Soccer dad who used helicopter way 'over the top'

[robertstodaro]

I think he's a wussy

 

[PW_Plack]

Jonathan, if personal freedom is interpreted as a right to put other people at risk without their consent, where do you draw the line?

If some idiot thinks he's within his personal skill limits jumping a motorcycle over your house, does his freedom include the right to do so until he injures or kills you, then let the courts sort it out?

If you want to land an aircraft on a piece of property owned by someone else, or shared with other taxpayers, the FAA requires you have permission, no matter how hot you think you are, or how infallible you think your machine is.

This stunt was especially brainless given the current environment, in which the public is on edge about dangers they think are posed by small aircraft, and the amount of pandering to that fear lately by politicians and the media. This reinforces that notion that pilots and aircraft are dangerous.

 

[animal]

Amen Justin, when I was flying the 269 hughes we landed at all kinds of places, most the time people just wanted a close look at the helicopter or a chance to sit in it. I am looking forward to the day I am flying a copter again.
got something in the works,so who knows maybe soon I will be hovering again.

and talk about people putting others at risk, trust me I am more concerned about morons that run red lights. below is whats left of a buddys bike when a car ran the light last week... and no he is no longer with us. R.I.P. Ricky! he left a wife and 3 kids... so here again is proof no one is safe. he was only 3 miles from home. at least a helicopter you hear comeing. so i stand by what I said earlyer about drunk or elderly drivers being more of a concern they should worry about.

 

[PW_Plack]

The people were in more risk when they drove to the game and opposing traffic was only 2 feet away with a combined closing speed of 100mph.

The difference being that's a risk they chose to accept.

If I publish your name, address, DOB and Social Security number on a meth lab how-to website, and I decide the risk to you is reasonable, then under your rules, that should be OK, right?

Thought so.

 

[animal]

Sorry Paul W. with your thinking, you might as well give up on flying gyros. you will be putting people under you at risk when you fly over. and don't say you won't fly over anyone,as that is not possable. fact is Gyros come out of the sky way more then helicopters. that was a big field with plenty of room for the Pilot to land. and it was a certified helicopter. I am sure the guy did not land anywhere near the kids, with that much room to land in.
as for crash danger..well gee last year at ROC a Rotorway Exec crashed 20 feet from me and the rest of the campers and not a single person was hurt. pilot and passenger even walked away after we pulled them out.

fact is the only ones in real danger of a crash would have been the pilot and passengers. the soccer mom made it sound like it is crashed in the nighborhood, it would explode like an atom bomb. not true. at most a small fire. if even that.

 

[Colin Gibson]

I think there is a bit of jealousy here and P.W. Black is well over the top with his suggestion of what he thinks is an equivalent thing to do.
Point to note would be the parent was expected to deliver his child to soccor practise and there was not a thing said about how he was or was not to do it. Therefore I believe he did have permission to land at the field so long as it was clear and safe to do so.
The moaners do make the biggest noise I have found.
Colin

 

[PW_Plack]

You guys are making my point for me. Your assessment of the risk is irrelevant when it comes to landing on someone else's property.

I fly over other people and their homes. I do it at 500 or 1,000 feet AGL, depending on the population density, because it's deemed a reasonable risk by those people through their elected representatives. If I buzz some neighborhood at 50' AGL, that's imposing my view of risks on other people.

If you camp next to a runway at an aviation event, you have accepted certain risks. (Incidentally, Tim, how did that incident all work out for ROC? Chapter 13?)

If you buy a home in a quiet neighborhood, and believe helicopters landing in your back yard is a risk you'd prefer not to take, that's your call, not the pilot's! Ditto for a public park - the municipality speaks for the residents.

The last thing the helicopter world needs is more fear and disrespect. Rogue helicopter pilots who violate the personal property rights of others are always treated badly in the media. The fact that he got away without injuring someone (this time) is irrelevant.

 

[PW_Plack]

Now let me ask PW if it would have been OK if park landings were "approved"? If they were approved, would you be out there petitioning to have them made illegal because they are too dangerous? If not then I believe your motives lie on shakey ground.

Jean-Pierre, what agenda, other than the position I've stated here, do you suspect in my argument?

If the town, through whatever political process, decided to approve helicopter landings in that environment, and I thought it was dangerous, I would (1) have no beef with the pilot, and (2) decide if I wanted to let my kids play there based on my own assessment of the risks.

If I had a home adjacent to the field, I'd figure out what the change was going to do to my homeowners insurance premiums, and probably call a lawyer if I felt I'd been financially harmed or my property rights violated by the change.

This is all really hypothetical, or course, because the town's politicians, before they voted, would all be sent a video of what it looks like when helos come apart by some activist, and it would not be approved.

The FARs exempt helicopters from the minimum altitude rules in acknowledgement of their role in rescue, medevac, and other situations where operation close to others is the only way to do the job. If you operate recklessly, you're still in violation.

To top it off he claimed his car was "sand blasted" by my downwash..what what would make someone do something like that?

Perhaps he simply felt a reckless helo pilot blew construction site debris on his car, and wanted to discourage it from happening again.

You seem anxious to believe that others are motivated by some underlying urge to spoil your fun, class envy, or anything but the obvious.

 

[magilla]

Hmmmmm.

There are a lot of good points here.

Bottom Line: until we can determine whether or not he had permission to land (despite the FAR exemption for helos), there is no issue, other than civil / damage issues.

However, he was pretty dumb for landing at an area that he did not have a ground crew to clear.

Flying rocks, debris, etc's from hovering *could have* injured someone, and with young kids, who would have been there to stop the gawkers from walking into the tail rotor?

Yeah, a 14,700 lbs Blackhawk is different - I have landed in some tight spots - and my rotorwash is significant compared to a R-22 - but we ensure that we have guys on the ground guarding people from getting injured before we land in a public area. And that includes MEDEVAC.

IMHO, he assumed a pretty big risk - but I guess he can handle it because he is a lawyer, right? Harrumph. Harrumph.

Also, if we're talking this happened in Idaho with 6.6 people per square mile, or in NYC with 300,00, we are discussing two completely different events.

My personal take: Two kids wedged in an R-22 was dumb, and a show-off maneuver. (However, taking your kid ( i.e one each) to soccer practice in a helicopter to see the looks from the rest of the stuck-up Soccer Moms: Priceless.) Safety was not really an issue, depending on what he did. If he landed on a far away soccer field in the corner is different than if he hovered over the soccer moms and kids and made a show. We weren't there, so we can't judge.

Again, this argument is moot until we can determine whether or not he had permission to land.

Other than that, in general, the population is filled with ignorant "moo-cows" - they are sedated by TV and their legally sanctioned mind-altering drugs (alcohol, tobacco, and prescriptions), and they don't know what to feel unless they are told.

Don't worry about what the majority thinks, nor what they report on the news - it is just more cow fodder.

Keep flying safe and legally until the day the cows try to take your keys, then show 'em Mr. 1911. They'll moo-ove.

 

[Timchick]

Who says the helicopter was an R22? I haven't seen anything in any article that says what kind of helicopter it was.

 

[PW_Plack]

I'll grant you that people will lie in public hearings. (The nut job in Charlotte needs his own chapter.)

No, it wouldn't be me, not in the circumstances you describe. I've chosen to live 1/2-mile from a busy Class D airport; my last home was under the approach for its most-used runway, 30. I'd have to really believe I'd been harmed financially.

I don't believe most of these people file complaints out of envy. I think someone who lives 5 miles away and complains is more likely to have an actual, if unreasoning, fear of metal things in the sky. They've been fed this fear by pandering politicians and sensationalist media, and it's only got worse since 9/11.

 

[Timchick]

I agree with Paul, some people are terrified of airplanes falling out of the sky on them. I was working at a house down the road from a private airstrip. I was talking to the homeowner and somehow we started talking about ultralights. The homeowner said he hated the ultralights flying into the private strip down the road. He said he was afraid one of them was going to crash into his house. His house wasn't anywhere near the approach to the airfield or anything.

 

[GyroRon]

Justin, I am jealous.... I think to make things right you need to get up with me sometime this week and let me take a ride in your chopper!

And hey, I called you the other day. I don't think I asked you to call back, but did you get my message?

 

[Fl90]

I finally, just watched the video. There's a lot of open ground there, I mean a lot. The pilot and the main complainers may have a backround also. Our area is fairly comfortable with flying machines, thank goodness. A gentleman across the lake from the strip I use, lands his helicopter on his neighbors dock (on an area that she had made for this purpose when she remodeled it). There are a lot more houses near the dock than on that video. As for the rotor blast, I've seen him set empty fuel jugs on the dock, not more than 25ft. from the heli, and the blast didn't even budge them. And, I've been told that I'm louder than he is, though noone has complained about me (that I'm aware anyway).

Phil.

P.S. I do believe he screwed up if he didn't have permission. Also, I'm not defending a lawyer, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[PW_Plack]

You know, this whole issue may be the best argument for someone designing a stable gyro on floats. Under federal law, you're automatically allowed to operate from any navigable waterway, if I understand the law correctly.

 

[Dale Young]

I take both of my kids to the local park about twice a week usually. I would appreciate if aircraft would use the local airport to land instead of where my family is trying to enjoy a little outdoor activity safely. This attitude doe'snt make me a WUSS, It makes me a RESPONSIBLE PARENT. And I can guarantee If any of you were to see me face-to-face in public , You'd think twice about calling me one.

 

[Sir Real]

Minor caveat, Paul: You can land on any navigable waterway UNLESS the controlling governmental body has a specific regulation against it. Minnesota, f'r'instance, is the land of 1,000 lakes, but at least half of those lakes belong to dinky little municipalities who like to try and control everything, and therefore have laws about landing ANY sort of aircraft on their lakes or rivers.

 

[Resasi]

Sad post on floats and gyros just recently. Seems one of the guys developing a floatplane gyro just had a fatal accident.

Certainly in Fla we operated the Lake Buccaneer on the canals without a problem, but that was some time back.

 

[robertstodaro]

..............