YAWN - Anyone else agree?

[iChris]

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.

 

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.

 

Correct, that's the main basis.

 

“This is in response to your letter of May 29, 1991, attached to which was a Department of Natural Resources internal memorandum relating to "Bucket Cable Length". You requested that our office review Page 4, paragraph (2) of that memorandum and provide you with a legal opinion on the applicability of the height-velocity curve (HVC) to potential FAA enforcement actions against helicopter pilots.”

 

“There is no Federal Aviation Regulation, which per se creates a violation for operations conducted within the shaded areas of the height-velocity curve. Rather, the height-velocity curve is a factor, which is considered in determining whether a particular operation is in violation of certain specific regulations. The regulations most often involved in this consideration are FAR 91.13 (formerly 91.9) and FAR 91.119 (formerly 91.79).

 

"FAA enforcement actions against helicopter pilots for violations of these regulations have generally involved situations where the aircraft is operating within the shaded area of the height-velocity curve and where, because of the location or concentration of persons or structures on the surface, the likelihood of an engine-out landing without damage or injury to those persons or structures is limited. It is not our position that the mere operation of a helicopter within the height-velocity curve will automatically give rise to an FAA enforcement action.”

 

John J. Callahan

Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel

 

 

REF:Interpretations/data/interps/1991/H.Clark.rtf

Edited September 23, 2012 by iChris

[Pohi]

Its a trailer. Id settle out of court for the jack stands.

 

Haha, let's be completely truthful here, you were also looking at the dead raccoon and the buried cat poop too.

[iChris]

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.

 

 

Don’t forget, Category A rotorcraft (Part 29) are required to have their H/V diagrams included in the limitation section (Example Bell 212/412).

 

“Amendment 29-21 modified the applicability limits of Categories A and B of Transport Category Rotorcraft. Category A rotorcraft must meet a higher level of safety, including the requirement to have multiple engines, and be able to continue safe flight after an engine failure. Category B rotorcraft may be either single or multiengine, but the changes adopted in Amendment 29-21 limited this category further to a maximum capacity of nine passengers and 20,000 pounds gross weight. “

 

Subpart G—Operating Limitations and Information

29.1517 Limiting height-speed envelope.

 

For Category A rotorcraft, if a range of heights exists at any speed, including zero, within which it is not possible to make a safe landing following power failure, the range of heights and its variation with forward speed must be established, together with any other pertinent information, such as the kind of landing surface.

 

Edited September 23, 2012 by iChris

[Pohi]

I don't fly a category A aircraft, and neither did the guys that we are discussing.