Helicopter Buzzes Wal-Mart [Archive]

January 31st 05, 10:01 PM

"Looks more like 1000+ feet to me."

I know it wasn't, because I was there. But, I must admit that the
photograph initially makes the helicopter look much higher than I
remember it. I believe this is purely a matter of optical perspective,
though. The helicopter is small (and even smaller in the photograph),
so you assume it is very far away. Actually, it is fairly close in that
photo, about as close as it is off the ground.

"Also, I take my pda / phone / camera in there all the time. "

I have worn my Olympus C-3040s around my neck for the last 4 years (and
had another camera on my hip for a year prior). I try to have it with
me at all times. I've taken it into several Wal-Marts in several cities
in two states. I have never before had a Wal-Mart representative tell
me that I cannot bring my camera inside the store. Now, though, they
tell me I can't shop there if I have my camera.

I called 1800-Walmart and complained. They simply passed my complaint
back to the store. I got a message on my answering machine from that
store, repeating what they had just told me the previous day. They say
it is Wal-Mart policy. The manager even said that if I would tell him
which other Wal-Marts allowed me to bring in my camera, he would get
that straightened out, because it is not permitted.

[email protected]

January 31st 05, 10:04 PM

"I think your altitude estimation skills need a bit of practice. "

Could be. My vision is distorted, and I only had a few seconds to grab
this shot.

"It looks to me like the chopper is at least 200 feet up."

I believe the helicopter was within 100 feet of me when I took the
photo. It looks small, so you might think it is farther away.

Allen

January 31st 05, 10:07 PM

William W. Plummer

January 31st 05, 10:08 PM

wrote:
> I was shopping at a Wal-Mart on December 17, 2004, when I noticed
> outside a helicopter flying just over the tops of the parked vehicles
> in front of the store. It was flying towards me, about 20 feet above
> the ground and climbing. I got a photograph of it when it was about 50
> to 70 feet in the air. It quickly flew up past me and over the top of
> the building.
>
> I realize that helicopters have a lot of flight freedom, but it is
> still shocking to see one flying directly towards oneself like this.
>
> Coincidentally, an assistant manager at that store told me last week
> that I was not allowed to bring my camera inside the store. He cited
> security risk, and made a vague reference to the cameras they sell in
> the Electronics Department. So, it may be difficult to get photos like
> the one I took, at least from that store.
> http://members.aol.com/rekgallery/WM_Heli/WM_Heli.html
>
Helos are used to police major power lines in my area. My guess is
they are less than 50 feet above the lines. Everytime I see them fly
by I just give thanks that I don't have that job.

[email protected]

January 31st 05, 10:23 PM

"It is well above 70', probably closer to 400-500' AGL. Is there an
airport
or hospital nearby?"

The nearest hospital in the direction from which the helicopter came is
several miles away. I don't know of any airport in that direction.

I had the impression that the helicopter took off from the construction
site across the street, about 500 feet away, though I did not see it
actually take off. The construction is building a road through a vacant
field. In fact, most of the land in that direction for several miles is
farmland or vacant fields.

The Wal-Mart in the photo is near the intersection of Ohio Street and
121 in Plano, Texas. It should not be difficult to find that on a map.

Newps

January 31st 05, 10:42 PM

William W. Plummer wrote:

>>
> Helos are used to police major power lines in my area. My guess is
> they are less than 50 feet above the lines. Everytime I see them fly
> by I just give thanks that I don't have that job.

They don't police the power lines they check them and it's a great job.
My mechanic has the contract for two pipelines that he flies with his
cub. He makes a killing.

Patrick Pohler

January 31st 05, 10:51 PM

> I had the impression that the helicopter took off from the
construction
> site across the street, about 500 feet away, though I did not see it
> actually take off. The construction is building a road through a
vacant
> field. In fact, most of the land in that direction for several miles
is
> farmland or vacant fields.

These are the FAR's regarding minimum safe altitudes as found on AOPA
Online:
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/regrvw9701.html#119

See especially part (d) of 91.119:

"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. "

If the helicopter was taking off then he's legal. Also since you
described the area as mostly vacant fields, I believe that would
qualify as a sparsely populated area. Also since it's a helicopter they
are allowed to operate less than the minimums unless it's hazardous to
people and property on the ground (other than percieved altitude, was
the helicopter doing anything seemingly dangerous?).

IMHO it's nothing to be worried about. On a side note concerning
Walmart, you can't be without your camera for more than an hour or two
while you shop?

Patrick Pohler
PP-SEL (KOSU)

Peter Duniho

January 31st 05, 11:55 PM

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> They don't police the power lines they check them

Please describe the difference between "police" and "check". To me, there
is none in this context. You've never "policed" your campground before
leaving? "Police" doesn't necessarily mean you're looking for criminals.

Bob Gardner

February 1st 05, 12:17 AM

If you used 35mm...and if you hve the desire to follow up...there was a
situation here in Seattle where a homeowner had snapped a 35mm picture of a
"low flying" airplane. One of the more technically astute ops inspectors
measured the wingspan on the slide, did the necessary math, and proved that
the plane was legal.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I was shopping at a Wal-Mart on December 17, 2004, when I noticed
> outside a helicopter flying just over the tops of the parked vehicles
> in front of the store. It was flying towards me, about 20 feet above
> the ground and climbing. I got a photograph of it when it was about 50
> to 70 feet in the air. It quickly flew up past me and over the top of
> the building.
>
> I realize that helicopters have a lot of flight freedom, but it is
> still shocking to see one flying directly towards oneself like this.
>
> Coincidentally, an assistant manager at that store told me last week
> that I was not allowed to bring my camera inside the store. He cited
> security risk, and made a vague reference to the cameras they sell in
> the Electronics Department. So, it may be difficult to get photos like
> the one I took, at least from that store.
> http://members.aol.com/rekgallery/WM_Heli/WM_Heli.html
>

[email protected]

February 1st 05, 12:25 AM

"If the helicopter was taking off then he's legal. Also since you
described the area as mostly vacant fields, I believe that would
qualify as a sparsely populated area."

Just the Wal-Mart parking lot full of cars (a few hundred vehicles just
then).

"Also since it's a helicopter they are allowed to operate less than the
minimums unless it's hazardous to people and property on the ground
(other than percieved altitude, was
the helicopter doing anything seemingly dangerous?)."

Other than apparently flying straight for the front windows of
Wal-Mart, no.

"On a side note concerning Walmart, you can't be without your camera
for more than an hour or two while you shop?"

Bite your tongue, man! My camera is my soul!

Also, my camera cost me $580. I'm not keen on leaving it in my vehicle
in a public parking lot.

[email protected]

February 1st 05, 12:27 AM

"If you used 35mm..."

No, it was a digital camera.

Ben Hallert

February 1st 05, 12:52 AM

Not that it's immediately relevant to the subject, but you may find it
amusing. I had a friend who once brought a film camera into a Frys
Electronics (growing chain, mostly west coast I think) and went through
the motions of taking a picture. A security guard said he'd have to
confiscate the film, and my friend objected, saying that he had lots of
shots on there he didn't want to lose. Frys then developed the film
for him with the understanding that they would remove any shots of the
inside of the store. Humorously, the film had already been fully
exposed by the time this happened, so they ended up developing the film
for him gratis, and he received the prints and negatives intact.

He felt that he found a creative way to thumb his nose at their 'No
photos' policy.

C J Campbell

February 1st 05, 12:54 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I was shopping at a Wal-Mart on December 17, 2004, when I noticed
> outside a helicopter flying just over the tops of the parked vehicles
> in front of the store. It was flying towards me, about 20 feet above
> the ground and climbing. I got a photograph of it when it was about 50
> to 70 feet in the air. It quickly flew up past me and over the top of
> the building.
>
> I realize that helicopters have a lot of flight freedom, but it is
> still shocking to see one flying directly towards oneself like this.

Why? It is always flying towards somebody. Anyway, if that helicopter is
only 50-70 feet up it is an RC model. I know that you insist that you were
there and know better, but what did you do, use a tape measure? How the heck
do you know that it was only 50-70 feet up?

This one, measuring by the height of the fuselage, is at least 150 feet up.
If it is smaller, then it is even higher. Even so, helicopters fly into all
kinds of places, including Wal-Mart parking lots, schools, homes, or
practically any open field, and they do a lot of aerial photography work at
very low level.

There are some third hand accounts of Wal-Mart having a policy of not
allowing photography in their stores. Apparently the chain is concerned
about competitors who have been sending corporate spies into the stores to
study inventory control. Just as a guess, analysis of a series of pictures
could tip off competitors into Wal-Mart's ordering and restocking practices,
which would be very valuable information. Given enough study, one could
re-engineer Wal-Mart's whole computerized inventory control system.
Considering that Wal-Mart spent a fortune on this system, I doubt that they
would be interested in just handing it over to a competitor for free.

That said, one would think that Wal-Mart would post signs informing
customers of this policy. As usual, the anti-Wal-Mart crowd has attributed
the whole thing to Wal-Mart's sinister plot to take over the world.

Patrick Pohler

February 1st 05, 01:13 AM

wrote:

>
> Bite your tongue, man! My camera is my soul!
>
> Also, my camera cost me $580. I'm not keen on leaving it in my vehicle
> in a public parking lot.
>

Heh, touche my good man. :P

William W. Plummer

February 1st 05, 01:48 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>They don't police the power lines they check them
>
>
> Please describe the difference between "police" and "check". To me, there
> is none in this context. You've never "policed" your campground before
> leaving? "Police" doesn't necessarily mean you're looking for criminals.
>
>
Always looking for a fight, eh.

tr.v. po·liced, po·lic·ing, po·lic·es

1. To regulate, control, or keep in order with or as if with a law
enforcement agency.
2. To make (a military area, for example) neat in appearance:
policed the barracks.

My guess is they are interested in kids drinking in their trucks in the
power line right of way, brush which is overgrowning the area, and
whatever the abutters might be doing to interfere with operations.

[email protected]

February 1st 05, 01:50 AM

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> There are some third hand accounts of Wal-Mart having a policy of not
> allowing photography in their stores. Apparently the chain is
concerned
> about competitors who have been sending corporate spies into the
stores to
> study inventory control. Just as a guess, analysis of a series of
pictures
> could tip off competitors into Wal-Mart's ordering and restocking
practices,
> which would be very valuable information. Given enough study, one
could
> re-engineer Wal-Mart's whole computerized inventory control system.
> Considering that Wal-Mart spent a fortune on this system, I doubt
that they
> would be interested in just handing it over to a competitor for free.
>

One of my little sisters works for a Wal-Mart vendor. To try and
decipher the stocking programs from a couple of visits would be totally
impossible. The process is store and sales dependant. What you see at
one store for product turnover does not translate to the same for any
other store. She is constantly having to go in and tweak the system for
the items she is responsible for in their system. The system is so tied
together with sales and distrubution that making an incorrect change in
one wrong place in the software can trigger a major operational
castorophe. The software is so complicated that she has had several
weeks of training on how to correctly add, update and interpret data
from the software. Even though it's now considered stable software,
their IT people are constantly working on upgrading it to match closer
and closer to actual overall performance.

Craig C.

Newps

February 1st 05, 02:21 AM

William W. Plummer wrote:

> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> They don't police the power lines they check them
>>
>>
>>
>> Please describe the difference between "police" and "check". To me,
>> there is none in this context. You've never "policed" your campground
>> before leaving? "Police" doesn't necessarily mean you're looking for
>> criminals.
>>
> Always looking for a fight, eh.
>
> tr.v. po·liced, po·lic·ing, po·lic·es
>
> 1. To regulate, control, or keep in order with or as if with a law
> enforcement agency.
> 2. To make (a military area, for example) neat in appearance: policed
> the barracks.
>
>
> My guess is they are interested in kids drinking in their trucks in the
> power line right of way, brush which is overgrowning the area, and
> whatever the abutters might be doing to interfere with operations.

Duniho is an idiot, always has been. Anywho...there are a very few
powerlines or pipelines that they actually police. A pipeline patrol
checks many things. They check for leaks, although it's hard to imagine
the pilot finding the leak first as the pressure drop would be
immediately apparent. They look for Bubba out there with the backhoe
digging his new foundation without a permit. They look for trees laying
against the towers or the pipeline. They look for rockslides. Pretty
much anything that could affect the integrity of the line. My mechanic
flies two lines, they each have to be flown once every two weeks. He
makes about $1500 per patrol and each is about 600 air miles long. He
uses mogas so it costs less than $100 per flight. He's an IA so there's
no labor cost on the maintenence.

Mike Beede

February 1st 05, 02:44 AM

In article . com>,
wrote:

> "I think your altitude estimation skills need a bit of practice. "
>
> Could be. My vision is distorted, and I only had a few seconds to grab
> this shot.
>
> "It looks to me like the chopper is at least 200 feet up."
>
> I believe the helicopter was within 100 feet of me when I took the
> photo. It looks small, so you might think it is farther away.

The apparent width of the helicopter, which looks like a Hughes
500, seems to be at most 1/8 that of the back of the SUV, which
should be roughly the same size (allowing for measuring
imprecision). That means it's at least 8 times further
away. Presumably you could measure the distance from where
you were standing to the third parking space. At the stores
I've been at, that would be on the order of 100 feet. That
would put the helicopter at around 800 feet away. It would
be a simple matter to determine the altitude by measuring the
height of the apparent position on the light pole and
multiplying by the appropriate factor (since for government
work the pole and the SUV are the same distance from the
camera). It looks like maybe 30 feet, which would give an
altitude of 250 feet.

Of course, if it was one of those Dangerchopper things that
only hold a single pilot for a brief shining moment until
they wind up in a field, it would be probably four
times closer and lower. That might be well under a hundred
feet up (remember that I tried to estimate the *minimum*
altitude and distance).

In either case, his estimation skills seem like they might at
least plausibly be good. It would be interesting to carry
out more precise measurements, but what would be the point?
Maybe the pilot is on the group and can tell us how high
he was.

As for Walmort, the camera thing seems like a good reason
not to shop there. They're probably worried about competitors
checking their prices (they'll throw you out if you're writing
down prices too, I bet) and as a dinosaurian company they're
too slow and stupid to realize that ten percent of their
customers have cameras in their cell phones.

Mike Beede

[email protected]

February 1st 05, 03:12 AM

> "He felt that he found a creative way to thumb his nose
> at their 'No photos' policy."

How nefarious!

I took a photo inside a Fry's Electronics store, back when I did not
know they had a policy against it. I soon found out, as someone walked
up to me and told me it wasn't allowed. No one tried to get the single
photo I had taken, though, and I still have it.

But, see, Fry's lets people take cameras inside their store. I have to
get a yellow slip with the serial number filled out before I go into
the main part of the store, but they have never given me any trouble
about carrying a camera around inside the store. Most merchants don't
give me any trouble for it.

[email protected]

February 1st 05, 03:44 AM

>> I realize that helicopters have a lot of flight freedom, but it is
>> still shocking to see one flying directly towards oneself like this.

>Why? It is always flying towards somebody.

But not at eye level, which it almost was just a few seconds before
that photo was taken. It was climbing rapidly when I took that shot.

> Anyway, if that helicopter is
> only 50-70 feet up it is an RC model. I know that you insist that you
were
> there and know better, but what did you do, use a tape measure? How
the heck
> do you know that it was only 50-70 feet up?

I know it wasn't 1000 feet up, as someone suggested. I might accept 200
feet feet, as an outside stretch. 100 feet does not look like an
unreasonable estimate. But, my impression at the time of the photo was
that it was about 50 feet above the ground when I took the picture.
But, then, as I say, it was in a rapid climb, from just high enough to
clear the parked cars, to high enough to clear the roof of the
building. Keep in mind, too, that I was running towards the windows of
the store, as I tried to get a shot before the helicopter got out of my
field of view. It takes my camera 5 seconds to boot up, then another
few seconds to lock onto a target and snap the photo. I jogged from the
cash registers in the front of the store over to the windows at the
front while my camera was booting. I did not have time to get a second
photo, which I would have done if I could have.

The helicopter didn't start climbing very fast until I had almost
reached the windows, and I was trying to decide whether to get the shot
from inside the store, or risk another few seconds going outside the
store. When I saw the helicopter begin to rise quickly, I quickly took
the shot from inside the store. Within another 3 seconds, it was over
the top of the building.

> This one, measuring by the height of the fuselage, is at least 150
feet up.

I'm pretty certain it was under 150 feet, and over 50 feet.

> There are some third hand accounts of Wal-Mart having a policy of not
> allowing photography in their stores.

Photography, I understand banning. But, they aren't just banning
photography. They are banning cameras completely.

> Apparently the chain is concerned about competitors who have been
> sending corporate spies into the stores to study inventory control.

Several years ago, I worked for a marketing company. I carried around a
portable computer, called a Telxon, which I used to scan the bar codes
of products I was paid to monitor. I had to perform my job in several
different stores, including Albertsons, Krogers, Winn-Dixie, Target,
K-Mart and various other stores, in addition to Wal-Mart. Sometimes,
when I would finish, I would go grocery shopping. Several times, a
Wal-Mart manager (obviously on the verge of hysteria) would demand to
know what I was doing as I pushed my grocery cart with my Telxon in the
cart. After I explained that I was buying groceries for myself, the
manager would give me a lecture about not scanning any of their prices,
and then go away.

> Just as a guess, analysis of a series of pictures
> could tip off competitors into Wal-Mart's ordering and restocking
> practices, which would be very valuable information.

Oh, I can tell you what Wal-Mart's restocking practice is. There
practice is to fill up all the aisles with pallets of goods, while
removing the products that I had become accustomed to buying. Even
though there are pallets of goods in all the aisles every night, they
are always out of stock of something that I want.

OK, I hope I didn't give away too many company secrets with that.

> Given enough study, one could re-engineer Wal-Mart's whole
> computerized inventory control system.
> Considering that Wal-Mart spent a fortune on this system, I doubt
that they
> would be interested in just handing it over to a competitor for free.

If I wanted to spy on Wal-Mart, I would find a better way of doing it
than by hanging an Olympus around my neck.

Right now, I could buy cameras that fit inside the frames of my glasses
and the buttons of my shirts. If I wanted to do so, I could record
every inch and every product code in their entire store, and they would
never even see it. Indeed, the true value of security would not be in
keeping someone out; it would be in making it too expensive for them to
use the information they obtained.

Places like MIT are prototyping personal video systems that are
intended to record all the events of a person's day, for their entire
life. I have seen several of these prototype systems. I expect they
will become fairly common within 15 years, much like cell phones are
now. Wal-Mart is not going to stop progress.

[email protected]

February 1st 05, 04:03 AM

> The apparent width of the helicopter, which looks like a Hughes
> 500, seems to be at most 1/8 that of the back of the SUV, which
> should be roughly the same size (allowing for measuring
> imprecision). That means it's at least 8 times further
> away. Presumably you could measure the distance from where
> you were standing to the third parking space. At the stores
> I've been at, that would be on the order of 100 feet. That
> would put the helicopter at around 800 feet away.

I have several advantages over you in these estimates. I already
mentioned one, that I was actually there, and I have first-hand
knowledge of the store, parking lot and event. But, I also have a
larger photo on my home computer. The original photo is 2048 x 1536
pixels. I resized it to 800 x 600 for the Web.

There is no way the helicopter is 800 feet distant in the photo. It had
already crossed more than half of the parking lot by the time I took
the photo, and you should be able to see that the parking lot is not
800 feet wide. You might notice the corner of a gas station canopy in
the lower left-hand corner. That is Wal-Mart/Sam's gas station, at the
far end of the parking lot. I would say the gas station is about 300
feet away.

I believe the helicopter is a little closer to the store than is the
white pickup truck that appears directly below it in the photo.

> As for Walmort, the camera thing seems like a good reason
> not to shop there.

Unfortunately, most of the grocery stores in this area close early.
Wal-Mart is the only 24-hour grocery store within several miles, as far
as I know. I usually work evenings, so the only store open when I get
off work is Wal-Mart.

LOL, I bet they are confused why I visit their store at all hours of
the day and night!

Sam O'Nella

February 1st 05, 04:35 AM

> "Also, I take my pda / phone / camera in there all the time. "

> I have worn my Olympus C-3040s around my neck for the last 4 years

The difference is mine is in my pocket.

> (and had another camera on my hip for a year prior). I try to have it
> with me at all times. I've taken it into several Wal-Marts in several
> cities in two states. I have never before had a Wal-Mart
> representative tell me that I cannot bring my camera inside the
> store. Now, though, they tell me I can't shop there if I have my
> camera.

Well, now you know. No more wearing the camera in the store.

Peter Duniho

February 1st 05, 04:39 AM

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
> Always looking for a fight, eh.

Who? The person posting as "Newps" is the one who arbitrarily decided your
post needed contesting.

Personally, I think your original post is just fine as is and was defending
it. I see that "Newps" is ever-ready with his snap judgments and
oh-so-sharp wit, but his reply still doesn't explain why you shouldn't have
used the word "police".

Pete

[email protected]

February 1st 05, 05:08 AM

Mike Beede wrote:
> The apparent width of the helicopter, which looks like a Hughes
> 500, seems to be at most 1/8 that of the back of the SUV, which
> should be roughly the same size (allowing for measuring
> imprecision).

Take a closer look. It's either a Hughes 269 or 300. They are about the
only thing outside an R44 or a Brantley that use a 3 blade rotor
system. The forward section of the cabin and the skid are definately
Hughes. The 269/300 has a cabin width of only about 4 feet.
Craig C.

C J Campbell

February 1st 05, 06:55 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> > Given enough study, one could re-engineer Wal-Mart's whole
> > computerized inventory control system.
> > Considering that Wal-Mart spent a fortune on this system, I doubt
> that they
> > would be interested in just handing it over to a competitor for free.
>
> If I wanted to spy on Wal-Mart, I would find a better way of doing it
> than by hanging an Olympus around my neck.
>

Oh, I did not say that Wal-Mart's security is effective. The bigger the
organization, the less effective and the more offensive security is. If
Wal-Mart grows much bigger they will be wanding all their customers with
metal detectors before allowing them to buy guns.

Cub Driver

February 1st 05, 10:39 AM

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:55:17 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>Please describe the difference between "police" and "check". To me, there
>is none in this context. You've never "policed" your campground before
>leaving? "Police" doesn't necessarily mean you're looking for criminals.

Well, in that sense it means picking up trash, as in "Awright! Saddle
up! Police your butts!"

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

Denny

February 1st 05, 12:40 PM

Hay P....,
The real issue is not determining the altitude of the chopper from your
photo, it is your assumption that the chopper pilot is doing something
wrong. (not)
Did you discuss this with the FSDO? (nope)...
Have that discussion and you will add to your knowledge of the FAR's...

Did you know that choppers are required to fly the pattern at the
airport in the opposite direction of the fixed wing traffic, i.e. going
directly at them on base leg? (nope, etc.)
Did you know that choppers are allowed to fly vfr in ifr conditions?
(nope)

As far as Wally World banning cameras, I have one in my jacket 24/7, I
just don't flash it in people's faces, so it has never been
questioned...
Cheers ... Denny

Larry Dighera

February 1st 05, 01:30 PM

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:21:41 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >::

>Duniho is an idiot, always has been.

In my experience, Mr. Duniho is far from an idiot. He's a computer
programmer. In a programmer's world everything must be absolutely
precise and zero-sum. If you've ever attempted to create any computer
software, you'll appreciate that necessity for precision. It's only
when the importance of that desire for absolute order compulsively
overshadows the task at hand (polite conversation in this case) that
it can be accurately characterized as neurotic.

[email protected]

February 1st 05, 03:35 PM

If the copter in your photo is only 50ft in the air, then it is clearly
just an RC toy. Thus, I think you had nothing to fear.

If it is a full-sized aircraft, then it is clearly more than 50ft
(150-200ft would be my guess) - and you state that it was climbing
rapidly (probably had just taken off from a nearby field/lot). Again,
I don't see the problem.

-Pat

Dan Girellini

February 1st 05, 04:24 PM

"Denny" > writes:

> Did you discuss this with the FSDO? (nope)...
> Have that discussion and you will add to your knowledge of the FAR's...

> Did you know that choppers are required to fly the pattern at the airport in
> the opposite direction of the fixed wing traffic, i.e. going directly at them
> on base leg? (nope, etc.)

I don't think this is true. It is the case at my home base (Princeton, NJ)
and maybe at yours too, but how could the FARs require this? It would
generally defeat the purpose of any airpot having a right pattern for a given
runway if that just meant rotorcraft were going to fly on the other side.

d.

Sam O'Nella

February 1st 05, 04:29 PM

>> In a programmer's world everything must be absolutely
>> precise and zero-sum.
>
> Are you kidding? Have you ever run Windows?

Wow - an OS weenie in only 7 levels.

I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone bash microsoft in a
newsgroup! How fresh and original!

Judah

February 1st 05, 04:32 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:21:41 -0700, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>
>>Duniho is an idiot, always has been.
>
> In my experience, Mr. Duniho is far from an idiot. He's a computer
> programmer.

> In a programmer's world everything must be absolutely
> precise and zero-sum.

Are you kidding? Have you ever run Windows?

Judah

February 1st 05, 04:47 PM

wrote in news:1107229443.666426.49330
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

<snip>

> field of view. It takes my camera 5 seconds to boot up, then another
> few seconds to lock onto a target and snap the photo. I jogged from the
> cash registers in the front of the store over to the windows at the
> front while my camera was booting. I did not have time to get a second
> photo, which I would have done if I could have.

<snip>

You paid $600 for a camera that takes longer to boot up than Windows and
even longer to process a picture?

You could have gotten one like that for about $150 from... Walmart!

George Patterson

February 1st 05, 04:53 PM

Judah wrote:
>
> You paid $600 for a camera that takes longer to boot up than Windows and
> even longer to process a picture?

There are more important things to consider when buying a digital camera --
unless all you take are "birthday party" shots.

George Patterson
He who marries for money earns every penny of it.

Matt Barrow

February 1st 05, 05:02 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
> I got a photograph of it when it was about 50
> > to 70 feet in the air. It quickly flew up past me and over the top of
> > the building.
> >
> > I realize that helicopters have a lot of flight freedom, but it is
> > still shocking to see one flying directly towards oneself like this.
>
> I think your altitude estimation skills need a bit of practice. It looks
to
> me like the chopper is at least 200 feet up. Anyone else have an opinion?

The rotors are typically 30 feet in diameter, so my guess is about 500-600
feet.

Matt Barrow

February 1st 05, 05:11 PM

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> Helos are used to police major power lines in my area. My guess is
> they are less than 50 feet above the lines. Everytime I see them fly
> by I just give thanks that I don't have that job.

Like these? http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0012.jpg
http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0007.jpg
http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0087.jpg

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow

February 1st 05, 05:23 PM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > I was shopping at a Wal-Mart on December 17, 2004, when I noticed
> > outside a helicopter flying just over the tops of the parked vehicles
> > in front of the store. It was flying towards me, about 20 feet above
> > the ground and climbing. I got a photograph of it when it was about 50
> > to 70 feet in the air. It quickly flew up past me and over the top of
> > the building.
> >
> > I realize that helicopters have a lot of flight freedom, but it is
> > still shocking to see one flying directly towards oneself like this.
>
> Why? It is always flying towards somebody. Anyway, if that helicopter is
> only 50-70 feet up it is an RC model. I know that you insist that you were
> there and know better, but what did you do, use a tape measure? How the
heck
> do you know that it was only 50-70 feet up?

Well, 60 feet is home plate to the pitchers mound, and 70 feet is less than
home to 1st base.

He's a terrible judge of distance.

Let me tell you about the running shot I made on a deer at 500 yards!
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow

February 1st 05, 05:28 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> >> I realize that helicopters have a lot of flight freedom, but it is
> >> still shocking to see one flying directly towards oneself like this.
>
> >Why? It is always flying towards somebody.
>
> But not at eye level, which it almost was just a few seconds before
> that photo was taken. It was climbing rapidly when I took that shot.
>
> > Anyway, if that helicopter is
> > only 50-70 feet up it is an RC model. I know that you insist that you
> were
> > there and know better, but what did you do, use a tape measure? How
> the heck
> > do you know that it was only 50-70 feet up?
>
> I know it wasn't 1000 feet up, as someone suggested. I might accept 200
> feet feet, as an outside stretch. 100 feet does not look like an
> unreasonable estimate.

That's home to first base. The downwash would damn near flatten people.

Hell man, the rotors are 26-32 feet in diameter (MD500).

Get a set of dividers and measure the diameter of the rotor and then
translates that to vertical distance.

It's probably 500 UP and 100-1500 yards AWAY.

Matt Barrow

February 1st 05, 05:30 PM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Judah wrote:
> >
> > You paid $600 for a camera that takes longer to boot up than Windows and
> > even longer to process a picture?
>
> There are more important things to consider when buying a digital
camera --
> unless all you take are "birthday party" shots.
>

Yeah...like "birthday suit" shots.

Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

gatt

February 1st 05, 07:00 PM

> wrote in message

> Coincidentally, an assistant manager at that store told me last week
> that I was not allowed to bring my camera inside the store. He cited
> security risk,

He's most likely full of crap. They don't want you photographing prices,
products, people, etc.

The reason I know this is because I was assigned to film a person purchasing
tools and parts from a hardware for a television project and the assistant
manager threw us out as soon as he saw the camera without letting us
explain. (Told the manager it was too bad...would have been free publicity
for the store, shown across north America. He invited us back but of course
production was finished.)

-c

Denny

February 1st 05, 07:43 PM

Dan, you are dealing with the FAR's... I'm not guessing, I'm quoting
them

Have a good un...

Denny

Gig Giacona

February 1st 05, 08:03 PM

Which one are you quoting? I have a helicopter rating and I am absolutly
sure neither of the CFIs or the examiner ever mentioned a thing about it and
you would think the exaimner might mention it when I entered the pattern on
the wrong side of the airport.

They are picky that way.

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dan, you are dealing with the FAR's... I'm not guessing, I'm quoting
> them
>
>
> Have a good un...
>
> Denny
>

Dan Girellini

February 1st 05, 08:23 PM

"Denny" > writes:

> Dan, you are dealing with the FAR's... I'm not guessing, I'm quoting
> them

If you had quoted them, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

All I found from a quick search was this AC which contradicts your claim:

<http://www.avweb.com/news/features/184492-1.html>

To which FAR are you referring?

d.

Morgans

February 1st 05, 09:27 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote
>
> Let me tell you about the running shot I made on a deer at 500 yards!
> --
> Matt

That ain't nothin'! First game I ever took, I didn't have time to get the
12 gauge up to the shoulder, before the rabbit would have gone into a briar
patch, so I shot from the hip.

When I cleaned it, I found only about 5 pellets in the head/neck, and
nothing in the body.

Sometimes, better lucky than good!
--
Jim in NC

William W. Plummer

February 1st 05, 09:31 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Helos are used to police major power lines in my area. My guess is
>>they are less than 50 feet above the lines. Everytime I see them fly
>>by I just give thanks that I don't have that job.
>
>
> Like these? http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0012.jpg
> http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0007.jpg
> http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0087.jpg
>
>
Great pix! I got a charge out of them.

Bob Moore

February 1st 05, 09:41 PM

Dan Girellini > wrote :

> "Denny" > writes:
>> Did you know that choppers are required to fly the pattern at the
>> airport in the opposite direction of the fixed wing traffic, i.e.
>> going directly at them on base leg? (nope, etc.)
>
> I don't think this is true. It is the case at my home base
> (Princeton, NJ) and maybe at yours too, but how could the FARs require
> this? It would generally defeat the purpose of any airpot having a
> right pattern for a given runway if that just meant rotorcraft were
> going to fly on the other side.

Oh! Denny is just making-up regulations again. :-) I thought that
he stopped making them up about a year ago, but he is back at it again.

Here is the regulation that he thinks that he remembers.

Section 91.126: Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
airspace

(2) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow
of fixed-wing aircraft.

An FAA Advisory Circular on the subject states that helicopter pilots
*MAY* fly right-hand patterns if local rules permit.

Bob Moore

Dan Thompson

February 2nd 05, 02:32 AM

I have a helicopter rating too. At an uncontrolled airport, the fixed
wingers fly left pattern, pattern altitude 1000' - we helis fly right
pattern, pattern altitude 500', usually land on the ramp or taxiway.

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> Which one are you quoting? I have a helicopter rating and I am absolutly
> sure neither of the CFIs or the examiner ever mentioned a thing about it
> and you would think the exaimner might mention it when I entered the
> pattern on the wrong side of the airport.
>
> They are picky that way.
>
>
>
> "Denny" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Dan, you are dealing with the FAR's... I'm not guessing, I'm quoting
>> them
>>
>>
>> Have a good un...
>>
>> Denny
>>
>
>

Dan Thompson

February 2nd 05, 02:49 AM

Typical chopper take off from a confined area is straight up vertically
until clear of the obstacles, then a horizontal acceleration to about 50
knots, then a climb out at 50-70 knots. Sounds like the chopper took off
and accelerated over the Wal Mart. The low, horizontal part is what looked
scary to you. Normally we avoid take offs like that for just that reason.

So, there would have to be a reason the chopper took off directly over the
Wal Mart if there was vacant land on three sides of the construction site.
If it was really windy that day, from the direction of the Wal Mart, the
pilot may have decided all things considered that it was safer to depart in
that direction. Downwind take offs are considered dangerous. Or there
might have been wires or other obstacles in the other directions. What I
would do is call the helicopter operation over at Addison, email the owner
the picture, and ask them if they know anything about it. They are the only
really active Schweizer operation around the Dallas area.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> "It is well above 70', probably closer to 400-500' AGL. Is there an
> airport
> or hospital nearby?"
>
> The nearest hospital in the direction from which the helicopter came is
> several miles away. I don't know of any airport in that direction.
>
> I had the impression that the helicopter took off from the construction
> site across the street, about 500 feet away, though I did not see it
> actually take off. The construction is building a road through a vacant
> field. In fact, most of the land in that direction for several miles is
> farmland or vacant fields.
>
> The Wal-Mart in the photo is near the intersection of Ohio Street and
> 121 in Plano, Texas. It should not be difficult to find that on a map.
>

Darkwing Duck

February 2nd 05, 03:44 AM

"Sam O'Nella" > wrote in message
...
>
>> "Also, I take my pda / phone / camera in there all the time. "
>
>> I have worn my Olympus C-3040s around my neck for the last 4 years
>
> The difference is mine is in my pocket.
>
>> (and had another camera on my hip for a year prior). I try to have it
>> with me at all times. I've taken it into several Wal-Marts in several
>> cities in two states. I have never before had a Wal-Mart
>> representative tell me that I cannot bring my camera inside the
>> store. Now, though, they tell me I can't shop there if I have my
>> camera.
>
> Well, now you know. No more wearing the camera in the store.

They do that because they don't want other companies taking photos of
products placement, pricing, etc.

Always been that way far as I have ever heard.

C J Campbell

February 2nd 05, 04:10 AM

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> You paid $600 for a camera that takes longer to boot up than Windows and
> even longer to process a picture?
>
> You could have gotten one like that for about $150 from... Walmart!

Take a look at the EXIF information for this picture. The Olympus 3040Zoom
used to take this picture was introduced in April 2001. Street price at that
time was $800, so he probably got it used or on clearance when it was
discontinued. It was slow starting even for its day due to the lens design,
but otherwise a fairly decent camera.

Modern digitals don't take nearly as long to boot up. Instant on is the
standard now.

Pooua came into a piloting forum looking for sympathy. First he was
frightened by a helicopter that was simply minding its own business, then
traumatized by a Wal-Mart manager. I mean, this all happened on December 17,
and he is still upset. Sounds like his expectations were a little misplaced
all around.

Listen, Pooua, we pilots are a little weary of being accused of being
terrorists by ignorant, panicky twits like you. Now, people here have all
told you where you were wrong and why you were wrong, but you insist on
arguing with them. Believe it or not, the folks here actually have some idea
of what they are talking about. We also know that you do not. If you want
some sympathy, take it to alt.airporthaters or someplace like that.

Matt Barrow

February 2nd 05, 04:36 AM

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > "William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Helos are used to police major power lines in my area. My guess is
> >>they are less than 50 feet above the lines. Everytime I see them fly
> >>by I just give thanks that I don't have that job.
> >
> >
> > Like these? http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0012.jpg
> > http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0007.jpg
> > http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0087.jpg
> >
> >
> Great pix! I got a charge out of them.

Oh...how cliché!!

Aardvark

February 2nd 05, 05:46 AM

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Helos are used to police major power lines in my area. My guess is
>>>>they are less than 50 feet above the lines. Everytime I see them fly
>>>>by I just give thanks that I don't have that job.
>>>
>>>
>>>Like these? http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0012.jpg
>>>http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0007.jpg
>>>http://mdhelicopters.com/gallery/MD500Pix/md500_SCE_0087.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Great pix! I got a charge out of them.
>
>
> Oh...how cliché!!
>
>

Bell Ads showing chopper with in 2 or 3 feet of lines

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K1A42526A

Gig Giacona

February 2nd 05, 02:28 PM

Dan,

I didn't say there weren't places that it was doen or even that it was not a
good idea. I was just implying that it was not in the regs.

"Dan Thompson" > wrote in message
om...
>I have a helicopter rating too. At an uncontrolled airport, the fixed
>wingers fly left pattern, pattern altitude 1000' - we helis fly right
>pattern, pattern altitude 500', usually land on the ramp or taxiway.
>
>
>
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Which one are you quoting? I have a helicopter rating and I am absolutly
>> sure neither of the CFIs or the examiner ever mentioned a thing about it
>> and you would think the exaimner might mention it when I entered the
>> pattern on the wrong side of the airport.
>>
>> They are picky that way.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Denny" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Dan, you are dealing with the FAR's... I'm not guessing, I'm quoting
>>> them
>>>
>>>
>>> Have a good un...
>>>
>>> Denny
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Jim Fisher

February 2nd 05, 05:20 PM

> wrote in message

> I believe the helicopter was within 100 feet of me when I took the
> photo. It looks small, so you might think it is farther away.

As a former armature photographer (used to have my own darkroom and all) I
offer the following: The stock lens on that Cheap Olympus camera doesn't
distort perspective unless you are using the zoom function. The chopper is
roughly the same apparent size as the red truck seen waaaaay at the end of
the parking lot - approximately 500 to 700 feet away horizontally. My
trained eye places the chopper between 100 to 200 feet closer to you than
the red truck - 400 to 600 feet away. It's vertical height, then, is
approximately 300 to 400 feet.

If the chopper were in a rapid ascent as you claim, it was many hundreds of
feet above Wal-Mart as it flew over.

Therefore, I am sorry to say that you are simply nutso and possibly
delusional.

--
Jim Fisher

C J Campbell

February 2nd 05, 05:40 PM

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
.. .
> > wrote in message
>
> Therefore, I am sorry to say that you are simply nutso and possibly
> delusional.

Too late, Jim. I think the troll became discouraged at the extraordinary
lack of sympathy for his sensitive feelings here and has gone away.

[email protected]

February 2nd 05, 11:27 PM

> So, there would have to be a reason the chopper took off directly
over the
> Wal Mart if there was vacant land on three sides of the construction
site.
>
> Or there might have been wires or other obstacles in the other
directions.

I don't recall that day being very windy, but there are electrical
lines on all the other sides of the property. The pilot was travelling
along the line of greatest distance to an obstacle (other than the
Wal-Mart building).

> What I would do is call the helicopter operation over at Addison,
email the owner
> the picture, and ask them if they know anything about it. They are
the only
> really active Schweizer operation around the Dallas area.

That was a good idea. I just got off the phone with one of the managers
at Summit Helicopters in Addison. He confirmed that is one of his
company's helicopters, and they have frequent operations in the area,
and they are the only operation in the area that flies the Schweizer
300 helicopter. He said that whichever of us bet closest to a height of
125 feet probably won. He also said it was a good picture (I sent him a
full-sized, 2 Meg copy).
He seemed like a really nice man. Maybe I'll take a helicopter flight
with them, sometime ($99 for a half-hour, and they offer Christmas
lights tours).

C J Campbell

February 2nd 05, 11:45 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> That was a good idea. I just got off the phone with one of the managers
> at Summit Helicopters in Addison. He confirmed that is one of his
> company's helicopters, and they have frequent operations in the area,
> and they are the only operation in the area that flies the Schweizer
> 300 helicopter. He said that whichever of us bet closest to a height of
> 125 feet probably won.

I said it was 150 feet. What do I win?

Mike Beede

February 3rd 05, 03:15 AM

In article >,
"C J Campbell" > wrote:

> Listen, Pooua, we pilots are a little weary of being accused of being
> terrorists by ignorant, panicky twits like you. Now, people here have all
> told you where you were wrong and why you were wrong, but you insist on
> arguing with them. Believe it or not, the folks here actually have some idea
> of what they are talking about. We also know that you do not. If you want
> some sympathy, take it to alt.airporthaters or someplace like that.

I didn't see any accusation. I thought it was a civil
discussion where the OP was asking for information about
something he thought was unsafe. He was somewhat unwilling
to believe that his Mk I eyeball was miscalibrated, but
that doesn't seem to call for namecalling, IMESHO.

Personally, I figure people are spooked about a lot of things,
and at least in public (and this IS a public forum) I try
to be a calming influence. I try to reserve my ire for the
government figures and entities that ought to understand
the issues but instead engage in rabble-rousing and ineffective
restrictions.

Mike Beede

Capt.Doug

February 3rd 05, 04:12 AM

>"Morgans" wrote in message > Anyone else have an opinion?

Yeah, I have an opinion. F**K WalMart! Don't shop there. Support your local
merchants, not China.

D. (you asked :-) )

Matt Barrow

February 3rd 05, 04:35 AM

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"Morgans" wrote in message > Anyone else have an opinion?
>
> Yeah, I have an opinion. F**K WalMart! Don't shop there. Support your
local
> merchants, not China.

Geez...just a while back, high prices local merchants were accused of
"ripping people off".

BTW, the best thing that can happen to local merchants is to have a Wal-Mart
move in near by (think of traffic into the area).

And what makes you think local merchants don't carry goods made in China?

> D. (you asked :-) )

You got it...back! :~)

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[email protected]

February 3rd 05, 04:36 AM

"What do I win?"

I'm glad you asked.

I happen to have a nice bucket of propwash, which you can use to polish
your reference datum and vector grommet. I'll even through in True
North, very handy these days when you have Dull Company.

TaxSrv

February 3rd 05, 04:49 AM

"Capt.Doug" wrote:
>
> Yeah, I have an opinion. F**K WalMart! Don't shop there. Support
your local
> merchants, not China.
>

Fine by me, but for Wal-Mart stores in and around the big
city,.there's hardly any local merchants left who sell the same stuff
even if better. If you want better clothing, you go to the big dept
store at the mall and hope for a sale. Even the other merchants in the
mall are often manufacturer owned. Others may be medium-sized local
companies of maybe a dozen such franchises at a bunch of malls.

Fred F.

Matt Barrow

February 3rd 05, 06:17 AM

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > > wrote in message
> >
> > Therefore, I am sorry to say that you are simply nutso and possibly
> > delusional.
>
> Too late, Jim. I think the troll became discouraged at the extraordinary
> lack of sympathy for his sensitive feelings here and has gone away.
>
I wonder if he EVER has seen a helicopter close up...like on a ramp or a LZ
or something, rather than just flying overhead.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Denny

February 3rd 05, 02:20 PM

Making them up!!!! Nobody can make up the FAR's, they are stolen from
the POH of an alien spacecraft held in Area 51...

Anyway, nothing I like better than a good reg's fight, unfortunately my
FAR/AIM is at home and given the insanity of my business at the moment
I may or may not get to it... The background of my statement is the
fact that my home field has helicopter traffic, that I have mostly
ignored for decades - or maybe it is my failing vision - anyway, this
issue came up after a pilot got his undies in a wedgie after seeing a
helicopter flying a right pattern whilst he was on a left pattern...
So, a small hoo-haa occurred in the lounge in front of my wondering
eyes with the fixed winger doing the 3 year old tantrum routine, while
the rotor head merely shrugged and moved on... To satisfy my idle
curiosity as to the rightousness of the rotor guy, I called the FSDO
and inquired about the regulatory basis and the inspector quoted the
biblical passages (long gone from my memory) and stated the FSDO
expected choppers to pattern opposite the fixed wing traffic for mutual
visibility, subject to local rules, barometer changes, wardrobe
malfunctions, etc., etc... I looked it up at the time and by golly he
was right...
But, if you continue casting aspersions upon my infallibility then I
shall be forced to counter with - logging PIC time, IFR in Class E
airspace, owner manufactured parts - and you don't want me to do that,
do you?

But we digress - as usual - from the main point, that choppers operate
under different rules than fixed wings and if you see one down low over
a Wally World parking lot, he is likely not bending any regs...

Cheers ... Denny
Denny