Fred0311 Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Well it would appear the distinction comes in when you put people on the ground in danger. Hopefully there aren't kids playing under your cherry trees or power lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ridethisbike Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 No kidding. I understand the FAA's decision, but only to a point. A good pilot in those situations would have spots picked out that he could make it to and would have at least one alternate if it suddenly became unapproachable. In the same respect, it seems like those pilots/operators should have had a congested area plan, assuming those things even existed back then. We're given just enough rope to hang ourselves with. It's up to us to turn it into a bow, rather than a noose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo2181 Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I say we all just take the suggestion in the article and submit for a waiver every time we operate in the hv curve. After the FAA gets flooded with 3000 requests a day maybe they will change their minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pohi Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Those pilots needed better lawyers. There is no "prohibited area" in the H/V diagram. There are avoid areas, but since the H/V diagram isn't a limitation, there is no such thing as a "prohibited" area. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightsta1ker Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I don't think that pilot got hit on the HV curve though, Pohi, the article states that they got slammed for the minimum safe altitude reg. Obviously they were not operating at a speed and altitude at which they could safely land without doing undue damage to persons or property. Ridethisbike, I hear what you are saying, but generally when doing longline or power line ops where the pilot has to be in the curve, precautions are taken to keep uneccissary people clear of the area in which the operation is being conducted. Spikes original question did not specify what type of flying was being done, which is why I replied the way I did. If you are working, and taking the necessary precautions, there should be no legal issue. If you are screwing around where you shouldn't be you are obviously violating a regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helipilot PTK Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 I don't think that pilot got hit on the HV curve though, Pohi, the article states that they got slammed for the minimum safe altitude reg. Obviously they were not operating at a speed and altitude at which they could safely land without doing undue damage to persons or property. Ridethisbike, I hear what you are saying, but generally when doing longline or power line ops where the pilot has to be in the curve, precautions are taken to keep uneccissary people clear of the area in which the operation is being conducted. Spikes original question did not specify what type of flying was being done, which is why I replied the way I did. If you are working, and taking the necessary precautions, there should be no legal issue. If you are screwing around where you shouldn't be you are obviously violating a regulation. The H/V curve is a not a limitation like Pohi said. Just because you are in those altitudes does not mean if the engine quits you are going to crash and burn, you can very well still land the aircraft without a scratch with the proper training. The minimum safe altitude reg states that helicopters do not have to abide by that rule if they can safely land the aircraft in the event of an emergency. With your logic (or the FAA's) the safe altitude would change for more/less experienced pilots. A newbie like myself might not be able to perform a survivable autorotation within the H/V curve but a 500, 5,000, 20,000 pilot might be able to. Does that mean I can not hover at 200 feet for practice long lining etc? I think the FAA's power is getting to there head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightsta1ker Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Slow down. My argument is this. Operating in the curve for the purposes of doing a job, under conditions suitable to the safe execution of that job, with appropriate permissions and permits etc. should not lead to a lawsuit. Flying in the curve over a populated area, for the sake of getting photos (or the like) is taking a huge risk, and you are asking for trouble. Its more about conditions than experience. If a 20,000 hour pilot hovers over downtown splitsvlille at 40 feet and the engine quits and he lands in a parking lot on top of a pedestrian, he's going to lose his license, and probably get sued too. Edited September 21, 2012 by nightsta1ker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helipilot PTK Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 You bring up some good points, and I agree with you about the situation you posted (which would be a very rare case). However, i'm not necessarily talking about a heavily populated area. What if your friend lives in an average size community where you own a acer or two. You take your friend up to take a few pictures of his house from above, because he is selling it etc. While doing so you hover for a few moments at 200/300 feet. While hovering your engine decides to quit, with your instincts/training you already had a field to your right to land at, you land on a farm full of farmers crop with no one injured. Would the farmer who's crop you destroyed be able to sue you (even though I doubt a farmer would), or the FAA have a case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle5 Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 So, how good of a pilot do you have to be to walk away from an engine failure at 300' in a hover in an R22?,...R44?,...S300?,...Astar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Pig Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 What if grasshoppers had machine guns, would birds still screw with them? Sorry.... something my platoon Sgt used to always say..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightsta1ker Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) You bring up some good points, and I agree with you about the situation you posted (which would be a very rare case). However, i'm not necessarily talking about a heavily populated area. What if your friend lives in an average size community where you own a acer or two. You take your friend up to take a few pictures of his house from above, because he is selling it etc. While doing so you hover for a few moments at 200/300 feet. While hovering your engine decides to quit, with your instincts/training you already had a field to your right to land at, you land on a farm full of farmers crop with no one injured. Would the farmer who's crop you destroyed be able to sue you (even though I doubt a farmer would), or the FAA have a case? In short, yes, the farmer would be able to sue, and with good legal reason. Edited September 21, 2012 by nightsta1ker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ridethisbike Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Ridethisbike, I hear what you are saying, but generally when doing longline or power line ops where the pilot has to be in the curve, precautions are taken to keep uneccissary people clear of the area in which the operation is being conducted. Right, I understand that completely. It just seems like the guys in those examples could have done a little more is all. I say that not knowing the full extent of the cases though. They very well may have, and the FAA was just having a bad couple months or something, who knows. eagle5, good enough to realize it, go through windmill break state before trying to gain airspeed (lest you bleed off even more of that precious RRPM), and then flare. Sounds easy enough, but I think I'll leave it to the test pilots and more experienced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo2181 Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 It's already been left to the test pilots... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helipilot PTK Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 It's already been left to the test pilots... Shawn Coyle explanes the misinterpretations of the H/V diagram in his book "Cyclic & Collective" I am not home currently, I will try to elaborate later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotormandan Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 What about the power line guys that actually attach to the power lines and while the worker gets out to crawl along the lines. Just fueling the fire but it's interesting that it's ok despite the example in the earlier article. I'm with what was said earlier though. Those pilots needed better lawyers. Here's an example you've probably all seen. here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pohi Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) In short, yes, the farmer would be able to sue, and with good legal reason. The farmer can sue, heck, the pilot could sue the farmer, the tractor company that plowed the ground, and even the company who sold the seeds for the crops that damaged the aircraft. I do not agree at all, however, that a pilot operating inside the shaded area of the H/V curve is grounds for them being considered reckless. I think that's called a helicopter pilot operating a helicopter in the manner in which it was designed. Edited September 22, 2012 by Pohi 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Pig Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 ^It is pretty cool actually being a part of helping people do their jobs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobsyouruncle Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Judging from that article it sounds as though the NTSB is under the impression that flying within the H/V diagram permits a landing that is safe to people on the ground, and that being in the avoid areas makes it dangerous for people on the ground. As anyone with any sense knows this is not what the H/V diagram depicts. There is probably no combination of speed and height that will permit a safe autorotation over a some areas in New York City, while in other less populated areas you couldn't pose a threat to anyone on the ground no matter how you fly. Still, that article is 22 years old. Is there anything more modern? Hundreds if not thousands of helicopters operate in the avoid range everyday and I haven't seen a outbreak of people losing their licenses. It seems to me you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than getting a 30 day license suspension for operating in the H/V area. What can you do really? If high and fast was what the job required than a helicopter wouldn't have been hired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightsta1ker Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 Judging from that article it sounds as though the NTSB is under the impression that flying within the H/V diagram permits a landing that is safe to people on the ground, and that being in the avoid areas makes it dangerous for people on the ground. As anyone with any sense knows this is not what the H/V diagram depicts. There is probably no combination of speed and height that will permit a safe autorotation over a some areas in New York City, while in other less populated areas you couldn't pose a threat to anyone on the ground no matter how you fly. Still, that article is 22 years old. Is there anything more modern? Hundreds if not thousands of helicopters operate in the avoid range everyday and I haven't seen a outbreak of people losing their licenses. It seems to me you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than getting a 30 day license suspension for operating in the H/V area. What can you do really? If high and fast was what the job required than a helicopter wouldn't have been hired. You're the expert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeroscout Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 ^I don't get that last post, to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightsta1ker Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 ^I don't get that last post, to say the least. According to 91.119 a helicopter must be operated so that no hazard exists to persons or property on the surface. If you're engine quits and you damage property or injure or kill someone on the surface because you were flying low and slow, you very well may have a law suit on your hands and or be in jeopardy of losing your rating. It would all depend on how things played out, and I am sure there would be a lot of factors involved in the legal decisions. A big one would probably be, what were you doing there? If the answer doesn't seem like a good reason to them, you might be in trouble. The argument is really not about operating in the H/V curve, it's about what you were doing when the crash occurred. Each case will be different. I think in the article in question, the FAA probably felt that the pilot was showboating and flying unnecessarily low and slow at the time of the incident. They tend to find ways to hang you if they feel you were being a jackass. If the pilot had been performing some sort of job or duty that required him to fly at those speeds and altitudes the FAA may have viewed the situation in a different light. Your best legal defense when flying outside of recommended flight envelopes is to have a good reason to be doing it. But what do I know? I'm just some novice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pohi Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 There is a hazard to people or property any time there is a 4000 pound combination of spinning steel, fuel, people, cargo, and an ignition source over their heads. Doesn't matter if it's 30, 300, 3,000, or FL300. It's still gonna hurt if it lands on that person :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Pig Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 I do believe that when the Columbia came apart on re-entry, there were several lawsuits that followed. Heck..... You wave at someone and they think your flippin them the bird they can sue you. I can sue you for suggesting you might sue me. Heck..... I met Pohi once and his hand was sweaty when I shook it. I have already retained an attorney for that one and Im expecting to clean house...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo2181 Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 I do believe that when the Columbia came apart on re-entry, there were several lawsuits that followed. Heck..... You wave at someone and they think your flippin them the bird they can sue you. I can sue you for suggesting you might sue me. Heck..... I met Pohi once and his hand was sweaty when I shook it. I have already retained an attorney for that one and Im expecting to clean house...... Unfortunately he's a pilot so it's a very small house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Pig Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Its a trailer. Id settle out of court for the jack stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.