Helicopter flies under a bridge?

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.

"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."

"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