Gash low level flying LAW question...

[glad rag]

Microlights, at an estimated 10' across a SSCI/ Natural England reserve, what law(s) have they broken??

[Halfbaked_Boy]

None, unless there happened to be any persons, vehicles, man made structures or, at a long stretch, vessels within 500 feet. Unless of course there is a 'hard to uncover' rule governing the operation of aircraft above such 'reserves'? I should imagine that in the case of engine failure and subsequent damage to any protected parts should spark an inquiry as to the pilot's actions.
Interesting question though - I remember when I was younger walking along the promenade at Hunstanton, a chappie flying his motor powered paraglider at about 10' above the beach, about the same distance from the promenade with lots of rubber necked tourists gawking at him like myself! I should imagine that would perhaps attract the attention of the CAA more than aforementioned example!

Cheers, Jack.

[Lone_Ranger]

estimated 10' ????, thats some fecking accurate estimating

[glad rag]

O V E R H E A D

[Lone_Ranger]

did you duck?

[Duchess_Driver]

...then yes, he did break the law unless he was coming into land or taking off.

When I was taught maths, 10 was certainly less than 500. (units being the same, obviously!)

It's called rule 5.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

unless he was coming into land or taking off
Maybe they were used to the Candian bush pilot's view of the low flying rules:

"Well, we'll be landing eventually, won't we."

[Lister Noble]

Some nature/bird reserves have min height marked on chart-eg Minsmere 2000'

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Duchess Driver,

'Tis possible rule 5 does not apply in this scenario - depends on how remote said location is!

Cheers, Jack.

[eharding]

Some nature/bird reserves have min height marked on chart-eg Minsmere 2000'


True, but wasn't there a scandal a few years back when it transpired that a popular nudist area had been mysteriously marked on the half-mil map as a Nature Reserve with a similar 2000 foot min height? - it transpired that there were several devoted Naturists in the CAA Cartography Department, but the whole thing was hushed up after they threatened to make the Stokenchurch mast disappear, Cosa Nostra style.

[Spitoon]

...depends on how remote said location is!An interesting comment Halfbaked. Could you expand a little?

[Final 3 Greens]

Microlights, at an estimated 10' across the sea within UK territorial limits, flies over a submarine sumerged 100 feet under the surface what law(s) have they broken?

[Lone_Ranger]

Pub quiz?:E

IDK ,probably he would get a talking to, off the naval "intelligence" community
for flying too close to a secret military installation or some such rubbish

[ShyTorque]

'Tis possible rule 5 does not apply in this scenario - depends on how remote said location is!


Unfortunately Rule 5 doesn't include an exemption clause for remote locations! The 500 foot rule always applies in UK unless taking off or landing or where an exemption has been obtained (and paid for) from the CAA.

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Hello all!

As far as I am aware, Rule 5 bears no direct link to the prohibition of flying below 500' agl. To be specific, the rule states that an aircraft shall not fly within 500' of any person, vehicle, man made structure or vessel - or words to that effect.
That is my understanding? And I relate it to this topic as in such an area as is mentioned, I should think it quite possible that there are locations within which none of the above are to be found. Of course we SHOULD take the rule to mean anywhere below 500' agl (unless taking off or landing) as one cannot be sure that no people are hiding behind trees/in caves/hidden from view etc!
My interpretation and open ended answer to the original question is, I don't believe we can be sure as to whether it was legal or illegal.
Please do not misunderstand me - I always err on the side of safety and am merely attempting to address a technicality!

All the best, Jack.

[Spitoon]

Unfortunately Rule 5 doesn't include an exemption clause for remote locations! The 500 foot rule always applies in UK unless taking off or landing or where an exemption has been obtained (and paid for) from the CAA.I think you'll find it applies to a UK registered aircraft wherever it is.

My interpretation and open ended answer to the original question is, I don't believe we can be sure as to whether it was legal or illegal.
When glad rag clarified the situation as the microlight going overhead I think we can say that, as described, it was probably in contravention of Rule 5.

Microlights, at an estimated 10' across the sea within UK territorial limits, flies over a submarine sumerged 100 feet under the surface what law(s) have they broken? Rule 5 (3) (b).

[Final 3 Greens]

Rule 5 (3) (b)

says

Captive balloons and kites

None of the low flying prohibitions shall apply to any captive balloon or kite.

Please explain.

[Spitoon]

Final, you're looking at Rule 6 (b). Rule 5 (3) (b) is headed The 500 feet rule and says '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.'

In your scenario, assuming there's nothing pertinent that you're not telling us, I cannot see why any of the exemptions in Rule 6 would apply.




Dunno why, but I like these thought games. Maybe I should have been a lawyer......I'm sure I would have made more money!

[Final 3 Greens]

Final, you're looking at Rule 6 (b)

See

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1676/Rule%205%20amended%201%20April%202005a.pdf

In your scenario, assuming there's nothing pertinent that you're not telling us, I cannot see why any of the exemptions in Rule 6 would apply.

Except that at 10' asl, the pilot could not possibly see the submarine and therefore did not intend to overfly it.

So, if a pilot overflies a cave, with a couple of potholers in it at less than 500', is s/he in breach of rule 5?

[FREDAcheck]

Except that at 10' asl, the pilot could not possibly see the submarine and therefore did not intend to overfly it.

Maybe, but rule 5 (3) (b) says:
(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.
There's nothing about intention here. So you are in breach of the law if you are within 500 feet of a submarine or a caver, whether you know they're there or not. And saying you're on a 0.0000000000000001 degree approach to land doesn't excuse you. The exception for landing is 6 (a) (ii):
(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.
Note "normal aviation practice" and not "playing games with the law".

Interesting these mind games, what?

[Final 3 Greens]

There's nothing about intention here

But I believe that it is a general rule that without intention there is no crime.

[FREDAcheck]

But I believe that it is a general rule that without intention there is no crime.
Again, we're playing mind games here, so that gives (me) the excuse to nit-pick. I thought (i.e. might be quite wrong) that intention doesn't alter whether an act is a crime, but counts as circumstances to be used by a court in deciding the gravity of the offence, or by the authorities in deciding whether to take action. No doubt the lawyers here will put me right. But it comes to the same thing as you say in practice.

[Spitoon]

Final, I think you are looking at a draft that was out for consultation - the current leg is in CAP 393 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=226).

And I'd go along with the suggestion that intention may form some mitigation if you have to defend yourself but it does not come into whether you contravene the law or not.