Naughty, naughty!
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3022948.stm

Not really much excuse is there!

Helicopter pilot's bridge stunt

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image..._bridge203.jpg

Police and aviation officials have launched a search for a helicopter pilot who flew under the 100ft high Skye Bridge.
Local people and tourists crossing the bridge at the time watched in astonishment as an aircraft skimmed the water below them. The stunt happened on two successive days and an eyewitness said he believed it was the same aircraft responsible for both incidents. It is illegal to fly within 500ft of the structure.
Last year a pilot avoided prosecution for flying his light plane under the bridge after claiming he only did so to avoid a flock of seagulls. Locals believe any collision between an aircraft and the £25m bridge would be catastrophic as it is the only road link to the mainland. They claim Skye's ferry service would not be able to cope with the extra load if the bridge is damaged and closed down.
What would happen if it hit the bridge? Without it, we wouldn't have a link to the mainland.
Kyleakin resident Ian Sikorski witnessed both incidents and reported them to police. He said: "I saw the first one on Saturday, 14 June and then the very next day, another one did exactly the same. "There's not an awful lot of distance between the bridge and the water so it's a very dangerous practice. "It appears to be the same helicopter. "What would happen if it hit the bridge? Without it, we wouldn't have a link to the mainland." He added: "There's only two ferries still operating but they would never cope with the volume of traffic here at the height of the season."
Bridge closure
Skye Bridge manager Russell Thompson added: "We are very concerned - any aircraft striking the bridge, no matter what size, would close the bridge down until our engineers and the Scottish Executive could assess the damage. "A decision would then have to be made on the advisability of re-opening it." Inspector Andy Brown, of the Northern Constabulary, said he was concerned that it might set a precedence of people wanting to take a joyride under the bridge. He added: "From a police perspective, if an aircraft hits the bridge we have a major incident to deal with. "We would have to recover persons from the water in terms of any fatalities or injuries, as well as dealing with the crashed aircraft itself. "There would also be the major issue of integrity of the bridge which could see it closed, effectively cutting off the entire island in the winter months."
Civil Aviation Authority inspectors have been informed of both incidents and they are checking all flight information and air traffic radio transmissions which could lead them to the culprit.

Hope you don't mind me adding a poll to your post Whirlygig.
I thought it would be interesting to see where the concensus would fall between the hardliners and the more forgiving posters.
Heliport

And the helicopter spotter is one Mr I. Sikorski....

And if it wasn't the good ol' Beeb, I'd think they were havin' a larf with that name!! :)

It wasn't me !!!!!

Skye Bridge underfly!!
 

Beeb R4 1800 News reports that a helicopter was flown under the centre span of the Isle of Skye road bridge. It went on to report that this was the second time in 2(?) days! - not necessarily by the same pilot. Centre span clearance, apparently, 100'. Further said that this had been done last year by a plank wing who escaped prosecution having claimed that it was a bird avoidance manoeuvre. :confused:
Comments?

Very apt name for the eyewitness :)

Hee hee hee. :D
It's nice to see there's someone with a bit of the ol' barnstorming spirit left in aviation in spite of all the thousands of rules and regs the nannies control the rest of us with.
What a load of melodramatic baloney about hitting the bridge. If any pilot isn't capable of flying safely through a 100 foot gap he shouldn't be flying.

Hope the CAA don't find him.

Loved the bit about the guy who got off saying he was avoiding a flock of seagulls. ;) ;)

It was probably a Bell, Hughes or maybe a Eurocopter, hence the report to the police by MR SIKORSKI:}

And to think what used to happen under a certain bridge in the heart of San Diego......

This one by any chance?


Good to see you on line V. You should post more often.

I hope he paid the toll for crossing under the bridge. Usual melodramatic press coverage. If a light helicopter can structurally damage a cantilever bridge such as this then it hasn't been well designed.

In a former life I have flown under the Severn Bridge, the cantilever bridge at Pembroke in S Wales and the Kessock bridge by Inverness looking for "jumpers". It is perfectly safe to do and my biggest fear was that some kind member of the public may have tried to drop a brick through my rotor!!:(

HF

I doubt seriously that a light helo or airplane could actually bring down a bridge by impacting it, but the concern of the people living on the island is extremely valid.

This is from memory so I hope the details are close.

My then future wife and I had a vacation planned in late October of 2001 at South Padre Island in far south Texas. Airline tickets were bought, deposit on the condo was paid, etc. About a week after 9-11, a barge got outside the channel and hit the one and only bridge connecting the island to the mainland, and knocked down 2 long spans, killing 5 people. Needless to say, after 9-11 and the bridge going down, I followed events pretty closely praying the vacation could be salvaged.

There are about 5000 people who reside on the island, most of whom work off the island, and many of the employees who work the tourist businesses on the island, live off the island. So the disruption was terrific.

Boats were able to carry people and supplies back and forth to the mainland right away, but it took several days to get 2 small car ferries to the island. Then for several more days they were used strickly to get stranded cars off the island. Then for several more days, they were used to get resident's cars to the mainland, so they could drive to work after the passenger boats carried them back and forth each day.

It wasn't until mid October that enough large ferries were brought into the area that they finally allowed 2-way car traffic to and from the island to be carried on the ferries. We arrived on the island about 2 weeks later. They had no gasoline on the island (all the tanks at the stations were dry), so we got on the ferry in the rental car with a full gas tank, and did not use it all before we returned to the mainland near the end of the vacation. By the time we arrived, most of the businesses were open, but many had reduced hours of operation, and the island was unusually quite.

The disruption was enormous economically for both residents and the local tourist businesses, and after the bridge was repaired (took about 4 months), the city government started work on funding the construction of a second bridge.

So the concerns of the people who both live on the island, and who profit from the island's tourism, is extremely valid.

Oh come on, a barge? Versus a light helicopter?

Hilico, I agree. I'm just saying that this is what the local community there is worried about. This is also probably why the law exists concerning a 500ft flight restriction near the bridge.

When I first saw the story on BBC online, I had to smile but then my serious side took over.

I think it was a silly thing to do not least because of safety but stunts like this do not do anything to improve the image of GA in the eyes of the public. (I assume he/she is a GA pilot - I can't believe a commercial pilot would take such risks).

Whether the public's concerns are valid or not is irrelevant; their concern is real in their eyes.

As a student PPL(H), I am surprised, nay shocked, at the results of the poll. [Heliport - of course I don't mind you adding a poll - it has been an eye opener].

Maybe I have a lot to learn(?)

Whirlygig

That's the one F.L.!!

Sadly nowadays our military friends aren't so accomodating with their airspace.

Were you flying chase in an R22 for that shot?!

Possibly the difference between something appearing to be dangerous and actually being dangerous? The fact that something is unlawful doesn't necessarily mean it's dangerous.
Maybe some of the votes reflect a sneaking admiration even though the voters wouldn't do it themsleves?

No - I was in a 206 when it overtook! ;)

Such a shame about the new security measures. It used to be the ultimate 'Trip Round the Bay'.

FL

It wasn't long ago that ppruners were discussing the terrible events in Germany when a pilot had done the same thing, except he misjudged the clearance and killed himself, the crew and the casualty that they were supposed to be taking care of.

In this intance the bridge looks a little higher, but the difference between a hero and a dead idiot can be a couple of feet.

As with all stunts, its all fun and games until someone loses an eye! Would it have been BARNSTORMING SPIRIT if it had gone horribly wrong?


(According to the reports, the bridge is 100 feet over the water. Heliport.)

Just today I was flying with an Civil Aviation Inspector and HE asked me if we could go under a bridge(206L4), he said he always wanted to do that. So after analizing the scene......

If doing something like this every now and then was out of the question for me, I would be flying airplanes! What´s the use if you don´t have some careful fun?

Different point of view from Mexico, where you don´t fly by the rules, just by common sense.

Flock of seagulls?

Crock of bulls**t!

I think flying under wires is more hazardous....

Flying under the wires: it's part of the job.
Barryb

To date, the poll result speaks volumes.

FWIW, we have two bridges here in Melbourne, the WestGate Bridge which has about 150 ft clearance, and the Bolte Bridge with about 60 ft clearance. My company dispensation for filming & photography allows flight under them, as does the same dispensation for a half dozen other local operators. Brett Newman got the guernsey for the first (legal) flight under the WestGate about 12 years ago, and it doesn't raise an eyebrow these days.

Much ado about nothing :rolleyes:

However, the Sydney Harbour Bridge is now a no no, since the new harbourmaster decided a year or two ago that he would close the harbour to shipping the next time CASA authorised a flight under the bridge. Rather than remind him who controls airspace, they caved in and now refuse Harbour Bridge "underflights". Conversely, the much riskier practice of overflying the South Pylon of the Harbour Bridge with about 60 ft clearance is standard procedure for R409 flights :confused:

I suppose people admire him, cause the CAA is just nowadays seen as the third Reich with so many super strict pointless laws, with absoloutly no leeway that seems to be aimed at the prevention of aviation, (General Aviation and Commercial)

So when any anti authority figure who goes out and has a bit of harmless fun (100 feet as opposed to 35 feet in Germany I think)by bending a few rules and gets away with, will now seen as some type of Steve Mcqueen type character, and the CAA can just ram it up there arse (Until he is caught of course, then he is screwed!)!!

Point taken about the height difference, and even if the helicopter hit the bridge, I doubt the structural integrity would suffer.(Of the bridge, not the heli.!)

What does suffer is the public perception of helicopters and general aviation as a whole. Where do you draw the line with how high the bridge has to be before it changes from harmless fun to a dangerous act? If the pilot is seen to get away with it how low does the next thrill seeker go?

A controlled exercise for filming with proper recces is one thing, a quick spur of the moment dash is another.

I voted for the lifetime ban and I am happy to point out why.

This is clearly a case of reckless endangerment. The pilot endangered himself, the people who were also on the helicopter who probably had no say in the matter, the people who would have had to recover the wreckage, who were on the bridge at the time or subsequently had to repair it.

How would the supporters of such grossly obscene acts feel if the headline was:

"Children orphaned in Skye Bridge helicopter crash."

Why do you moralise over bad driving, yet condone bad flying?

Just cleared the tears from my eyes. Someone back there posted along the lines of "must be a GA pilot, can't believe a commercial pilot would do such a thing."
Having unravelled what you mean, I haven't laughed as much since my grandmother got her t*t caught in the mangle. (Les Dawson, 1977).

So - commercial helicopter pilots never do anything that could be considered stupid ?

Apologies if this has been said earlier (I cant seem to get page 1 of this topic) but :

Headsethair wrote "So - commercial helicopter pilots never do anything that could be considered stupid?" If you consider flying under a bridge stupid, read on------

If you'd been up and about early one Sunday morning a couple of weeks ago, you might just have seen a Twin Squirrel flying under a certain bridge on the River Thames - four times, I believe. (road deck raised, of course!) All done with the knowledge and (grudging) approval of the CAA.

And if you missed the event, watch out for "Thunderbirds", coming to a cinema near you in the not too distant future, for a pilots eye view.

is that little spot the helicopter under the bridge? this practice looks perfectly safe to me. :rolleyes:
of couse, they are wearing life jackets!:=
as long as there is a safe distance of seperation why not? (apart from the regs):ok:
also the speed at which the flight is done is a factor, 30kts would be pretty conservative, but 100kts would be different:confused:

Having seen the bridge close up, there would be plenty of room. BUT if this pilot is blatently braking the rules, what other stupid things is he/she doing. Flying under the bridge may or may not be dangerous, but the pilot's attitude is dangerous. Dont care much if he/she kills themselves. Do very much care if he/she kills someone else or leaves kids without a father/mother.

As for disruption, a light helicopter will do very little damage. But it would take a civil/structural engineer a while to prove it.

I dunno, Headsethair - you tell me?!?!

I did suffix the post saying that I might have a lot to learn! But I still find it hard to believe that a commercial pilot would risk his/her licence and job for such a stunt. Thankfully, all the pilots I know and have flown with are very professional and safety conscious. Am I lucky? Is this unusual?

As an analogy, there is a stretch near me that is open country road but has a thirty mph limit. It is a totally ridiculous limit; I cannot fathom out why it is there but IT IS there and as my driving licence matters to me, I stick to the limit and don't blatt through at the 60 mph that used to exist on that road.

Quite seriously though I would be interested to know what heli it was and, objectively how dodgy the maneouvre was.

Cheers

Whirlygig

I love this Forum. Here we are debating the sense or otherwise of a heli flying under a bridge - and not two clicks away is a posting from a UK pilot bemoaning the high cost of insurance rates here!
Maybe if our friend the "barnstormer" had considered in advance that, in this age of electronic whizzery, his little jolly would instantly be plastered around the globe (and onto the PCs of insurance brokers no doubt), he might have thought twice.
Look - helis are capable of much better things than flying under bridges. Just don't do it where someone can twitch the curtains and pick up a phone. And don't do it where you risk the lives of anyone other than yourself.
For your lack of consideration for other members of the UK helicopter community and the effect that your little stunt will have on the PR of helicopters, you should be sent on a night out with Chris Evans. But watch it - he can't afford his tab now.

Repeat after me......I have never flown in the treetops....I have never scouted a Nudist Beach......I have never buzzed a friend's house....I have never done torque turns.....I have never flown down the river below the trees.....I have never flown under bridges in the Rose City......I have never been a real helicopter pilot!

Flying is fun....Really!!! Have you ever chased a Hippo....terrorized a Baboon.....messed with a Grizzly Bear's mind....set flight to a herd of goats....hovered over a railroad track at night with the landing lights on......white out'ed the screen of a drive-in movie theater?

The trick is to do it safely......without harm to anyone or anything!

headsethair
On your insurance premiums point, I can't find the facts and figures to back this but I remember reading that most light a/c and heli accidents are weather related. I can't think of any accidents where the pilot was being reckless in the way you mean here. Reckless carrying on in bad weather maybe.

I think a lot of votes may depend on personal experience. If people have done corporate/VIP flying all their lives they may see things more conservatively than pilots who've done more challenging flying all over the world away from the nanny CAA.

Whirlygig
Maybe you've answered your own question. A lot of professional pilots wouldn't take the risk because the price of being caught is too high. Doesn't mean the idea doesn't appeal. ;)
Objectively, it's not dangerous. If a pilot can't fly under a 100 bridge without any risk at all of hitting it he shouldn't be flying.

Always enjoy reading your post SASless. You tell it like it is. :ok:

Ban for life? Rubbish. :mad:

"recklessly endangering their lives and those of others" or words to that effect!

Are you seriously telling me that to attempt to visually maintain S&L +/- 50', in excellent viz, justifies this point? Guess you had better re-take your flight test.

Stupid flying because he/she could get caught but it certainly wasn't reckless or dangerous........or was the pilot blindfolded as I see the safety net had been taken away.

Foolish flying to do it twice in a row...predictable tactics.

Sounds like a couple of pilots had been on the Scottish water and placed a wager......good luck to them.

Now flying to the South Pole in a glorified egg-whisk was brave/foolhardy/reckless/spunky (delete as required)

The solution is clearly to ban barges.
Most people in that area didn't want the Skye brige and complain about the tolls.
We're getting aerated about an aircraft going under a bridge they didn't want anyway, in case it did damage it didn't and quite probably couldn't do?

Mid 70,s with a new CPL I was one of two Aztecs taking pax ABZ to Broadford (Isle of Skye) in grotty wx as one did. We both got there shaky hands spilling tea, I said I let down over water to the north of Skye, my mate said he let down to the south and flew 100ft between mainland and Skye, I said did you fly under the power wires? He said, what power wires?