View Full Version : Private Sites and Rule 5
3rd May 2001, 18:36
There was some confusion on another thread between two different parts of Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air: the "1500' Rule" and the "500' Rule".
The confusion is not surprising because Rule 5 is far too complicated, and there many exceptions. To make matters worse:
*Some exceptions apply to all of Rule 5, but only in specific circumstances.
*Some exceptions apply only to parts of Rule 5, and only in specific circumstances.
Those of you bored already should go straight to 'Summary' at the end! :)
Rule 5(1)(c), "the 1500' Rule":
"Except with the permission in writing of the (CAA).......... a helicopter shall not fly over a congested area of a city, town or settlement below a height of 1500 feet above the highest fixed object within 600 metres of the helicopter; or (the London specified area)." The ANO defines a congested area of a city, town or settlement as "any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational use."
Rule 5(1)(e), "the 500' Rule":
"An aircraft shall not fly closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure."
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list. It deals with landing and taking off at private sites.
Exceptions to all of Rule 5, but only in specific circumstances.
Rule 5 does not apply to aircraft "flying in accordance with normal aviation practice (whatever that means), for the purpose of taking off from, landing at, or practising approaches to landing at" .......... a Government/CAA/Licensed aerodrome. Practice approaches are confined to the airspace customarily used by aircraft when landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice at the aerodrome concerned. [Rule 5(4)] (e.g. If you buzz a friend's house near the airfield but nowhere near the normal circuit, you might have difficulty saying you were flying a wide circuit. Or, if you buzz a friend's house five miles away from an airfield, your explanation that you were on long finals might not be believed. :) )
Exceptions only to parts of Rule 5, and only in specific circumstances.
The 500' Rule [Rule 5(1)(e)] does not apply to "any aircraft while it is landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice." [Rule 5(2)(d)(i)]
(1) The "1500' Rule" applies, even when taking off and landing, at a private site. (Unless you have a CAA exemption.)
(2) The "1500' Rule" applies only to "congested areas". Remember "1500'/600 metres" when over-flying your proposed landing site if it is on the edge of a congested area of a village. (Good airmanship may easily conflict with the strict application of the Rule.)
(3) Except for some AOC operators, you cannot give yourself an exemption to the "1500' Rule, nor can your friendly neighbour. Strictly interpreted, if you live on the edge of the congested area of a village, you may technically breach the "1500' Rule" if your lawn/field is less than 600 metres from your house, or your friendly neighbour's house – even if your approach is over open land.
(4) The "500' rule" does not apply to landing or taking off. It makes no difference whether the site is private/licensed.
(5) Police aircraft are exempt from certain parts of Rule 5.
(6) Rule 5 does not apply to flying in a manner necessary for the purpose of saving life.
I've tried to simplify rules which are far too complicated. If it's still difficult to understand, don't blame me - I didn't draft the Rules of the Air nor, I suspect, did any other pilot!
In my experience, the CAA usually takes a reasonable approach to Rule 5, and does not prosecute minor breaches, provided (a) your flying was safe and responsible, and (b) no-one complains.
However, and this is becoming a serious problem which should not be under-estimated: if there is a complaint (e.g. from a jealous neighbour, or the anti-helicopter brigade) the CAA will investigate. If there is any evidence that you breached Rule 5, even technically and without any risk/danger to anyone, the CAA are very quick to prosecute (IMHO far too quick) on the allegations of the complainers.
Note to Fixed-Wing pilots: Helicopters and aeroplanes are subject to different provisions under Rule 5.
[This message has been edited by Flying Lawyer (edited 03 May 2001).]
Boy FL, you blokes have it bad .... That was quite a mess to read. :)
I like our rules;
CFR part 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
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.
Sounds terrible right? Now the fun part for us rotorheads:
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.
Doesn't make us any safer, but I sure appreciate the latitude given me when I aviate compared to my plank brethern and you guys overseas.
3rd May 2001, 19:50
FL , I have jumped from the other thread , if you would be kind enough to help, it seems that I have misread or misunderstood the Rule 5 for the landing of a Helio, looking at it now, would I be right in thinking that to land within 1500 feet of any man made structure, vessel or human would put me in breech of this rule?
3rd May 2001, 20:26
Superb post. Thanks for taking the trouble. Much appreciated.
(Great graphic too!)
Your post is a good illustration of the difference between the attitude of our CAA compared with the healthy 'can do' approach of the FAA.
No. You would not "be right in thinking that ........."
Read Flying Lawyer's post again. You are still confusing the two rules.
4th May 2001, 00:15
Thanks Flying Lawyer. I thought I'd got that straight after learning it for the CPL exams, and it's all pretty much as I thought. But what are the different provisions for helicopters and aeroplanes? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
5th May 2001, 01:31
Flying Lawyer - the rules state that you shall not fly "OVER a congested area etc etc"
If your landing site is on the edge of a congested area, (and you fly over open land to get there), then technically you are committing no offence as you are at no point flying OVER the congested area, are you?
About time it was clarified.
Just one small point - the 1500 ft rule includes a golf course or similar
arm the floats
5th May 2001, 15:08
Even if you don't fly over the congested area but land within 600m of what is considered to be the congested area you breach the rule.
Paco I think your right, because a golf course is a recreation area ( therefore in the eyes of the CAA could be classed as congested),even if there was no one there??
Flying Lawyer, you say that the CAA take a reasonable approach to rule 5 unless they get a complaint.
I know of one pilot who was asked from a yachting club to film this significant flotilla off the West Coast of Scotland a number of years ago.He took the cameraman up and flew around filming the yachts from various heights.
One yacht owner worked in the aviation industry and complained that the 500' rule had been breached.CAA prosecuted and the local judge fined the pilot £1.00.
The yachtsman was thrown out of the club!
Were the CAA reasonable?
5th May 2001, 15:28
Arm The Floats : Was the filming heli flying less than 500' from the yachts? If so, then yes the CAA were reasonable in prosecuting. I presume this was a twin, being over water?
Arm the floats
yes, the operative phrase is "substantially used for ..... recreational use". It hasn't been tested in court yet, as far as I know. You could always introduce an argument as to what substantial means!
The other phrase is "fly over", so you can land inside 600m - the only bit where they can get you for landing next to such an area is if you do it "within 500 feet", where there is no horizontal or vertical specification.
8th May 2001, 10:52
If your site is on the edge of the congested area (F/L's example), it is still part of the area. They look at the area as a whole, so the 1500'/600m rule still applies. You'd still be in breach because you're flying till you land, and you can't fly lower than 1500' above the highest fixed object within 600 metres.
How on earth how can you say you think "the CAA were reasonable in prosecuting" the pilot 'Arm the Floats' mentions without knowing more about what happened?
Or do you think it's "reasonable" to prosecute every alleged breach of Rule 5? The Court which heard all the facts obviously thought it was a trivial incident given as they fined the guy a £1!
I agree with you about the golf course if it is on the edge of (ie part of) a congested area of a city, town or settlement - but no problem if it is out in the countryside and not part of any settlement.
But yhy do you say "you can land inside 600m - the only bit where they can get you for landing next to such an area is if you do it 'within 500 feet', where there is no horizontal or vertical specification."?
I think it's the other way around:
You can't land inside a congested area because until you land you're still flying so they can get you for breaking the 1500''600m rule.
You say they can get you for breaching the 500 feet rule.
It doesn't apply to landing and taking off?
8th May 2001, 12:33
Hoverman - read my posting again. Correct, I don't know all the facts, but ATF asked for a reply based on what he had told us. What we were told is that said heli was on a filming sortie. What I said was that if it was flying closer than 500' to the vessels during this filming (thereby committing an offence, and laying the pilot open to prosecution)it was reasonable of the CAA to prosecute.
Can't see how you can have a problem with that, surely?
8th May 2001, 20:49
I've read your post again and can't see what I'm supposed to have missed/misunderstood. I do understand what you are saying, I just find it breathtaking.
On the facts available from ATF, we know
1. A yachtsman complained.
2. The CAA prosecuted.
3. The Court (who heard the fact) fined the pilot a £1.
4. The Club threw the yachtsman who complained out of the club. :)
Doesn't fact 3 (and even fact 4) suggest that it was an extremely trivial and minor breach?
I think it is entirely unreasonable of the CAA to prosecute minor breaches which should either be ignored, or the subject of a warning letter.
Surely just because someone leaves themselves open to prosecution by breaching the law doesn't make it reasonable to prosecute them. (75 mph at 5 o'clock in the morning on a deserted motorway in perfect conditions?)
Or do you support 'Zero tolerance' of all offences regardless of the circumstances?
9th May 2001, 02:07
Hoverman, I hear what you are saying, and no I don't support zero tolerance regardless of circumstances. If the pilot in our little story had inadvertantly been less than 500' from the ships, say whilst taking off on a completely unrelated sortie, then fine. If he was filming them and deliberately broke the rules - to get a better picture or whatever - then book him. If you want to fly closer than 500' get an exemption - that's what they are there for.
Regards the CAA, I know they annoy us all with some of the things they do, but do you really think they would waste their time and our money on prosecuting someone for a slight indiscretion - your "75 mph on a deserted motorway" scenario? Question is where do you draw the line? If 75 is Ok, why not 76? If 76 is OK, why not 77? etc etc
So for our heroic filming pilot - is 490' OK? If so, why not 480' or 450' over a deserted ocean at 5 in the morning? It's not a fuzzy line. If it says 500' , then 500' it is. Live with it or pay the price.
We are probably never going to agree on this one, but for me any DELIBERATE breaking of the rules that compromise the safety of the helicopter, occupants or people on the ground (or water in this case) should be treated seriously.
I am not for one minute saying that I haven't been in similar positions to Pilot "X", because I have. However, I did it knowing that I shouldn't have, and if I had been caught I would have expected to have had my ass in a sling.
In a nutshell - accidental incursion, CAA should take a view. Deliberate intent, take your medicine like a man.
Hoverman - you're quite right, too much of a hurry to read the posts - you can't be within 600m of a congested area
<fx>idiot mode off
9th May 2001, 02:42
StevieTerrier asks <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">"Do you really think they (the CAA) would waste their time and our money on prosecuting someone for a slight indiscretion?"</font>
Yes. And they do.
With regard to the example mentioned by 'Arm the Floats', I've never known a Court impose a fine of £1 for any offence of any description in my 26 years at the Bar.
I think Hoverman is right when he suggests it shows the Court took a dim view of the matter being dealt with by a prosecution instead of a warning.
Sledgehammers and nuts come to mind. :rolleyes:
[This message has been edited by Heliport (edited 08 May 2001).]
9th May 2001, 09:39
Heliport - Why did you have to edit Flying Lawyers post? It is in danger of becoming a habit!
"keeping an ear to the ground"
9th May 2001, 11:38
It was done at my instigation because for some reason the system wouldn't allow me to edit my post.
9th May 2001, 20:28
I know you misunderstood on this occasion, but you do seem a bit keen to knock Heliport. I thought everyone agreed he was right (and wise) to delete that exchange of personal posts.
As others have said before, I think Heliport's doing a great job. I tend to read mainly because I'm an airline pilot, only fly helis as a hobby so don't have much to contribute, but I think Rotorheads has picked up a lot since he became a Moderator.
Let's appreciate his efforts instead of knocking.
9th May 2001, 23:26
Mmmmm. Seems I am in danger of becoming outnumbered here!
Flying Lawyer - the gentlemen of the CAA enforcement branch always tell us that they only prosecute when it's necessary. You seem to think otherwise - are you talking from experience, and if so would you like to give us some "for instances"? Should make interesting reading!
Do you have any idea what sort of a success rate they have on their prosecutions?
10th May 2001, 13:19
Stevie, I guess you must be new to this game. Check out Flying Lawyers previous posts. FL is a very well respected barrister and fellow aviator. His success rate (I believe) is pretty darned good and most recently successfully defended a 'low flying' incident prosecution against an instructor. He is held in high esteem by many, many, pilots and gives us some hope should we ever be on the receiving end of a prosecution from the enforcement group
T.O. - Hope that didn't read too much like a sycophant, but I felt it had to be said (written).
[This message has been edited by Balance! (edited 10 May 2001).]
10th May 2001, 14:38
Balance! - Well, if you mean am I new to this game - the game being PPRUNEing then yes I am. If the game you mean is flying then no, I've been at it 15 years.
Sorry if you thought I was getting at FL - that wasn't my intention. On his last post he said that the CAA do waste time and money on pointless prosecutions, and I just wanted some examples. The CAA say they only prosecute deserving cases, FL says otherwise. Who's a boy to believe??
(p.s. - yes, it did sound a bit sycophantic!! - are you in trouble and looking for a discount rate from FL???)
10th May 2001, 15:58
Nah, not yet, but I might be one day
arm the floats
10th May 2001, 23:24
FL sorry I can't give you any more details of the £1 fine.The story was first hand but maybe large legal costs were also involved!(I don't know)
So even in the highly regulated North sea rules are being breached.
eg photo flight for an oil company closer than and lower than 500'.If someone on the rig decided to complain then the CAA would be well within there rights to prosecute!
Then there's Silverstone- where the rule books seem to go out the window.One small example where the take off and landing site is well within 200' of a hotel in a congested area,so again if someone complains then p1 and p2 could end up in court.
Or does it depend who does the complaining and how much clout they have.
CAA exemptions - if I manage to get an exemption I can legally fly below and closer than 500' to my subject eg. a ship on a photo shoot, so Stevie Terrier does this mean that I still 'compromise the safety of the helicopter, occupants or people on the ground'?Or is it OK to do the same thing now with a piece of paper from the CAA.
Surely if its a filming job and everyone is consenting and made fully aware of the dangers then it shouldn't be an issue
The authourity should give out verbal warnings finding out the intent of the pilots when the offence took place rather than pressing ahead to prosecute because a complainent shouts loudly
Surely a bit more communication (CRM even) would go a long way rather than weilding the big stick!
11th May 2001, 00:43
ATF - the Rules of the Air apply to all pilots, both professional and private, and as such have to be pitched at the "dumbest" level (No offence meant to PPL(H)s.)to give a wide margin for safety. A bit like the red line on the airspeed indicator. We all know the aircraft will do much more than that without falling apart, but we respect that limitation anyway (I hope...)
When you apply for an exemption, you have to supply information to Charlie Alpha Alpha about how you will perform this task safely and without danger etc etc. And you have to be a "professional" pilot working on an AOC to get one. The idea is that the CAA trusts you (as a responsible, professional flier) to evaluate the risks involved and prove you can do the task without putting the aircraft or any people in danger.
I have an exemption to 200' on my filming sorties. This does not exempt me from the basic premise that I should fly the aircraft safely, and at all times be able to land the heli safely in the event of a power failure.
You say :
"Surely if its a filming job and everyone is consenting and made fully aware of the dangers then it shouldn't be an issue"
Tosh! It doesn't matter who consents, especially not film directors and camermen , who are notorious for wanting to get closer and lower no matter how close or low you are. At the end of the day, it is the pilot who will carry the can when the sh*t hits the fan, as the camera crew are packing up their kit and slinking off, dramatic pictures safely in the can.
To take it to the extreme - "Well guys, yes I will hover my heli over your head at 20' as you ask so you can get some great pictures. However, if the engine stops and I crash on you, I can't be held responsible because you were aware of the dangers..."
So to answer your question, no an exemption doesn't make the helicopter fly any safer - in the same way that a radio licence doesn't make it fly any safer, but you need one of those anyway!
11th May 2001, 00:59
Back again! Just to follow up the 1500' rule debate. I was talking to a very experienced commercial pilot / instructor / TRE / training captain today. He told me that he had discussed this with the CAA on various occasions, and their stance was that the airspace around a congested area was not a dome as such, but went up vertically at the edge of the congested area. So if you were to land in your garden at the edge of a congested area, or even fly along the edge you would not be breaking the 1500' rule. However, put one skid OVER the area and you are.
Just one more opinion to add to the confusion.
11th May 2001, 01:38
I don't think 'Balance!' was suggesting that you are new to flying. It's obvious from your posts that you're a professional. It just seemed from your post that you might not have been as familiar as the regulars with the work done by Flying Lawyer - which is well described by Balance. It's not sycophantic, just factual. He represents pilots, operators and airlines when they have a problem and I think it would be fair to say that he would be the first choice of most people in the industry.
The CAA has a high success rate - but not when F/L is defending!
There are loads of cases, reported on Prune and in the aviation Press which the CAA should never have prosecuted.
Who should you believe?
Well, you've got a choice. Either believe the CAA describing their own attitude to prosecuting, or the views of an independent, and highly respected barrister. Some people might not find that too difficult! :)
BTW - I don't think anyone's said the 1500' rule is a dome, it's not.
Also, I've always understood that whether an area of a town/settlement is congested is decided by looking at the area as a whole - not by drawing a line around the buildings on the edge.
I don't doubt what someone in the CAA told your colleague - but I do doubt if anyone from CAA Enforcement would put it in writing.
It would help everybody a lot if they would - any chance your guy could arrange it?
[This message has been edited by Hoverman (edited 11 May 2001).]
11th May 2001, 12:54
Hoverman - the "dome" description was my attempt to define one perception of the physical area covered under the 1500' rule : the one that holds that you cannot be within 1500' of any part of the congested area. So if your house was on the very edge of this area, you cannot approach within 1500' of it at any height, angle or direction. (Sounds even worse when I try to explain it!)
I will have a word with my man, but as he describes the Enforcement Section as a bunch of a-h@<hidden>, don't hold your breath!
FL - you have apparently had a few run-ins with the CAA! For my benefit as a newcomer to PPRUNE, and any other like me, have you been involved with any cases of this kind - i.e. landing on the edge of congested areas? If so, what was the CAA's stance, what was your stance and what was the result?
11th May 2001, 20:48
All Flying Lawyer said was that <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">"Strictly interpreted, if you live on the edge of the congested area of a village, you may technically breach the "1500' Rule" if your lawn/field is less than 600 metres from your house, or your friendly neighbour's house – even if your approach is over open land."</font>
It was a warning to be careful. It probably depends on the nature of the area. No towns, settlements are perfectly symmetrical. And, the 'congested area' doesn't stop at some imaginary line drawn round the houses/buildings on the periphery. Personally, I wouldn't risk landing on the back lawn of a terraced house even if it was on the edge of a village, and my approach was over open land.
I think the description of the CAA Enforcement branch given by your "very experienced commercial pilot / instructor / TRE / training captain" which you quote in your last post is spot on.
If you still hold any ideas that the CAA is very reaspnable and only prosecutes in proper cases, try these links -
12th May 2001, 15:11
Thanks for those, interesting reading! They obviously got it wrong on these occasions, hope they do the same if ever its my turn....
If thy get it so wring, they deserve to get their butts whipped.
What the postings did show was how much distrust and anger (almost hatred) there is between a large number of pilots and the CAA. How ironic, as we ae the people who pay their wages....
12th May 2001, 16:08
Thanks for the links Neurtal99.
I hadn't seen them all before.
You can now see 'Balance!' wasn't being sycophantic after all, and why Flying Lawyer is seen by many in the industry as a bit of a hero.
12th May 2001, 16:14
Forgot to add, look at Stowaways Inquest - BA criticised" http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/013070.html
[This message has been edited by LightningIII (edited 12 May 2001).]
I managed to fight the CAA off successfully myself once, but I must confess to always having been confused about a couple of things when it comes to CAA "prosecutions".
The first is that the Civil Aviation Act says that the CAA is not to be regarded as an agent of the Crown - since the Crown appears against you in court (e.g. Regina v whoever), does that mean they can't do you in that capacity (assuming criminal cases)? Going further, does that mean that the CAA prosecutor himself is the one appearing on the charge sheet, or do they rely on the Secretary of State's authority? I reckon a lot of people who get done would get off merely by pinning them down on that point alone. I am aware that sect 20(2) (I think) allows it to act on behalf of the Crown in certain clearly specified cases, but it's a long time since I read it.
The other thing is that I can't find anywhere that says the bringing of criminal prosecutions has been conferred on the CAA by ANO, and it isn't (or wasn't anyway) listed in Section 3 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 as a conferrable function. I believe this also goes for investigation of "crimes".
Maybe this should be in another thread, but it seemed appropriate here. Would welcome any comments!
[This message has been edited by paco (edited 14 May 2001).]
15th May 2001, 02:05
Nice one Paco...listening out!
Having just come back to read the thread, I noticed:
>>A bit like the red line on the airspeed indicator. We all know the aircraft will do much more than that without falling apart, but we respect that limitation anyway (I hope...) <<
If I remember right though, the HV diagram for all heli's has NO percentage tolerance, i was discussing this with a few CFI's last weekend. Yes, one might go over Vne slightly and you have a fidge factor, but not the HV because it is graphed by the test pilot as to whether he/she was able to succeed in an auto at those HV points.
Perhaps that factor figures into why your CAA is so hard pressed as to min alt's. Or that you all are right, they simply don't "trust" you. We're exempt from the height/radius because the FAA (not always in our favor) realized the heli's capabilities, why does the CAA seem to maintain the same restrictions to the heli?
(I still say you all get together and press the CAA into adopting the FAA's rule, strength in numbers, that sort of thing.)
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 16 May 2001).]
17th May 2001, 02:03
When I gave the "fudge factor" example I wasn't actually referring to aircraft performance, but to certain Rules of The Air. I was trying to say that, for example, the 500'rule was designed with plenty of slack in it so that even if we (accidentally!!) broke it, we would still have plenty of clearance from the person / object / vessel. This is borne out by the fact that we can get exemptions from it, down to (in my case) 200'for filming and the like.
The H/V diagram is an interesting point. I have also heard that it should be remembered that these figures were achieved by a top pilot in favourable conditions. Which seems a bit odd really, and I can't see what the point of that would be. It's not like increasing the safe height of an AOG hover by 100' is going to make much difference to sales is it? So why not put in a fudge factor to help us lesser mortals. Very strange! Any further enlightenments would be gratefully received!
17th May 2001, 12:18
How strange! Check out the latest edition of Rotor + Wing. There is an article by a retired heli test pilot saying exactly that about the H/V curve. Sadly, he doesn't say why this should be so.
17th May 2001, 12:39
With regards to the 1500' rule, how is that catered for in the Manchester Low Level Corridor which is "not above 1250'", and mostly over congested areas?
17th May 2001, 12:42
Why would they want to put in a "fudge factor" for the HV diagram? It's NOT a limitation anyway. The airspeed limitation can sometimes be broken by turbulent air etc. Remember, the Pilots Operating Handbook, was written BY normal people, FOR normal people, not lawmakers. The only reason the HV diag is in there, is to give you an idea of the areas of operation you should beware of. They are giving you credit with intelligence unlike some of the regulations out there. Any changes in altitude (not height) or temperature would make a difference to the HV diagrams' shape and size anyway. Helicopters and their pilots, because of there abilities, will spend a large proportion of their time inside the HV diagram, we just have to "deal with it" and keep that time to a minimum. Talk to anyone who's spent anytime doing longline work, about the HV diagram and they'll laugh at you!
Don't run out of Altitude, Airspeed, RRPM, and ideas all at the same time.
Ahh, understood Stevie.
I just got my copy of R&W, that is interesting. What I found more interesting of how Bower is giving reviews ... Gee if I advertise enough can I write one too ?
(If I'm perceiving this wrong, cover me with honey and throw me to the women :) )
But I had always known that about the HV diag. in addition to a top pilot, it's likely in a New 'copter too.
But fishboy has it, most heli ops that count are inside the curve to begin with, so there wouldn't be anything gained by placing a 10-15% increase into the chart.
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 17 May 2001).]
18th May 2001, 16:05
Mighty Gem, The question of the LLC between EGCC and EGGP, was taken up by me with the man at the CAA who actually designed it (for want of a better few words), and after quiet a lengthy conversation he told me that the height was the best they could achieve without compromising the centre line for EGGP, the CAA agree that it is not the best height for safety, but went on to explain that they were more intersted in FW's than RW's, they wanted to offer a corridor that would take away from Manchester in particular, the need for any one in the LLC to use R/T to talk to the main airports , they go on to suggest that if pilots are unhappy with the 1250 alt, they can talk to EGCC App and request a higher alt, The man at the CAA said they had not really thought about the lack of Glidabillity on RW's and now he acknowledged that any EOL's in RW's could be a serious problem, he went on to say that it would be impossible to give even an extra 250ft to that max 1250, for that would have grave possibilities for both main Class A Airports, all this was confirmed by the CAA senior manager at EGCC a few days later, it seem that the idea was to give a known route to the North/South traffic that would be self controlling, the problem is nearly everybody Iv'e met in the LLC travels right along the centre line at 1250ft, far safer to Zone transit though Liverpool, ATC there are always brilliant! Seems the CAA can alter the rules to suit them, eh
19th May 2001, 23:01
Vfr, many thanks.
21st May 2001, 12:51
I hope you don't have the feeling of "Granny sucking Eggs", I have only just looked at your profile , what I printed in answer to your partial question ,was, I fear what you would have known!! do you work out of Woodvale?