![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Is it legal for a helicopter to fly under a bridge? What are the obstale
clearance limits? Best, -cwk. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message hlink.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. ![]() feet above the water though. Gotta love the Sierras. -Robert |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message hlink.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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lockheed wins Presidential helicopter contract | Tiger | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 29th 05 05:24 AM |
Dennis Fetters Mini 500 | EmailMe | Home Built | 70 | June 21st 04 09:36 PM |
Musings of a Commercial Helicopter Pilot | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 6 | February 27th 04 09:11 AM |
Musings of a helo driver | JD | Military Aviation | 8 | February 26th 04 06:28 PM |
Helicopter crash video | James Blakely | Piloting | 17 | December 30th 03 03:21 PM |