This is a neat way to use an R44 in the desert:

And a quick way to get your lic revoked, especially if you post for clicks. Yep, lic revoked. F around, and find out.

Is there a FAR against this somewhere ? Just wondering ? I can see California getting its Panties all in a bunch because of the out of state fireworks thing but ?

48Stinson1083 wrote:https://www.linkedin.com/posts/fl360aero_helicopter-activity-7204800565262880768-1eTr?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios

Thank you for the link!

Cool video

So, uhh, who exactly was this victim here?

I’d nullify the heck out of that if I was on the jury

NineThreeKilo wrote:So, uhh, who exactly was this victim here?

Poor Little Lambo! It must have been TERRIFYING!

-- said Sally Carrera

It appears to have been removed from YouTube, but several years ago Dillon Precision posted a video titled "the correct way to listen to classical music", Basically a lot of full-auto live fire with tracers from helicopters in flight, with music. Looked like a very expensive way to have fun. Probably not shot in California.

low rider wrote:Is there a FAR against this somewhere ?….

Have not seen the actual complaint, but the U.S. Attorney can call on any Federal Reg or Law. Perhaps https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-175/subpart-A/section-175.9?

Dale Moul wrote:…but several years ago Dillon Precision posted a video titled "the correct way to listen to classical music", Basically a lot of full-auto live fire with tracers from helicopters in flight, with music….

Based up the street from a previous workplace of mine, Dillon Precision was (is?) a U.S. Dept of Defense contractor and had a number of interesting vehicles & permits.

iPat wrote:Have not seen the actual complaint

Well, here it is.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... plaint.pdf

Violation of dangerous goods regs 49 CFR for the youtuber. Violations of 91.13 and 91.119 for the pilot.

Yeah, they didn’t really break a FAR so they hit them with the “means anything we want” 91.13




Also min altitudes?



“ d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

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”


Based on their speed and, as they were offset from the car, having actually flown R44s, not seeing a .119 violation ether

Per no fireworks on planes…that CA “attorney” would have a panic attack if she knew what cargo planes are flying daily


Real world the second one sees 91.13 in the charges, the case should be default dismissed and public shamed for BS

We really need to get rid of “administrative law” it has no place in constitutional America

I think they are just trying to clamp down on the you tube folks. Also the private pilot getting paid they don’t like one bit . Throw a bunch of charges and see what sticks looks to be the strategy here.

I worry that YouTuber attention hogs like this are going to usher in a new wave of regs that will make life suck for the less extreme/attention hogging pilots/creators. Kinda like how drones destroyed the traditional RC hobby. Popularity has its price I guess.

Yea the whole filming without a permit thing? Lots of interpretation involved with that . Joe blow who post one of their skydives over the lake somewhere going to need a permit ? Hmmm . Flying into Johnson Creek slap that up on you tube . You need a permit to film in the wilderness?

low rider wrote:Yea the whole filming without a permit thing? Lots of interpretation involved with that . Joe blow who post one of their skydives over the lake somewhere going to need a permit ? Hmmm . Flying into Johnson Creek slap that up on you tube . You need a permit to film in the wilderness?

Exactly. Hmmm.