|
Sentenced for endangering helicopter - UK
2 September 2011
Man drove landrover at an Army Squirrel flying at a height of 5ft - out of Middle Wallop. 5 month Jail - suspended, 120 hrs community service and £1,000 prosecution costs BBC News - Gamekeeper gets suspended term for driving at helicopter A gamekeeper from Wiltshire has been given a suspended five-month jail term after he drove his LandRover at a low-flying Army helicopter. Malcolm Hughes, 61, of Pewsey, was told he could have killed the two crew members in the incident in 2009. The pilot, who was flying at 5ft (1.5m) at one point, avoided a collision when he spotted Hughes' vehicle. Hughes, who said he was trying to see the aircraft's registration, was sentenced at Swindon Crown Court. He was also told to carry out 120 hours' unpaid work and pay £1,000 prosecution costs. Hughes was found guilty of endangering an aircraft, at an earlier hearing. 'Quite intentional' The jury heard that Lt Andrew Higgins had been flying an Army Air Corps Squirrel helicopter at about 20ft (6m) after taking off from Middle Wallop in Hampshire with trainee pilot Bombardier Henry Luck. The pilot carried out safety checks before beginning to drop to 5ft (1.5m) when he spotted Hughes. Prosecutor Justin Gau said Hughes, of Raffin Lane, drove his LandRover beneath the helicopter and gestured "angrily" that it should leave. The pilot had to take evasive action to avoid Hughes' vehicle, the court heard. "It was clear and quite intentional the LandRover had been driven at the helicopter." Following his arrest, he told police that he had not driven under the helicopter and the closest he had been 300m (985ft) away. Passing sentence, Judge Douglas Field, said he was satisfied that Hughes was not trying to hit the helicopter deliberately. "Tremendous damage would have been caused, putting the lives of the occupants of the helicopter and yourself at risk," he said. Hughes' sentence was suspended for 12 months. A gamekeeper who drove his LandRover at an army helicopter as it hovered close to the ground has been given a suspended jail sentence. Malcolm Hughes, 61, put the lives of two pilots at risk when he drove towards the Army Air Corps Squirrel helicopter. Disaster was only averted when pilot Lieutenant Andrew Higgins pulled up at the last minute after being alerted by his co-pilot. Hughes later told police he had been trying to protect the pheasants he reared on farmland in Wiltshire. In court he claimed he had not been trying to damage the helicopter but only to get close enough to take its serial number so he could report its crew for low flying. Hughes, of Pewsey, Wiltshire, was found guilty of acting in a manner likely to endanger aircraft. He received a five-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months when he appeared at Swindon crown court. He was ordered to serve 120 hours community service and pay £1,000 costs. Higgins was teaching trainee pilot Bombardier Henry Luck low-flying manoeuvres over farmland in December 2009. Higgins said he was just about to descend to 1.5m (5ft) above the field – which was free of crops and animals – when Luck raised the alarm. Hughes was "vigorously moving his arm out of the window" gesticulating at the pilots "to get off his land", Higgins said. Had he not taken evasive action, the helicopter would have struck the LandRover, the pilot added. Stuart Patterson, defending, said: "This was a one-off incident that is unlikely to be repeated." Judge Douglas Field said: "What you did put the lives of those in the helicopter and you at risk. They must have been surprised to see your vehicle there. The Army Air Corps have every right to be in that area but I am satisfied you drove at the vehicle not with the intention to damage it but to take its licence number." |
Just goes to show, complaining to the military gets you nowhere. State power will always win.
|
Just goes to show, complaining to the military gets you nowhere. State power will always win. Whilst granted this would not have solved his immediate problem it would have offered a far greater long term solution and with less trouble for himself. A criminal conviction will no doubt now mean that he will loose his firearms/shotgun license's which as a gamekeeper are an essential tool. Also the various other effects of such a conviction. |
So, low flying helicopters have "right of way" then.:)
|
With all due respect Hands_on123 he did not Complain to the military he drove at them. Had he in fact contacted them and complained and given his reasons (rearing birds) for not wanting low level helicopters near his property then I am sure that his property would have been marked on the relevant maps as out of bounds. Whilst granted this would not have solved his immediate problem it would have offered a far greater long term solution and with less trouble for himself. A criminal conviction will no doubt now mean that he will loose his firearms/shotgun license's which as a gamekeeper are an essential tool. Also the various other effects of such a conviction. |
Just goes to show, complaining to the military gets you nowhere. State power will always win. So, low flying helicopters have "right of way" then Err, no. He would have got a very nice, long but clearly de-personalised letter that essentially says "we appreciate that you don't like us doing low level military flying, but tough !!!!. We're going to carry on anyway." |
They've obviously forgotten that some low flying aircraft used to have great big swastikas on them.
They didn't need to drive so close to find out who was driving them back then :E |
212 and Shy you have my vote regarding the chopjock and hands on comments. Military pilots defending the free world need to learn their trade somewhere and the fields of Wiltshire seem as good a place as any, I take my hat off to them and support all the brave service men and women risking their lives around the world. :ok:
|
Low flying may need to be practiced, but FIVE feet???? Is it not just a ittle surprising this highly trained military pilot could not see said gamekeeper in his vehicle. Can a Squirrel not out manoeuvre a eatern european car? If not, they do indeed need more training.
I thought there were places such as Salisbury Plain where the public were excluded specifically to make these exercises safe. Why do they need to do this on someone's land. If indeed the gamekeeper were trying to rear birds is it any surprise he lost his rag? What he did was inexcusable, but if I were in charge of PR and the MOD I would not be happy. |
Is it not just a ittle surprising this highly trained military pilot could not see said gamekeeper in his vehicle. He didn't. 212man Hard to believe, but I think they do. :rolleyes: |
Hold on here......we're talking about:
You telling me that the pilot could not have simply pulled a little power and flown away and gone somewhere else, like most of us would have and not P'd on a locals battery...? I've been in this situation before when doing training where that 1 out of 10 spot you chose has pissed someone off.... I can understand if he came out guns blazing, but an old slug of a landy...... come on.... :ugh::ugh::ugh: that's like throwing a marble down a bowling alley.......... :eek: |
Is there a UK military equivalent to Rule 5 - the minimum distance from "vehicles, vessels, persons and structures" bit?
|
Has Salisbury plain got no space for training then? The trouble is the military think they are above the law.
|
hands on, TRC, chopjock and friends. You're obviously not going to get a sensible answer here. You might like to ask your questions on a similar thread in the Mil Pilots forum.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...elicopter.html You'll get some much better informed answers there. Go on. I dare you. :E :E |
Would a Trabant get a MOT certificate in the UK ????
Perhaps it was a Stasi sleeper cell being reactivated? :E:E |
Land Trabant-Rover, I'll have you know - not just a plain old Trabby.
|
You might like to ask your questions on a similar thread in the Mil Pilots forum The reason I asked about the Mil equivalent of rule 5 is just, that as we know, exemptions can be had to it down to (in my experience) 20 feet from briefed personnel. We also know that R5 doesn't apply if a takeoff or landing is made. In the case of the Mil using private land to train on - down to 5 feet, it seems - I was wondering how it would be affected by persons, vehicles, etc. being present, and maybe unaware of the likelyhood of getting a helicopter on their bonnet at the time of the very low flying. Does the landowner need to grant permission for his fields to be used like this? I'd be very pi$$ed off if I had any helicopter that I didn't invite in a low hover on any of my property. I have no axe to grind here, just askin'. |
The skills of manoeuvring and navigating a helicopter at very low level to avoid detection have to be taught somewhere and Salisbury Plain is too open and featureless for that. Hence the use of LFA1 down to ground level (there is no rule 5 in mil regs but they will work to a Minimum Separation Criteria, it used to be 5m but may well be different now).
It is likely that the gamekeeper approached from the starboard side of the aircraft so the QHI was unsighted until the student spotted him. Middle Wallop used to spend a lot of dosh entertaining all the local farmers to say thank you for allowing the continued use of their property, I suspect this is still the case. |
Nothing against the mil here but if this was a civvi pilot I bet he'd be in the wrong for a number of reasons - Breaching rule 5, (practically) landing somewhere without the owners permission, etc.. Instead some poor old bloke has now lost his job, income, respect, etc This is a bit of a joke I fully support what DFD said and also take my hat off to the brave men and women of the armed forces. The only joke, simondlh, is that these people are risking their lives daily for people like you, TRC, 206 jock et al in order to be scorned on what is supposedly a professional pilot's forum. |
I realise some posters may not be helicopter pilots but, given that this is a helicopter pilots forum, some of the comments in this thread are extraordinary.
Rule 5 :confused: Even if it had been a civilian helicopter, I've read nothing that leads me to believe that the pilot would have been in breach of Rule 5 (or any other regulation). Even if he had been flying illegally, that would not entitle the gamekeeper to do what he did. The jury, 12 members of the community selected at random, heard the crew's account and the gamekeeper's account. The gamekeeper was defended by a very senior barrister. Having considered the conflicting accounts, the jury were sure the gamekeeper endangered the helicopter and convicted him. (It appears that the gamekeeper changed his story between arrest and trial. When arrested, he claimed the closest he had been to the helicopter was 300 metres.) FL |
is that these people are risking their lives daily for people like you,
True, but that is what they signed up for the military to do. They were not conscripted. |
JAFO, Living where I do I am very well aware of the low-level mil helicopter activity - and the reasons for it.
I asked a straightforward question that crab kindly answered. If I had land suitable for that kind of training, and that low-level training didn't affect anything that took place on that land, I'd have no objections at all. I take exception to your statement that a. I'm not a pilot and shouldn't dare post here, and b. That I am pouring scorn on anybody. I don't agree with the opinions of those that you have lumped me in with. |
hands_on123
State power will always win. The trouble is the military think they are above the law. "these people are risking their lives daily for people like you" True, but that is what they signed up for the military to do. They were not conscripted. FL |
TRC
I didn't say that you should not post here if you weren't a pilot, perhaps I explained myself very poorly. I clearly misinterpreted your original post and had assumed that you felt the same as the others I mentioned, seeing malice where there clearly was none; for that I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise. :O |
The only joke, simondlh, is that these people are risking their lives daily for people like you, TRC, 206 jock et al in order to be scorned on what is supposedly a professional pilot's forum. You can come down off your high horse now. The air is a bit too thin up there, obviously. |
206 Jock.
To quote you original post: <<<Err, no. He would have got a very nice, long but clearly de-personalised letter that essentially says "we appreciate that you don't like us doing low level military flying, but tough !!!!. We're going to carry on anyway.">>> If that is your idea of fact rather than opinion then i think we must have rather different dictionaries! OH |
My dictionary agrees with OvertHawk's so I'll stay up here on my horse for a little longer.
My point about it being a professional pilot's forum was that I felt it likely that the people here would understand the demands placed on the crew of the helicopter; not that anyone who didn't earn their money that way wasn't worthy to post. Rather along the lines of Flying Lawyers: I realise some posters may not be helicopter pilots but, given that this is a helicopter pilots forum, some of the comments in this thread are extraordinary. |
Low flying may need to be practiced [sic], but FIVE feet???? Is it not just a ittle [little?] surprising this highly trained military pilot could not see said gamekeeper in his vehicle. [?] Can a Squirrel not out manoeuvre a [sic] eatern [sic] european [sic] car? If not, they do indeed need more training. I thought there were places such as Salisbury Plain where the public were excluded specifically to make these exercises safe. Why do they need to do this on someone's land. [?] If indeed the gamekeeper were [sic] trying to rear birds is it any surprise he lost his rag? What he did was inexcusable, but if I were in charge of PR and the MOD I would not be happy. |
JAFO, you have my unreserved support :D
Back to the point, a driver of a vehicle deliberately drives at an airborne helicopter. What part of this scenario is the pilots fault? Addressed to any of the bigoted anti military here....if there are any of course. |
DFD, for one so young in years you seem so wise. Thank you.
I have been having great difficulty seeing how two people legally carrying out their duty were in some way more to blame for an incident than a person who acted dangerously and illegally and was found guilty of the same by 12 of his peers. So, I too, am looking forward to the answers to your post. |
Trying to second-guess the UK court is rather pointless.
Gamekeeper was charged with a specific offence of endangering Gamekeeper was convicted of said offence Whether an individual (pilot, owner, armchair games enthusiast) considers this to be "right" is not relevant; it is right, see the above. If you don't accept this line of logic to hold true, then there is always the risk that in some circumstances you may put your judgement of "what ought to be right" into practice and not what the law says - just like this gamekeeper, who no doubt felt completely in the in-the-right about his actions right up until the time a couple of PCs knocked on the door. |
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:40. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.