Confined Area - Legal minimum heights for Hi Recce

[oldrotorhead]

Interested to hear some debate from Downunder pilots in particular on this topic. By way of background, many of the pilots I fly with for C&T or undergoing flight tests for a CPL or PPL are more than happy to conduct their Hi Recce for a Confined Area at between 300 to 500ft AGL.
I am not so much interested in starting a debate as to whether 300ft is best or 500ft is OK, etc, but rather getting thoughts on the legality of doing it below 500ft in the first place. Australian CAR (1988) 157 allows flight below 500 ft in some circumstances, obvious amongst them being "the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off off or landing, etc".
This begs the question from a legal point of view as to when the take-off ends and the landing begins. I've heard it said that the landing begins after you leave 500ft on final? In these litigious days we live in, one might not have too many legs to stand on if you were to hit a wire for example while tooling around at 300 ft when the whole rationale behind flying not below 500ft in the first place is to minimise the risk of just such a calamity! I might say from my experience, CASA guys are equally as divided or confused as everybody else so it's not just a simple case of asking them....
As said, I'd be interested in others' opinions, particularly real lawyers if there are any reading the thread.

[Arm out the window]

oldrotorhead, this is a quote from a draft copy I requested from CASA of their recently released (I think) flying instructors manual for planks, referring to the precautionary search and landing. To my mind, this is a situation analogous to a pad recce:

"Draw a plan of a field for the student and brief on how to
fly parallel to and normally to the right of the proposed
landing path. This run should be made with the optimum
flap setting at slow cruising speed. This preliminary
inspection should be sufficiently low for the surface to
be inspected but not so low that it is necessary to avoid
obstacles. Another point to impress on the student is that
the inspection runs should be made at a constant height
and not as a slow descent necessitating a frantic climb to
avoid obstacles on the far boundary. If not satisfied with
the surface complete at least one other inspection run at
a lower height if necessary."

I read this as saying they think it's fine to fly at whatever height you need to be at to carry out an effective inspection, implying, to my mind at least, that they would consider this to be a part of the landing procedure for the purposes of the low flying CAR.

It could be argued that the precautionary search and landing is an emergency procedure to be carried out to avoid running out of fuel, light or weather options, but I feel it's reasonable to suggest that a good pad recce is a necessary part of the landing sequence, and that we'd be neglecting our duty of care to self and pax by not going low enough to do it properly.

[helopat]

Aside from the legislation, I think that if you need to perform a recce of a landing site, you do it at a height which allows you to assess all the important bits about the LZ, approach and departure paths, wind, terrain, etc. I'm not sure I would pin myself down by saying 300, 400, 500.

Obviously, if you're doing something like this you have to ask yourself, 'Do I really need to land here?' If the answer is yes, do what you've gotta do. It goes without saying that the risk of hitting wires, birds, etc increases as you get closer to the ground...just another thing you've gotta be thinking about.

Long and short of it is, as a rotary wing guy you CAN do this sort of thing...if you don't do a good recce, you're much more likely to get into strife. Bottom line, if getting wound up about what the legislation actually means is keeping you from doing what you've got to do, either get into another line of business or get on with the job that needs doing. Sad that we're reduced to this isn't it?

HP

[Exo.]

You did, however, refer to this as the "Hi recce" in your thread title; as opposed to the low recce, which typically proceeds the high.

I don't think I'd personally do the high recce, and get the initial info on the area, at less than 500ft.

The low recce though? It depends on the outcome of the high and the area's surrounds...

[NickLappos]

Since the purpose of the high recon is to assess the hazards of the planned landing, which directly requires that the high recon is not bound by any over-fly altitude rules. It is a part of the landing process, which will end up at zero feet altitude.

[Heliport]

Whatever the theory, in practice - How many pilots do a High recce and then a Low recce before landing at a private site?

This probably applies more in the UK than elsewhere because of the volume of complaints, but I know some pilots think it just triples their chances of getting a low flying complaint.

[Letsby Avenue]

As opposed to tripling their chances of flying into wires on the low recce having skipped the high...:}

[Heliport]

Is that a 'Yes' - you always do three orbits over a private site, the last one to land?

[topendtorque]

speaking as a downunder driver,
two things need to be cleared,
1) never below the horizon line of two ridgelines if you are in an area where there maybe or are wires.
2) the usual -all the checks please - enough power to climb out if it is no go, how do you know, is the surface ok, what slope etc? all that comes from CLOSE observation above translation.

3) when approaching to land - lets be serious - we will do it at a reduced airspeed other than the normal not below 40knots until below 100 feet, why?

Because you silly sod if the donk fails, we are landing in a confined area surrounded by - err - jungle - err - buildings - or - err - any other unfriendly stuff - what does it matter if the donk fails you are committed to an unsafe situation already lets make it easy to recover if necessary!

So if the approach to land is out of the ordinary for safety sake then how could one possibly argue that a low level ogle which is necessary for saftey sake, be wrong.

[3top]

Hi all,

I am flying in a rather problem-free area legally speaking, so take my rant for what it cost you!

When are you (generally) doing a recon (high or low, whatever your definition is...)?
Answer: When you are landing or indent to land.
That puts me right back into legal height restrictions - in this country there are non, when on departure or approach.
Your legal constraints may differ! :)

3top:cool:

[imabell]

as we are allowed to conduct curved approaches and departures the high and low recce can be achieved at the same time. the curve starts at 500 passes through 300 and terminates at the ground and meets all reqirements.

i know of no wire strikes or obstacle strikes on approach to a confined area that have been recorded in australia or png.

we are obviously on the right approach.

the low pass then turning your back on the site would be the worst technique of all. try doing that in the jungle as you would have to go back and find the site.

the orbiting approach has the area in sight at all times and allows for the best assessment of the site.

[3top]

Imabell,

"the orbiting approach has the area in sight at all times and allows for the best assessment of the site."

I don't know what size machine you fly and into what size of confined area, but that technique eliminates about 85% of all possible confined areas from a safe approach, ....where I work.

In my environment, most confined areas dictate a low, low decent rate approach or you will not get there.
Not loosing sight of the intended landing spot would mean a VERY steep approach and frankly in most cases I would not have the power for that.

I teach my students to not worry too much about loosing sight of the spot while setting up the approach, just make sure you KNOW where it is.
If you miss it, go around and find it again....

3top

[[email protected]]

Using a compass heading and markers either on the approach or departure side of the clearing can help locate it even when you have lost sight of the clearing itself. If you decide your approach direction at altitude and fly over the clearing on it, noting the heading and picking markers then you will still be able to locate it when you descend for low recce/approach.

[3top]

crab,

that's what I say.
The (old...) book says "Never lose sight of the landing spot", BUT that book is from the last millenium:) .
Maybe techniques back then had no other choice, maybe a confined area really wasn't at todays standards, maybe with the powers available back then, a confined area was still more like a football field.

Unfortunately teaching material seems always some 20 years out of date.
So that is exactly what I teach: Know your site, by reference of whatever does the trick.

Just last week I had to land in a 50ft deep place in the rainforest, size about 3 rotor-diameters. Approach was right on the deck for low ceiling.
Couldn't see the damn hole before you got on the edge of the last trees.

However, my main concern is, that students learn to REALLY recon the area.
Most look at the site, but never SEE anything!
They want to take in everything at once and don't get anything!

I really like to force them to brake the recon down into 4 steps:
1. Wind - no wind direction, no approach - unless you figure out that there is no wind - which hardly ever happens around here...

2. Best way in, COMBINED with the best way out - Rather have a more complex approach but an easy go-around.

3. Masts, Towers, Poles -because they all have wires and cables and you can't see them! IF they don't have wires/cables it's a bonus.

4. Anything else - and I mean ANYTHING. Trees, brush, roads signs, water, treestumps, fences - close and far from the site. Just to recognise whatever it is, keeps it in short memory - if you have to go around.
Always assume that you have to go around - if you get in right away it's another bonus!

Most will not believe how fast this technique is, once you get used to it - generally a 1/2 circle will finish it.

Topend, I like your
"1) never below the horizon line of two ridgelines if you are in an area where there maybe or are wires."
I will shamlessly copy this and incorporate it into the "initial arrival over the area" - phase! for students :) - certainly I will give credit to you!
Thanx, mate!

I am curious, the initial post was about "legal height minimums" for recon before landing" or so.

Is there any country where this would legally be a problem?
I believe in the US this part would be part of the approach, so there is no legal height restriction.
Same in Panama...
What about UK, EU, Oz, NZ, SA, etc....

3top:cool:

[imabell]

the original question was from oz and was put up because of legal problems arising from flying below legal minimums.

this problem has been put to bed now as a recent case of low flying was dissmissed as the pilot stated that he was flying low with the intention of landing. even though where his landing place was a fair way away.
the court agreed with him so i imagine that will be the end of any more problems. maybe.

3top

the techniques that are taught today are certainly not 20 years old, in fact we were taught to fly very large curcuits back in the olden days and i realise that approaches are different in large and heavy helicopters. there has never been a single pill to fix all ailments.

i was mainly referring to best assesment flying for students around a site for initial training and it works exceptionally good for most pilots that i have flown with. it's a shame that you dismiss things you think of as old rather than using the best of then and now combining the two for better practice.

Just last week I had to land in a 50ft deep place in the rainforest, size about 3 rotor-diameters. Approach was right on the deck for low ceiling.
Couldn't see the damn hole before you got on the edge of the last trees.

i'm sure that was quite exciting for you and well done. it must have been for a good reason.

you obviously couldn't have done a recon at 500 or 300 so you must have used the technique we developed for just that scenario about 25 years ago. see how the last millennium is there to help you even today.

you talk about the old book, which one is the new one that you use?, or is it just experience that you are talking from?.

i've read a few new ones ( i like to try to keep up) and they are not immune from errors of fact. in fact most of the new ones are just about copies of the old ones but include erronious information contributed by the authors themselves, i hope your not using one of those for you training.

all us old fogies sit back and watch in awe at how well the younger helicopter pilots have improved our industry.

thank you,

gg:ok:

[3top]

Imabell,

apologies if you felt offended anyway, this was not intended!!
I myself learned to fly in the last millenium, with the old books (you are right about the new ones - just more colors and the helicopters changed for the R-22, from all the Bells and Hillers....), in the jungles of OK, Ardmore to be precise, on a Bell-47, that could be taken-off with the basic hover, then depart at oh-500, because as soon as the sun was out it was running take-off. Most of what made me survive my crazy years I also learned from an old-timer. So, really no offense!

What I went at is, that in the books (old or new for that matter) you find doctrines that will limit you severly in real live - when you have to do a job.

I certainly start my stundents with the basics, but I do not make it imperative that they keep sight of the spot. Rather "know where it is.."
I miss some progress in these details - I rather tell them what is coming at them, then let them run into trouble later. Even if they are not able to do it right away. At least they heared about, when they get there. Mostly I also demonstrate it and let them try once or twice. Keeps things from getting boring and them from getting cocky!

My reference to the old times, was even to before I was born, when helicopters where ALWAYS at the limit powerwise (if you cared for carring anything...), this fact might have forced pilots to do approach confined areas a certain way. Most likely CAs couldn't have been as small as we can handle today, as even the R-22 seems overpowered compared to the old Franklin-powered B-47, with 3 different kinds of con-rods in its case:))

I am always amazed by the stories I hear from the REAL old-timers around here - radial-powered SIkorskys, Hillers, Non-hydraulic Bell-47s, etc.

Imabell, I am certainly using all techniques available, old and current.

What happens though:

As the accessable confined areas become smaller (well, they are about as small as it gets today, any smaller and I am pruning...), the approach angle to keep the site in sight becomes awfully steep. No problem with that, IF you have the power for it, but not necessary if one does not insist on "in sight at all times"....


3top:cool:

PS: The new book tells just the same as the old!
That's why I never bought a new one - that means if I have to look something up, it's in the old book:)
Update 25-01-2009: I bought a new one! ...it's an edited and updated version of an old one - :)

[oldrotorhead]

imabell is quite right.....CASA have informed me yesterday of a precedent set fairly recently (2003 I believe) in which a person was acquitted of a low flying charge (I think it was a seaplane) because the defendant was able to convince the court that it was his "intent" to land subsequently. By all accounts the low flying was nevertheless pretty blatent and the landing area was a long way from the alleged infringement.....however, the case was soundly lost by the regulator, such that the advice given me is that -"if you are intending to land at the end of the process, you can go as low as you like in the process..."
For my two bob's worth, I still think it will be an interesting day in a coroner's court somewhere after someone is killed from an accident attributed to the low flying in the circumstances which prompted my original thread! However, at least the question has been officially answered for now.

(Thanks to all those who offered all the free advice about C/A techniques in general - it wasn't the topic but we can all learn things,huh?)

By the way, gg, you are right on the money with your last few lines.. well said!

[3top]

That's another one that is hard to teach "Common Sense".

One of my personal practises is to approach "as shallow as possible".
Next thing you know someone is on the deck for the last 10 miles and you hear "....but you told me to do so!"

Unfortunately it is hard to awake "Common Sense" in people that don't have it in the first place, ....can't buy it either.


3top:ugh:

[topendtorque]

Thanks to all those who offered all the free advice about C/A techniques in general - it wasn't the topic but we can all learn things,huh?

Something that you instructors could also have talked about which isn't here and often isn't taught is just how critical the escape route is when approaching a C/A landing when loaded above the weight that the A/C will pull out of the area. I.E. the importance of decision time above ten feet above the trees and pref above translation, and hold the throttle to frighten the student when he has forgotten

There is general ssumption that you can get in - and plenty of talk about how you work out how much you can load on and still go out, or part of your load is offloaded, but rarely if ever do I see a newbie presented that thinks it may also have something to do with bringing big loads in and departing empty.

Even those that are well versed with 'settling with power' rarely connect the operational aspects of the combination

3top
no probs, that's why i wrote it, if we can't contribute constructively then we should all pack it in.

BTW, I will never be shifted out of the philosophy that the '47 as a primary - is the only -teach them all the basics without excuses machine.

Possibly imabell may be in the same camp, so you're doin ok sport.

[3top]

The B-47 was my ship for training and my first 1400 hrs.
Excellent airframe, totally overbuilt/engineered - great.

But unfortunately it is becoming an Antique (or is already).
Actually today I'd rather prefer to teach in the R-22 (if the student/instructor can do with the weight and size limits)
It is a sensitive little critter, but for the initial stundent it does not matter - it is too much anyway - R22, B47, EC120, Bell206, S-76, CH-53.
It's a helicopter and your first couple hours you think you never make it.
However when it clicks, the R-22 will make you react a lot faster than the very forgiving B-47. If you can handle a R-22 you can fly about anything!!(..please don't give me fire for this, of course you still will have to transition into anything else, but it is going to be easy! ....suddenly you have something new available you didn't have in the R-22, it is called rotor inertia!)

My "doctrine" for recon is

1) Wind
2) Best way in COMBINED with best way out - emphasis on an easy way out, even if this means to have a more complex way in..
3) Masts/towers/poles - they all have wires
4) Any and everything else


Saludos,

3top

[rotorfossil]

My teaching with regard to recce height is to arrive at about 1000 ft agl for a look at the general situation, eg houses, wires, obstacles, wind etc to determine the likely circuit and approach patterns. Then a pass into wind to have a detailed look in the landing area/power check followed by the circuit and approach from which you intend to land. This covers the the slightly ambiguous law which says that you are only absolved from the 500 ft rule when approaching to land or takeing off in accordance with good aviaton practice. If on the approach, something causes you to be unhappy, then you go around in accordance with good aviation practice. Deliberately doing an approach from which you do not intend to land is the one which a lawyer might might relish in the event of a complaint. If you know the landing area well, then omit the 1000 ft bit.

[3top]

Rotorfossil,

where do you live? (No pun intended...)

I wish I had that kind of ceiling - most of the time the ceiling here is at 1000 or just below. Have some terrain between sealevel and the clouds, often you will not even get the 500 AGL.

I really don't care what the laywer says, as long as the law says I am on approach. Sometimes it takes a trial approach to figure out IF it is possible to do it at all - slow, but above translational.
If it works, come back and shoot it.
Sometimes the intended approach turns sour and a third one will have to be done.
What if the intention was to land, but things just don't look right before you get to your decision point and you abort - go somewhere else.

How is a laywer going to proof you just came in to annoy everybody or put all their lives and property in jeopardy?

The main thing is that you have some profesional people at the hearing :)

Generally it will be fairly easy to figure out, whether you were at work or just hot dogging with a lame excuse.

3top:cool:

[SASless]

Gosh,

This is getting all complicated isn't it. Shallow as possible approaches, Low Recce's other than that done on approach into the area....three times around and...and...and....!

It would seem....one orbit (but take as many as you need) called the Hi Recce, followed by a power check, prelanding check....turn final....using a normal to steep approach angle to stay as high as possible as long as possible....and be able to see the far one third of the landing zone....low recce on final from 300 feet down. The Hi Recce determines wind, considers turbulence, obstructions in the confined area, wires and other hazards, lowest obstacles, safest route in....safest route out and the escape route....should a balked landing be done.

Are we making a mountain out of a confined area?

If someone complains....explain the procedure you used. If the CAA Gits ....errrr....Guys.....cannot understand what you are telling them....then you are in trouble but not until then.

[Windy Pants]

I was taught to perform a power check en-route/within the vicinity to your confined area and nor necessarily in the circuit as it's just one less thing to do whilst you're assessing your confined area. Our high level recce would be done at around 750-800ft AGL, assess the first 2 of the 5 s's (size, shape, slope, surface, surroundings) and make an initial stab at the other 3 as sometimes they can be only really assessed on your low recce/final approach. When in the circuit into wind we could safely reduce airspeed enough to give us a leisurely pass-by of the site and make an accurate assessment (which potentially reduces the overall number of circuits), turn X-wind, downwind, and then turn onto base starting your descent from around 750-800ft AGL to 500ft AGL making sure that as you complete your final turn onto final "wings level" between 300-500ft for final approach at 40 Kts IAS into wind.

On my CPL test I did 2 circuits, and the examiner said he thought he was going to grow a beard!, on debrief, he said that anymore than 2 circuits and he would have questioned my ability at tackling a confined area and he would have thought about failing me on it!

[Rotorhead412]

Jaysus, who was your examiner!!??

Its a shame that some examiners these days are no more better at flying than those they are testing!! Now, fair enough, its not the case for all examiners, but by all means it's true for some..!!

I heard a story once where an LPC was being done on an owners own aircraft, and the examiner gave out to the owner during the test for progressively flaring the heli (r44) in an auto, upon the owner questioning the examiner to see how he did it, they proceded to go around and the examiner showed the owner how to do 'an auto', in the end, the owner had to take control of the heli because the EXAMINER nearly smashed the heli into the ground!!!! Proof o be weary of who you fly with!! :uhoh: