Helicopter flies under a bridge?

"Rick Durden" wrote in message
...

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.

I'd have guessed it was a government bird too, but it looked like an old
Bell 47, with the fishbowl canopy and erector-set tail boom. Are there any
other copters currently in service that closely resembled that?

-cwk.

It very possibly was a Bell 47, there's many of them in operation.

There seems to be a bit of confusion now between you and Rick Durden. From
what I see, he mistakenly thought you said it was a government bird, which
you didn't. And it appears you accepted his statement "As the helo you saw
was a "public aircraft" operated by the government," as fact that it was a
government bird, although he wasn't even there so he wouldn't know.

So it may or may not have been a government bird. Chances are however, if it
was in fact a Bell 47, it probably wasn't government. Could have been, but
most likely not. And from your description, it's perfectly plausible that
it could have been a private or training flight and completely legal.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================
---

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
link.net...

"Rick Durden" wrote in message
...

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.

I'd have guessed it was a government bird too, but it looked like an old
Bell 47, with the fishbowl canopy and erector-set tail boom. Are there any
other copters currently in service that closely resembled that?

-cwk.

"Rick Durden" wrote in message
...
"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.

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

Rick,

While there are some exemptions for public use aircraft, such as 91.167
(civil aircraft),
91.119 (as written and in the absence of a waiver) applies to all aircraft
(civil and public use aircraft).

Kris


§ 91.167 Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in IFR conditions
unless it carries enough fuel (considering weather reports and forecasts and
weather conditions) to--


§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes:

C Kingsbury opined

"Rick Durden" wrote in message
m...

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.

I'd have guessed it was a government bird too, but it looked like an old
Bell 47, with the fishbowl canopy and erector-set tail boom. Are there any
other copters currently in service that closely resembled that?

A Llama looks simular, but is 4 place and uses a turbine.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

"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

"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.
CWK
It depends on the kind of operations and who is flying. When crop
spraying I flew under bridges with both airplanes and helicopters
legally. I Flew under a lot of things legally (and pretty damned close
to lots of other things)!
"Obstale" clearance is just don't hit it! I'd guess you are talking
about the average pilot flying under FAR 91?
Ol Shy & Bashful

Makes me wonder: Is it legal for a Part 103 ultralight to fly under a
bridge? They're not governed by Part 91, and though they can't fly
over any "congested area", it doesn't say anything about flying
_under_ a congested area...

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------The lion and the lamb may lie down together, but the lamb won't get much sleep.