Chooper landing in street

Guy lands helicopter on a public street to take rocker Tommy Lee to a
concert.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/02/le....ap/index.html
3 charges: reckless flying, aircraft on street, landing without permit.

And we whine about Mel Gibson driving while plastered...

It's bad enough to have to watch out for insane drivers, but insane
pilots as well?

"morticide" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Guy lands helicopter on a public street to take rocker Tommy Lee to a
> concert.
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/02/le....ap/index.html
> 3 charges: reckless flying, aircraft on street, landing without permit.
>
> And we whine about Mel Gibson driving while plastered...
>
> It's bad enough to have to watch out for insane drivers, but insane
> pilots as well?
>

This pilot could get up to 18 months in prison for flying that was (at
WORST) no more dangerous than the driving most people do on their morning
commute every day. He landed a chopper momentarily on a road in a gated
community with no traffic. What's the big deal here? Sounds like good
flying to me. -Dave

Mike T. wrote: <brevity snip>

> He landed a chopper momentarily on a road in a gated
> community with no traffic. What's the big deal here?

Nothing, maybe.

Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B--Flight Rules
General

Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

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.
-----

- gpsman

> morticide said in rec.autos.driving:
> Guy lands helicopter on a public street to take rocker Tommy Lee to a
> concert.
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/02/le....ap/index.html
> 3 charges: reckless flying, aircraft on street, landing without permit.
>
> And we whine about Mel Gibson driving while plastered...
>
> It's bad enough to have to watch out for insane drivers, but insane
> pilots as well?

Reminds me of that scene in "Cannonball Run," where Burt Reynolds lands
an airplane on a city street (complete with traffic and pedestrians) and
then Dom DeLuise runs into a C-store to buy a 6-pack of beer....


--
Aunt Judy defends a known *drunk driver*:

"Almost all vehicle 'accidents' are due to driver
recklessness but the Chappaquidick incident is one
instance where it may really have been no ones
fault except the idiot who built the bridge."
--"Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend," 11/10/2005
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9jtjt
Msg ID:

>
> (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.
> -----

So, the rules specifically allowed the pilot do do exactly what he's up on
criminal charges for now. Ummmm, what??? -Dave

Mike T. wrote:
> >
> > (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.
> > -----
>
> So, the rules specifically allowed the pilot do do exactly what he's up on
> criminal charges for now. Ummmm, what??? -Dave

He didn't get clearance to go low/land, and its doubtful the
pedestrians were properly constrained from the area.

D

>> > (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.
>> > -----
>>
>> So, the rules specifically allowed the pilot do do exactly what he's up
>> on
>> criminal charges for now. Ummmm, what??? -Dave
>
> He didn't get clearance to go low/land, and its doubtful the
> pedestrians were properly constrained from the area.
>
> D

First of all, if he went low enough to land, how did anybody find out about
that? Last I checked anyway, radar doesn't cover (ground level) very well.
Also, if he was picking up one person who is used to travelling in
helicopters, how could it be POSSIBLE that the pedestrian was not properly
constrained? Only an idiot would get too close to a chopper before it is
firmly on the ground. But if you are the passenger, you're going to have to
get close to it shortly after landing. I'm betting Tommy used all due
caution in approaching and boarding the bird that picked him up.

This had to be a case of a jealous neighbor tattling or something.
Otherwise, I don't see how this pilot got caught doing something that he was
specifically allowed to do. -Dave

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:28:45 -0400, "Dave" > wrote:

>>> > (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.
>>> > -----
>>>
>>> So, the rules specifically allowed the pilot do do exactly what he's up
>>> on
>>> criminal charges for now. Ummmm, what??? -Dave
>>
>> He didn't get clearance to go low/land, and its doubtful the
>> pedestrians were properly constrained from the area.
>>
>> D
>
>First of all, if he went low enough to land, how did anybody find out about
>that? Last I checked anyway, radar doesn't cover (ground level) very well.
>Also, if he was picking up one person who is used to travelling in
>helicopters, how could it be POSSIBLE that the pedestrian was not properly
>constrained? Only an idiot would get too close to a chopper before it is
>firmly on the ground. But if you are the passenger, you're going to have to
>get close to it shortly after landing. I'm betting Tommy used all due
>caution in approaching and boarding the bird that picked him up.
>
>This had to be a case of a jealous neighbor tattling or something.
>Otherwise, I don't see how this pilot got caught doing something that he was
>specifically allowed to do. -Dave


So, you thought you'd buy an "air car" and fly to work out of your back yard
eventually? Nope - its getting so that, in the USA, ANYTHING UNUSUAL is
ILLEGAL! If you can think of it, and it is fun, and its not something that 10
other people on your block regularly do, then you can bet your ass someone in
the state legislature has already thought to make it illegal. I mean, there's
nothing _wrong_ with it, just like this example here - choppers are _made_ to
land in unusual places - but its.. unusual... and so it is therefore illegal.

Count on it.

Dave Head

Dave wrote:
> >> > (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.
> >> > -----
> >>
> >> So, the rules specifically allowed the pilot do do exactly what he's up
> >> on
> >> criminal charges for now. Ummmm, what??? -Dave

Apparently the ruiles do *not* allow what the pilot did, which was to
land without any clearance in a public street in the Hollywood Hills.

> > He didn't get clearance to go low/land, and its doubtful the
> > pedestrians were properly constrained from the area.
> >
> > D
>
> First of all, if he went low enough to land, how did anybody find out about
> that?

Looking at it? This is Hollywood. There are homes all around. It's hard
to miss a helicopter landing out on your street.

> Last I checked anyway, radar doesn't cover (ground level) very well.

Unnecessary when you can look out your window and see it by your front
yard.

> Also, if he was picking up one person who is used to travelling in
> helicopters, how could it be POSSIBLE that the pedestrian was not properly
> constrained?

Kids playing in the street, people out walking their dogs... you name
it.

> Only an idiot would get too close to a chopper before it is
> firmly on the ground. But if you are the passenger, you're going to have to
> get close to it shortly after landing. I'm betting Tommy used all due
> caution in approaching and boarding the bird that picked him up.

That isn't what's at issue. It's Tommy's pilot using the public street
as his personal helipad.

> This had to be a case of a jealous neighbor tattling or something.

Or the safety conscious not wanting helicopters to swoop down in the
middle of the street. This strikes me as a reasonable objection.

> Otherwise, I don't see how this pilot got caught doing something that he was
> specifically allowed to do. -Dave

What I got from reading the the piece is that he wasn't specifically
allowed to do anything of the sort,

Dave wrote:
> >> > (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.
> >> > -----
> >>
> >> So, the rules specifically allowed the pilot do do exactly what he's up
> >> on
> >> criminal charges for now. Ummmm, what??? -Dave
> >
> > He didn't get clearance to go low/land, and its doubtful the
> > pedestrians were properly constrained from the area.
> >
> > D
>
> First of all, if he went low enough to land, how did anybody find out about
> that? Last I checked anyway, radar doesn't cover (ground level) very well.

Visual inspection does the job.

> Also, if he was picking up one person who is used to travelling in
> helicopters, how could it be POSSIBLE that the pedestrian was not properly
> constrained?

There are other people in the world besides Tommy Lee. Maybe there
were even other people in Tommy Lee's neighborhood.

> Only an idiot would get too close to a chopper before it is
> firmly on the ground.

Right, the restriction on landing helicopters in public streets is
meant to save idiots such as yourself.

> But if you are the passenger, you're going to have to
> get close to it shortly after landing. I'm betting Tommy used all due
> caution in approaching and boarding the bird that picked him up.
>
> This had to be a case of a jealous neighbor tattling or something.

If your yard got trashed with flying debris because of an unauthorized
helicopter landing, what would you do?

> Otherwise, I don't see how this pilot got caught doing something that he was
> specifically allowed to do. -Dave