Edgbaston Helipad?

[Talking Point]

I would like to fly up to Edgbaston on Tuesday 26th May for the cricket. Can anyone suggest a landing spot as close as possible. This is for a single engine helicopter. Many thanks in advance.

[ShyTorque]

You will need a written permission from the CAA for a landing in the congested area (see rule 5. 2. (c) of the ANO). You're far too late get one for that area for a single engined helicopter, especially bearing in mind it's a Bank Holiday weekend!

[JimBall]

Preparing to bow to someone with better knowledge, Shy I think you are quoting an old rule that no longer exists.

The current Rule number you refer to is nothing to do with landing in congested areas:

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.

I cannot find, in the whole of CAP 393 as issued March 07, any reference to needing permission from the CAA to land in a congested area. The only rule that affects is for Special VFR flights:

(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.

So if flying SVFR or on a notified route you must land at a licensed airfield unless you have the CAA exemption. Edgbaston : SVFR ??

[BolkowJunior]

Try the Police as their training school is not so far away or Selly Oak Hospital has a helipad - I don't know if they'd let you use it

[Jarvy]

The question asked was where is the nearest to Edgbaston he can land with a single engine helicopter, not the rules and regs. RTFQ!

[ShyTorque]

Jim, yes my apology; it's been a long day and the paragraph number I quoted was the old one, before the 2007 renumbering.

The required permission is now for the same thing but now known as rule 5(3)(c). I thought you might already have known that permission is required though ;)

One I obtained for that area but has just expired (costs £103 and takes a few days to obtain) begins:

"The Civil Aviation Authority pursuant to Rule 5(3)(c) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 as amended, hereby permits ***** G-**** [helicopter type and individual registration] ("the said aircraft"), for the time being operated by ***** Ltd, to fly over a congested area of a city, town or settlement below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft, for the purposes of landing at and taking off from the Tally Ho Sports Club, Edgbaston, Birmingham ("the said site").

It lays down a number of conditions to be met, including:

(c) "The said aircraft shall not fly pursuant to this permission:

(ii) unless that in the event of a failure of a power unit the aircraft can be landed without danger to persons or property on the surface"

There's a couple of clues in there for the original poster. That latter thing might be difficult to meet in the case of a single over Brum!

P.s. Jarvy, I politely suggest you get back in your box. The UK's CAA prosecutes pilots on a fairly regular basis for not complying with the 1,000 foot rule. Edgbaston is inside the CTR of a fairly major airport so the landing would be on record.

[Bladecrack]

Evening all,

I just got an annual Rule 5(3)(c) exemption from the CAA for a site last week. No major probs, fill in the forms and pay £108. Took them a week to process it and fax a copy through to me. My ass is covered!!

Good luck.

[ShyTorque]

£108 now? :rolleyes:

Jim, It's a nightmare to find anything in this latest copy of CAP 393 but if you download the latest version from the CAA website and type in "low flying prohibition" in the Adobe search facility, you will find it still appears.

[Jarvy]

ShyTorque, if you look at Talking Points public profile you will see that he (or she) holds a CPL IR . Having got that far they should know the rules and regs by now.
Sorry if I jumped out of my box too soon but he only asked a very simple question to be meet by a debate over the rules and regs.
Jarvy who knows nothing or nobody and I didn't do it!!!

[ShyTorque]

Jarvy,

Yes, but my point is that there is no suitable heli landing spot nearby that can legally be used by a single; it's not easy to find an acceptable one even for a twin in a crowded city centre like Birmingham. At this late stage I think he will not be able to get legal permission in time and a transgression might well result in a criminal prosecution. So in view of the time scale a landing spot for tuesday is academic. They aren't my rules; I only play the game by them.

P.S. seen JimBall's profile? Unless he is playing devil's advocate, he wasn't aware of the rules and regs either :)

As the original poster hasn't replied I'll get back in my box too. Fly safe and legal out there.

[JimBall]

TP: There are a couple of farms about 6 miles south-west of Edgbaston off the A38 near the motor works and reservoirs. Contact numbers come up on Google Maps.

What a beautiful dawn and a great day to fly.
Just thought I'd remind myself why we do this.
Yes - the original question was simple. But isn't it an indication that the rules are a problem when even ShyT has the old rules in the brain and the old price for an Exemption ? Not Shy's fault, I suggest, because it is a common problem.
Back in 02 there was a substantial CAA consultation to bring Rule 5 more in line with ICAO and reduce the confusing wording of the 1996 version. As was stated in the consultation: "The existing United Kingdom low flying rule (see Annex C) uses 1088 words compared with its equivalent in the ICAO Rules of the Air (see Annex D) which uses only 160 words."
In 05 the new version was published, and this was again modified in 07 with different para numbering. That catches a lot of people.
There is a debate to be had about the interpretation of the rule 6 exemptions for certain areas of rule 5. But life's too short. All I know is that pre-05 we needed an exemption to land at a particular site, and a year later we didn't!
And if the aim of the 05 rewrite was to make things clearer, it didn't totally work. For those with time on their hands, the history is interesting : Proposal to amend the UK Rules of the Air Regulations 1996 | Consultations | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1676&pagetype=90)

[ShyTorque]

But they're not the "old rules", Jim.

Only the paragraph number has changed, the rules haven't.

However, it is a concern that the CAA re-wrote CAP393 more than once and never bothered to publicise it to those who must comply with it.

As we know the price goes up every year (those palm trees inside at Aviation House do take some maintaining - mine's the big one on the left).

[Talking Point]

ShyTorque I haven't been near a computer to be able to reply until now.

I am aware of the rules but it seems to have cleared and refreshed some minds.

JimBall Thats what I was looking for in a response, somwhere within 30min taxi. I will check them out.

Considering that was my first post on this forum, it has been a pleasure.

Many thanks to all.

[Noiseboy]

Re: the rules debate

Jim is technically correct, you do not need an exempton to land in a congested area, you need the written permission to operate below 1000 feet over the congested area which would facilitate the landing.

Shy is also correct that there has been no change in this since the rewrite.

The CAA had to specifically mention landing in a congested area in the context of SVFR where the 1000 above rule is exempted, this prohibits people landing anywhere in London CTR without also getting written permission since the 500 foot rule doesn't apply when landing by default also.

[ShyTorque]

The CAA had to specifically mention landing in a congested area in the context of SVFR where the 1000 above rule is exempted, this prohibits people landing anywhere in London CTR without also getting written permission since the 500 foot rule doesn't apply when landing by default also.

Correct.

Talking point,

Thats what I was looking for in a response, somwhere within 30min taxi. I will check them out.

If you'd told us 30 mins by road was OK, I'd have pointed you at a couple of local farms - I thought you wanted to walk! ;) Or why not just go to EGBB? That's within 30 mins drive from the cricket ground :p

[Talking Point]

That will teach me to be more specific with what I want. Would of been great to walk, but 6 miles taxi will do.