500 feet to be or not to be. That is the question.

[DeltaNg]

What are your feelings about flying below 500 feet?

Complete Sin or acceptable within the bounds of common sensibilities.

Hmmmm :confused:

[puntosaurus]

Within the law, why not ? Outside the law, why ?

[ShyTorque]

Having moved on from the military days of being cleared to fly at 50 ft agl with no height limit for some phases of flight (e.g. concealed arrival / departure) and 150 ft agl by night (obviously with use of Night Vision Goggles), I now aim to maintain at least 500 ft agl simply because I cannot guarantee not to break the 500 ft rule, and the law, which essentially allows lateral separation from persons, vehicles, vessels and structures when below 500 ft agl.

Therefore for me, most of the time it's no issue unless the cloud is very low and the freezing level means no IFR option.

The 1,000 ft rule is more difficult to abide by; not helped by the lack of a proper definition of the term "congested area". There are a number of days at this time of year when the job could be done quite safely, yet the rules disallow it. A frustrating time of year, especially for ex military pilots used to flying VFR in very poor weather.

[Devil 49]

I fly below 500 AGL at least twice on every flight... Why is it an issue, if done within pilot and aircraft capabilities?

[Aynayda Pizaqvick]

I would suggest that how sensible it is to fly below 500' agl depends entirely on your training to deal with emergencies at these heights. Military pilots spend most of their time below 500' & therefore learn how to deal with low level engine-offs from the earliest stages of training. They will also have access to an advanced simulator to regularly practice these and every other conceivable emergency in the low level environment, until it becomes as close to second nature as it can.
Go up with an instructor who can show you a bit of low level and maybe low level engine offs (if they let you do them in civvy training) and then you will be far better placed to decide if and when it is prudent to operate below 500'.

[ShyTorque]

Devil 49,

It's an issue in UK (the poster is from UK, so am I) because of our legal rules. Pilots do get prosecuted here because they break the "500 foot rule".

Obviously, a pilot is exempt from the rule during takeoff and landing, so obviously we too fly below 500 feet at least twice on each flight. :)

[DeltaNg]

The UK rule is "500 feet from person, vessel or structure"

Is it acceptable to routinely fly below 500' agl avoiding houses, cars etc etc
to get the job done.

Or should this be left to an occasional 'get of of jail free' moment.

Trouble is, the more you do it, the more it becomes normal.

Just wondered what the common consensus is.....

[manfromuncle]

How many people have ever been prosecuted under Rule 5? Not many I bet. Apart from that bloke in the 500 who flew over some festival and then phoned up the CAA to apologise - then did it again.

Even if someone reports you for flying too low it's very hard to get accurate height evidence to warrant a prosecution.

Rule 5 is just there to scare everyone and keep you in your place.

[ShyTorque]

The CAA advice is to stay out of the band where you may meet something military flying at 420 kts. Fast jets routinely fly between 250 and 1000 feet.

Can you guarantee avoiding by 500 feet everything that needs avoiding? In practice, you can't, even over a so-called "remote" area of UK.

[manfromuncle]

PS,
Read all about the CAA Prosecutions here!
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/Prosecutions.pdf

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/ProsecutionResults20062007.pdf

[topendtorque]

Complete Sin or acceptable within the bounds of common sensibilities.

Haa.
Common sense you say.

That involves doing what one is required to do either for commercial or miliatry reasons, when one has had the appropriate training, not before.

Perhaps you would like to peruse the following article from the oz ABC news site. It is the usual reason that the 500 foot rule is in place, to sort the idiots (I.E. those who lack in common sense) from their impulses and lack of training. Note also that the naughty aeroplane had been seen low flying at other locations, naughty naughty.

Pilot of fatal plane crash was sightseeing: report

Posted Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:00pm AEDT
A report into a plane crash that killed three German tourists on the Stuart Highway near Elliott in the Northern Territory last month has revealed the pilot was flying low on a sightseeing exercise.
The preliminary Transport Safety Bureau Report says the tail of the plane struck powerlines on the Stuart Highway, causing it to nosedive into the ground then flip onto its roof.
During radio conversations the pilot of the plane said he was descending to get a better look at the Highway.
A witness in a car says the plane flew over them at tree top level before crashing.
The report says conditions on the day were fine and there was nothing wrong with the plane, although it was overloaded.
A photo taken from the plane a week before the crash showed it flying over a Western Australian beach at 20 metres.

[soggyboxers]

It happens all the time in Nigeria where the ATC heights for westbound traffic are 400 and 1000 feet. Despite the number of 500 foot masts, we somehow seem to have coped for many years without a helicopter accident due to this height, although with the increasing volume of traffic in marginal weather conditions a revision upwards of the base of the Port Harcourt TMA is long overdue and, in my opinion, the NCAA should make TCAS mandatory for those few remaining aircraft still not fitted with it.

[Two's in]

I think "QASP" was the acronym in the Military - Qualified, Authorized, Supervised and Prepared. Miss out any one of those and low flying becomes like Moths to a Candle flame.

[delta3]

Hey guys, stop complaining about that, it may give our CAA bad thoughts.

France used to be 150 but after some idiots started flying under bridges they put it at 500 (except over water)

Belgium still is 150 and I hope it stays this way, as long as people remain sensible using this limit. Once you put the rules : min 500, always AD what's the point of having a heli...

d3

[Devil 49]

Anayda Pizaqvick, ShyTorque, et al-
I'm US Army trained, and a Vietnam combat Army vet- hence my screen name, "Devil 49". Did a fair bit of my RVN tour low level/NOE, at night as well as daytime. Yes, NOE at night unaided...
Also, 13 years in the GOM operating at 300/2 & 300/1 WX minimums. That operator (PHI)trained it's pilots in autos from 300 AGL, and had respectable, occasionally stellar safety record, in comparison with the industry.
I think I know what I'm doing.
That said, my cruise altitude is 1000 AGL or better. If I'm lower it's because I have no recourse. That's a decision made in light of risk assessment and "flying neighborly". I don't enjoy being lower, I don't do it recreationally, I'm confident of my abilities gained through training and experience, and I'm smart enough to NOT expose myself to unnecessary risk. That judgment doesn't justify a blanket rule against the flight regime, nor should it.

[delta3]

I couldn't agree more. I cruise as high as I can (no birds etc...), but a heli is more than cruising.

Ones in a while you may want to do some sight seeing, especially in mountainous/ unhabitated areas where you will be closer than 500. That should be OK provided you use some QASP like approach : recce - knowledge of environment, adapted speed, not pissing off terrestrians, etc.

For civis I would call that CSP : civil - slow - prepared


d3

[ShyTorque]

Devil 49, I also agree, as you can hopefully understand from my replies.

The UK 500 ft rule isn't a tune of my making, but I have to play it to keep my licence. I firmly believe that most rules in any environment are mainly there to cater for the lowest common denominator.

[kiwi chick]

The rule over here is 500 feet as well, but over built up areas, no less than 1,000 feet AND you must be able to glide clear of the built up area. So... if you're over a HUGE city, you must obviously be even higher.

The exceptions: if you have bona fide reason to be lower, which is the case in my job. We fly around 200 feet AGL to take photos, but I am always above this when I'm ferry flying or joy riding.

No reason not to be - if you have to fly lower, you probably shouldn't be up flying. Met minimas are there for a reason.

Just my opinion . :ok:

[The Nr Fairy]

tet:

I saw that report too. The jaw-dropper was the fact that the wires were at 15 METRES AGL - 50 feet in old money.

Full report can be seen here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/AAIR/aair200706832.aspx).

[greenthumb]

Have flown in my military time "special trained" hahaha :} in some years not more than 100h im low level.

After that i have flown thousends of hours much below 500ft during my aerial work time. Especially for crop dusting, filming, all kinds of external work jobs. Some times after intensive low flying i got "bad feelings" in heights over 500ft The 500ft rule is nothing, no sweet to get everytime and everywhere a special approvement by the local CAA to break the rule. May be i can find a nice photo in my trash, flying low level through one of the biggest european towns, much below the peaks of the scyscrapers and over some thousend people just for promotion filming of a great company hohohoho

[rotornut]

How about 300' agl over a heavily built up residential area in the heart of Toronto? It happened last summer. According to Transport Canada the operator had a ministerial waiver to fly at 600 agl' on this one occasion. However it was obviously closer to 300' - I could see the machine through my second floor window without looking too high. He was flying slowly in a light wind. I don't think he would have much margin if he lost an engine plus the noise level was quite high.