Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

the little whiney jackoff who knows where the neg rep button is should man up and make an effort to add something to the conversation.

Ok so I was at my parents place today. I took my girls to the local sledding hill which looks over lax st Louis. Ie. part of the st Lawrence.   Behind some trees I heard what sounded like a helicop

nobody said he was breaking the law at this point. however had their been one person below him, say walking their dog, then maybe.   bottom line is the armchair quarterbacks where not there and hav

Posted Images

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.'

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...