Hands like a gunfighter.......

[CharlieOneSix]

.....and by that I mean the reactions of the helicopter pilot when the Cessna taxied in front of his airborne Bell 407. It's an old video from 2010 that I hadn't seen before. It's all over by 0:50 - the remainder of the video is of no interest. There is no ATC at the airfield.

[Cacophonix]

It is not like the helicopter descended from above and was not in the visual frame of the Cessna pilot, nor did he attempt a non standard path to the refuelling area. Cessna pilot literally taxing without due care and attention. No doubt some serious words were exchanged after this near miss.

Caco

[unifoxos]

Is there not a rule for right of way when taxiways join like that?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

When two aircraft are on a converging course, the one which has the other on its right shall give way. Same as airborne.

Whilst the helicopter was airborne, it was clearly hover-taxiing, had the Cessna on its right, and furthermore was more maneuverable, and had better visibility (especially considering the Cessna is high-wing).
Entirely the fault of the helicopter, in my view.

[CharlieOneSix]

Fox3 – This is an interesting one. The term hover taxiing does not exist in aviation law. I can give you an example where I was caught out by this and the Irish Department of Transport and Power threatened to prosecute me.

The helicopter was airborne as you say. With the proviso that this incident happened in the USA and my knowledge is of the UK, in the UK Air Navigation Order an aircraft is deemed to be in flight in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own power, until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing.

If this had happened at an uncontrolled airfield in the UK, unless the Cessna had just landed and therefore was still ‘in flight’ it could be that the pilot was merely taxiing to the pumps to get fuel so it was not moving under its own power for the purpose of taking off. I think if it had not just landed and was taxiing to the pumps with no intention of getting airborne it should have given way to the helicopter as that was in flight. Would it be okay for a Cessna to taxy in front of a landing fixed wing - of course not!

However, if the Cessna was moving under its own power for the purpose of taking off then it is deemed to be ‘in flight’. In this case both machines were ‘in flight’ and the pilot of the helicopter would be at fault.

How would the helicopter pilot know whether the Cessna was taxying for take-off and therefore already ‘in flight’ or whether it was just taxying to the pumps? This shows what nonsense legislation can be at times. In the event that there had been a collision it is such circumstances which would have the lawyers rubbing their hands together!

[CharlieOneSix]

Re my previous post above - my farcical hover taxiing incident.

In 1973 I was flying the Bell 212 helicopter for Irish Helicopters based in Dublin. The 212 has skids for an undercarriage, not wheels. It was the very early days of the operation and on occasion it was our practice to 'hover taxy' to the main terminal to refuel as at that time we did not have refuelling facilities on our side of the airfield and it took ages for an Avtur bowser to turn up.

I was asked to go and refuel a 212 prior to someone else flying it later that day. I started it up and someone came out of the office and said that the Department of Transport and Power Inspector who was visiting us had asked for the helicopter's Flight Manual so he could check all amendments were up to date. So I gave it to him. I 'hover taxied' to the terminal and Ground said on the orders of the Department of Transport and Power I was was to shut down and stay with the helicopter.

I was then driven back to the office by my Chief Pilot who told me the Inspector was irate that I had taken off and was flying without the Flight Manual on board!!! He said to keep quiet and take the flak that was coming my way even though it was the Inspector who had asked for the document.

So that's how I know that hover taxiing does not exist in law. Only in Ireland.....!

[Cacophonix]

When two aircraft are on a converging course, the one which has the other on its right shall give way. Same as airborne.

Whilst the helicopter was airborne, it was clearly hover-taxiing, had the Cessna on its right, and furthermore was more maneuverable, and had better visibility (especially considering the Cessna is high-wing).
Entirely the fault of the helicopter, in my view.

The belief that one is the right and even the fact that they are in the right is not proof against a bad look out and lack of common sense. The Cessna pilot clearly made no attempt to avoid the incipient collision in the case noted in the video and the day was saved by the helicopter pilot's quick and deft handling in the case shown in the video.


Caco

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Thanks C16, very interesting. The Law is often an ass.
Caco - Agreed, of course. It is everyone's responsibility to avoid a collision no matter who is "in the right", and the Cessna pilot clearly approached a potential conflict too fast. Probably heads in doing checks I would guess. I still maintain that "the day" was created by the helicopter pilot in the first place, even though s/he then saved it.
Above the collision rules, based on the sagacious advice of my flying and sailing instructors, I always used to stick by:
Give way to the idiot
Give way to the bigger guy
Give way to the guy earning a living.