Jay Kay Video - R44 v 2.7RS
I'm surprised no-one has raised the spectre of whether this is flying constitutes Aerial work and should only therefore be undertaken by a CPL in an AOC holder's aircraft or some such nonsense......
(Stands back and waits for incoming...)
(Stands back and waits for incoming...)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised no-one has raised the spectre of whether this is flying constitutes Aerial work and should only therefore be undertaken by a CPL in an AOC holder's aircraft or some such nonsense......
MMP
I'm surprised no-one has raised the spectre of whether this is flying constitutes Aerial work and should only therefore be undertaken by a CPL in an AOC holder's aircraft or some such nonsense......
Applying one school of thought, from a perhaps irrelevant media law angle, is that a CPL + AOC is not needed if the pilots activities are the subject of a documentary or news story and where no payment is made by passenger to pilot.
If the aircraft is being paid for by a record company or third party then it is aerial work.
If the aircraft is being provided FOC but camera operator is being paid by the record company or third party then it is probably aerial work? (unless media law applies and it is a news or documentary?)
If the camera operator is an "employee" of the pilot they are on safe ground.
Definition of "employee" is a seperate issue and open to dodgy deals that have yet to be tested in court.
If they could have used a jet ranger or AS350 then a CPL could have been out of shot in LH seat doing the flying whilst cameraman was onboard shooting the miming pilot.
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I see in the video, where I can be sure that JK is flying, so long as JK not being paid for himself or the helicopter, how is this a "CPL" problem?
Separate qestion of the 500 ft rule for other parts of the video - CAA approval required.
Separate qestion of the 500 ft rule for other parts of the video - CAA approval required.
Marvellous how YouTube has become the weapon of choice for armchair lawyers. Was it live? No. Has it been post-produced? Yes.
So none of you have any real evidence of anything.
Bloke flies his own helicopter with his mate onboard holding a video camera. No money changes hands. So far, just like any other YouTube helicopter video. Bloke hires another helicopter, camera system and crew to film the exteriors. Straightforward aerial work transaction.
G reg heli in Spanish airspace appears to fly closer than 500ft to a vehicle. Vehicle driver knows he/she is part of the action and there's no endangerment to anyone outside the task.
Well maybe there was an exemption or permission. I'm sure we'll hear about it soon, as one particular FOI seems to spend his spare hours surfing YouTube and launching senseless investigations triggered by footage he has seen.
It's a great vid that will only serve to enhance genuine public interest in helicopters, might sell a few to people who need lessons. And so an industry on its knees (UK training) might actually get a shot in the arm. All of which will deliver fees to the CAA and keep FOIs employed.
So none of you have any real evidence of anything.
Bloke flies his own helicopter with his mate onboard holding a video camera. No money changes hands. So far, just like any other YouTube helicopter video. Bloke hires another helicopter, camera system and crew to film the exteriors. Straightforward aerial work transaction.
G reg heli in Spanish airspace appears to fly closer than 500ft to a vehicle. Vehicle driver knows he/she is part of the action and there's no endangerment to anyone outside the task.
Well maybe there was an exemption or permission. I'm sure we'll hear about it soon, as one particular FOI seems to spend his spare hours surfing YouTube and launching senseless investigations triggered by footage he has seen.
It's a great vid that will only serve to enhance genuine public interest in helicopters, might sell a few to people who need lessons. And so an industry on its knees (UK training) might actually get a shot in the arm. All of which will deliver fees to the CAA and keep FOIs employed.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Age: 57
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G reg heli in Spanish airspace appears to fly closer than 500ft to a vehicle.
Joel
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well... getting back to the video....
...as a (happy) 44 owner, I love this video, as I think I just became cool to my kids if there's even a hint of the fact that I would be able to do that....
It's also the first video that I've seen which manages to make the sperm-like R44 look good!
Lafite
...as a (happy) 44 owner, I love this video, as I think I just became cool to my kids if there's even a hint of the fact that I would be able to do that....
It's also the first video that I've seen which manages to make the sperm-like R44 look good!
Lafite
Last edited by 61 Lafite; 27th Sep 2010 at 19:50.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Wales
Age: 46
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they could have used a jet ranger or AS350 then a CPL could have been out of shot in LH seat doing the flying whilst cameraman was onboard shooting the miming pilot.
Awesome video, the music was pretty cool too. They should have used a 928 though, that's a real man's Porsche
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They should have used a 928 though, that's a real man's Porsche
)
Joel
I know nothing of the flight or the people concerned and I am commenting only on your question about jurisdiction.
The rules of the air state
Application of Rules to aircraft
2 These Rules, insofar as they apply to aircraft, shall apply:
(a) to all aircraft within the United Kingdom;
(b) for the purposes of rule 5, to all aircraft in the neighbourhood of an offshore
installation; and
(c) to all aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, wherever they may be.
So I would guess they do in the case of the 500ft rule.
I know nothing of the flight or the people concerned and I am commenting only on your question about jurisdiction.
The rules of the air state
Application of Rules to aircraft
2 These Rules, insofar as they apply to aircraft, shall apply:
(a) to all aircraft within the United Kingdom;
(b) for the purposes of rule 5, to all aircraft in the neighbourhood of an offshore
installation; and
(c) to all aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, wherever they may be.
So I would guess they do in the case of the 500ft rule.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think on the whole that I would be really happy to own Any helicopter, including the R44, at least then I could miss out the M6/M5 round Birmingham UK that is,...
Peter R-B
Vfrpilotpb
Peter R-B
Vfrpilotpb
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Age: 57
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VeeAny
So on that basis, an aircraft that is registered in the U.K., is still bound by Rule 5 even if it is being flown outside of the UK even if rule 5 (or it's equivalent) is not applicable in the country it's being flown in.
Interesting!!
The devil is in the detail - as usual.
Cheers,
Joel
So on that basis, an aircraft that is registered in the U.K., is still bound by Rule 5 even if it is being flown outside of the UK even if rule 5 (or it's equivalent) is not applicable in the country it's being flown in.
Interesting!!
The devil is in the detail - as usual.
Cheers,
Joel
Can that really be true? Surely there must be instances where ANO rules conflict with the local flying rules? Does "...wherever they may be." really mean anywhere in the world?!
So in Vegas last year, I happily and legally flew down the strip at night in an N-reg, but I couldn't in a G-reg?! That's bizarre!
So in Vegas last year, I happily and legally flew down the strip at night in an N-reg, but I couldn't in a G-reg?! That's bizarre!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Norwich, UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trump Jay Kay with the 332L2 (even though it didn't have my name on it!), but can't quite match his '73 2.7RS... a lowly '72 2.4E will have to do.
Impressed he's able to watch on as it's being 'driven like it's been stolen!'
Impressed he's able to watch on as it's being 'driven like it's been stolen!'