There was considerable discussion regarding revisions to the low flying rules in 2003. I wrote:
I write with reference to the Letter Of Consultation on the proposed revision to Rule 5. The simplification of any aviation legislation is normally to be welcomed; however, the following points (paragraph references are as per the Proposed New Low Flying Rule) need to be addressed:
1. Sub-para (1)(a). Amend to 1000 ft as per ICAO. The 'glide clear' provision is entirely adequate for safety purposes; the reduction of 500 ft might make all the difference between scraping the cloud base and flying in safety in traditional UK weather.
2. Sub-para (2). Retain the 500 ft separation rule; teaching and practising essential flying training exercises such as Engine Failure After Take-Off and Forced Landings With Power would be impossible if a 500 ft minimum height above ground rule were to be introduced unless yet further exemptions were also introduced.
3. Sub-para (3). Absolutely NOT!! The right to take-off and land at any site known to be used routinely for aeronautical pursuits must not be compromised by the presence of a nearby 'organised gathering'. Sub-para 3 should therefore be amended to read (amendments in italics):
(3) An aircraft shall not be flown within 1000 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1000 persons.
Sub-para (5) (b) should then be amended to read:
(5) (b) paragraphs (2) and (3) when taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice;
4. The conduct of mandatory and entirely legitimate emergency training exercises has occasionally resulted in nugatory (and expensive) enforcement action by the Authority in response to allegations made by the public. This proposed revision of Rule 5 would perhaps provide an opportunity to introduce legal protection to FIs and student pilots teaching or practising approved emergency training exercises. Hence a new Sub-paragraph could be added to Sub-para (5) stating:
(An aircraft shall be exempt from compliance with: )
(m) paragraph (2) when being flown for the purpose of conducting routine emergency training with the prior approval of an authorised Flight Instructor.
Such an amendment would give reasonable legal protection to the legitimate conduct of essential training exercises whilst maintaining protection for the general public from unauthorised low flying.
Sadly the CAA did not accept my view - and that of others - continuing to accept the stupid view of their legal people. That's not just my view, correspondence with a pretty well-known aviation lawyer revealed evn more colourful opinion of the CAA's 'legal advisors'.....