Minimum Height

[John Alcock]

How low are PFA type aircraft allowed to fly when not landing or taking off?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the way I read the rules implies that if a pilot knows for certain that he is clear of, essentially all man-made objects, he can be as low as he likes. The rules say 500 ft clear of persons, structures, vehicles and vessels, but I cannot find reference to height above the ground (excluding built up areas). If, for example, a pilot were over sparsely populated Scotland, or the sea, would he be operating illegally if he flew at less than 500 ft above sea level?

Many thanks,

John

[Whopity]

In the UK there is no reference to minimum altitude, only the 500 feet Minimum Safe Distance (MSD) quoted in Rule 5. Some other countries do specify a minimum altitude. So as long as you comply with rule 5, you can go as low as you like. Beware other nuisance rules though.

[stickandrudderman]

My understanding of the 500ft rule is that, as you say, it only applies to "people or structures".
I would therefore presume that I can fly as low as I like as long as I comply with this rule.
I'm sure someone here will disagree!

[Bravo73]

Originally Posted by John Alcock

If, for example, a pilot were over sparsely populated Scotland, or the sea, would he be operating illegally if he flew at less than 500 ft above sea level?

Nope.

You are absolutely correct. The 500ft rule only applies to 'people or things containing people' (essentially). If there aren't any 'people or things containing people' (and you can be sure of this), then LEGALLY you can fly as low as you like. (The 500ft is NOT with reference to AGL.)

Now, if it's PRUDENT to fly that low, well that's a completely different kettle of fish!

[DSAA]

Originally Posted by Bravo73

The 500ft rule only applies to 'people or things containing people' (essentially). If there aren't any 'people or things containing people' (and you can be sure of this), then LEGALLY you can fly as low as you like. (The 500ft is NOT with reference to AGL.)

500' lateral and vertical separation between you and people, property, vessels, structures is the textbook definition as I remember it. So anything from pylons to chicken coups fall within that as well as farm houses and cars.

As Bravo mentioned, if you want to operate at <500' AGL that leaves you very little time to set yourself up into a forced landing pattern should the worst happen...especially in light aircraft where you may not have the speed or power to get you to a safer height in a hurry.

Plus the risk of birdstrikes are a lot higher than at medium altitude which don't make for cheap repairs if the airframe is damaged.

[Laundryman]

The other thing to keep in mind is that militery aircraft like to fly low too, if you see the dot of a fastjet coming head on you have less than 12 seconds to do something about it and that is assuming you see it as soon as it becomes visible.

[tangovictor]

Originally Posted by Laundryman

The other thing to keep in mind is that militery aircraft like to fly low too, if you see the dot of a fastjet coming head on you have less than 12 seconds to do something about it and that is assuming you see it as soon as it becomes visible.

maybe thats why mode "s" would be needed ?

[John Alcock]

Many thanks to those who've replied. You've helped confirm what I thought, that it is apparantly legal.

Thanks also to those who pointed out the risks (less time to react, more military types, more birds, the risk of a person, vessel etc appearing! etc).

The wisdom of the decision was never a question in my mind, I was wondering the legality of it. Once again, the speed and breadth of replies amazes, cheers!

[High Wing Drifter]

You mentioned a PFA type. My understanding is that any non EASA CofA aircraft is not permitted to overfly any congested area at any height. I think the definition of a congested area is one primarily used for residential and industrial purposes.

[Whirlybird]

However, if you decide to fly that low, beware of courting couples in hedges or divers below the surface of the water. The fact you didn't know they were there is no excuse, legally.

[Flying Lawyer]

beware of courting couples in hedges or divers below the surface of the water.

Won't "courting couples in hedges" have better things on their minds than trying to take the registration of a low flying aircraft?

"divers below the surface of the water"
And, if you're over the sea, there's submarines to consider, of course.
I don't think even the CAA would try to base a prosecution on people or vessels under the water.



Remember the Golden Rule:

If you're going to fly low, breach Rule 5 or risk breaching Rule 5, don't stay in one area for too long or you'll increase the risk of some well-wisher getting your regn and reporting you.

FL

[matelot]

Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer

Won't "courting couples in hedges" have better things on their minds than trying to take the registration of a low flying aircraft?...
FL

Well, it'll be different to, 'This ceiling needs painting.'

[QDMQDMQDM]

I don't think even the CAA would try to base a prosecution on people or vessels under the water.

Shame. You'd have fun defending that one, wouldn't you, FL?

[FlyingForFun]

I don't have any docs to hand to quote, but.....

I'm pretty certain that, when flying instructors have made attempts to get exemptions from Rule 5 for training flights carrying out PFLs, the CAA's response is that no exemption is necessary because it's possible to carry out a PFL to a level well below 500' already so long as you remain clear of people, structures, etc etc....

I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got that wrong.

FFF
-------------

[DSAA]

Bear in mind that 500' isn't an easy height to guesstimate from ground level...+-50' or even a little more wont make much of a difference to any casual onlookers.

Without proper low flying tuition, flying below 500' probably isn't a good idea...even flying at 500' requires a lot more anticipation for the simplest of things - like climbing to avoid ridges. Plus you can't rely on your altimeter to give you an accurate altitude AGL because of the changing heights of ground AMSL, which means you need to be able to visually judge your height.

Generally with a good lookout fast and pointy things aren't impossible to spot...another good reason for sticking to 500' - their lower limit is 250' meaning you decrease your risk of meeting one coming the wrong way if you remain at that height (that's not to say all fast jets will always be at 250' in the low flying network!). If you're really worried stay away from the FJ hotspots - like the Welsh valleys, the Lake District and so on - you can find them on the internet.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

Originally Posted by Bravo73

The 500ft rule only applies to 'people or things containing people' (essentially).

No. It applies to 'people or things with internal volume' (CAA ARE edict). The internal volume need not be enclosed.

[microlight AV8R]

Not within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure is the wording I learnt.
The most hotly debated word usually seems to be structure ie; is a dry stone wall a structure? The aforementioned volume bit seems to answer that one.
I did hear the 500' rule described as "the distance they can read your registration from"

[formationfoto]

I think you have answer now. It is a common mistake to believe that in this fair land we require 500 ft above ground (as is the case in many other jurisdictions). Open countryside or over sea at five feet is legal if a little questionable in terms of safety providing that you are not within 500ft of those items mentioned.

There are a few exceptions to this beyond take off and landing including Rule 5 exemptions which can be used for your own non public, non paying air display if you so wish. A few locations has such exemptions which can be used for display practice. You can apply for one both on and off airfield if you wish to fill in the forms and hand money to the CAA.

[rogcal]

Irrespective of whether a fence, stone wall, etc are deemed to be structures always be aware of the lone farmworker bent over in a field of beet pulling weeds.
I can assure you that the look of terror on their face as they straighten up and realise that the approaching noise is accompanied by a lump of metal intent on decapitating them, can only be matched by the look on the pilot's face when he sees what he's just about to hit.
In this (real) scenario, only the quick reactions of the farmworker throwing himself to the ground, saved his neck, literally.
The moral of this story is that 10 to 15 feet above the level a crop is better than 2 to 3 feet!

[Bravo73]

Originally Posted by Kit d'Rection KG

No. It applies to 'people or things with internal volume' (CAA ARE edict). The internal volume need not be enclosed.

Thanks for clarifying that. Kd'RKG!

Of course it's 500ft from "person, vessel, vehicle or structure". But I've always found that wording a little confusing (must be the stoopid jeans in me!) so I prefer this recently discovered version. (I can credit the original author, if you want).

If we are to be pedants about this, surely your 'things with internal volume' definition falls down? Does that mean that I have to be 500ft away from a coke can?


Maybe I should've said 'people or things that can contain people' (essentially).