While this isn't a violation of 91.119, isn't it getting a bit too close to 91.13?

AV8R_87

AV8R_87

En-Route
Joined
Feb 1, 2024
Messages
3,628
Location
NE USA
Display Name
OC
To give you a sensation of scale, the waterway is 600 feet wide. He's probably less than 20 feet above the water and 200 ft from the people and property on the shore, while flying over a couple small boats and jetskis.
Might not be illegal, but it sure feels like a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

Heli_water.jpg
 
I've flown lower than that over Lake Michigan /shoreline at a much higher speed. Kept 91.119 intact though.

Got enthusiastic waves from the few people out walking on the beach.
 
Do helicopters have the same altitude limitations as fixed wing? I may have read that they do not as they frequently fly overhead my city at less than 500.
 
Justin M said:
Do helicopters have the same altitude limitations as fixed wing? I may have read that they do not as they frequently fly overhead my city at less than 500.
Click to expand...
No. 91.119 is pretty clear that the minimum altitude limits do not apply to helicopters, except the general rule that it must not pose a hazard to people if the engine fails.
 
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, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
 
I'll be more scared not to mast bump that rotor than flying too low
 
There is a helicopter route in DC that requires helicopters to be at or BELOW 200 ft AGL over the Tidal Basin and Roosevelt monument. Summer weekend, LOTS of people there.
 
The problem with water and that low of altitude, is height / depth perception illusion. You can plow it into the water in a split second if you’re not keeping up your scan.

Reminds me of a story in Gene Cernan’s book. One day he grabbed one of NASA’s H-13s and took it out for a joy ride along the intercostal waterway. He said one minute he was cruising along at 10 ft and waving at boaters, the next, he was sinking to the bottom of the waterway still strapped in his seat. Fortunately, he was able to un strap and come to the surface. Unfortunately, the surface was on fire from his fuel and he burned his helmet / eye brows. Deke Slayton provided top cover for him and he wasn’t removed from Apollo17’s commander.
 
Velocity173 said:
Reminds me of a story in Gene Cernan’s book. One day he grabbed one of NASA’s H-13s and took it out for a joy ride along the intercostal waterway. He said one minute he was cruising along at 10 ft and waving at boaters, the next, he was sinking to the bottom of the waterway still strapped in his seat. Fortunately, he was able to un strap and come to the surface. Unfortunately, the surface was on fire from his fuel and he burned his helmet / eye brows. Deke Slayton provided top cover for him and he wasn’t removed from Apollo17’s commander.
Click to expand...
Great book! I recall McDivitt tried hard to have Cernan removed from 17 and resigned when that didn't happen.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Great book! I recall McDivitt tried hard to have Cernan removed from 17 and resigned when that didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Yep. Another thing I didn’t know was he wanted Joe Engle and not Schmitt. Even though he worked out (excellent LM pilot) and they got along fine, he wanted another test pilot with him on the surface.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yep. Another thing I didn’t know was he wanted Joe Engle and not Schmitt. Even though he worked out (excellent LM pilot) and they got along fine, he wanted another test pilot with him on the surface.
Click to expand...
I met Joe Engle. He was a guest lecturer in one of my engineering classes way back in the day. At the time he was talking about test piloting the space shuttle.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Serious risk with the Robinson (if I correctly understood the special briefing I had before a lesson in an R-44) - too much forward cyclic whilst in forward flight can start excessive movement of the teetering main rotor - if the teeter hinge limits onto the mast - leading to a tail strike or MR separation - in flight! There's been a number of crashes (
https://www.reddit.com/r/Helicopters/comments/1j7s20c/mast_bumping_here_are_the_real_numbers_link_in
) due to this. Apparently was also possible with Hueys.
 
40YearDream said:
Serious risk with the Robinson (if I correctly understood the special briefing I had before a lesson in an R-44) - too much forward cyclic whilst in forward flight can start excessive movement of the teetering main rotor - if the teeter hinge limits onto the mast - leading to a tail strike or MR separation - in flight! There's been a number of crashes (
https://www.reddit.com/r/Helicopters/comments/1j7s20c/mast_bumping_here_are_the_real_numbers_link_in
) due to this. Apparently was also possible with Hueys.
Click to expand...
That’s just a limitation of any helicopter with that type of rotor head. The Robinson is not special. Fly within the limitations of the aircraft and it’s fine. Just like any other aircraft.
 
The problem surfaced as many fixed wing pilots got their helicopter ratings. And brought along their fixed wing muscle memory.

There was a special bulletin put out way back in the early 90s about the issue. Way before the current SFAR.
 
Pinecone said:
The problem surfaced as many fixed wing pilots got their helicopter ratings.
Click to expand...
Not really. While newer pilots are more susceptible to the event, it still kills high time, experienced helicopter pilots as well. The R rotor design makes it more sensitive to mast bump than other 2-bladed, teetering systems and can catch anyone off guard in the right conditions especially in turbulence.
 
Pinecone said:
The problem surfaced as many fixed wing pilots got their helicopter ratings. And brought along their fixed wing muscle memory.

There was a special bulletin put out way back in the early 90s about the issue. Way before the current SFAR.
Click to expand...
Yeah and the army identified the threat of transitioning airplane pilots way before the 90’s. It’s a thing.

I have that t-shirt.
 
CessnaJack said:
It’s a problem with training to a low rote level

Under primacy, if you properly learn WHY you do something first and, under the law of exercise if your instructors say angle of attack vs just “put the stick forward”, that helps too, not just monkey see monkey do, that eliminates that issue as well as many others

Rotor WING, it’s the same thing as a fixed wing when it comes to keeping that airfoil happy
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with you at all. Generally the transition is harder for very high time high level pilots. At some point the hands are doing things reflexively. Kinda like walking. No one actively thinks about how they walk.

You take an airplane pilot at that level of airmanship and stick them in a helicopter it takes a little reprogramming and it is not because they are a low level wrote pilot.

Same is true the other way. I worked closely with very high time army helicopter aviators when I worked in a 121 training program. Those guys had unique challenges and I guarantee you there was nothing low level about those guys besides the skids.
 
I think the basic difference is that at their core, an airplane wants to fly, and a helicopter wants to kill you. Kinda like the dogs and cats of aviation things, respectively.
 
Greetings from Europe! That photo definitely raises your blood pressure just looking at it.

This is the classic 'Legal vs. Safe' debate we see all the time in Safety Management (SMS). While helicopters often get a regulatory carve-out for minimum altitudes—provided they don't create a hazard to persons or property—physics really doesn't care about the regulations.

Looking at that Robinson at less than 20 feet over the water, they are playing a very dangerous game with the Height-Velocity (H-V) diagram. If that engine even coughs at that altitude and speed, the pilot has fractions of a second to react before putting it in the drink. Add in the risk of rotor wash affecting those small boats or jetskis, and the classic loss of depth perception over water, and your risk matrix goes completely into the red.

As you said, they might argue it's not strictly illegal if they stayed far enough from the vessels, but it's completely unnecessary risk exposure. Definitely a Darwin Award contender. Great situational awareness on your part to spot the hazard!
 
Back
Top