Helicopter pilot arrested by rangers

alaskaflyer

alaskaflyer

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
7,544
Location
Smith Valley, Nevada
Display Name
Display name:
Alaskaflyer
I thought I'd post this for three reasons: 1) I thought the pilot was so much of a pure genius that his activities deserved wider exposure; 2) I always appreciated and enjoyed the saying "you can't beat city hall"; and 3) I thought I'd experiment to see how many posts it would take before someone complained about "FAA's exclusive jurisdiction over aviation" or somesuch ;)

GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
Helicopter Pilot Arrested

On Friday, June 12th, rangers were on patrol at a large wakeboard competition being held on Lake Powell when they saw a helicopter approach and hover within 500 feet of six beached houseboats, 15 ski boats, several personal watercraft, 20 to 25 swimmers and approximately 100 persons on shore. Several passengers then jumped from the helicopter into the water, after which the helicopter landed atop a nearby houseboat. Ranger Jared St. Clair contacted the 33-year-old pilot, out of St. George, Utah, and subsequently arrested him for illegal air delivery of passengers and creating a hazardous condition. Since an initial warning in 2003, the pilot has received four citations concerning the operation of his helicopter in the park, including two last year. He was scheduled to appear in federal magistrate’s court yesterday.
 
Were the arresting officers NPS rangers? The NPS has a long history of busting folks for aerial delivery to National Parks. Although National Recreation areas are supposed to be exempt from the aerial delivery nonsense.
Sounds like he was having fun and using his helicopter for the best.
 
Dr. O said:
Stupid is as stupid does...

denny-o
Click to expand...

What is stupid about jumping out of helicopter into the water? I don't get it. Probably safer than flying those little airplanes.:rolleyes: Landing on a house boat not built for a helicopter sounds a bit iffy, but we don't know whether that is the case.
 
Well, he was post counting, so I figure I'll bust it, because I'm genuinely curious...

How does this Ranger get the authority to bust someone for a violation of something that is clearly under the FAA's jurisdiction? Moreover - this should be nothing more than an administrative action from the FAA, not an arrest.

Lame.
 
SkyHog said:
Well, he was post counting, so I figure I'll bust it, because I'm genuinely curious...

How does this Ranger get the authority to bust someone for a violation of something that is clearly under the FAA's jurisdiction? Moreover - this should be nothing more than an administrative action from the FAA, not an arrest.

Lame.
Click to expand...

NPS has a long history of arresting BASE jumpers using an aerial delivery law that was written to regulate aerial resupply of miners in the 20's or 30's. I'm guessing that it is what they used, plus creating a hazardous condition- which we are all guilty of all the time. Why should this be an admin. action from the FAA? What FARS did the pilot violate?
 
SkyHog said:
Well, he was post counting, so I figure I'll bust it, because I'm genuinely curious...

How does this Ranger get the authority to bust someone for a violation of something that is clearly under the FAA's jurisdiction? Moreover - this should be nothing more than an administrative action from the FAA, not an arrest.

Lame.
Click to expand...

Had he not landed or "dropped" his passengers off he would have been under FAA jurisdiction. But soon as he landed then he fell under the jurisdiction of the arresting officer.

The general rule of helicopter flying is you can land anywhere as long as it's not restricted by local law and you have the permission of the landowner.

I'm not sure of the laws where he landed nor will I take the time to look them up, it just sounds like this guy was being stupid.
 
Sec. 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.

Tell the Rangers to go pack sand.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Had he not landed or "dropped" his passengers off he would have been under FAA jurisdiction. But soon as he landed then he fell under the jurisdiction of the arresting officer.

The general rule of helicopter flying is you can land anywhere as long as it's not restricted by local law and you have the permission of the landowner....or houseboat owner?

I'm not sure of the laws where he landed nor will I take the time to look them up, it just sounds like this guy was being stupid.
Click to expand...

Added.
 
36CFR2.1 - Forest Service has something similar, no landing without permission except at a designated airpstrip.

§ 2.17 Aircraft and air delivery.​
(a) The following are prohibited:
(1) Operating or using aircraft on
lands or waters other than at locations
designated pursuant to special regulations.
(2) Where a water surface is designated
pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, operating or using aircraft
under power on the water within 500
feet of locations designated as swimming
beaches, boat docks, piers, or
ramps, except as otherwise designated.
(3) Delivering or retrieving a person
or object by parachute, helicopter, or
other airborne means, except in emergencies
involving public safety or serious
property loss, or pursuant to the​
terms and conditions of a permit.
........and more
 
Was there a painted "H" on top of the boat?
 
rottydaddy said:
Is "within 500 feet" less than the "500 feet" specified by 91.119?
Click to expand...

Check subpart (d) that is not an issue here. The rangers didn't arrest this guy for violating a FAR, which is good because likely none were violated. They got him with their own rules.
 
I'm not sure I see the problem here.

Keep in mind that, even though what a police officer (or forest ranger, or whoever) arrests someone for might not be an arrestable offense, so long as there was something that was an arrestable offense, the arrest generally remains valid (that varies between states, but I think AZ follows that rule).

Assuming the validity of the facts in the OP (multiple citations, people jumping out of a helicopter hovering near people on boats and in the water, in violation of the applicable regulations), there's a "made for the law books" case of reckless endangerment.

So, I'm not sure I see the problem.

[edit:] And on rereading the OP, he was arrested for creating a hazardous condition - a/k/a reckless endangerment.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I'm not sure I see the problem here.

Keep in mind that, even though what a police officer (or forest ranger, or whoever) arrests someone for might not be an arrestable offense, so long as there was something that was an arrestable offense, the arrest generally remains valid (that varies between states, but I think AZ follows that rule).

Assuming the validity of the facts in the OP (multiple citations, people jumping out of a helicopter hovering near people on boats and in the water, in violation of the applicable regulations), there's a "made for the law books" case of reckless endangerment.

So, I'm not sure I see the problem.

[edit:] And on rereading the OP, he was arrested for creating a hazardous condition - a/k/a reckless endangerment.
Click to expand...

Can you explain a bit more on what reckless endangerment might be in this case? If there weren't as many people there, ie not a wakeboard event, would it make a difference?

Rod
 
ClimbnSink said:
NPS has a long history of arresting BASE jumpers using an aerial delivery law that was written to regulate aerial resupply of miners in the 20's or 30's. I'm guessing that it is what they used, plus creating a hazardous condition- which we are all guilty of all the time...
Click to expand...

And if that is a federal law, then federal preemption shouldn't apply.
 
Cervelorod said:
Can you explain a bit more on what reckless endangerment might be in this case? If there weren't as many people there, ie not a wakeboard event, would it make a difference?

Rod
Click to expand...

Without looking up the specifics of the legal definition (which vary from state to state), reckless endangerment is kind of a "catch-all" crime. It's exactly what it sounds like - it's when you put someone at a chance of injury without exercising due care yourself. It could be anything from shooting a gun without checking to see if the old house you're shooting at is empty, to driving through an elementary school zone at 3 p.m. at double the speed limit.

Basically, when you act like a dumb--- and put people at risk because of it, you're committing reckless endangerment.

Take the wakeboarding, the other boats, the people in the water, etc., out of the equation, and you probably don't have it in this situation.
 
SkyHog said:
Well, he was post counting, so I figure I'll bust it, because I'm genuinely curious...

How does this Ranger get the authority to bust someone for a violation of something that is clearly under the FAA's jurisdiction? Moreover - this should be nothing more than an administrative action from the FAA, not an arrest.

Lame.
Click to expand...
You win. Or rather, lose. :frown2::smile:

When your activities have a nexus to the ground there is concurrent jurisdiction with the FAA.
 
If you are curious:

36 Code of Federal Regulations,

Sec. 2.17, prohibited:

(3) Delivering or retrieving a person or object by parachute,
helicopter, or other airborne means, except in emergencies involving
public safety or serious property loss, or pursuant to the terms and
conditions of a permit.

Sec. 2.34 Disorderly conduct:

(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause
public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy or violence, or knowingly or recklessly
creating a risk thereof, such person commits any of the following
prohibited acts:
(1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent behavior.
(2) Uses language, an utterance, or gesture, or engages in a display
or act that is obscene, physically threatening or menacing, or done in a
manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of
the peace.
(3) Makes noise that is unreasonable, considering the nature and
purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, and
other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent
person under the circumstances.
(4) Creates or maintains a hazardous or physically offensive
condition.
 
Last edited:
Cervelorod said:
If there weren't as many people there, ie not a wakeboard event, would it make a difference?

Rod
Click to expand...

I think it would have absolutely made a difference, and if it is the pilot I am thinking of, the presence of people near his activities has been an issue with at least one other case that they mentioned.
 
ClimbnSink said:
The rangers didn't arrest this guy for violating a FAR, which is good because likely none were violated.
Click to expand...
I'm not any sure you can say with certainty that the operation was "conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface" (a pretty subjective standard) and thus not a violation of 91.119(d). However, the Rangers have no authority to enforce that regulation, just to demand that the pilot provide his credentials and report what they saw (and who did it) to the FAA. OTOH, I think they do have the authority to enforce any applicable NPS regulations where that helo landed or where folks who jumped out of the helo landed. All in all, "pure genius" is not a phrase I'd be eager to apply to the pilot involved.
 
Without seeing it I won't condemn the pilot's actions. Sorry plank drivers that is what helicopters are for. Also understand the NPS has a boner against anything that flies and will throw 'aerial delivery' at any and everything that might possibly levitate in, near, or from a National Park.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Without seeing it I won't condemn the pilot's actions. Sorry plank drivers that is what helicopters are for. Also understand the NPS has a boner against anything that flies and will throw 'aerial delivery' at any and everything that might possibly levitate in, near, or from a National Park.
Click to expand...

Most parks have ordinances against helicopters landing in them. By landing there, even on a houseboat on a lake is a violation.

When I operated helicopters and was requested to land at any off airport location I always made sure we had the owners permission as well as to check the local ordinances.
 
I don't know much about wakeboarding but they often film their stuff from helicopters, this wasn't some random helicopter pilot that showed up at a wakeboard competition and started flying around doing stupid human tricks. Here is likely video of the aerial delivery, jumping is at the end-warning poorly filmed. Was it necessary of course not, but neither is GA flying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LLoWJXvzuk
FYI It is legal to land an aircraft in a National Recreation Area. The aerial delivery of humans is illegal. Careless and reckless- Perhaps, but all GA flights are careless and reckless by many people's standards.
 
ClimbnSink said:
FYI It is legal to land an aircraft in a National Recreation Area.
Click to expand...

That is an overly-broad statement that may or may not be true depending on the circumstances and recreation area and is easily cleared up by calling ahead first. In Glen Canyon's case, you may land on the water or on a boat that is on the water because the whole surface of the lake has been designated as an "airstrip." You may not land on land except at specific designated airports/airstrips.

You are a great resource in this thread :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
However, the Rangers have no authority to enforce that regulation, just to demand that the pilot provide his credentials and report what they saw (and who did it) to the FAA. OTOH, I think they do have the authority to enforce any applicable NPS regulations where that helo landed or where folks who jumped out of the helo landed.
Click to expand...

Actually, Ron, the NPS adopts the FAA regulations as part of our regulations. So if a flight or activity is otherwise subject to our land management jurisdiction (something to be determined first) we may enforce FAA regulations as if they were our own. The practice however is not typical and just because it is authorized in regulation doesn't mean that a Federal magistrate will be happy about it. Especially since the mechanism basically criminalizes what are normally civil penalties.

So we almost always stick to enforcing our specific NPS rules on aviation and human behavior and call it good, with referral to the FAA if needed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top