Helicopter flies under a bridge?

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.