Helicopter flies under a bridge?

[C Kingsbury]

Is it legal for a helicopter to fly under a bridge? What are the obstale
clearance limits?

Best,
-cwk.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:00:07 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
> wrote in
. net>::

>Is it legal for a helicopter to fly under a bridge? What are the obstale
>clearance limits?

That's a good question.

It would seem that the regulation that prohibits flight within 500' of
structures might apply.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Is it legal for a helicopter to fly under a bridge? What are the obstale
>>clearance limits?
>>
>
> That's a good question.
>
> It would seem that the regulation that prohibits flight within 500' of
> structures might apply.
>

If you're referring to FAR 91.119(c), it does not apply to helicopters.

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>>It would seem that the regulation that prohibits flight within 500' of
>>structures might apply.
>>
>
>
> If you're referring to FAR 91.119(c), it does not apply to helicopters.
>
>

Provided they aren't a hazard to the stuff on the surface.

[PJ Hunt]

For Part 91 operations see,
91.119
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency
landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
&
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums
prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is
conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

For Part 135 operations see,
135.203
(b) A helicopter over a congested area at an altitude less than 300 feet
above the surface.

= = = = = = = = =

Basically, it depends on if the bridge was over a congested area or not and
if so whether it was a Part 91 or Part 135 operation and if either, whether
the operation could be performed (without hazard to persons or property on
the surface.)

Now that's a pretty ambiguous statement, (without hazard to persons or
property on the surface.) Some would argue that the simple fact of flying
over people on the surface creates a hazard to said people. Personally I
don't by it and luckily *most* in the legal arena don't either.

Bottom line is, you *might* be legal, but would it be justified? Used to be
a time in the US where if it was legal, it was justified, but unfortunately
now days, it's not so black and white anymore.

One thing about helicopters -vs- airplanes is they have historically always
(until a couple years ago in Hawaii under Part 135) enjoyed almost no
restrictions on visibility or obstacle/terrain clearance. So things you see
a helicopter doing are legal, when you wouldn't be legal doing the same
thing in your airplane.

Happy flying,
PJ

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

"C Kingsbury" <cwkingsbury@> wrote in message
link.net...
> Is it legal for a helicopter to fly under a bridge? What are the obstale
> clearance limits?
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>It would seem that the regulation that prohibits flight within 500' of
>>>structures might apply.
>>>
>>
>> If you're referring to FAR 91.119(c), it does not apply to helicopters.
>
> Provided they aren't a hazard to the stuff on the surface.
>

That goes without saying.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:46:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
. net>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>Is it legal for a helicopter to fly under a bridge? What are the obstale
>>>clearance limits?
>>>
>>
>> That's a good question.
>>
>> It would seem that the regulation that prohibits flight within 500' of
>> structures might apply.
>>
>
>If you're referring to FAR 91.119(c), it does not apply to helicopters.
>

Thanks for looking that up.

So it would seem that FAR 91.119(d) might apply in this case. But
without knowing whether there was hazard to persons or property, it's
difficult to reach a definitive conclusion.




91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
top
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an
emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the
surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or
settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of
1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of
2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the
surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those
cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums
prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is
conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In
addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any
routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the
Administrator.

[Robert M. Gary]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message . net>...
> Is it legal for a helicopter to fly under a bridge? What are the obstale
> clearance limits?

I don't see why not. In some cases even airplanes can. We used to fly
the sea plane under a large mountain bridge all the time. Of course we
made sure to land and take off just short of the bridge so its for the
purpose of take off or landing. :) The briges was probably almost 1000
feet above the water though.
Gotta love the Sierras.
-Robert

[C Kingsbury]

The reason I asked was that I saw a helicopter fly under the Brooklyn Bridge
recently. I was headed down the East River on a sailboat. The copter came
down past us pretty slowly at not more than 200AGL, the left-seater waved to
us, and they sped up and took off under the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridge.
The other folks on the boat asked me, "is that legal?" I guessed yes, since
there were NYPD and Coast Guard boats out all over the place (though not
near either bridge at that moment) and it was in the middle of a bright and
sunny day, and I figured you'd have to be nuts to do something like that if
it wasn't technically OK. But it did seem to me like it would be pushing it
pretty hard.

-cwk.

"PJ Hunt" > wrote in message
...
> For Part 91 operations see,
> 91.119

[Rick Durden]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message . net>...
> Is it legal for a helicopter to fly under a bridge? What are the obstale
> clearance limits?
>
> Best,
> -cwk.

When I was a kid I got my first helicopter ride from a barge moored in
the Mississippi River on the St. Louis waterfront. Helo took off to
the south, under a bridge, climbed on out to the south, turned, flew
the waterfront to the north, then descended to the south and landed on
the barge. I don't recall a lot about the ride, but I thought it was
way cool to go under that bridge.

As the helo you saw was a "public aircraft" operated by the
government, it did not have to comply with the FARs, only with
whatever operating rules the governmental organization has internally.

All the best,
Rick

[C Kingsbury]

"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
...
>
> As the helo you saw was a "public aircraft" operated by the
> government, it did not have to comply with the FARs, only with
> whatever operating rules the governmental organization has internally.

I'd have guessed it was a government bird too, but it looked like an old
Bell 47, with the fishbowl canopy and erector-set tail boom. Are there any
other copters currently in service that closely resembled that?

-cwk.

[PJ Hunt]

It very possibly was a Bell 47, there's many of them in operation.

There seems to be a bit of confusion now between you and Rick Durden. From
what I see, he mistakenly thought you said it was a government bird, which
you didn't. And it appears you accepted his statement "As the helo you saw
was a "public aircraft" operated by the government," as fact that it was a
government bird, although he wasn't even there so he wouldn't know.

So it may or may not have been a government bird. Chances are however, if it
was in fact a Bell 47, it probably wasn't government. Could have been, but
most likely not. And from your description, it's perfectly plausible that
it could have been a private or training flight and completely legal.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================
---

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Rick Durden" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > As the helo you saw was a "public aircraft" operated by the
> > government, it did not have to comply with the FARs, only with
> > whatever operating rules the governmental organization has internally.
>
> I'd have guessed it was a government bird too, but it looked like an old
> Bell 47, with the fishbowl canopy and erector-set tail boom. Are there any
> other copters currently in service that closely resembled that?
>
> -cwk.
>
>

[Kris Kortokrax]

"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
...
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> . net>...
>> Is it legal for a helicopter to fly under a bridge? What are the obstale
>> clearance limits?
>>
>> Best,
>> -cwk.
>
> As the helo you saw was a "public aircraft" operated by the
> government, it did not have to comply with the FARs, only with
> whatever operating rules the governmental organization has internally.
>
> All the best,
> Rick

Rick,

While there are some exemptions for public use aircraft, such as 91.167
(civil aircraft),
91.119 (as written and in the absence of a waiver) applies to all aircraft
(civil and public use aircraft).

Kris


§ 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions
unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and
weather conditions) to--


§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes:

[Ash Wyllie]

C Kingsbury opined

>"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> As the helo you saw was a "public aircraft" operated by the
>> government, it did not have to comply with the FARs, only with
>> whatever operating rules the governmental organization has internally.

>I'd have guessed it was a government bird too, but it looked like an old
>Bell 47, with the fishbowl canopy and erector-set tail boom. Are there any
>other copters currently in service that closely resembled that?

A Llama looks simular, but is 4 place and uses a turbine.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>If you're referring to FAR 91.119(c), it does not apply to helicopters.
>>
>
> Thanks for looking that up.
>

Looking what up?


>
> So it would seem that FAR 91.119(d) might apply in this case.
>

Since this case involves a helicopter FAR 91.119(d) definitely applies.


>
> But without knowing whether there was hazard to persons or property, it's
> difficult to reach a definitive conclusion.
>

I don't see why. Two questions were asked, seems to me the answers are
"Yes" and "None, as long as the operation is conducted without hazard to
persons or property on the surface."

[PJ Hunt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" <roncachamp@> wrote:

> Since this case involves a helicopter FAR 91.119(d) definitely applies.
------

Not necessarily.

If the operation was conducted under Part 135, then 91.119(d) does not apply
and is replaced by 135.203(b).

PJ

[SelwayKid]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message . net>...
> Is it legal for a helicopter to fly under a bridge? What are the obstale
> clearance limits?
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
CWK
It depends on the kind of operations and who is flying. When crop
spraying I flew under bridges with both airplanes and helicopters
legally. I Flew under a lot of things legally (and pretty damned close
to lots of other things)!
"Obstale" clearance is just don't hit it! I'd guess you are talking
about the average pilot flying under FAR 91?
Ol Shy & Bashful

[Dana M. Hague]

Makes me wonder: Is it legal for a Part 103 ultralight to fly under a
bridge? They're not governed by Part 91, and though they can't fly
over any "congested area", it doesn't say anything about flying
_under_ a congested area...

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------The lion and the lamb may lie down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep.