Police Helicopter Hovering Low ?

AdamZ

AdamZ

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
14,866
Location
Montgomery County PA
Display Name
Display name:
Adam Zucker
An interesting question came up today in a legal forum. Helicopter, National Gaurd Helo with local police as pax hovers over house to get photos of alleged marijuana growing in back yard. In Pennsylvania to get around the whole search warrant thing the helicopter can't hover below 500'. The issue on the forum was how to deterimne if the helicopter was below 500' I suppose if they just get the tapes from Approach that would tell them but then I got to wondering about the rule that says you shouldn't fly lower than 1000' over congested areas. So while the pilot may be incompliance with state law as it relates to reasonable searches can he get busted by the FSDO for the low flying over homes? Can he get special clearance to do so ? Or is it, 'hey were the police we don't have to get permission to fly low'?
 
Last edited:
Ever see a cop speeding? Your last sentence pretty much sums it up.
 
Last edited:
AdamZ said:
An interesting question came up today in a legal forum. Helicopter, National Gaurd Helo with local police as pax hovers over house to get photos of alleged marijuana growing in back yard. In Pennsylvania to get around the whole search warrant thing the helicopter can't hover below 500'. The issue on the forum was how to deterimne if the helicopter was below 500' I suppose if they just get the tapes from Approach that would tell them but then I got to wondering about the rule that says you shouldn't fly lower than 2000' over congested areas. So while the pilot may be incompliance with state law as it relates to reasonable searches can he get busted by the FSDO for the low flying over homes? Can he get special clearance to do so ? Or is it, 'hey were the police we don't have to get permission to fly low'?
Click to expand...

IIRC correctly, not having the FARs nearby, helicopters are exempt from the 2000ft rule.
 
I live in the city, and we get low flying helicopters all the time. They beat the heck out of the criminals (figuratively, I hope).
 
probably three choices

1) the cops do what they want and the FAA doesnt give them guff

2) they are flying a "public use aircraft" and don't have to comply with FAR's

3) they have a waiver from the clearance requirements in the FAR's that would apply.
 
At those altitudes what "radar returns" would be available?

BTW -- in Pennsylvania (and other states) drug searches were conducted by State police using Army Reserve assets -- not National Guard.

The reservists rappelled down, secured the perimeter, and Law Enforcement conducted search and seizure.

Fun times...:rolleyes:
 
There are lots of FAA waivers for law enforcement. I know the USCG active duty has several that allow them to fly much lower than civilian aviation.
 
Nick got it.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

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.

Of course, if I got busted, I would argue that the helicopter caused a hazard to me....by busting me.
 
OK plank drivers repeat after me: Helicopters are not airplanes, let's try that again helicopters are not airplanes. Got it? The rules are different, the flight profiles are different and what might be safe is different. The helicopter operation is fine in regards to CFRs.
For height you need a good photo with something identifiable in the foreground. Even then it is tricky. Hilarious aside the VT supreme court ruled against aerial pot searches because it made people 'paranoid.' Funny stuff.
 
Gee, Adam, why didn't you look it up yourself rather than trusting what a bunch of faceless weirdos :D on the internet say?

First off, there is no 2,000 ft. altitude restriction over congestion areas...it's 1,000 ft. above the highest obstacle within a 2,000 ft. radius of the aircraft.

Second, 91.119(d) says can operate lower than the normal minimum altitudes if they don't present a hazard to persons or property on the surface.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
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.
 
Another thing is that you will rarely see a helicopter hovering between about 5 and 500 feet, unless there is a good reason like SWAT rapelling down.

Most of the time the police helos will flight circles 50-60 kts if they are below 500'. The reason is the height-velocity diagram (dead man's curve) shows you cannot (probably) successfully enter an autorotation if you have a problem.

Joe
 
kkoran said:
Gee, Adam, why didn't you look it up yourself rather than trusting what a bunch of faceless weirdos :D on the internet say?

First off, there is no 2,000 ft. altitude restriction over congestion areas...it's 1,000 ft. above the highest obstacle within a 2,000 ft. radius of the aircraft.

Second, 91.119(d) says can operate lower than the normal minimum altitudes if they don't present a hazard to persons or property on the surface.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
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.
Click to expand...


Echo, echo, echo...........
 
ClimbnSink said:
OK plank drivers repeat after me: Helicopters are not airplanes, let's try that again helicopters are not airplanes. Got it?
Click to expand...


And we are glad they don't resemble helicopters. Try flying long distances with any efficiency in your rotorcraft. Most of us have different missions than just flying low and slow in your local area.

Got it?
 
Don't Police and DNR and other government aviation services operate "for public good?" They are not formally bound by 14 CFR? Their compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations is technically voluntary. This is why in thier operating practices they will say "flights will be conducted under section 91 ..."
 
Anthony said:
And we are glad they don't resemble helicopters. Try flying long distances with any efficiency in your rotorcraft. Most of us have different missions than just flying low and slow in your local area.

Got it?
Click to expand...

No helicopter made that can fly "Low & slow" more efficiently than a tube and fabric airplane.

Of course if you need 0 airspeed slow, then wait for a good wind.

:D
 
Anthony said:
And we are glad they don't resemble helicopters. Try flying long distances with any efficiency in your rotorcraft. Most of us have different missions than just flying low and slow in your local area.

Got it?
Click to expand...

Right that is nice. Point is airplane pilots understanding of rules and operations is often strictly limited to airplanes, although they may believe otherwise. I have found many plank drivers to have no more knowledge of non-GA airplane operations than whuffos.
 
dmccormack said:
No helicopter made that can fly "Low & slow" more efficiently than a tube and fabric airplane.

Of course if you need 0 airspeed slow, then wait for a good wind.

:D
Click to expand...


I still don't know of any planes that fly at 0 airspeed, unless you block the pitot tube. ;)
 
twdeckard said:
Don't Police and DNR and other government aviation services operate "for public good?" They are not formally bound by 14 CFR? Their compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations is technically voluntary. This is why in thier operating practices they will say "flights will be conducted under section 91 ..."
Click to expand...

Is this a question or a statment?

It actually depends on the FAR. They are most certainly subject to Subchapter F, AIR TRAFFIC AND GENERAL OPERATING RULES, keeping in mind that some of the rules are written so as not to apply to public aircraft. For example, § 91.171 (a) says...
No person may operate a civil aircraft under IFR using the VOR system of radio navigation unless the VOR equipment of that aircraft—
​

While § 91.173 (a) says...
No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR unless that person has—
​

Further, if the rules didn't apply to public aircraft, operators of public aircraft wouldn't have to request the FAA for exemptions to the rules (which they often do) and the FAA wouldn't be able to disapprove the requests (which it sometimes does).
 
twdeckard said:
Don't Police and DNR and other government aviation services operate "for public good?" They are not formally bound by 14 CFR? Their compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations is technically voluntary. This is why in thier operating practices they will say "flights will be conducted under section 91 ..."
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
dmccormack said:
No helicopter made that can fly "Low & slow" more efficiently than a tube and fabric airplane.

Of course if you need 0 airspeed slow, then wait for a good wind.

:D
Click to expand...

Only if the measure of efficiency is money. Besides all those low shenanigans are legal in a helicopter. :)
 
EdFred said:
I still don't know of any planes that fly at 0 airspeed, unless you block the pitot tube. ;)
Click to expand...


yeahyeahyeah...

You haven't flown a Chief in a strong headwind -- sure feels like 0 airspeed. But ground speed would be the correct term I should have used, mea culpa.
 
Last edited:
kkoran said:
Gee, Adam, why didn't you look it up yourself rather than trusting what a bunch of faceless weirdos :D on the internet say?

First off, there is no 2,000 ft. altitude restriction over congestion areas...it's 1,000 ft. above the highest obstacle within a 2,000 ft. radius of the aircraft.

Second, 91.119(d) says can operate lower than the normal minimum altitudes if they don't present a hazard to persons or property on the surface.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
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.
Click to expand...

Eh because I posted moblie and was reciting from memory leaking quickly out of an exhausted brain. got my 1K and 2K confused, I gotta stop working and just concentrate on all things flying.
 
dmccormack said:
At those altitudes what "radar returns" would be available?
Click to expand...

Nada at 500 but you will get them under 1000' here

dmccormack said:
BTW -- in Pennsylvania (and other states) drug searches were conducted by State police using Army Reserve assets -- not National Guard.
Click to expand...

Then the pax LEO was confused as to who the heck he was flying with cause he testified it was ANG also Drug intediction/searches are not limited to the State Police, perhaps in remote areas it is, but our local LEOs have done drug work from aircraft with out the State Troopers. This surveillance was actually done in perhaps the most congested are of the county and its gonna be interesting to see what becomes of it.

dmccormack said:
The reservists rappelled down, secured the perimeter, and Law Enforcement conducted search and seizure.

Fun times...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Bet it was but no way that happens here. Here they fly the photograph they get a warrant and come a knockin.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Right that is nice. Point is airplane pilots understanding of rules and operations is often strictly limited to airplanes, although they may believe otherwise. I have found many plank drivers to have no more knowledge of non-GA airplane operations than whuffos.
Click to expand...


Your condescening tone is really nice. I don't care about helo rules of operation. They can't get me from point A to point B in the time or cost I want. I flown left seat in them many times. I know what they can do and yes they are useful and a lot of fun, but I don't really think that a helo pilot is any better than a a fixed wing pilot.

Plank driver? Really? I take that as a compliment.

So what kind of helo do you own?
 
AdamZ said:
Eh because I posted moblie and was reciting from memory leaking quickly out of an exhausted brain. got my 1K and 2K confused, I gotta stop working and just concentrate on all things flying.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you're getting your priorities straightened out.
 
AdamZ said:
Nada at 500 but you will get them under 1000' here
Click to expand...

Right -- and so what evidence is there that the helo was so low it was somehow invasive or otherwise?

AdamZ said:
Then the pax LEO was confused as to who the heck he was flying with cause he testified it was ANG also Drug intediction/searches are not limited to the State Police, perhaps in remote areas it is, but our local LEOs have done drug work from aircraft with out the State Troopers. This surveillance was actually done in perhaps the most congested are of the county and its gonna be interesting to see what becomes of it.
Click to expand...

In some states the ANG is tapped to assist (WV is one). Since the Army Reserve lost all combat assets (e.g. helicopters, tanks, artillery) back in the mid 90s, it is possible ANG is now tasked with JTF type missions. It's been 10 years since I wore camo so may be the case.

Before 2001 there was some queasiness about posse comitatus -- and rightly so.

AdamZ said:
Bet it was but no way that happens here. Here they fly the photograph they get a warrant and come a knockin.
Click to expand...

Hmm. That's probably more due to high density population = more room for trouble rule than jurisdictional issues, I would surmise. Then again, maybe prosecuters know SWAT-gathered evidence doesn't play well to Suburban yuppie juries...

:dunno:
 
dmccormack said:
Right -- and so what evidence is there that the helo was so low it was somehow invasive or otherwise?



:dunno:
Click to expand...
Apparently a neigbor was so freaked out they came out and took photos that show the helo below the tops of certain trees. They think that in combination with potential radar returns it could show he may have dipped below the 500' ie. if radar shows helo at 1200' then 900' then 700' then disappears and photo below tree tops its possble they have an argument, although the photos can contain optical illusions making it look higher or lower than it was.
 
AdamZ said:
Apparently a neigbor was so freaked out they came out and took photos that show the helo below the tops of certain trees. They think that in combination with potential radar returns it could show he may have dipped below the 500' ie. if radar shows helo at 1200' then 900' then 700' then disappears and photo below tree tops its possble they have an argument, although the photos can contain optical illusions making it look higher or lower than it was.
Click to expand...

From what you initially said, the 500 AGL is the altitude below which they need a search warrant in PA and has nothing to do with aviation regulations. Does the neighbor have something to hide?
 
kkoran said:
From what you initially said, the 500 AGL is the altitude below which they need a search warrant in PA and has nothing to do with aviation regulations. Does the neighbor have something to hide?
Click to expand...

Na the neighbor is just a potential witness. My question about the aviation regulation was just because I thought it was an interesting issue and would be even more interesting if the pilot broke a reg which does not seem to be the case.

There was recently a case here in PA where the Police were trying to bust a prostitution ring at a "massage parlour" so they sent in a CI with cash on like three occassions and encouraged him to get happy endings and have sex. He told them he was and they cops just kept giving him buy money LOL the Court said eh you guys can't do that thats a big no no.
 
We used to have a farm about 15 miles north of Branson, MO. It bordered the national forest and pot growing was common on the public lands. Every fall the National Guard and state patrol choppers would fly at 20' agl (or less) across our farm looking for pot.

They were in the middle of 160 acres at 10' to 20' agl with no probable cause and no warrant.
 
AdamZ said:
I thought it was an interesting issue and would be even more interesting if the pilot broke a reg which does not seem to be the case.
Click to expand...

He isn't bound by the regulation except as they adopt them as part of their operating practices. He is operating "for public good" I couldn't locate a clean reference but I believe this is the case.
 
dmccormack said:
At those altitudes what "radar returns" would be available?

BTW -- in Pennsylvania (and other states) drug searches were conducted by State police using Army Reserve assets -- not National Guard.

The reservists rappelled down, secured the perimeter, and Law Enforcement conducted search and seizure.

Fun times...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

OK....I want THAT mission. Too cool!
 
dmccormack said:
At those altitudes what "radar returns" would be available?

BTW -- in Pennsylvania (and other states) drug searches were conducted by State police using Army Reserve assets -- not National Guard.

The reservists rappelled down, secured the perimeter, and Law Enforcement conducted search and seizure.

Fun times...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wouldn't using Reservists be a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?
 
bqmassey said:
Wouldn't using Reservists be a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Besides, there are holes in posse comitatus the feds can drive a truck through.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Cooperation_with_Civilian_Law_Enforcement_Agencies_Act

And, this article: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Through a gradual erosion of the act’s prohibitions over the past 20 years, posse comitatus today is more of a procedural formality than an actual impediment to the use of U.S. military forces in homeland defense.
Click to expand...
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top