Stevie, I guess you must be new to this game. Check out Flying Lawyers previous posts. FL is a very well respected barrister and fellow aviator. His success rate (I believe) is pretty darned good and most recently successfully defended a 'low flying' incident prosecution against an instructor. He is held in high esteem by many, many, pilots and gives us some hope should we ever be on the receiving end of a prosecution from the enforcement group

T.O. - Hope that didn't read too much like a sycophant, but I felt it had to be said (written).


[This message has been edited by Balance! (edited 10 May 2001).]

Balance! - Well, if you mean am I new to this game - the game being PPRUNEing then yes I am. If the game you mean is flying then no, I've been at it 15 years.

Sorry if you thought I was getting at FL - that wasn't my intention. On his last post he said that the CAA do waste time and money on pointless prosecutions, and I just wanted some examples. The CAA say they only prosecute deserving cases, FL says otherwise. Who's a boy to believe??

(p.s. - yes, it did sound a bit sycophantic!! - are you in trouble and looking for a discount rate from FL???)

Nah, not yet, but I might be one day

FL sorry I can't give you any more details of the £1 fine.The story was first hand but maybe large legal costs were also involved!(I don't know)

So even in the highly regulated North sea rules are being breached.
eg photo flight for an oil company closer than and lower than 500'.If someone on the rig decided to complain then the CAA would be well within there rights to prosecute!

Then there's Silverstone- where the rule books seem to go out the window.One small example where the take off and landing site is well within 200' of a hotel in a congested area,so again if someone complains then p1 and p2 could end up in court.
Or does it depend who does the complaining and how much clout they have.

CAA exemptions - if I manage to get an exemption I can legally fly below and closer than 500' to my subject eg. a ship on a photo shoot, so Stevie Terrier does this mean that I still 'compromise the safety of the helicopter, occupants or people on the ground'?Or is it OK to do the same thing now with a piece of paper from the CAA.

Surely if its a filming job and everyone is consenting and made fully aware of the dangers then it shouldn't be an issue

The authourity should give out verbal warnings finding out the intent of the pilots when the offence took place rather than pressing ahead to prosecute because a complainent shouts loudly

Surely a bit more communication (CRM even) would go a long way rather than weilding the big stick!

ATF - the Rules of the Air apply to all pilots, both professional and private, and as such have to be pitched at the "dumbest" level (No offence meant to PPL(H)s.)to give a wide margin for safety. A bit like the red line on the airspeed indicator. We all know the aircraft will do much more than that without falling apart, but we respect that limitation anyway (I hope...)

When you apply for an exemption, you have to supply information to Charlie Alpha Alpha about how you will perform this task safely and without danger etc etc. And you have to be a "professional" pilot working on an AOC to get one. The idea is that the CAA trusts you (as a responsible, professional flier) to evaluate the risks involved and prove you can do the task without putting the aircraft or any people in danger.

I have an exemption to 200' on my filming sorties. This does not exempt me from the basic premise that I should fly the aircraft safely, and at all times be able to land the heli safely in the event of a power failure.

You say :
"Surely if its a filming job and everyone is consenting and made fully aware of the dangers then it shouldn't be an issue"

Tosh! It doesn't matter who consents, especially not film directors and camermen , who are notorious for wanting to get closer and lower no matter how close or low you are. At the end of the day, it is the pilot who will carry the can when the !!!!! hits the fan, as the camera crew are packing up their kit and slinking off, dramatic pictures safely in the can.

To take it to the extreme - "Well guys, yes I will hover my heli over your head at 20' as you ask so you can get some great pictures. However, if the engine stops and I crash on you, I can't be held responsible because you were aware of the dangers..."

So to answer your question, no an exemption doesn't make the helicopter fly any safer - in the same way that a radio licence doesn't make it fly any safer, but you need one of those anyway!

Back again! Just to follow up the 1500' rule debate. I was talking to a very experienced commercial pilot / instructor / TRE / training captain today. He told me that he had discussed this with the CAA on various occasions, and their stance was that the airspace around a congested area was not a dome as such, but went up vertically at the edge of the congested area. So if you were to land in your garden at the edge of a congested area, or even fly along the edge you would not be breaking the 1500' rule. However, put one skid OVER the area and you are.

Just one more opinion to add to the confusion.

Stevie
I don't think 'Balance!' was suggesting that you are new to flying. It's obvious from your posts that you're a professional. It just seemed from your post that you might not have been as familiar as the regulars with the work done by Flying Lawyer - which is well described by Balance. It's not sycophantic, just factual. He represents pilots, operators and airlines when they have a problem and I think it would be fair to say that he would be the first choice of most people in the industry.
The CAA has a high success rate - but not when F/L is defending!
There are loads of cases, reported on Prune and in the aviation Press which the CAA should never have prosecuted.

Who should you believe?
Well, you've got a choice. Either believe the CAA describing their own attitude to prosecuting, or the views of an independent, and highly respected barrister. Some people might not find that too difficult! :)

BTW - I don't think anyone's said the 1500' rule is a dome, it's not.
Also, I've always understood that whether an area of a town/settlement is congested is decided by looking at the area as a whole - not by drawing a line around the buildings on the edge.
I don't doubt what someone in the CAA told your colleague - but I do doubt if anyone from CAA Enforcement would put it in writing.
It would help everybody a lot if they would - any chance your guy could arrange it?


[This message has been edited by Hoverman (edited 11 May 2001).]

Hoverman - the "dome" description was my attempt to define one perception of the physical area covered under the 1500' rule : the one that holds that you cannot be within 1500' of any part of the congested area. So if your house was on the very edge of this area, you cannot approach within 1500' of it at any height, angle or direction. (Sounds even worse when I try to explain it!)

I will have a word with my man, but as he describes the Enforcement Section as a bunch of a-h@les, don't hold your breath!

FL - you have apparently had a few run-ins with the CAA! For my benefit as a newcomer to PPRUNE, and any other like me, have you been involved with any cases of this kind - i.e. landing on the edge of congested areas? If so, what was the CAA's stance, what was your stance and what was the result?

All Flying Lawyer said was that It was a warning to be careful. It probably depends on the nature of the area. No towns, settlements are perfectly symmetrical. And, the 'congested area' doesn't stop at some imaginary line drawn round the houses/buildings on the periphery. Personally, I wouldn't risk landing on the back lawn of a terraced house even if it was on the edge of a village, and my approach was over open land.

Stevie
I think the description of the CAA Enforcement branch given by your "very experienced commercial pilot / instructor / TRE / training captain" which you quote in your last post is spot on.

If you still hold any ideas that the CAA is very reaspnable and only prosecutes in proper cases, try these links -

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/011275.html

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/011430.html

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/010046.html

Neutral99 :

Thanks for those, interesting reading! They obviously got it wrong on these occasions, hope they do the same if ever its my turn....
If thy get it so wring, they deserve to get their butts whipped.

What the postings did show was how much distrust and anger (almost hatred) there is between a large number of pilots and the CAA. How ironic, as we ae the people who pay their wages....

Thanks for the links Neurtal99.
I hadn't seen them all before.
Stevie T
You can now see 'Balance!' wasn't being sycophantic after all, and why Flying Lawyer is seen by many in the industry as a bit of a hero.

Forgot to add, look at Stowaways Inquest - BA criticised" http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/013070.html

[This message has been edited by LightningIII (edited 12 May 2001).]

I managed to fight the CAA off successfully myself once, but I must confess to always having been confused about a couple of things when it comes to CAA "prosecutions".

The first is that the Civil Aviation Act says that the CAA is not to be regarded as an agent of the Crown - since the Crown appears against you in court (e.g. Regina v whoever), does that mean they can't do you in that capacity (assuming criminal cases)? Going further, does that mean that the CAA prosecutor himself is the one appearing on the charge sheet, or do they rely on the Secretary of State's authority? I reckon a lot of people who get done would get off merely by pinning them down on that point alone. I am aware that sect 20(2) (I think) allows it to act on behalf of the Crown in certain clearly specified cases, but it's a long time since I read it.

The other thing is that I can't find anywhere that says the bringing of criminal prosecutions has been conferred on the CAA by ANO, and it isn't (or wasn't anyway) listed in Section 3 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 as a conferrable function. I believe this also goes for investigation of "crimes".

Maybe this should be in another thread, but it seemed appropriate here. Would welcome any comments!

regards

Phil



[This message has been edited by paco (edited 14 May 2001).]

Nice one Paco...listening out!

------------------
Thermal runaway.

Stevie,

Having just come back to read the thread, I noticed:

>>A bit like the red line on the airspeed indicator. We all know the aircraft will do much more than that without falling apart, but we respect that limitation anyway (I hope...) <<

If I remember right though, the HV diagram for all heli's has NO percentage tolerance, i was discussing this with a few CFI's last weekend. Yes, one might go over Vne slightly and you have a fidge factor, but not the HV because it is graphed by the test pilot as to whether he/she was able to succeed in an auto at those HV points.

Perhaps that factor figures into why your CAA is so hard pressed as to min alt's. Or that you all are right, they simply don't "trust" you. We're exempt from the height/radius because the FAA (not always in our favor) realized the heli's capabilities, why does the CAA seem to maintain the same restrictions to the heli?

(I still say you all get together and press the CAA into adopting the FAA's rule, strength in numbers, that sort of thing.)

------------------
Marc

[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 16 May 2001).]

Hi Marc!

When I gave the "fudge factor" example I wasn't actually referring to aircraft performance, but to certain Rules of The Air. I was trying to say that, for example, the 500'rule was designed with plenty of slack in it so that even if we (accidentally!!) broke it, we would still have plenty of clearance from the person / object / vessel. This is borne out by the fact that we can get exemptions from it, down to (in my case) 200'for filming and the like.

The H/V diagram is an interesting point. I have also heard that it should be remembered that these figures were achieved by a top pilot in favourable conditions. Which seems a bit odd really, and I can't see what the point of that would be. It's not like increasing the safe height of an AOG hover by 100' is going to make much difference to sales is it? So why not put in a fudge factor to help us lesser mortals. Very strange! Any further enlightenments would be gratefully received!

How strange! Check out the latest edition of Rotor + Wing. There is an article by a retired heli test pilot saying exactly that about the H/V curve. Sadly, he doesn't say why this should be so.

With regards to the 1500' rule, how is that catered for in the Manchester Low Level Corridor which is "not above 1250'", and mostly over congested areas?

Why would they want to put in a "fudge factor" for the HV diagram? It's NOT a limitation anyway. The airspeed limitation can sometimes be broken by turbulent air etc. Remember, the Pilots Operating Handbook, was written BY normal people, FOR normal people, not lawmakers. The only reason the HV diag is in there, is to give you an idea of the areas of operation you should beware of. They are giving you credit with intelligence unlike some of the regulations out there. Any changes in altitude (not height) or temperature would make a difference to the HV diagrams' shape and size anyway. Helicopters and their pilots, because of there abilities, will spend a large proportion of their time inside the HV diagram, we just have to "deal with it" and keep that time to a minimum. Talk to anyone who's spent anytime doing longline work, about the HV diagram and they'll laugh at you!

Don't run out of Altitude, Airspeed, RRPM, and ideas all at the same time.

Ahh, understood Stevie.

I just got my copy of R&W, that is interesting. What I found more interesting of how Bower is giving reviews ... Gee if I advertise enough can I write one too ?
(If I'm perceiving this wrong, cover me with honey and throw me to the women :) )

But I had always known that about the HV diag. in addition to a top pilot, it's likely in a New 'copter too.

But fishboy has it, most heli ops that count are inside the curve to begin with, so there wouldn't be anything gained by placing a 10-15% increase into the chart.

------------------
Marc

[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 17 May 2001).]