Permit to Fly & built-up areas

[StillStanding]

I am weighing up the pros and cons of a Permit to Fly aircraft rather than CofA. There is much already discussed about the differences in servicing costs etc. and the restriction to VFR only. However, another of the rules is that you cannot fly over built-up areas.

How much of a restriction in practice is this? If taken literally then permit aircraft must weave around villages all the time. And some airfields would be impossible to get into or out of, for instance Cambridge, Rochester....

What's the logic for this rule anyway - the glide clear rule for all aircraft copes with engine failure, or is the expectation that permit aircraft are more susceptable to structural failure?

[smarthawke]

SS

In reality it isn't a problem and I don't know of anyone who operates modern Permit machines that treats the built up areas any different to a CofA machine. as far as I know, legally, it doesn't apply during the normal take-off and landing moments anyway.

Bizarre that in a 90kt Cirrus powered Auster you could fly over a village at 5000' (if it gets that high...) but in a 150+kt Lycoming powered RV you can't!

I presume the rule dates back to the days of Those Magnificant Men in Their Flying Machines and VW powered orange boxes.

Times have changed, permit aircraft performance has advanced beyond most certificated machines, the rules have stayed as they are.

[stiknruda]

To get to either Norwich or Colt from my strip, I need to circumnavigate the City of Norwich.

All I do is remain above 1500; agl unless ATC tell me not to and fly around the built up bits, even in the Pitts which has the glide profile of a greased crow-bar, I would only crash and die in allotments, rivers, countryside.

In reality, not an issue at all.

Stik

[Jodelman]

Since swapping a C of A aeroplane for a permit one, I have never found this restriction to be a problem.

[J.A.F.O.]

SS
the days of Those Magnificant Men in Their Flying Machines and VW powered orange boxes.

Oi, I like VW powered orange boxes.

[nipper1]

I own a VW powered Orange Box and to be perfectly honest, I never really think about the built up area problem. It always seems to m that if you apply the 'land clear' rule (which applies to CofA aircraft too) then you would be very unlucky to get into a problem.

Now if you want to expand this thread, I am intrigued to know why people spend thousands of pounds on IFR kit for permit aircraft which they are not allowed to use......

[IO540]

Something to do with clouds being rather......... hmmmmm....... common, perhaps?

:O

[stuartforrest]

Yes I agree. I would rather have every bit of kit available even if I "wasnt" going to use it.

If I had a permit plane I would fit it with all sorts as there seems to be some pretty smart kit available that I cant put on my Bonanza.

[nipper1]

You guys are not suggesting that permit aircraft are ever flown in clouds are you? That would be totaly illegal.

[IO540]

The clouds are completely illegal, I agree :O

The thing is, if you have the kit to fly in IMC and you enter IMC (intentionally or accidentally) what would you prefer?

a) to live (and be illegal while in IMC), or

b) to die legally

There are loads of permit pilots who are able to fly safely in IMC - usually because they have an IMCR or even an IR (in the latter case, retired airline pilots). They just can't do it legally.

It's one of those daft debates. I once asked an instructor: if you were flying a NDB instrument approach, and the ADF was telling you that you are doing fine, and the GPS was telling you that you will die, which would you trust? His reply: "I would trust the ADF". It's a mindset particular to aviation, anally retentive to the last moment.

[foxmoth]

And the sensible reply is of course - I would not trust either without some sort of crosscheck (eg VOR/DME or radar):hmm:

[Spiney Norman]

I think I remember some comments in 'Popular Flying' about an attempt to bring this requirement 'up to date' about 12-18 months ago? Perhaps the PFA are still working on it? Can't say I find it a problem but it would be nice to have the rules brought up to date. particularly if it's putting new owners off buying or operating an aircraft on a PFA permit.

Spiney.

[ifitaintboeing]

To get to either Norwich or Colt from my strip, I need to circumnavigate the City of Norwich.
All I do is remain above 1500; agl unless ATC tell me not to and fly around the built up bits, even in the Pitts which has the glide profile of a greased crow-bar, I would only crash and die in allotments, rivers, countryside.
In reality, not an issue at all.
Stik

...of course, it's 1000ft now :rolleyes:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%205%20amended%201%20April%202005a.pdf

Flying PFA instead of CAA should not substantially change the way you fly, except the cost of course.

Regards,
ifitaint...

[stiknruda]

...of course, it's 1000ft now

Yes, I know but at a grand I'd not be able to glide as far.

When the donk quits in my aeroplane the first action is to throw something out of the cockpit, watch it descend until it impacts the ground and then voila, you have just picked your field:p


Stik

[Rod1]

The PFA are actively working on getting the built up area restriction lifted, but in practice it makes little difference.

I have equipped my permit aircraft with IFR instruments as if I do accidentally enter cloud, I would like to live to tell the tail. I quite understand that the kit without the skill would be a waste of time, so not all PFA types would benefit. It is probably impossible to fit full IFR kit in a Nipper anyway……

Rod1

[nipper1]

Rod

You are wrong. It is totally impossible to fit any IFR kit in a Nipper.

[Rod1]

When I owned G-AXLI T66mk3 she had a T & S…..

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

Back to the original question.

Rarely a problem. Occasionally you need to route around rather than over connurbations, but to be honest that's just good airmanship anyhow.

It is legal to fly over built up areas when taking off or landing at a government or licenced airfield. This may preclude 2 or 3 airfields somewhere in the UK which are unlicenced with connurbations in the undershoot/overshoot, but I can't honestly think of any.

Offhand I've about 600 hours in permit aeroplanes. I can think of 2 or 3 occasions where I've had to add 10 minutes onto journey time because I had to decline an opportunity to overfly a built up area that I might have done in a CofA aeroplane. Not a big deal!

G

[IO540]

There is some amazing kit in the USA, which could be fitted to Permit aircraft. 1/10 of the price of certified stuff, and functionally better.

[funfly]

You guys are not suggesting that permit aircraft are ever flown in clouds are you? That would be totaly illegal.
Permit aircraft are restricted to VMC which, of course, includes above cloud out of sight of the surface as long as you are 1500' clear of cloud.
It would be a very good idea to have a VOR instrument and any other fancy instruiments you want.
Not to be confused with the privelages of a PPL which forbid flying out of sight of surface - a restriction that can be removed by having an IMC and a very good reason to have an IMC even if you fly a permit aircraft.

[robin]

I go with Ghengis, whereas CofA aircraft tend to fly in straight lines, Permit aircraft should plane to fly around conurbations but this shouldn't add too much to the flight time

It is odd though that there are similar types on both categories and one can overfly a 'congested area' whereas the other cannot. From the ground even ATC would have problems working out if you are entitled to be where you are.

[Flap40]

Permit aircraft are restricted to VMC which, of course, includes above cloud out of sight of the surface as long as you are 1500' clear of cloud.

WRONG!

Permit aircraft are restristricted to VFR (and day) only

[IO540]

And VFR is permitted above an overcast layer in most places in the world.

The UK CAA is one of the few authorities insisting on "sight of the surface" for its UK-issued PPLs. I suppose UK clouds are extra opaque...

The IMC Rating removes this particular requirement, and the removal happens to be valid worldwide (I have this in writing from the CAA).

Should be valid on a Permit aircraft - the aircraft itself doesn't require to be in sight of the surface, I don't think.

[Flap40]

The point I was making was that "vmc" is wrong. I accept the rest.

Vmc implies that IFR is allowed when remaining vmc but in fact the permit prohibits that.

[Rod1]

Here we go again!

[robin]

IO540

Having flown many hours in a Turbulent, there is no way I'd be 'on top VFR'. Given the way a VW engine behaves, I want to know which field I'm going into

[Genghis the Engineer]

WRONG!
Permit aircraft are restristricted to VFR (and day) only

day-VFR, with sight of surface.

(But, for IMC and IR rated pilots, the VFR minima do reduce).

G

[Jodelman]

My permit says:-
"2.5 Other Limitations
The aircraft shall be flown by day under Visual Flight Rules only
Smoking in the aircraft is prohibited."
Nothing about being in sight of the surface.

[stuartforrest]

I wonder how that works with "permit" helicopters. Presumably you cant land them in your back garden etc if you approach over someone elses house?

[stiknruda]

I'm happy to be corrected but AFAIK all permit helicopters are on CAA permits not PFA permits and as most (Rotorway Exec excepted) are ex-mil machines, I believe the rules are slightly different.

Stik

[stuartforrest]

Oh right. I didnt realise that. I quite fancied a Rotorway in my garage but this always put me off.........along with the fact that i dont think I would be allowed to spend the insurance etc on two flying vehicles by good lady

[DFC]

IO540 is correct, there is no restriction on an IMC or IR holder flying a permit aircraft VFR above an overcast layer.

The figure is 1000ft verticaly not 1500ft.

Genghis,

Remember that many licensed airfields permit residents after signing a disclaimer to operate outdside the licensed hours of operation. If one of those airfields required an approach over a built up area then the ability to that as per the permit would only apply during the hours that the airfield is licensed.

Furthermore, in some cases, the permit can be different from aircraft to aircraft so it is important for owners to carefully read exactly what restrictions apply to their individual case.

Regards,

DFC

[IO540]

Genghis

Is the aircraft itself restricted to being in sight of the surface?

If not, then a suitably privileged pilot can fly a Permit plane above an overcast layer. This includes:

A UK issued PPL with an IMCR or an IR

A PPL issued by any State that does not impose the "in sight of surface" requirement

Whether this is wise etc etc etc is a separate subject.

[Mike Cross]

The wording used is "congested area", which is defined as ‘Congested area’ in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes; so golf courses, gardens, playing fields and parks are included in the prohibition. Tricky one that as Popham's unlicensed and has a golf course in the circuit.:confused:

Permit restrictions here. (http://www.pfa.org.uk/Engineering%20pdfs/Operating%20an%20Aircraft%20ona%20PFA%20Permit/Operating%20an%20Aircraft%20ona%20PFA%20Permit/TL%202.07%20Conditions%20of%20Permit%20to%20Fly.pdf)

[Windy Militant]

Now I know why I'm not a lawyer. Having given myself a headache the answer appears to be legally yes. But not advisable as if you found yourself on top with no hole to get down through even if your A/C were capable and you were competent to do so you would be breaking the law as soon as you got 999' from the cloud tops.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think it does vary with aeroplane and pilot. Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but unless holding an IMC or IR rating, VFR does require sight of the surface, but yes I think that an instrument rated pilot may legally fly VFR on top.

Incidentally, the "government or licenced" bit is rather contentious. A few years ago CAA did a tidying up exercise where it rationalised a lot of varying permit wordings and inadvertently (I really don't believe that this was deliberate) changed things in not quite the best way. It used to be that (most) microlight permits said something like "not over built up areas", whilst (most) FA permits said "not over built up areas except when taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice". Then they all got changed to "not over built up areas except when taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice at government or licenced airfields". This was great for the microlighters since it was a major new concession, but a restriction upon the PFA that they didn't see coming.

Last I heard, PFA were still hopping mad about it and trying to get back to their original wording - which hopefully everybody else (microlights, warbirds, etc.) will benefit from also.

G