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.