Slashdot Mirror
Uber's Short-lived Helicopter Service In Utah Grounded (ksl.com)
New submitter captaindomon writes: It may come as no surprise that the Uber helicopter flights which debuted at the Sundance Film Festival were apparently illegal and quickly grounded. "Thanks to the support and partnership we have with Sundance and Park City Municipal Corporation, we were able to come to an agreement," said Summit County spokeswoman Katie Mullaly. "We are glad to have this issue resolved, not only for the safety of all those involved, but also for the wildlife of the area, affected residents and environmental concerns."
At least it wasn't 3D-printed drones.
At least they where not shot down / in lockup. For going into an no fly zone?.
The issue was the landing site wasn't properly approved for helicopter landings. Fortunately, the local officials are reasonable and Uber made an agreement with the County to use the Sheriff's landing pad instead so that flights could continue during the festival.
From a follow-up story: "Thanks to the county's proactive outreach, we have developed an alternative landing site for uberCHOPPER that serves riders and accommodates residents," Patterson said.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
In my city,
there used to be a sign at the public beach that said something (in red circle with bar through) like "No fires"
Nowadays, the sign says
"No fires"
"No dogs off leash"
"No Vehicles"
"No smoking"
and about 4 other things I can't remember, probably including "No frisbees"
It would be much more efficient if they just put up a sign which says along the lines of:
"Whatever we haven't explicitly permitted you to do is forbidden, obviously!"
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I might have some choice words with my neighbor if they decided to allow helicopter landings right next door to me. For the noise and one heck of a lot of other reasons, aircraft landings affect way more peoples' rights to use their own private property than just the guy who owns the pad.
What is wrong? Why is it illegal?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Your private property rights don't override everyone else's.
it isn't as if uber has invented some new technology.
it's business is to break regulations and squeeze out profits by not incurring the costs others pay in following laws.
this is no different from lawyers/accountants of big corps finding loopholes/book cooking methods to not pay taxes, etc etc,
by all means campaign to reduce rules,regulations, and taxes(most are harmful), but presenting rule breaking as praiseworthy innovation is not the way to go about it .
My first gut reaction was to agree with you. But then I realized that means anyone can build an airport (or after-hours nightclub) in the middle of any subdivision, there would be no zoning laws allowed. I'm not sure if that's a great idea or not.
I kind of like the current situation in Texas - cities have zoning, counties pretty much don't. So outside the city limits you can do what you want, within the city you have to be more mindful of how your actions effect neighbors next door. That lets you choose - do you want (enforced) peace and quiet, or do you want to be able to target practice in your back yard? You can either.
The answers to your questions were already well established before you were born.
A related question, also answered long before you were born; if my neighbor is operating a helicopter outside my window, why can't I just shoot him?
I'll give you a hint, the answers are directly related and joined together at the hip.
That is already banned in most States. She can do it at home because she lives on Putin's back porch.
I am no expert in the US legal system. But my understanding is that at any location, federal, state and city law apply. There might be federal regulation and additional state regulation for any particular thing. For instance, in North Carolina, you need your car to be inspected yearly for various regulation check.
Is there a particular reason operating a flying vessel would be different? Don't you feel it is legal for a state to put regulations on what you can use as a commercial landing zone through the state congress?
Are you making a "public safety" argument or a noise/nuisance argument here?
Look, the issue here is the operation of aircraft is the FAA's responsibility. They are a Federal agency and their regulations supersede local regulations in their area of authority, which in this case involves everything in the nation's airspace, defined as from the ground up. And before you try and get smart with me, yes, they DO have a say about your house or the trees or that softball you threw into the air if they wanted to. They regulate radio towers, they regulate building heights and all sorts of things directly related to stuff that flies.
So, given the FAA governs aircraft in flight, the only time local regulations *might* come into play is when they are NOT flying (i.e. when they are on the ground). In order to do so, local authorities will need to show cause (show they have a good reason) and have standing to create ordinances that govern the operations of aircraft ON THE GROUND.
So, I ask you, if you are making a safety argument, what's unsafe about having a helicopter on the ground?
If you are making a noise/nascence argument, how is this a problem with the aircraft on the ground?
Because flying over your house and making noise doing so is regulated by the FAA (or possibly the EPA) and not your city, county or state.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Yes there is a reason.
In the USA, Federal law trumps local law. If there is a Federal regulation and a local regulation that are in conflict, the Federal regulation is considered to be "superior" (i.e. is what governs) if the Federal regulators wish it. Sometimes Federal regulators will, by choice, defer to local regulations, and not pre-empt them, but they have the right (and generally the inclination) to over-ride local regulations.
In the case of the FAA, they are a federal level organization which governs ALL airspace, starting from the ground on up. They do NOT allow local (city, state or county) regulations to pre-empt their rules, but have made it clear that the FAA reserves ALL authority in their area of responsibility.
So in this case, the city, county or state have zero authority to regulate the operation of aircraft when they are flying, even 1 inch off the ground. The FAA does not allow local authorities to do this and will actively pre-empt any attempts by local regulators to regulate aircraft operations. They've done so in the past, and I have no doubt they will actively protect their authority to regulate the nation's airspace in the future.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If my neighbor landed a helicopter in their back yard I would not be worried about the noise because chances are it would take out power, cable, telephone lines, and a few trees not mentioning the damage the falling limbs and lines might do to structures like the garages, sheds, or houses. That is if they could land safely at all.
US law has the concept of Federal supremecy which means if local laws conflict with Federal ones the feds trump locals. However, local ordinances that don't still apply. That said, the Feds are pretty strict on who can carry passengers for higher and have to control flights to ensure they are operated safely. You can't, for example, as a private pilot carry paying passengers, with a few exceptions, such as if they are simply splitting the cost. If you make money different rules apply.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
No, but FAA regulations govern aircraft operation from the time they leave the ground until they land. Local regulations CAN NOT over-ride FAA regulations for flying aircraft. That's the issue here.
You may have a civil case, but you are going to have to take me to court and that will take months. By then, the little shindig I'm flying too will be over and I won't be bothering you anymore..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Who cares if you're 'worried'? The relevant question is actual safety.
afaik, helicopters are pretty damn safe.
Local government can regulate where aircraft and land and take off through bylaws. For example one must have a permit to build a helicopter pad in most cities. In Seattle one needs a permit.
As for operation in the air, since the helicopter has no permit to land, it would not be in the process of landing therefore must abide by the FAA regulation minimum altitude rules.
Actually you're frothing at the mouth in your hatred and it's none too appealing, sir.
Try to keep a civil tongue in your head and go back to high school.
And sorry your taxi medallion isn't worth more than your chest hair.
Uber and Lyft are great (this stupid "Uber chopper" thing notwithstanding)
People who hate Uber and can't articulate without frothing at the mouth aren't great at all.
Best regards, and go off yourself to feel better.
E
Oh my lord, this has to be the best 'screw everyone I can do it if I want to' post I have seen yet. Funny how Uber always brings this out of people. I'm not quite sure if they're being paid by Uber to throw these up and in turn make Uber look like angels or if they are really this uncaring and cold to people around them in real life.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You make a compelling argument, but you happen to be mistaken. See sections 113 and 114 in this FAA advisory. State and local governments can regulate helipads, via zoning or otherwise.
http://www.faa.gov/documentlib...
The FCC is more like what you imagine the FAA to be. Specifically, as noted in that FAA advisory, the FAA is legally charged with the SAFETY of air travel only. This is in contrast to the FCC, which has wide authority over anything related to radio spectrum. The ATF is somewhat the opposite- you have to certify your explosives storage complies with local and state law BEFORE they'll start the federal process.
Your free legal advice is overpriced.
"afaik, helicopters are pretty damn safe."
Ha ha ha ha ha, that's really funny.
The ONLY reason helicopters are even remotely safe is due to intense government regulation to ensure that owners follow the preventative maintenance regime for their aircraft.
What this means in practice is that because there are so many critical components in a helicopter many parts are replaced well before they show any visible sign of wear at all. This is the #1 reason (beyond fuel consumption) that flying helicopters is so expensive, and if you want to use them in a military context then projecting that supply chain can be very very difficult and troublesome. See the use of M1-24 Hind across Africa and Afganistan for a practical example.
Since you continue to imply this is a matter for the faa, instead of reading the article and discovering the truth, I'll quote you a little something. "The property the helicopters use as a landing pad doesn't have a land-use permit for the activity, which means the flights violate Summit County code, Martinez and county attorneys said." Now for the life of me, I can't see where Sheriff Martinez is trying to usurp the faa's authority.
So while I may agree he has made a mistake. I can't see why we're talking about the faa. He stated if they LAND the chopper where he told them not to, they would be subject to arrest. He did NOT say they couldn't take off and land somewhere else.
IMO Uber enjoys the role of badboy too much. Controversy seems to be a staple of their diet.
It would have to be via an aircraft (helicopter or fixed wing) licensed to a company with a valid and current commercial passenger-carrying license. Which is to say it would be expensive.
It's not illegal under FAA regulations to accept money for a ride on a private aircraft, but the amount can be no more than the actual cost incurred, divided by the passengers carried.
Since a pilot of a private aircraft is considered a passenger, that means (for example) in a flight consisting of a pilot and a passenger, the passenger can legally pay, at most, ½ of the actual verified cost of the flight, and no more. The fact that it's a helicopter and not fixed wing is irrelevant as the same rules apply.
For example one must have a permit to build a helicopter pad in most cities.
This is a permitting requirement for construction; Of course, one could land in a place that is private property where no formal helicopter pad has been constructed.
Also, it had better not be in a residential neighborhood, or other place, where the noise represents an issue for neighbors.
There are no minimum altitude rules for helicopters.
The FAA regulates flying (aircraft, pilots, airspace, etc.) but state government's regulate their land. The state is the authority on property zoning laws. They can't prevent you from flying over their land, but they can certainly prevent you from landing on it. They can regulate whether you can have an airport, grass landing strip, place to land a helicopter, etc. For another example, some states will fine you if you make an emergency landing on a road (and they will confiscate your aircraft). The FAA only gets involved in the land issues as it regards the construction and operation of airports/helipads. The state can most certainly tell you that you can't land a helicopter on your private land. (Which tells you something about how private your "private property" really is, if you weren't clear on the concept.)
Nope, a municipality has complete rights to restrict where aircraft can land (except in emergencies).
While not a specific height low flying is usually prosecuted as reckless operation.
Well the issue was actually really simple. You can not just plow off a field in a residential neighborhood, and start running commercial flights into it every 15 minutes. It is the same rules that prevent you from opening an auto repairs shop, or a strip club, or a bar in a residential neighborhood. The only way they might have had a chance at that was to not charge at all, and even then they would be in violation of noise ordinances. You can't just do whatever you want in a residential neighborhood for very good reasons, such as keeping all of the neighbors from killing each other. You are allowed to operate a small home based business, with 2 or less employees, that does not take customer visits (i.e. a store front) in a residential neighborhood.
:-).
If Uber had applied for a permit, or even worked with the county, before pulling off this stunt, they probably would have been accomadated in a commercial zone. The sheriff's office considered allowing them to use their EMERGENCY helipad as a stop gap, but once they thought about it they realized that could interfere with their ability to respond to an actual emergency. I know, as I have worked with the sheriif's office and used that helipad. It is not designed for commercial flights every 15 minutes. The debris alone there can be hazardous on a chopper landing, and we would have to walk it before one came in.
On the first day they ran, they also violated the minimum altitude rules flying over my house on approach, as they used a loose approximation of AGL ignoring the mountain peaks. I had helicopters a few hundred feet off my roof ALL DAY long. You try working under those conditions.
The other story you don't hear about is the locals hate Sundance, myself included. It attracts the most pretentious, self righteous, jerks you have ever seen. I literally have had people push me out of line in the grocery store because 'They were late for their film'. Mistake to do to a local as we push back
Uber blew it. They didn't even try to work with the local government, nor the locals, to come up with a reasonable plan. The drive from SLC airport to Park City is only 35 minutes. It is actually quicker than taking the uber from the terminal, to the helipad, then wait for the helicopter, then land in a neighborhood, then drive in from there. They also could have landed at Heber airport, that is setup for private jets even, and is only 15 minutes away. They were selling an image to a bunch of pretentious wanna bes, and Uber got caught. Blade only joined in after the announcement by Uber.
The other thing they did not mention that I have not seen in the news is they originally planned to land within Park City limits. They knew the city would enforce every rule on them immediately, and were told so by the city government, so they moved just outside of city limits last minute. Generally, the county is more lenient, but obviously decided it was in their best interest to enforce the rules after that game. Uber got what they deserved, and should now actually be forced to pay a fine as they cost us tax payers a bunch of money for law enforcement and attorney fees.
Right, so like I said, they are safe.
You can't run a commercial helicopter business in a residential zone. You can't run a 7-11 there either.
While not a specific height low flying is usually prosecuted as reckless operation.
It's not correct to say "usually" unless you mean by low flying really really low. The regulations are pretty clear about minimum altitudes for helicopters. Whether the pilot can be prosecuted would depend on things like whether he is flying a multiengine helicopter that can fly away after an engine failure, or operates a single engine helicopter in such a manner that he can safely perform an autorotation if required. Also keep in mind that the entire minimum safe altitude regulation is prefaced with "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing"... so it's really intended more as minimums for en-route.
I would probably state it as: "While no specific altitude is mentioned for helicopters, a pilot who flies so low as to create a hazard to persons or property on the ground could possibly be prosecuted for reckless flying".
Whether or not a particular altitude is considered safe probably differs a lot between the helicopter community and the populace at large. Over lightly populated areas 500 feet is often a safe enroute altitude for a single engine helicopter. Over densely populated areas (like city centers) it might require a couple thousand feet, depending on whether there are open areas to land in event of an engine failure. Multiengine helicopters are given a lot more latitude and are often operated at very low altitudes over populated areas. I think in general people underestimate a helicopter's ability to be precisely landed in autorotation when flown by a competent pilot. There are plenty of videos on YouTube (including one of mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) that demonstrate precision autorotations.
I really think that noise is a much bigger concern, but people probably think they'll get more response to a safety concern. There is a lot a helicopter pilot can do about noise, unfortunately there are quite a few who are not really all that concerned about how their noise is perceived. HAI tries to raise awareness on this subject, and I know a lot of pilots who try really hard to minimize the impact their helicopter noise has on others.
As for the subject of who controls where you can land, it depends on the state. Most (all?) states have a state aeronautics department/commission which controls this, and which may or may not allow local government to have a say. It is definitely not true that only the FAA can say where you can/can not land. Just ask the helicopter pilots in New Jersey... Here in Massachusetts it is possible for the local government to work with the state aeronautics commission to make more restrictive rules about landing within a particular town.
Compared to what? Some Marines when down last week and a couple of Hawaiians went down yesterday I think it was. That's two accidents in just a few days. There are a whole bunch of helicopter accidents. They're actually crashing fairly often.
So, compared to what? You say "safe." That's an affirmative statement and leaves no room for quantification. So, using that as a response to your argument then you'd be demonstrably wrong by virtue of there being any accidents. If there are any accidents then they are not safe. They are, even they had just one accident ever, then less than safe - even if trivially less than safe with a single accident.
Given that they have certainly had way more than one accident then you're way more incorrect. They're even further away from safe with every single accident. Safe, the word, is definitive in nature. Normally, I'd let it slide but you were confident/cocky enough to say "Right, so like I said, they are safe."
Now, your first statement was actually more correct (still subjective) with "pretty damned safe." But the second one, which is just "safe" is not even remotely correct. I don't know of anything that is safe. Some things are more or less safe.
Citation of the definition as you used the word:
a. Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt: He returned from the voyage safe and sound.
b. Not exposed to the threat of danger or harm: The children were safe at home all through the storm.
c. Usable in specified conditions without being damaged. Often used in combination: a microwave safe container.
You'll note that they're definitive. So, really, nothing is safe until after the fact. At least I can't think of anything that is safe until after the fact. Not even sleep is safe, people die in their sleep all the time.
So, no... A helicopter is definitely not safe. However, you can be safe after arriving in a helicopter. They, by the fact that nothing is certain, are not safe. In fact, they are unsafe by default and by definition. ;-)
But, on a more serious note, as compared to what? You might find the data (what can be found) to be a bit surprising. I invite you to have a look at this link:
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Helicopters are not really all that safe. Those numbers don't include military helicopter accidents but, I guess, don't include military helicopter flying hours either. It's really not easy to draw a very direct comparison but it's pretty reasonable to conclude that you're mistaken in your second post and it's a bit too subjective to answer the first one but I'd argue that they're not "pretty damned safe" to the other regular modes of travel.
Using the best (most advantageous) numbers for making this choice... Allow me to quote from the fine article:
By this measure, helicopter flying is just 27 times more dangerous than driving.
(Emphasis added, emphasis mine.)
Those are the most optimistic of numbers given. So, by what definition (for your first post) are you going with for "pretty damn" because that's probably wrong too.
Yeah, normally I'd ignore it and just let you think that helicopters are safe but, well... That last one was a bit cocky and so I figured you might want to actually have an example of some data. Oh, I'd still ride in a helicopter and I do still ride in helicopters but it's really not a good idea to think of them as safe. By definition they are unsafe and, by any real metrics, they're probably not what you'd want to consider as "pretty damn safe" either. Unless you want to compare it to riding the back of a pickup truck filled with uncapped and used syringes from Needle Park. It's probably "pretty damn safe" compared to that. It's also probably "pretty damn safe" when compared to riding on the back of enraged bull. It's probably somewhere on par with riding on the back of an angry crocodile.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The Slate article makes a convincing case. I'd assumed helis were comparable to fixed-wing: looks like they're way more dangerous!
One more quick point:
They, by the fact that nothing is certain, are not safe.
You might want to avoid this sort of 'reasoning' in future - it comes across as obtuse.