Minimum Height

[John Alcock]

How low are PFA type aircraft allowed to fly when not landing or taking off?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the way I read the rules implies that if a pilot knows for certain that he is clear of, essentially all man-made objects, he can be as low as he likes. The rules say 500 ft clear of persons, structures, vehicles and vessels, but I cannot find reference to height above the ground (excluding built up areas). If, for example, a pilot were over sparsely populated Scotland, or the sea, would he be operating illegally if he flew at less than 500 ft above sea level?

Many thanks,

John

[Whopity]

In the UK there is no reference to minimum altitude, only the 500 feet Minimum Safe Distance (MSD) quoted in Rule 5. Some other countries do specify a minimum altitude. So as long as you comply with rule 5, you can go as low as you like. Beware other nuisance rules though.

[stickandrudderman]

My understanding of the 500ft rule is that, as you say, it only applies to "people or structures".
I would therefore presume that I can fly as low as I like as long as I comply with this rule.
I'm sure someone here will disagree!

[Bravo73]

If, for example, a pilot were over sparsely populated Scotland, or the sea, would he be operating illegally if he flew at less than 500 ft above sea level?


Nope.

You are absolutely correct. The 500ft rule only applies to 'people or things containing people' (essentially). If there aren't any 'people or things containing people' (and you can be sure of this), then LEGALLY you can fly as low as you like. (The 500ft is NOT with reference to AGL.)

Now, if it's PRUDENT to fly that low, well that's a completely different kettle of fish! :eek:

[DSAA]

The 500ft rule only applies to 'people or things containing people' (essentially). If there aren't any 'people or things containing people' (and you can be sure of this), then LEGALLY you can fly as low as you like. (The 500ft is NOT with reference to AGL.)

500' lateral and vertical separation between you and people, property, vessels, structures is the textbook definition as I remember it. So anything from pylons to chicken coups fall within that as well as farm houses and cars.

As Bravo mentioned, if you want to operate at <500' AGL that leaves you very little time to set yourself up into a forced landing pattern should the worst happen...especially in light aircraft where you may not have the speed or power to get you to a safer height in a hurry.:uhoh:

Plus the risk of birdstrikes are a lot higher than at medium altitude which don't make for cheap repairs if the airframe is damaged.

[Laundryman]

The other thing to keep in mind is that militery aircraft like to fly low too, if you see the dot of a fastjet coming head on you have less than 12 seconds to do something about it and that is assuming you see it as soon as it becomes visible.

[tangovictor]

The other thing to keep in mind is that militery aircraft like to fly low too, if you see the dot of a fastjet coming head on you have less than 12 seconds to do something about it and that is assuming you see it as soon as it becomes visible.

maybe thats why mode "s" would be needed ?

[John Alcock]

Many thanks to those who've replied. You've helped confirm what I thought, that it is apparantly legal.

Thanks also to those who pointed out the risks (less time to react, more military types, more birds, the risk of a person, vessel etc appearing! etc).

The wisdom of the decision was never a question in my mind, I was wondering the legality of it. Once again, the speed and breadth of replies amazes, cheers!

[High Wing Drifter]

You mentioned a PFA type. My understanding is that any non EASA CofA aircraft is not permitted to overfly any congested area at any height. I think the definition of a congested area is one primarily used for residential and industrial purposes.

[Whirlybird]

However, if you decide to fly that low, beware of courting couples in hedges or divers below the surface of the water. The fact you didn't know they were there is no excuse, legally.

[Flying Lawyer]

beware of courting couples in hedges or divers below the surface of the water.

Won't "courting couples in hedges" have better things on their minds than trying to take the registration of a low flying aircraft?

"divers below the surface of the water"
And, if you're over the sea, there's submarines to consider, of course. ;)
I don't think even the CAA would try to base a prosecution on people or vessels under the water.



Remember the Golden Rule:If you're going to fly low, breach Rule 5 or risk breaching Rule 5, don't stay in one area for too long or you'll increase the risk of some well-wisher getting your regn and reporting you.

FL

[matelot]

Won't "courting couples in hedges" have better things on their minds than trying to take the registration of a low flying aircraft?...
FL

Well, it'll be different to, 'This ceiling needs painting.' :cool:

[QDMQDMQDM]

I don't think even the CAA would try to base a prosecution on people or vessels under the water.

Shame. You'd have fun defending that one, wouldn't you, FL?

[FlyingForFun]

I don't have any docs to hand to quote, but.....

I'm pretty certain that, when flying instructors have made attempts to get exemptions from Rule 5 for training flights carrying out PFLs, the CAA's response is that no exemption is necessary because it's possible to carry out a PFL to a level well below 500' already so long as you remain clear of people, structures, etc etc....

I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got that wrong.

FFF
-------------

[DSAA]

Bear in mind that 500' isn't an easy height to guesstimate from ground level...+-50' or even a little more wont make much of a difference to any casual onlookers.

Without proper low flying tuition, flying below 500' probably isn't a good idea...even flying at 500' requires a lot more anticipation for the simplest of things - like climbing to avoid ridges. Plus you can't rely on your altimeter to give you an accurate altitude AGL because of the changing heights of ground AMSL, which means you need to be able to visually judge your height.

Generally with a good lookout fast and pointy things aren't impossible to spot...another good reason for sticking to 500' - their lower limit is 250' meaning you decrease your risk of meeting one coming the wrong way if you remain at that height (that's not to say all fast jets will always be at 250' in the low flying network!). If you're really worried stay away from the FJ hotspots - like the Welsh valleys, the Lake District and so on - you can find them on the internet.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

The 500ft rule only applies to 'people or things containing people' (essentially).

No. It applies to 'people or things with internal volume' (CAA ARE edict). The internal volume need not be enclosed.

[microlight AV8R]

Not within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure is the wording I learnt.
The most hotly debated word usually seems to be structure ie; is a dry stone wall a structure? The aforementioned volume bit seems to answer that one.
I did hear the 500' rule described as "the distance they can read your registration from" ;)

[formationfoto]

I think you have answer now. It is a common mistake to believe that in this fair land we require 500 ft above ground (as is the case in many other jurisdictions). Open countryside or over sea at five feet is legal if a little questionable in terms of safety providing that you are not within 500ft of those items mentioned.

There are a few exceptions to this beyond take off and landing including Rule 5 exemptions which can be used for your own non public, non paying air display if you so wish. A few locations has such exemptions which can be used for display practice. You can apply for one both on and off airfield if you wish to fill in the forms and hand money to the CAA.

[rogcal]

Irrespective of whether a fence, stone wall, etc are deemed to be structures always be aware of the lone farmworker bent over in a field of beet pulling weeds.
I can assure you that the look of terror on their face as they straighten up and realise that the approaching noise is accompanied by a lump of metal intent on decapitating them, can only be matched by the look on the pilot's face when he sees what he's just about to hit.:eek:
In this (real) scenario, only the quick reactions of the farmworker throwing himself to the ground, saved his neck, literally.
The moral of this story is that 10 to 15 feet above the level a crop is better than 2 to 3 feet!

[Bravo73]

No. It applies to 'people or things with internal volume' (CAA ARE edict). The internal volume need not be enclosed.

Thanks for clarifying that. Kd'RKG! :ugh:

Of course it's 500ft from "person, vessel, vehicle or structure". But I've always found that wording a little confusing (must be the stoopid jeans in me!;)) so I prefer this recently discovered version. (I can credit the original author, if you want).

If we are to be pedants about this, surely your 'things with internal volume' definition falls down? Does that mean that I have to be 500ft away from a coke can? :confused::E


Maybe I should've said 'people or things that can contain people' (essentially). :ok:

[aluminium persuader]

About 12 yrs ago the CAA ruled that for the purposes of Rule 5 a runway constitutes a structure because (IIRC) of the number of "low overshoots" being brought to their attention for various reasons (like crashing!)

Whether this ruling is still extant I don't know, but I'd be reluctant to test it!
:eek:

[DSAA]

I think it's been done to death now...the general consensus seems to be stay 500' or more away from anything that is not the ground.

IMHO 500' is low enough for any GA. Bear in mind that some of the main line electrical pylons are 250' high and can be difficult to spot if you're not specifically aware they are in the area...even flying just a little low around those things would cause severe puckering of the seat.

[TST Tom]

DSAA wrote:
IMHO 500' is low enough for any GA. Bear in mind that some of the main line electrical pylons are 250' high and can be difficult to spot if you're not specifically aware they are in the area...even flying just a little low around those things would cause severe puckering of the seat.

Fair point that caution must always be exercised when down 'under the radar' but if you're to properly practice PFL's you've got to go down to at least 100ft-ish. That's the case for microlights anyway. Don't know how it is for you GA chaps.

Kit d'R KG wrote:
No. It applies to 'people or things with internal volume' (CAA ARE edict). The internal volume need not be enclosed.

Chapter and verse please! I've often wondered whether an electric fence was a 'structure'. Presumably anything the CAA says is only guidance, because it's for the Courts to interpret what the Rules of the Air Regs actually mean not bureaucrats, but any clarification from epaulette central would be welcome.

[Lucy Lastic]

Irrespective of whether a fence, stone wall, etc are deemed to be structures always be aware of the lone farmworker bent over in a field of beet pulling weeds.
I can assure you that the look of terror on their face as they straighten up and realise that the approaching noise is accompanied by a lump of metal intent on decapitating them, can only be matched by the look on the pilot's face when he sees what he's just about to hit.:eek:
In this (real) scenario, only the quick reactions of the farmworker throwing himself to the ground, saved his neck, literally.
The moral of this story is that 10 to 15 feet above the level a crop is better than 2 to 3 feet!

So how did the CAA deal with this one??

http://whatsthecrack.net/article/Funny-News/Low-Flying-Planes-Videos_78.html

[Bravo73]

So how did the CAA deal with this one??

Well Lucy, you can always apply for an exemption... :} :ok:

[DSAA]

Fair point that caution must always be exercised when down 'under the radar' but if you're to properly practice PFL's you've got to go down to at least 100ft-ish. That's the case for microlights anyway. Don't know how it is for you GA chaps.

Yeah, fair play...a PFL to a field is often necessary to descend to 100' in order to get as close to that final approach as you can. I was speaking more in the realms of low level nav or getting under weather if you're not IMC rated.:)

[TST Tom]

I don't have any docs to hand to quote, but.....

I'm pretty certain that, when flying instructors have made attempts to get exemptions from Rule 5 for training flights carrying out PFLs, the CAA's response is that no exemption is necessary because it's possible to carry out a PFL to a level well below 500' already so long as you remain clear of people, structures, etc etc....

I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got that wrong.

FFF
-------------

Think you're right. And according to the Autumn 2006 edition of GASCo's Flight Safety magazine (p.4) the CAA has confirmed that provided:

1) a PFL is undertaken in good faith (ie. not an excuse for a beat up)

2) with no intent to breach the 500' rule

3) reasonable care is taken to check the area is clear and

4) where you become aware of a previously unseen person you immediately initiate a go-around

then you will not be prosecuted.

Seems sensible :D

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Kit d'R KG wrote:
No. It applies to 'people or things with internal volume' (CAA ARE edict). The internal volume need not be enclosed.

Chapter and verse please! I've often wondered whether an electric fence was a 'structure'. Presumably anything the CAA says is only guidance, because it's for the Courts to interpret what the Rules of the Air Regs actually mean not bureaucrats, but any clarification from epaulette central would be welcome.

No, an electric fence is not, as it has no internal volume.

'Chapter and verse' is impossible as this information is from CAA ARE briefings. Yes the courts make the decisions, but the CAA bring the prosecutions, and they tend to do so very carefully and seriously intent on success (almost always, rightly so, in my experience - you wouldn't believe the idiotic things people get away with because the CAA choose not to prosecute).

[Flying Lawyer]

Kit d'Rection KG

"..... the CAA bring the prosecutions"
True.
"and they tend to do so very carefully"
If you mean no expense is spared in gathering evidence to try to obtain a conviction, I agree. (The CAA is reimbursed handsomely: By a combination of the pilot and the DfT if they win; by the DfT if they lose.)
If you mean the CAA only prosecutes serious breaches/deliberate breaches/repeat offenders, that is certainly not correct.
"and seriously intent on success"
That is true, very true indeed. And it's completely the wrong approach to prosecuting. (I speak as an experienced prosecutor.)
A prosecutor should not be "seriously intent on success." It's not a prosecutor's role to be all out to win the case. That attitude, by police and/or lawyers, is one of the causes of notorious miscarriages of justice over the years.
"almost always, rightly so, in my experience"
I don't know what/how much experience you have of CAA prosecutions - or whether it's what you've been told at "CAA ARE briefings."
It's not my view, based on my experience.


TST Tom

What you quote sounds sensible - and encouraging.
But:
1) "in good faith"
Will the pilot's word be sufficient, or does it depend upon what the CAA ARE think?
2) "no intent to breach the 500' rule"
As above.
3) "reasonable care is taken to check the area is clear"
As above. And, reasonable in whose opinion?
4) "where you become aware of a previously unseen person you immediately initiate a go-around"
Will the pilot's account of when he became aware be accepted, or will ARE decide whether he saw the person or, if he didn't, whether he should have?
(I'm not suggesting you can answer the questions - I'm simply pointing that it may not be quite as straightforward as it might appear.)

I hope it is an indication of the current Head of ARE's approach. A previous Head was responsible for one the most ridiculous prosecutions I've known - the prosecution of an Instructor at Wycombe teaching EFATO - which should never have been brought.
The CAA was as always "seriously intent on success" but, fortunately, the credibility of the CAA's witnesses (Nimbies) was totally demolished in cross-examination and the FI was found Not Guilty. Taking their accounts apart, demonstrating that they'd put their heads together to tell the same story and exposing their underlying Nimby agenda was sheer joy. :)

I could give many examples, but that one came to mind because it's relevant to the discussion here.


FL

[Piper19]

Here in Belgium: 500ft above countryside, 1000ft above highest object above cities, dense populations etc...
Safe, altough sometimes I want to get lower.

[bookworm]

Taking their accounts apart, demonstrating that they'd put their heads together to tell the same story and exposing their underlying Nimby agenda was sheer joy. :)

That sounds like "perverting the course of justice". Did any of them get prosecuted?

[TST Tom]

I'm simply pointing that it may not be quite as straightforward as it might appear.



Yup that sounds like the law! I'm a solicitor too in the day job - though not criminal or advocacy.

:ok:

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Hmmm,

Flying Lawyer, thanks for your reply. I did once endeavour to get hold of you to discuss something of interest to both of us - sadly, you didn't have the courtesy to reply to my note to you. Your choice, of course.

I don't know what/how much experience you have of CAA prosecutions - or whether it's what you've been told at "CAA ARE briefings."
It's not my view, based on my experience.

No, much more than ARE briefings, as you'd have found out if we had spoken. Certainly, a missed opportunity from my point of view, I'm sad to say, as I believe we both might have gained from being in touch.

[sharpend]

And just remember it is 1000 feet above a crowd of 1000 or more.

[Whopity]

For those who have not discovered it:
Standardised European Rules of the Air –
Exceptions to the Minimum Height Requirements ORS1174 (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/1174.pdf)

[squidie]

Yes I’ve never known there to be a CAA known minimum altitude for VFR traffic (IFR has different requirements), except the 500ft (Rule 5) rule. Which specifies a minimum distance of 500ft in any direction from a person, structure, vehicle or vessel. If you find yourself in an area where none of these are present then you can fly at any altitude you require.

I find it difficult to be able to do this in the area I fly as you can’t really fly that low for long as you’ll definitely end up breaching this rule pretty quickly.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong however there is exceptions to this rule:

1. The A/C is taking off or landing.
2. The aircraft is in distress or executing a forced landing etc.
3. The A/C is receiving a Special VFR clearance (SVFR).

[Whopity]

Rule 5 disappeared nearly 3 year ago!

[hoodie]

And therein lies the danger of resurrecting a ten year old thread.

[Ebbie 2003]

Personally, I never fly lower than 10ft over the sea - got to be safe you know:=:sad::ok:

[Whopity]

On the Rad Alt or the Pressure Alt?

[Crash one]

LAA Permit non EASA/CofA aircraft have been able to overfly settlements for a few years now. No safety case against it.
EASA 500ft AGL was not taken up by CAA and kept the original system.
Or so I am led to believe?

[Pilot DAR]

It's worth recalling that the decision you make as to the height you will fly (be it for regulatory compliance, or other motive) affects your safety. These rules are not just there for the people on the ground. If you're cruising along at 200 feet, your only possible forced approach are is right in front of you - it is suitable?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If you're cruising along at 200 feet, your only possible forced approach are is right in front of you - it is suitable?
I've cruised at 100'.

In a floatplane, with a suitable landing area right in front of me throughout.

[tmmorris]

Not forgetting those military chaps you are probably imagining yourself being have bags of excess speed, and their response to a low level engine failure is to pull up, gaining thousands of feet in the process. Can't do that in a SEP...

[India Four Two]

tmmorris,

Well, sort of. When I was blasting around the Cheshire Plain or the Fens at 250’ AGL (or so!) and 90 kts in an RAF Chipmunk, we were taught to convert excess speed into height in the event of an engine failure.

Of course, reducing speed to 70 kts probably would probably only gain me 100’, but every foot helps!

[Flyingmac]

Has no-one noticed that this thread is over ten years old? Sharpend dug it back up at post 34.

[Pilot DAR]

I've cruised at 100'.

In a floatplane, with a suitable landing area right in front of me throughout.

I too...

Though consider my recent post about lifejackets. from 100 feet, to on the water is a very short time, and the water surface may not be as smooth "out there", as the sheltered water you took off from....

[Deltasierra010]

It really is a question of being sensible and considering the consequences of what you are doing. If you are flying ultra low across crops you will do little harm, but what about the horse rider that gets her horse startled, falls off and breaks her neck, or cattle or sheep stampeded into wire fences.
If you are over a built up area, when the engine stops can you land clear or will you crash into the local primary school, just like driving if you cause death by dangerous flying you will go to jail, yes it was an emergency but why were you there in the first place. Get your thrills by all means but don't put others at risk or even annoy them.

[Flyingmac]

It really is a question of being sensible and considering the consequences of what you are doing. If you are flying ultra low across crops you will do little harm, but what about the horse rider that gets her horse startled, falls off and breaks her neck, or cattle or sheep stampeded into wire fences.
If you are over a built up area, when the engine stops can you land clear or will you crash into the local primary school, just like driving if you cause death by dangerous flying you will go to jail, yes it was an emergency but why were you there in the first place. Get your thrills by all means but don't put others at risk or even annoy them.



Nice sermon:ok:

[Jan Olieslagers]

Has no-one noticed that this thread is over ten years old?

So what? The laws of physics haven't changed for the last few decades - or, if they have, nobody told me.

With SERA coming in, the laws of aviation do have changed so we may as well be aware.

[Deltasierra010]

Nice sermon:ok:

It was meant as a reminder about safety margins and recognizing what might develope, the Shoreham inquiry is no better example, a low loop entry, reduced power, and failure to recognize the situation. So many air crashes are the result of low, slow and failure to recognize the danger, if the loop entry had been at 500ft as specified no harm would have been done. An insignificant 315 ft was very important !.