Is this legal or safe practice?
 

Forgive the intrusion here by a f/w pilot, but I have a question for those versed in helicopter air law stuff.

Now, I'm up for the propergation of more aviation, so don't get me wrong;

I live on the edge of avillage, and my neighbour has built a helipad (well, some slabs in the shape of an H) from which he operates his Agusta 109, all fine and dandy. On two side he has open fields, on the others are his house and mine.

His SOP is to lift to a low hover, and then climb backwards to about 100 feet before transitioning foward to depart over my house, and the rest of the village at about 100 feet climbing as he goes.

Given the direct access to open country this seems a good way of winding up local noise antis, but more, seems to me to be unsafe as I'm sure even Augsta's could come to grief on take-off.

What do you helicopter operator think please? Before I go round and remonstrate, am I worried about nothing. What is the legal position, does the 500' rule apply (it is not a licenced facility just a field)

Thanks very much

:(

Each case is different, but it sounds like your neighbour is being very sensible in how he departs. This looks like a Cat A Helipad type departure, designed to give him a reject option in case of engine failure. Noise is a by product of safety sometimes!!

Thanks for that, that's reassuring, but would it not be better to do it over the fileds rather than over building?

It depends on the wind direction - just like fixed-wings, helis depart better into wind. If the wind is coming from the direction of the village, then safety dictates going in that direction.

To indicate how important the wind can be, consider this incident: a fully-loaded LongRanger once did an approach into a field, and the pilot misjudged the wind - it was 5kt on his tail, rather than the 5kt on the nose he thought he had. Crashed heavily, one serious injury.

Ludwig, it sounds like your neighbour is being a prat! Unless the wind is very strong he has a much safer option transitioning over the open fields - Cat A transitions are for public transport work. If he is carrying out this transition and has an engine failure, his margin for error (and therefore of missing your house) is small. He would appear to believe that and engine failure is the only thing that can cause a helicopter to crash - a tail rotor malfunction at 100' with houses in front of you is no time to discover that!

If the situation is as you describe it, I suggest you quietly draw to your neighbour's attention the 1,500 ft rule .....................

Ludwig

I'm puzzled. :confused:

You say the pilot is your next door neighbour. If you're concerned, why not simply discuss your concerns with him in a neighbourly, non-confrontational way?
You don't mention any previous discussion, yet you want to arm yourself with information (ammunition?) about the safety aspects, the air law relating to helicopter ops and the 500 foot rule in particular, before you "go round and remonstrate ...."
That seems rather a confrontational, and somewhat belligerent, approach for a first discussion with a neighbour.
Is there more between you and him than you've told us?

Please forgive me for being suspicious. Although concerns about 'safety' in such circumstances are sometimes genuine (and they may well be in your case), in my experience such instances are extremely rare - and are far more often than not simply a cover when the true objection is to noise.

You're neighbours. You're both pilots. Why not simply mention your your concerns to him and point out in a friendly way that if you (as a fellow pilot) are concerned, there's a real risk other villagers less sympathetic to general aviation might take things further, and he might wish to bear that in mind when planning his approach and departure paths.

(Edited for typos)

Ludwig,

Why not grab a jug of your favorite Scottish Whiskey....put on your leather flying jacket....pop over to the guy's house....knock on the door and offer to talk aviation to him. Ask to see his helicopter and ask if ever he has an empty seat then you would absolutely love to go for a ride....and see how that approach works. Heck Man....if you are a pilot....I would have figgered you would have done that already.

Flying Lawyer again demonstrates his ability to sort wheat from chaff!:ok:

Congested area as per the ANO: Any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes....

This rule is massively subjective.. eg. you land on a golf course on the edge of a village.. Congested area? You would guess not but the CAA could quite easily interpret the above rule and decide to prosecute, although in practice it won't happen unless endangerment is also an issue. It would be interesting to know how many 'private' operators regularly apply for congested area exemptions from the CAA , as a large proportion of the private sites I can think of could be considered congested areas..


Crab: Not sure I agree about the Group A profiles being for Public Transport flights... If the aircraft is capable of doing so weight wise , I will always fly group A profiles (helipad as well as clear area) even when on a private flight, as these are supposedly the safest departure / arrival methods as determined by the manufacturer..(again hard to comment on this case as we aren't that sure of the layout of the village etc) I dont think we can seriously expect to have to consider tail rotor failures in terms of departure planning...

Engineoff - there are all sorts of malfunctions that can cause problems on departure so therefore if there is a choice between flying a Cat A departure over someones house and flying a crosswind departure over open fields, I will take the open fields every time. I have pratcised EOLs and running landings to grass and flat surfaces but never to someones roof! If this pilot is doing what is alleged then he needs to have an overriding safety reason for doing so - not a dogmatic adherence to Cat A profiles.

Ah but Crab....isn't "dogmatic adherence" the "done thing" in the UK? 212MAN talks about developing a "conditioned response" in pilots for later use during emergencies.

How does one adhere to the stated procedures....remain into wind...comply with Cat A procedures contained in the RFM...and operate out of such heliports as being described. First off, Ludwig did not provide any information to specify the exact dimensions and distances at hand. He suggests his "neighbor" but does not know the person....either that means it is one very cold and stuffy neighborhood...or it must be some fair distance between houses.

In my part of the woods.....despite having several neighbors...who I all know by name and sight....most of which I cannot see for the woods and distance we live apart.....we would welcome such activities and the good fortune to have a neighbor that could take us for a helicopter ride. When I discussed building my 1800 foot long sod strip....even the people whose houses I shall be making my approaches over....only wanted to know if rides were possible....except one wife who cussed me while saying she got little enough work out of her hubby and even that would dry up if I had an airplane in the neighborhood.

Why would I worry about a tail rotor failure anyway....does not the Cat A profile take into such considerations? If not, then all Cat A profiles are unsafe by your standards. After TDP/CDP, would we not merely continue the takeoff and fly away to land at some suitable location? Prior to TDP/CDP, sufficient clearway should exist for us to land back....or am I mistaken here?

Crab:

Wasn't suggesting that I would always rigidly fly Cat A profiles, only if there was an option and the Cat A was possible safely then that would be my choice... How many times do you see 'presumably private' flights without floats launch out of Battersea in a standard sort of transition... Be interesting explaining to the insurance why they put the aircraft in the Thames when one engine went bang just after they cleared the platform!
Obviously in the circumstances given if they are accurate then an alternative departure should have been chosen... Not trying to justify flying over a house if it can be avoided!

My tenpennethworth:

I would definitely go round and have a friendly chat and ask why he employs that particular flight path, when the other is an option.

If his response was dodgy, or he was determined to stick to that route, then I would suggest to him that the open fields route would be the lesser of the 2 evils, if something went wrong. An agusta 109 in amongst a couple of houses would be far more serious that a heavy landing in the fields.

If he can't or won't see this point of view, AND I lived under his flight path then I would do everything in my power to pursuade him to change his route. This would also include (ultimately) contacting the CAA...I have to say!

Anyone who cares about safety would see the logic of this scenario, one would hope?

If all else fails, build a radio mast in your garden, 80-100' should do quite nicely!!

Engineoff

At battersea a cat A Profile in an A109(unless a power or a C and even the Cs profile to reject to the pad is nigh on unflyable.) is not available, so if you try anything other than a normal type of transition you are putting the aircraft into the avoid part of the graph.

A quick side question:

Could one of you UK types give me a quick explanation of the earlier mentioned "500 foot rule". I've seen it mentioned a few times and I presumed it was the same as our OZ rules about no flying below 500 ft unless you have a reason, approval from CASA etc OR while taking off or landing.

Since the taking off or landing is part of the question here and still the 500 foot rule was mentioned ... is there more to it?

Just curious!
:suspect:

Haven't got my ANO for the exact definition, but Rule 5 is roughly:

You may not fly less than 500 feet over any person, vehicle, vessel or structure........ unless taking off or landing.

B-L

Subject to correction by FL, of course:

you are exempt from the 500 ft rule when taking off or landing.

Otherwise, it would all get rather difficult.

The same is not true of other bits of the low flying rules like the congested area 1,500 ft rule (unless the landing site is licensed).

We have a similar rule but it doesn't apply to flying over structures or people.
Its just not below 500 ft AGL unless you have a reason. approval etc.

We have to fly a minimum of 1000ft over populated areas. Of course there's variance of opinion at what constitues a populated area. Had one instructor say he considered a farm house a populated area. Others who felt you really needed at least a small village size.

Hover Bovver, I have no experience of A109s, what makes the Cat A unflyable at Battersea?

RobboRider's description of our low flying rules (CAR 157) deals with not below 500ft. The parameters for flight over "city, town or populous area" are not below 1000ft above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it , within a radius of 300 metres (for helicopters) from a point vertically below the aircraft.

Fortunately, sub regulation 1 (the above) doesn't apply for weather, flying training, low level approved ops, taking off or landing, SAR, Polair or dropping from aircraft with approval.

But the 300 metre radius is a PITA, and liable to catch out the unwary :rolleyes:

Getting back to Ludwig's perceived problem, simple advice would be to talk nicely over a decent bottle of red, and sort out the problem before less reasonable neighbours make it into a major drama. Otherwise it can all end in tears.....:{