PFL and Rule 5

[Mike Barnard]

My house is located in open countryside, alongside which is a 400m grass airstrip. A coupe of days ago I had the pleasure to witness a PA28 fly virtually directly overhead the house at no higher than 250 feet whilst apparently 'going around' from a PFL in clear VMC. Clearly below Rule 5 minima. I called the operator, a local frlying club, who confirmed it was indeed their aircraft, that an Examiner was on board and they were indeed going around from a PFL. So I wrote them a polite note, requesting an explanation and the circumstances of the flight. Heard nothing by phone, not even the simplest apology, but was copied a short email which suggested this wasn't the Examiner's first such encounter with Rule 5.

Is this 'just one of those things', or a potential accident waiting to happen? As a humble PPL I'd appreciate comments from the Instructor / Examiner community.

Mike B

[DB6]

'Virtually' directly, '250 feet', 'clearly below rule5 minima'. Lots of ambiguity there, are you sure it was less than 500 ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure? As a humble PPL you may remember your own PFLs and how difficult it is to ensure you never approach unseen buildings, tractors etc. As examinerswe have to try and ensure that the object of the exercise is achieved and at the same time adhere to rule 5 - it is a pain up the arse when Nimbys complain despite your best efforts but, if I may be blunt, it is REALLY irrritating when the complainant is a fellow pilot. It is just one of those things, if you must get on your high horse about something, make sure it doesn't impact on aviation - we have enough to be going on with,with every **** who buys a house next to an airfield thinking they'll just complain about aircraft noise and the danger posed by all these dangerous planes flying over their house.

[FlyingOfficerKite]

Don't be harsh - the point is you should not pass within 500 ft of a person, vehicle, vessel or structure on a PFL.

There was a case a few years ago which - if I remember rightly - concerned a light aircraft making an approach to a airstrip and then going around without landing.

A fisherman nearby reported the incident to the CAA and the pilot was prosecuted for low flying (breach of Rule 5).

The 'fisherman' was in fact a pilot - a former Spitfire pilot from WWII.

The defence that the aircraft was approaching an airstrip was not unheld because the pilot had no intention of landing - it was therefore 'low flying' and not an 'approach'.

I think my facts are correct - if not all the detail?!

FOK :)

[Mike Barnard]

Hi DB6,
Thanks for the reply. To avoid ambiguity, the aircraft was approx 40m laterally and 250 vertically from the house. The airstrip is on our own land, privately funded from hard-earned income and, far from being NIMBYs, we try our best not to annoy our neighbours ... essentially we take off and bu**er off. We have welcomed several out-of-lift gliders and recognise we're a useful reference point for local PFL'ers, the vast majority of whom take Rule 5 to heart. So yes, we feel we do our bit for aviation. The point of the post was simply to gauge whether the Instructor/Examiner community felt in the circumstances a simple and timely "sorry, mate" phone call should be the order of the day. Let's hope that's the case, eh?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Rule 5 infringements are extremely hard to prosecute successfully. Did you have a laser range finder available to you?

There has been some guidance from our friends at the ministry that they are unlikely to prosecute if you are performing a PFL and accidentally break rule 5.

As DB6 mentions, you can easily be surprised by ramblers or riders and vehicles or anything else.

I can understand the annoyance if someone is using your strip and potentially causing you problems by annoying the neighbours, which could then lead to a loss of goodwill towards yourself for no good reason.

I'm surprised the CFI hasn't responded, maybe a flight over to see them with a packet of biscuits and a chart to make them absolutely aware of the potential problems they are causing.

We all need to work together in the face of NIMBYism, but if there is a genuine problem rather than just one that you percieve, that needs to be resolved.

I have to say though. I would never use a private strip for a PFL unless I knew the owner and had cleared it with them first. It doesn't take long and it helps to build stronger ties amongst the aviation community.

A bit of communication would solve this in an instant.

[EGBKFLYER]

Have to agree say again - I think this is a bit of poor airmanship, firstly for allowing a PFL to continue so close to what could be a noise-sensitive area near a private strip and then secondly for not apologising or even explaining when it was queried.

DB6 - wind your neck in mate.:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

As the residents living near Upper Heyford were to discover, noise levels don't necessarily go down when the local aerodrome closes......:E









http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/ADSHOVER.jpg

[DB6]

Perhaps my initial reply seemed a bit harsh, so I shall elucidate: Firstly Mike I don't mean to imply you are a NIMBY, I just have a particularly vehement level of disdain for such people and allowed myself a bit of a rant, so for any such implication I apologise. However your post does smack a bit of pomposity, and I'm not very good with that.
You state that you were informed by the club that it was an examiner going around from a PFL; why then the need to write and request an explanation and the circumstances of the flight - they just told you! That is probably why you have not received a personal written apology. Possibly if I was the examiner in question I would consider that sufficient explanation, and also incidentally expect a little more understanding from a fellow pilot. You also suggest that it may have been an 'accident wating to happen'. As you are a pilot you will know that examiners are generally fairly experienced, and it won't have been his first PFL, so the chances of an accident are fairly low. What you have also to remember is that this is a PUBLIC FORUM so all this stuff is effectively played out in the public eye. Some people forget that when they appoint themselves as moral guardians.
Now consider this; as examiners - not instructors -although we will choose when to close the throttle we may not interfere with the candidate's choice of field (unless it is dangerous). If my man chose to make an approach to a grass strip - assuming it was into wind etc. etc., I would consider it a good choice. During the descent to the field we have to monitor a lot of things, primarily lookout as the candidate is generally pretty preoccupied and you are well into fast jet zone here. The examiner is responsible for rule 5 adherence and so will decide when to order the go-around, but before then has to assess whether the approach will have been successful, and I can tell you that 500 ft agl is not great in that respect. So as well as making sure your man is carrying out all the good stuff, making a good approach, making sure you won't get impaled on a Tornado's pitot etc. you are generally trying to ensure you can get as low as possible before ordering the go-around without compromising rule 5. With all that going on, depending on aircaft type (low-wing worse) it is not impossible to miss seeing a house if it is isolated or hidden by trees, until the go-around. That also assumes the candidate responds quickly to the go-around call, which doesn't always happen. So that is one reason why it might happen -and this assumes that your estimate of 500 ft, or 152 m, is correct.
EGBK, the phrase 'poor airmanship' is bandied about again - how good was your airmanship when you took your skill test? Again bear in mind that an examiner should not interfere unless things get dangerous - the debrief is the place for pointing airmanship deficiencies out, and hopefully in a constructive manner. Who's to say that didn't happen in this instance?

Now, to be a bit more constructive; all the clubs I've worked for have a flying order book, in which will be found details of noise-sensitive areas, places to avoid when carrying out PFLs etc. Most have a map on the wall with these areas highlighted. Have you informed your local clubs of the need to avoid your strip? If not I suggest you do - but don't associate it with this incident necessarily. That way incidents like this will hopefully not recur, but if they do then try and think about reasons why it should not bother you and how the pilot in question may one day be defending the country, or taking you on holiday, not why it should annoy you and why they should issue written apologies when you have already spoken to the club about it. So if my reply was harsh that is why - it was one of those things mate :ok:.

[Mike Barnard]

DB6 – thanks for your considered note. Nimby I’m not and pompous we ain’t. We’ve had our strip here for almost 5 years and to date nothing has prompted me to get het up over other folks’ flying. But this one really was a low go-around; a simple call from the EX after he’d landed would have cleared the air in seconds. I invest a lot of personal time into UK GA and want to see it grow; getting the PR right even when folks complain is never wasted effort. Enough said.

[EGBKFLYER]

Fair points well-made DB6 - however as Mike says, getting the PR right could have avoided bad feeling easily in this instance, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation.

At my local airfield, a pro-active approach to complaints, taking them seriously (regardless of the fanciful nature of some of them) and being friendly has resulted in a significant decrease in those kind of calls.

[Whopity]

For an examiner to allow a candidate to PFL into a strip is bad practice. The examiner who invariably has good knowledge of the local area should have an idea where the strips are, and can simply brief the candidate not to use private strips, and explain why. Compliance with the law remains the responsibility of the examiner.

Strips are not good field selection either, whilst the surface may be good they are invariably small, short, narrow and all the things you don't want for a PFL! FLWP for real perhaps.

[DB6]

A resident examiner may have good local knowledge, a visiting one probably will not and will have to rely on a half mil map - which almost invariably will not have a private strip marked - and the flying order book, which is why I mentioned it. Using strips for PFL instruction is not good practice, examining can be another matter.
I would disagree with your contention that strips are not a good choice - it depends on the options but at least you have a good chance that surface and slope are good; size will be big enough, surroundings probably good, shape good enough if into wind i.e. nearly all the things you do want. Not as good as could be perhaps but better than the field my mate chose which looked great from above but tipped him over on landing as the surface was in fact poor (rabbit holes I think).
I agree about PR but again, if the club has already responded then it might be a bit much to expect a further apology - most people would consider the matter closed. That said if it really was a beat-up then fair enough but that isn't obvious from the first post.

[VFE]

One presumes an apologetic telephone call to Mike would possibly equate to an admission of guilt regarding Rule 5... this might explain the less than proactive approach from the examiner involved.

VFE.