Private Site Landings

[ChippyChop]

Hi All, after a bit of free advice if at all possible. I have a field large enough to safely land in without breaking Rule 5 and I am wondering what the legality of me or friends landing here is. Someone told me I can land 28 times and another guy told me I can land here for 28 days in a year regardeless of how many movements I do without any bother. I have a neighbour who lives some way away and I get the feeling he is not a lover of helicopters in the same way as we all are, and I hope I haven't left myself open to the humourists on that one.

Anyway, any helpful advice would be much appreciated.

ChippyChop

[Bladecrack]

Chippy,

Check out www.bhab.flyer.co.uk for advice on landing sites, you should be fine.

Good luck!
BC

[JimBall]

28 DAYS a year is the planning threshold before you need to apply for change of use. Then there's the good old curtilage rule. Is the field close enough to your home to be deemed in the same curtilage ? If so you don't need planning.

What's the legal def of curtilage ? It's the amenity land around a main dwelling. There are various interpretations as to the size of that land, but no set formula. If there's a distant building that is part of the services to the house, then it has been successfully argued that the land between those buildings is curtilage.

Any improvements you make to curtilage land are not subject to CGT when you sell. Tax-free helipads for private flyers!

[Bravo73]

I have a field large enough to safely land in without breaking Rule 5

Chippychop,

I know that it's not directly related to your question but you seem a little confused over Rule 5. As long as the landing is within 'normal aviation practice', Rule 5 does not apply when taking off or landing. ie you can land within 500ft of your neighbours.


HTH

[Heli-Jock]

Originally Posted by ChippyChop
I have a field large enough to safely land in without breaking Rule 5

Ive often wondered what would be the case then, if a missed approach was carried out to a site like this, at what point does rule 5 re apply to the missed approach phase? As soon as you enter? or is the missed approach,which could easily send you over a neighbours house at less than 500ft, part of "normal aviation practice"?

HJ

[Bravo73]

A missed approach is part of 'normal aviation practices'. However, a number of dummy approaches to a site (without landing) might be stretching the definition of 'normal aviation practices' a bit far.

And I should add to my above post: the part of Rule 5 relating to 'in the event of a power unit failure, no damage to people or property' will always stand. ie no approaches or departures over neighbours' buildings etc.

[jellycopter]

Chaps

It's quite a commonly held misconception that Rule 5 does not apply when taking off and landing - BEWARE - it does!

Rule 5 has many sub-paragraphs and most of these apply most of the time. When landing at an unlicensed site (ie; your own garden or field) the only element that doesn't apply is what's termed 'the 500ft rule'. Everything else still does!

Things are much less restrictive when landing at a Licensed or Government aerodrome; but that's not in discussion here.

Particularly, beware of the '1000ft rule' and the 'landing without damage to....' rule when operating from private sites.

JJ

[misterbonkers]

Its really a case of piecing together Rule 5 (Low flying prohibitions) & Rule 6 (Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions).

Rule 5 (3) (b) (500ft rule) doesn't apply when landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice but the rest of the rule still applies including 'An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface in the event of a power unit failure.'

:ugh:

[EESDL]

JJ reminds everyone of an often forgotten point......
Received a call from a pilot enquiring if they could use our site at work.....nothing wrong with that....he wished to arrive the next day so I asked if he had obtained ANO Rule 5 waiver as unlicenced site is in a 'congested area'.

He was under the impression that aslong as he was making an approach to land than such height/land clear stipulations didn't apply......beggars belief but there you have it.
One wonders how long such experienced pilots have been carrying on in such a fashion?

[ShyTorque]

You don't actually need to get your neighbour's permission or agreement if you comply with the rules; at least, not in law.

The relevant part affecting a landing is now 5.(2)(c), namely the "1000ft rule". Essentially, you need to be laterally clear of a congested area by 600m; i.e. a gap 1200m wide (plus your rotor span :8 ) would be the minimum to route into a congested area.

Now, the definition of a "congested area", anyone?

SECTION 3
LOW FLYING RULE
Low flying prohibitions
5.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an aircraft shall comply with the low flying prohibitions in
paragraph (3) unless exempted by rule 6.
(2) If an aircraft is flying in circumstances such that more than one of the low flying prohibitions
apply, it shall fly at the greatest height required by any of the applicable prohibitions.
(3) The low flying prohibitions are as follows—
(a) Failure of power unit
An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it to make an
emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface in the
event of a power unit failure.
(b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than
500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
(c) The 1,000 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft flying over a congested area
of a city town or settlement shall not fly below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest
fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft.
(d) The land clear rule
An aircraft flying over a congested area of a city, town or settlement shall not fly below
such height as would permit the aircraft to land clear of the congested area in the event of
a power unit failure.
(e) Flying over open air assemblies
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not fly over an organised
open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons below the higher of the following
heights—
(i) 1,000 feet; or
30 March 2007
CAP 393 Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Section 2 Page 6
(ii) such height as would permit the aircraft to land clear of the assembly in the event of
a power unit failure.
(f) Landing and taking off near open air assemblies
An aircraft shall not land or take-off within 1,000 metres of an organised, open-air
assembly of more than 1,000 persons except—
(i) at an aerodrome, in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA; or
(ii) at a landing site which is not an aerodrome, in accordance with procedures notified
by the CAA and with the written permission of the organiser of the assembly.
Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
6. The exemptions from the low flying prohibitions are as follows—
(a) Landing and taking off
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the low flying prohibitions in so far as it is flying
in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of—
(aa) taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at; or
(bb) checking navigational aids or procedures at,
a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in
accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing.
(b) Captive balloons and kites
None of the low flying prohibitions shall apply to any captive balloon or kite.
(c) Special VFR flight and notified routes
(i) Subject to paragraph (ii), any aircraft shall be exempt from the 1,000 feet rule if—
(aa) it is flying on a special VFR flight; or
(bb) it is operating in accordance with the procedures notified for the route being
flown.
(ii) Unless the written permission of the CAA has been obtained, landings may only be
made by an aircraft flying under this exemption at a licensed or Government
aerodrome.
(d) Balloons and helicopters over congested areas
(i) A balloon shall be exempt from the 1,000 feet rule if it is landing because it is
becalmed.
(ii) Any helicopter flying over a congested area shall be exempt from the land clear rule.
(e) Police air operator’s certificate
Any aircraft flying in accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate shall
be exempt from the 500 feet rule, the 1,000 feet rule and the prohibitions on flying over
open air assemblies and on landing and taking off near open air assemblies.
(f) Flying displays etc
An aircraft taking part in a flying display, air race or contest shall be exempt from the 500
feet rule if it is within a horizontal distance of 1,000 metres of the gathering of persons
assembled to witness the event.
(g) Glider hill-soaring
A glider shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule if it is hill-soaring.
(h) Picking up and dropping at an aerodrome
Any aircraft picking up or dropping tow ropes, banners or similar articles at an aerodrome
shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule.
(i) Manoeuvring helicopters
30 March 2007
CAP 393 Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Section 2 Page 7
(i) Subject to paragraph (ii), a helicopter shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule if it is
conducting manoeuvres, in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the
boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome or, with the written permission of
the CAA, at other sites.
(ii) When flying in accordance with this exemption the helicopter must not be operated
closer than 60 metres to any persons, vessels, vehicles or structures located outside
the aerodrome or site.

[VeeAny]

Article 155 of the ANO

'Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is
substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;

[ChippyChop]

Thanks for the reference to the BHAB site Bladecrack (geez gotta be careful not to get the 'l' and the 'a' round the wrong way, a bit porno really) that was very helpful. Thanks also to all re the Rule 5 discussion.

Cheers
Chippy

[jellycopter]

****e

You state 'The relevant part affecting a landing is now 5.(2)(c), namely the "1000ft rule". Essentially, you need to be laterally clear of a congested area by 600m; i.e. a gap 1200m wide (plus your rotor span ) would be the minimum to route into a congested area.@'

Not so. The key wording of 'the 1000ft rule' is "an aircraft flying over a congested area". Therefore, if your rotors aren't over someones back garden at the edge of the town for example, you are not over the congested area.

I interpreted the rule exactly as you did until I spoke with Keith Thomas in General Aviation. I wanted a client of mine to apply for an exemption to land in a field next to a caravan site on the edge of Skegness. Even though it was well within 600m (about 20 metres in fact!) Keith advised us that an exemtion from the '1000 ft rule' was not required provided at no time would the helicopter physically fly over the congested area.

Therefore, if the tips of your rotors stray over the 'boundary' of a congested area you must ensure you're above 1000ft of the highest obstacle within 600m.

Cheers

JJ

[DennisK]

Ah yes ... we have the ANO daffyination of congested alright... But the rule says ... "substantially used." You won't find an ANO definition of 'substantial' I can assure you.

The CAA approach the local planning department when a prosecution is under consideration.

DRK

[VeeAny]

JJ

Is it any wonder we all have different interpretations, I got exactly Shytorques definition from an FOI a while back , in that over the land within 600m of the congested area counted as part of the area.

I think the relevant bit being 5(3)(c) Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft flying over a congested area
of a city town or settlement shall not fly below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest
fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft., seems that Keith may interpret this to mean that if you are not over the 'congested bit' then the 600m bit doesn't count.

I feel a phone call coming on tomorrow, however on this one I am more than happy to be proven wrong, makes life easier for all of us.

Den

I've always applied substantially to mean more than 50% of the area, however that is my interpretation, as you quite correctly say you won't find what they mean by substantially in the ANO or the Rules of The Air.

GS

[ShyTorque]

Jelly,
Therefore, if the tips of your rotors stray over the 'boundary' of a congested area you must ensure you're above 1000ft of the highest obstacle within 600m.


Yes, on the edge of a congested area, I would agree, but if your LS is in the congested area (I would suggest that one building behind you makes it so), you need a gap of 1200m unless you have a written exemption.

Ask Keith T. to put it in writing, see what he says then. The only way you will find out for sure is if you get your day in court. Personally, I would rather not risk that option.

I had a written discussion with the legal branch of the CAA a few years back when a local PPL holder resident complained, quoting Rule 5 (actually the 1500 foot rule as it was then), about the police helicopter I flew as CP, landing at its base ). To be more correct, I discussed it briefly and then pointed out that it was a CAA approved helicopter base landing site and in any event aircraft operated under a PAOC are exempt the provisions of Rule 5. They ceased the discussion at that point and the unit carried on about its legal business.

P.S. I think you possibly missed my phrase "into a congested area". BTW, I have felt obliged to apply for quite a number of Rule 5 exemptions in my time. The CAA have never advised me I didn't need one and refused the payment.... I suppose one could be cynical and say "so what...." ;)

[jellycopter]

****e

On re-reading your post I did miss the 'into' bit - but latched onto the 600m lateral separation.

I too have applied for numerous exemptions which is why I was so taken aback with KTs response.

JJ

[md 600 driver]

EESDL

One wonders how long such experienced pilots have been carrying on in such a fashion?

Its not surprising realy as 3 examiners and at least 3 commercial pilots on this thread alone find it hard to get the same answer [not sure they have yet ]

steve

[ShyTorque]

The rules are quite difficult to piece together and could certainly be written more clearly. As usual, the UK rules only tell what you can't do, rather then explaining what you can.

I tend to play safe and go for an exemption if in doubt; I really don't want to have to spend a day in court fighting the CAA enforcement branch over it and in any event, the client owner picks up the tab for the exemption paperwork. He might grumble a little over the hundred quid or so but he now understands the requirement; I don't think he would pay my fine though if I didn't bother getting an exemption. :\

[misterbonkers]

Well said MD600. Your point is a valid one - if experienced guys struggle to wholly agree on the said rules then how can a lesser experienced chap fully understand?

Rule 5 was rewritten back in 2005 with the view to making it more simple to understand - has it had the desired effects? Perhaps an illustration to accompany the wording might be an idea - after all, 'a picture paints a 1000 words'.

One former CAA Ops Inspector once told me that with regards to congested areas and permissions, if you take an OS Landranger Map, place a 2p coin on your landing site and half or more the coin covers houses/parks/golf courses/industry/commercial etc then I would need to obtain an exemption for what was the 1500ft rule (i.e. now the 1000ft rule).

[ShyTorque]

place a 2p coin on your landing site

Only 2p? They always tell me to place £100 plus on their map of the proposed landing site, then tell me to back slowly away from the desk..... ;)

[md 600 driver]

shy
that did make me smile

[kevin_mayes]

"Article 155 of the ANO

'Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is
substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes"


OK - to throw a spanner in the works.

Would farm land be "commercial" then, as its used totally for a commercial purpose?

And would moorland or common land be "recreational" given the right to rome act (UK)

Kevin.

[ShyTorque]

And would moorland or common land be "recreational" given the right to rome act (UK)


This is the nub of the problem with the UK regulations. Things like this, it seems, are grey areas, possibly arguable in court... as are golf courses, other open areas of grass which turn out to be sports pitches, etc. A building on the edge of a town might be completely empty inside, or it might contain a commercial business.

When in Rome.... do you have a right? :p

[manfromuncle]

Dear oh dear, how confusing is this Rule 5 stuff?! Just get your neighbors permission, slip him a few bottles of wine and make sure you don't fly over anyone's house/horses when approaching/departing.

[helicopter-redeye]

right to rome act (UK)


Right to Roam perhaps.

The Right to Rome established the EU.

Or was it 'turn right now to get to Rome or carry straight on for Pisa?"

h-r:ok::O:}

[Helinut]

These discussions are all interesting(?) intellectual exercises that we Brits seem to spend endless time wrestling over. It goes with our knee jerk response to regulate everything that moves and require planning permission for those things that don't. :confused:

Lets go back to basics - what is (or should be) the point or intention of Rule 5?

Presumably it is to keep land-based people and property safe from us lot. Perhaps we should look at interpreting Rule 5 in that light?

The CAA's instinctive approach is to always try and extend the coverage of the existing and indeed future regulations. I have often heard people say that they argue that a golf course is a congested area etc. However, I believe that this rather silly interpretation has never actually been confirmed in a court of law. Until it has, then it remains nothing but the CAA's desired interpretation (if that is what they really say).

The point is well made by the not wholly serious suggestion above that farming is a commercial activity and moorlands are sports grounds.........

The CAA have lost a number of cases that they have taken over Rule 5.

[md 600 driver]

helinut

Presumably it is to keep land-based people and property safe from us lot. Perhaps we should look at interpreting Rule 5 in that light?


interpreting Rule 5 is what the problem is. the whole industry the courts and the caa interpret Rule 5 differently

why why cant the caa interpret it for us instead of reams and reams of goobledegook then we could all follow what ever the rule is

[Overdrive]

why why cant the caa interpret it for us instead of reams and reams of goobledegook then we could all follow what ever the rule is


Yes... but it should be defined, as opposed to interpreted, by the CAA. If it can't be defined then how can they ever police or prosecute it?

Surely they could produce clear drawings, as someone suggested in a post above? 3-D orthographic type views with coloured translucent overlays would not be too hard. Maybe in the future, just giving an OS reference could automatically produce the printed plans with the detail superimposed... when it's worth someone's time to develop the software.

[jellycopter]

How's about keeping the status quo? If a pilot infringes rule 5 in good faith having made a plausible interpretation of the wording, how successful, or indeed necessary, would any subsequent prosecution be. If there are sufficent 'grey' areas, then surely there is sufficient defence in court.

I expect most pilots on here haven't been prosecuted, or threatened with prosecution, for rule 5 infringements - so by deduction, we must be doing something right.

Or am I being overly naieve?

[manfromuncle]

Read all the CAA prosecutions here

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=503&pagetype=90&pageid=6484

Only two for rule 5 [for helis], in the last 12 months.

I think unless you blatantly break rule 5 (eg flying low over large gathering of people, or landing somewhere extremely congested), the chances of being prosecuted are tiny.

[Overdrive]

How's about keeping the status quo?


Well maybe, since....


Read all the CAA prosecutions here

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...90&pageid=6484 (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=503&pagetype=90&pageid=6484)

Only two for rule 5 [for helis], in the last 12 months


Didn't realize it was so low :cool:

[muffin]

Is a congested area exemption valid for one occasion only or do they have a validity period? And does a yard which is used for parking lorries overnight but is empty during the day count as congested for use during the day time only, ie when is is empty? I have such a yard right between my new office building with possible adjacent helipad site and open fields.

[puntosaurus]

Valid for as long as you ask for it to be valid, up to one year. If you don't ask, you'll get it for a single occasion ! Re. your question, as Shy suggests, cross their palm with silver (used to be £94) and they'll tell you, any other advice on this forum or elsewhere is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Re those CAA prosecutions, seems that Dangerous Goods is a popular infringement. I'd love to know more, and how do they get caught !