right. eg The frequently heard complaint that many people forget all about operating in the commercial world when they join the CAA? Or have little or no experience of operating commercially because they join directly or almost directly from the services? But all that's for another thread, not here.

3top
The FAA '500 feet rule' (see an earlier post) is significantly different from ours in the UK. What's the equivalent rule in Pamama?

Taking the 206 as the average:

How high does a 206 stand - 12' ?

Lets get this into perspective.

100' high bridge
12' high ship
leave say 10' for water clearence

Gives 78' spare - Christ thats half a football pitch to play with!

Being as lazy as I am at the mo'- which is considerable- I won't look for the posters who stated that this kind of thing is run-of-the-mill for military types. That might be true for the guys actually in the helo at the time, it is not so for those higher up the food chain. back in '98 a Canuck Griffon crew decided to fly under the Confederation Bridge between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Isalnd provinces. With thousands of witnesses, their gooses were cooked. Both were suspended from flying during their courts-martial, their punishment after having been found guilty was to both be placed back in the left seat for "further training". Basically, their careers could have been ended right there.

Witness also an Apache crew at low-level: pilot asks gunner if they can whiz through a certain bunch of trees. Gunner says NO. Pilot says "oh yea of little faith". Next thing you know, blades start flying off, along with some very large branches.

Fun? Sure. But smart? Not usually.

MARS:

You are right about the right balance, sometimes I let go before cooling down….I apologize.

To the speeding ambulance: Ask any Transplant receiver whether they consider this case an emergency! Transplants save lives, and expire fast too.

I guess I was wrong about the CAA and AAIB (is it the same relation like FAA and NTSB?).
However if the CAA consists of so professional people, then I wonder why it is so difficult and expensive to get licenses and operate aircraft on a private level and why there are so many restrictions around compared to other continents. (Not just complaining about the CAA but Europe in general...)

I grant there will always be different attitudes according to where one grows up, where you get your license, where you get to work. This shows a lot on this forum.
Though Europe gets a little crowded, it still seems that many restrictions in rural areas are applied because of envy (if I cannot fly, you cannot either…) and nothing else to do than complain. When was the last time that you saw people running outside to wave at you, being happy to see an aircraft? Today in Europe an overflying aircraft is more often a reason to call authorities to complain about noise pollution than having fun observing it.

To the lowflying in Panama: This is not a spur of the moment hillbilly stunt. It is part of a tourist trip mainly offered to Cruiseline passengers, sampled and authorized by the respective legal departments of the Cruiselines. We also do not aspire to get as close as possible to trees, etc. just close enough to give the passengers a low level feel – min clearance at speed about 30 ft.
Normally people walk away with a new view about helicopters - sofar always a way positive one!

Panama has plenty of restricted areas around the city and is a member of the ICAO.

I take your word that the “bridge” pilot would not loose his license.


HELIPORT:

In Panama we have basically the same rules like the FAA:

WITH the exception that you are NOT allowed to descend below the 1000 ft mark over congested areas except when in an emergency or attending the emergency of another party (see part (d) below).


FAA-§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.



3top

3top:

You make an excellent and cogent observation about Europe (and in my opinion the US - look at the number of heliport closures in the last two years) - if it is the case that undue attention is unwelcome in this day and age, why does this incident garner so much support?

Those who have supported this industry over a long period resent the attention given to such an incident, because it will drown the goodwill earned on a daily basis by the HEMS, police and SAR communities.

The FAA rules of the air (FAR 91.119) for helicopters (paragraph (d)) do nothing to assist the industry in the US. They turn a blind eye to ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air; almost as though they are nothing to do with helicopters. These rules were intended to provide protection for third parties - both physically and environmentally.

KOS
Does the industry in the US have a problem / need the assistance of a more restrictive low flying rule?
Genuine question - I don't know the answer.

My impression is that most Americans seem to regard helicopters as just another form of transport. I've noticed that when helicopters fly by at a height/distance which would be illegal in the UK, most people don't even bother to look up.

In this country people tend to start muttering about 'danger' and some (but not anyone whose company I'd wish to keep) ring the CAA or the police to complain.


FL

KOS:

I do not think that anyone really supports the guy with the bridge, but rather the notion to let him get away with a blue eye.

Taking his license (which in the view of MARS would likely not happen anyway...) would not do any good either as this pilot would be out. Period.

With a blue eye (and be it just all the attention he gathers with the fear of possible finacial or legal retaliation), he hopefully get´s the message that his action did nothing to further General Aviation and hopefully he will prevent others from doing similar attention getting actions by mentioning his example.

The FAA regulations 91.119 are great as long as the pilot is consious about when and where he uses this privilege over fixed wing aircraft. Generally when I get the chance to fly with US-pilots they are amazed with the seriousness Rules are followed in Panama, at least near Citys.
It is one way to keep them from getting anymore restrictive...
I do not think they turn a blind eye on the ICAO specs, but give the pilot the freedom to use his machine according to his skills.

The safety of persons and property is covered in a different part of the law:

FAA-§91.13 Careless or reckless operation.


(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Unfortunately with the freedom to decide there is always the danger of abuse....


3top

Just for info, a court has no power to suspend or revoke a pilot's licence. The CAA has but, in practice, the power is rarely exercised.


I'm relieved to see that only a small minority of voters would favour suspending this pilot's licence, and only a tiny percentage would favour a life ban.
I hate to think what they'd want to see happen to a pilot who injured or killed someone. :eek:

YAWWWN ;)

You Chopper Guys have NO sense of adventure :rolleyes:

3 out of 5 Spanish Microlight pilots on transit between Inverness and Oban flew under this a couple of days ago .....

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.u...bridge-800.jpg

Bad news for them is that many members of the public reported it and they have been sampling the hospitality of the Scottish Police since landing at Oban .. Flying Lawyer .. do you take on plank wing cases ?? could be some business :ok: :E

Flying Lawyer:

I'm not sure a ‘change of the regulations’ is what is being discussed here. If you think that there is no problem in the US then you are not listening to the debate. It is a question of ‘sending the correct signals’.

The HAI, in awareness of the increasing public campaigns (mostly coordinated over the internet): forcing the closure of heliports; restricting flying in National Parks; public complaints etc., produced their 'flying neighbourly’ program. This was a proactive move to try to mitigate what was seen as a serious challenge to our industry.

In examining the text of FAR 91.119 one can see that the more destructive element of the alleviation (from the ICAO rules of the air) is the one that does not require compliance with the 1,000ft rule over built up areas. The rule, as written in the ICAO Annex, already provides for landing or take-off – what other reason would one have for flying below 1,000ft over a city.

Dr Leverton of the AHS has done great service to the industry in producing a number of scientific papers that postulate that one of the enemies of wider acceptance of the helicopter is ‘perceived noise’ (an overflying helicopter is perceived as being more noisy than say a passing heavy truck). That is why this is one of the top three issues for major manufacturers.

3tops introduced another element of this debate that has not been raised before – all regulations have an ‘endangerment’ clause. Never mind the endangerment that was present during the incident (which was not just a matter of measurement or physics but also one of judgement under the adrenaline rush) there is the danger to the industry at large – (esoterically) endangerment as well (but not a breach of regulations).

3tops in a previous posting, countered in a brief and well argued piece from Mars, introduced the important elementif the pilot was guilty of something it was that these skills were not evident in this incident.

In previous posts on other threads, Risk Assessment has been highlighted as an important element for: regulators; operators; and pilots. This, in the form of decision making skills for pilots, is being promoted by the FAA - we should wish them luck with this.

There is a well turned phrase in aviation ‘I learned about flying from that’; let’s hope that this debate will lead to a reduction in these incidents without an example having to be made.

Another KOS
Sorry, when you said FAR 91.119 for helicopters (paragraph (d)) "did nothing to assist the industry in the US", I assumed you thought it should be changed.

Not listening? :confused: I asked a question because I wanted to learn. My 'impression' was based on what I read from American contributors to Rotorheads, a small amount of flying in the States over the years (incl. flying a news-helicopter around LA, but only for a week) and, when on numerous visits to the US, making a point of watching the reactions of people around me when helicopters fly over at low level. I was well aware of the National Parks issue, but I didn't know the problems which protesters cause generally in the US were as bad as you describe. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

As you may have gathered, I'm an admirer of the FAA's approach generally. I think FAR 91.119 is reasonable and sensible, not least because it credits trained pilots with the ability to make a sensible judgment - subject, of course, to the over-riding safety provisions/sanctions to which 3Top has referred if they make a bad judgment.

Please don't think I've missed your 'wrong message' / environment points etc. I believe the answer to the problem if there is one lies in education such as the 'Fly Neighborly' programme to which you refer, and not in more restrictive legislation.

10W
 

I always thought that you guys who fly kites with fans on the back were mad. Now I know you're mad!

Isnt that bridge on one of the fast jet low flying corridors? May be they could use the excuse they were trying to avoid a flock of Tornados. Good job there wasnt a helicopter going the other way!

Monkey see, monkey do!!!
 

Have the two Spanish pilots been identified? If so, do we know what punishment has been meted out to them in terms of their licencing?

Also, does anyone know if the Skye bridge pilot(s) has/have been identified? If not, I would suspect that the chances of catching up with them are now remote and that they probably have "got away with it". But what message have they sent out to other copy cat pilots?

Whirlygig

I assume the group of Spanish pilots has been identified, or we wouldn't know they were Spanish. But, if they decline to answer questions (which we're all entitled to do when questioned by an investigating authority) I doubt if anything will happen to them - unless witnesses are able to identify which 3 out of the 5 went under the bridge.

If the 3 offenders are identified, prosecuted and convicted they'll be fined.
I doubt if the CAA can take any licensing action - Spanish licences - but I've not researched the point.


Re the Skye bridge pilot(s)
It's early days yet. He/they may still be identified.

Message? Copycat pilots?
Bear in mind that hoping someone else gets away with doing something (the overwhelming vote in the poll) is very different from approving of what they've done, or being tempted to do it.

Helicopter pilots who fly responsibly and legally (the vast majority) don't suddenly change our outlook and start breaking the law just because someone else does something silly and gets away with it.