Flying Low

[212wrench]

Egad......

 

Are all pilots like this?

 

And I'm not even saying anything was illegal......I'm not even passing judgment..I was just asking if it would be "ill-advised".

 

I'm just asking a #### question of people that supposedly would be "in the know". Once again....I should have known better than to do so.

 

A-holes. (not you SS)

 

"Oh no!! childish name-calling!! This strips you of what little credibility you may have had! No wonder everyone neg reps you!! WAAAAHHHH!!"

 

God I wish you could delete threads on this forum.

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2007/AAB0703.pdf

 

Hope the link works, had trouble with it this am. Thats all I have.

[mic]

SS you are such a hypocrite. You're the only person on this thread judging him without the facts,and you calling someone an armchair quarterback is the most ironic statement ever posted here.

[Grasshopper]

Sorry, 'mic,' but I see no judgement in SS's posts. The machine was clearly low flying near homes and people and, until proven otherwise, would have to be considered POSSIBLY in contravention of CARs.

 

I do think, though, that Mike doesn't seem to have had a sufficiently definitive perspective to make a meaningful report.

[KiloMike]

all this speculation and concern... just call transport canada.

 

next topic already

[dimit]

Hi Mr. Mike,

 

You asked if low flying was a bad idea. Well, like so many things, it depends. The basic law says that if the machine is over a "built up" area (houses, etc.) it's gotta be the higher of: 1000' above the highest obstacle within 500 horizontal feet of the helicopter; or high enough to make a safe autorotative landing. Then there are some exceptions to the rule, and ways to become an exception, and so forth.

 

From a practical safety standpoint it's said that the helicopter pilot has only 2 true friends: altitude and airspeed. When things get pear shaped the appropriate combination of those 2 factors is critical for a safe outcome. Personally, I like cruising at a coupla grand AGL, though there's any number of situations when that's just not feasible. The machine you saw was low, but moving fast; not the optimal safe flight profile, but a heck of a lot better than low and slow!

 

So without more information I can't say if the pilot of the 120 you saw was being "bad". If you're really concerned, do as has been suggested already: contact TC and let them sort it out.

 

Hope this more fully answers your question,

 

Dick Mitten

[kiefk]

MMike

 

There are many instances where this Pilot and Aircraft were flying legally, so likely you will never know!? But to give you some helpful info straight from Transport Canada CARs.......

 

' Minimum Altitudes and Distances

 

602.14 (1) [Repealed]

(amended 2003/03/01; previous version)

 

(2) Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where permitted under section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft

 

(a) over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons unless the aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the event of an emergency necessitating an immediate landing, it would be possible to land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface, and, in any case, at an altitude that is not lower than

 

( i ) for aeroplanes, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 2,000 feet from the aeroplane,

 

( ii ) for balloons, 500 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the balloon, or

 

( iii ) for an aircraft other than an aeroplane or a balloon, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the aircraft; and

 

( b ) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a), at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

 

Permissible Low Altitude Flight

 

602.15 (1) A person may operate an aircraft at altitudes and distances less than those specified in subsection 602.14(2) where the aircraft is operated at altitudes and distances that are no less than necessary for the purposes of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated

 

( a ) for the purpose of a police operation that is conducted in the service of a police authority;

 

( B ) for the purpose of saving human life;

 

( c ) for fire-fighting or air ambulance operations;

 

( d ) for the purpose of the administration of the Fisheries Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act;

 

( e ) for the purpose of the administration of the national or provincial parks; or

 

( f ) for the purpose of flight inspection.

 

(2) A person may operate an aircraft, to the extent necessary for the purpose of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, at altitudes and distances less than those set out in

 

(a) paragraph 602.14(2)(a), where operation of the aircraft is authorized under Subpart 3 or section 702.22; or

 

( B ) paragraph 602.14(2)( B ), where the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated for the purpose of:

 

(i) aerial application or aerial inspection,

 

(ii) aerial photography conducted by the holder of an air operator certificate,

 

(iii) helicopter external load operations, or

 

(iv) flight training conducted by or under the supervision of a qualified flight instructor.'

[Jammed left]

Flying low introduces more hazards that must be managed...as DImit has pointed out..I'd add to the list by including wires on to the hazards that now need to be managed because I'm flying low. (well not me...). We re told in the Flying the wires course that wire strikes are the single largest cause of fatal helicopter crashes in the US. Take from that what you will,...

 

From a regulatory point of view, the sticking point is usually whether or not you are over a built up area or not.....but try and define a built up area. You won't find it defined in the CARs...it has a pretty loose interpretation when you look at the previous cases that have resulted in fines.

[Grasshopper]

You won't find it defined in the CARs...it has a pretty loose interpretation when you look at the previous cases that have resulted in fines.

 

Maybe not, but Prairie & Northern Region 'Enforcement' (Edmonton) say that they have had it defined by Ottawa as including "within municipal boundaries." For all but 'urban' operators, that denies a whole lot of territory that's nowhere near truly built-up areas. Best to check with your own region and see what they're using as a definition or you could be looking at substantial fines.

[Phil Croucher]

The ICAO definition is (more or less):

 

In relation to a city, town or settlement, an area substantially used for residential, commercial or recreational purposes.

 

So I guess that may include a golf course.

 

Phil

[Grasshopper]

The ICAO definition is (more or less):

 

In relation to a city, town or settlement, an area substantially used for residential, commercial or recreational purposes.

 

So I guess that may include a golf course.

 

Phil

 

 

And the relevance is what, Phil?