CBS,

Is there no way for you, the operators of the aircraft, to combat draconian, wrong minded, senseless rules founded on crook data?

Rule 3
 

So if it was even a Class A performance machine, with out written permission, according to the following, (S.I. No. 72 of 2004) it would still be illegal? or I have read this wrong?

I would also read by this rule, that you would have to have written permission to land at a race course, golf course, and hotel, as these would be congested? This is going against everything a helicopter can do very safely? How could the IAA cope with all the permission request coming in every day with the majority of them being very last minute, and on Saturdays and Sundays when the OSD office is closed?

3. Minimum heights
(1) Except as permitted by the appropriate authority or as hereinafter provided
aircraft shall not be flown -
(a) over congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an assembly
of persons, at less than -
(i) a height of 450 metres (1,500 ft) above the ground or water, or
(ii) a height of 300 metres (1,000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a
radius of 600 metres from the aircraft, or
(iii) such other height as would permit, in the event of the failure
of a power unit, a safe forced landing to be made,
whichever height is the greatest.
(b) elsewhere -
(i) closer than 150 metres, (500 ft) to any person, vehicle, vessel or
structure, or
(ii) at a height less than 150 metres (500 ft) above the ground or water,
(c) over or in the immediate vicinity of any place within the State, where a
large number of persons is assembled in connection with any event of
public interest or entertainment, save when -
(i) such flights are made with the written consent of the Authority and
of the organisers, if any, of the event and are in accordance with any
conditions or limitations specified by the Authority, or
(ii) the aircraft is passing by in the normal course of navigation and flying
at a height in compliance with subparagraph (a) of this paragraph.
(2) Subject to subparagraph (b) of this paragraph and subparagraph 6 (2) (a) of Rule
6 of these Rules, paragraph (1) (a) of this Rule shall not apply to a Performance
Class 1 or Class 2 helicopter which is being flown without undue hazard to
persons or property but, except with the permission of the appropriate
authority and in accordance with any conditions specified therein, such a
helicopter shall not be flown -
(a) over congested areas of cities, towns or settlements at less than
(i) such height as would enable it, in the event of the failure of a power
unit, to make a safe forced landing;
(ii) a height of 300m (1,000 feet) above the ground or water,
whichever height is the greater;
(b) The Authority may, in the interest of safety, prescribe areas, routes,
heights and flight visibility’s for helicopter flights and a helicopter shall
conform thereto.
(3) Paragraph (1)(b) of this Rule shall not apply to:
(a) an aircraft while it is landing or taking-off in accordance with normal
aviation practice at an aerodrome or heliport;
(b) an aircraft when it is in use for aerial application or aerial work with the
permission of the Authority and is operated in accordance with any
conditions or limitations specified with such a permission;
23
(c) a helicopter conducting training for life-saving operations or
demonstrations of such operations ;
(d) a glider while it is hill soaring;
(e) an aircraft flying with the permission of the Authority for the purpose of
picking up or dropping tow ropes, banners or similar articles at an
aerodrome.
(4) Paragraph (1)(b)(ii) of this Rule shall not apply to aircraft practising approaches
to landing at an aerodrome or heliport, or to gliders or balloons, if such flights
are being conducted without causing undue hazard to persons or property.
(5) Nothing in this Rule shall prohibit an aircraft from -
(a) (i) taking-off, landing or practising approaches to landing, or
(ii) flying for the purpose of checking navigational aids or procedures, in
accordance with normal aviation practice at an aerodrome or
heliport within the State, or at an aerodrome or heliport in any
other state, and without causing undue hazard to persons or
property;
(b) flying in such a manner as may be necessary for the purpose of saving life
or as permitted by paragraph (3) of Rule 6 of this Order.
(6) In the case of an aircraft practising approaches to landing at an aerodrome or
heliport as mentioned in paragraph (4) of this Rule, such approaches shall be
confined to the airspace customarily used by aircraft when landing or taking-off
in accordance with normal aviation practice at that location.

Car park heli
 

http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/10599-0.pdf

Check this one out

HAHAHAHA......... just as well he didnt decide to put it through a car wash whilst he was in town.

I know this was in Ireland but.......'Mr Paddy Judge'????

Funny how perceptions are considered basis of fact when it is convenient to those Against Aviation. The better question is why it does not apply in both directions?

I believe a 109 landed at the square tallaght multi story once,

It's all there in the square, I think he went to see jurassic park with the kids.

the very same 500 pilot crashed the 300 last year close to his home.

RTÉ News: Pilot charged for taking helicopter shopping

Pilot charged for taking helicopter shopping
Tuesday, 7 October 2008 17:00
A man who landed his helicopter on the roof of a multi-storey car park next to a shopping centre in Athlone intends to 'fully defend' his actions.

Sean O'Brien, 49, from The Island in Ballycumber Co Offaly, landed on the roof of Parkrite Texas Centre in St Mary's Place in order to collect newly cut keys for his helicopter.

The pilot, who was accompanied by his brother in the single-engine Hughes 369HS helicopter, appeared before a sitting of Athlone District Court today.

The Irish Aviation Authority summonsed Mr O'Brien for operating a helicopter in a 'negligent or reckless manner so as to endanger life or property in a manner that was hazardous to person and property'.

The IAA completed an Air Accident Investigation Report earlier this year which found that the pilot showed 'poor airmanship'. It stated that Mr O'Brien had been getting keys cut for the door of his helicopter at the Texas Department Store.

'He landed on the roof of the adjacent multi-storey car park. It is unclear to the investigation where the helicopter could have been safely force-landed in the event of an engine failure during landing or take-off.

'It is also probable that the approach was made over the unstressed roof of the shopping centre due to the location of the church to the north of the landing site,' the report added.

Air Accident Investigator Paddy Judge said the shopping centre, which was open for business at the time, should have been 'completely avoided' for 'obvious safety reasons'.

The report also stated that a car park attendant said that he attempted to wave the helicopter away as it approached for landing.

The attendant took refuge behind a door but was injured by the helicopter's main rotor downwash as the helicopter continued to land.

Previous landing

'He stated that the helicopter had landed on the roof some months previously and his supervisor told him afterwards that this was not allowed. That was why he had tried to wave it away.'

However, the pilot claimed the car park attendant was not on the roof while he was landing and only approached the helicopter on engine shutdown.

The duty manager of the Texas Department Store, a shop unit within the Texas centre, stated that he had given the pilot permission to land but was unaware at the time that he did not have the authority to do so.

'The person, whom he had obtained permission from, did not have the authority to issue it as he neither controlled nor owned the car park. This resulted in the pilot, inadvertently, not having permission to land,' added the report.

Mr O'Brien had been issued a US licence in March 2007, just four months before the incident.

Judge William Earley adjourned the case to a sitting of Athlone District Court on 24 November.

So the IAA are taking action..... I stand corrected.

Pilot charged for taking helicopter shopping
 

RTÉ News: Pilot charged for taking helicopter shopping

re: This incident

http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?...g=ENG&loc=1652

Am I correct in thinking that the pilot involved posts on here as Roofus or am I putting 2 + 2....................

FNW

FNW, I think you're putting two and two together and making 17! As far as I know, Roofus (Just Dropped In) is/was the police pilot who famously landed a twin squirrel on the roof of a house after a tail rotor failure.

However, there was someone who wanted to learn to fly on his father's N-reg Hughes who was from the same sort of area in Ireland but I think some of the posts got deleted!

Cheers

Whirls

Is that the real name of the Irish Investigator....'Air Accident Investigator Paddy Judge' :O

wow is this the first of the prosecutions against the N reg aircraft?
Paddy Judge it cant be real can it?

Max

This is free info, from the FAA web site, his name and address is in the paper so don't give me stick for posting his name. Now, would anyone like to comment why he has a student license?


FAA Registry
Name Inquiry Results

SEAN THOMAS O'BRIEN

Address

Street THE ISLAND BALLYCUMBER
City OFFALY State
County Zip Code
Country IRELAND


Medical

Medical Class: Second Medical Date: 2/2007



Certificates

1 of 1


DOI: 2/15/2007
Certificate: STUDENT PILOT

So the student license is only valid for 90 days, the incident happened four months later, and he was carrying a passenger?

Did I miss something or has the IAA once again?

Could be a son with the same name ?

This is the only other Sean O'Brien and has no address...

FAA Registry
Name Inquiry Results

SEAN JAMES O'BRIEN

Address

Address is not available


Medical

No Medical Available



Certificates

1 of 1


DOI: 11/17/2000
Certificate: COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):
COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
ROTORCRAFT-HELICOPTER
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE AND HELICOPTER

So this SEAN JAMES O'BRIEN doesn't fit the bill....

This is outrages.

You might find FAA details are not up to date (maybe the school that trained him have made his paperwork vanish :E)


Will be interesting to see if FAA have representation at this case, correct me if I'm wrong (& i m sure someone will):} but under FAA system, is the examiner held accountable to some degree for actions of passed testies ?(pun intended). I do like the b*!!s on the guy to keep the fight going in spite of the reports issued.

Hang on, is this the same guy who ran out of go-go juice and seriously de-valued a hughes 269 in the same area? you couldnt make this stuff up :}

Am I correct in thinking that the pilot involved posts on here as Roofus or am I putting 2 + 2....................

FNW

No! No!........& to avoid any possible misunderstanding......No!! :mad:

noblades asked if he was the one who totalled the Hughes 269.

Yes Sir, you are correct.

Mr. O'Brien mentioned somewhere along the way that he had lost his logbook in an accident. Not sure if this is the accident he is refering to or he lost it by some other means (My dog ate it, m'lord).

It looks like he is single-handedly trying to erase the Hughes 269 and 500 fleet from the face of the earth (or Ireland, at the very least). Trouble is he keeps bringing his brother along with him!

500 Fan.

P.S. I sat in on a ferry flight in this H500 a while ago when the previous owner had this machine. It was very nice to fly but I think I'll steer clear of it now.

The lad has a ppl and it takes a number of months for the update to appear online, the same fellow crashed a Hu269 close to his home, but that was a G-reg so no big deal, only the N-reg suffer !!

Ketchup will ya get back to yer study before yer visa runs out.