Chopper possibly break rules repelling..

[ShawnC]

So anyone heard about this, Tampa PD repelled 2 members into Raymond James stadium Monday, during the Super Bowl celebration.

The FAA is investigating a possible violations since no waivers were applyed for.

What's you opinion on this?

Me, though I agree with the FAA on the possible safety hazzard, wouldn't the aircraft be considered being used as public use and as such would be exempt for the related FARs.

BTW: New Channel 8's pilot chimed in on it on the newcast, I wonder if he was doing it willingly or forced into to it?

 

[starvingcfi]

well, with tpd's current accident record, i would lean more toward careless and reckless. then again, judd (channel 8) raises a good point. that's a tough call. hope the guy doesn't lose his license.

starvingcfi

 

[boxcar]

Me, though I agree with the FAA on the possible safety hazzard, wouldn't the aircraft be considered being used as public use and as such would be exempt for the related FARs.

All aircraft in U.S. airspace are subject to the operating rules of Part 91. This includes military and other public use aircraft.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Maybe I'm dense, but is there some kind of FAR against rapelling from a helicopter?

 

[A Squared]

Re: Re: Chopper possibly break rules repelling..

All aircraft in U.S. airspace are subject to the operating rules of Part 91. This includes military and other public use aircraft.

Well, not exactly. Take a closer look at the regulations in Part 91. Some say "no person may operate an aircraft............." Others say "no person may operate a *civil* aircraft......."

The ones which specify "civil aircraft" do not apply to military and public use aircraft. That being said, 91.119, Minimum Safe altitudes states "no person may operate an aircraft...." so it would be applicable to public use aircraft also. I assume that 91.119 would be the regulation relevent to this case.

regards

 

[boxcar]

Re: Re: Re: Chopper possibly break rules repelling..

Well, not exactly. Take a closer look at the regulations in Part 91. Some say "no person may operate an aircraft............." Others say "no person may operate a *civil* aircraft......."

The ones which specify "civil aircraft" do not apply to military and public use aircraft. That being said, 91.119, Minimum Safe altitudes states "no person may operate an aircraft...." so it would be applicable to public use aircraft also. I assume that 91.119 would be the regulation relevent to this case.

regards

Maybe I was being too generic by saying operating rule. My intent was to differentiate between flight rules and maintenance and equipment rules.

 

[A Squared]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Chopper possibly break rules repelling..

My intent was to differentiate between flight rules and maintenance and equipment rules.

Public use aircraft are exempt from certain flight rules also. 91.167(a) (Fuel requirements for flight in IFR conditions) and 91.15 (dropping objects) are two examples, there are others.

Interestingly, the 8 hour bottle to throttle rule doesn't apply to public use aircraft.


regards

 

[ShawnC]

Re: Re: Re: Chopper possibly break rules repelling..

Well, not exactly. Take a closer look at the regulations in Part 91. Some say "no person may operate an aircraft............." Others say "no person may operate a *civil* aircraft......."

The ones which specify "civil aircraft" do not apply to military and public use aircraft. That being said, 91.119, Minimum Safe altitudes states "no person may operate an aircraft...." so it would be applicable to public use aircraft also. I assume that 91.119 would be the regulation relevent to this case.

regards

Don't know much about SWAT operations but it rarely looks like they repel down from 1000', so wouldn't that make most police operations using a chopper a violation?

Then again didn't the FAA make a ruling, that public aircraft are not always public. For example during police operations they are public use, but when being used to take some guests around they are not.

 

[A Squared]

Read the whole reg......

Don't know much about SWAT operations but it rarely looks like they repel down from 1000', so wouldn't that make most police operations using a chopper a violation?

Well, no, because most police operations do not involve rappelling, despite what you see on TV. I would imagine that the vast majority of police helicopter operations are patrol and surveillance.

That aside, the 1000 ft isn't applicable to helicopters, "if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface" (91.119(d))

So; rappelling into an empty hayfield from 200 ft would be perfectly legal. Rappelling into a football stadium crowded with celebrating fans and players might not be considered to be "without hazard...."

regards

 

[ShawnC]

Intresting, though I knew I shouldn't have asked questions about the FARs without my FAR/AIM handy.

Either way the FAA sees it, I hope it goes well for those pilots. Makes me wonder who authorized it?

 

[Timebuilder]

Back in the Wilson Goode adminisration in Philadelphia, a state police helicopter hoverd over the "M.O.V.E." compound in west philly, and dropped a concussion bomb on the roof. No charges were filed by the FAA.

I would imagine that a helicopter, in use by the police, for the purpose of a public demonstration of tactics, would not be subject to restrictions.

Then again, nothing surprises me anymore.

 

[A Squared]

Timebuilder,

I thought of M.O.V.E when I wrote about 91.15 applying only to Civil aircraft, in fact I thought of making a comment about it, but I figured that no-one would get the referece.

Jim,

I know that the Military works that way, but are you sure that public service aircraft enjoy the same protections? I would tend to think not. Remember, public use aircraft are not just Police aircraft, they are also Aerial Tankers, wildlife survey planes, Flight Check aircraft, even government employees using thier own aircraft on government business are sometimes considered public use aircraft.



regards