Gidday,
The thread on the incident near NZPM had some interesting posts but were starting to head off that thread's topic so with regard to the go-around altitude from a PFL.....
Interpretation of CAR 91.311(c)
Effective Date: This ruling is effective from September 2004
Catchwords: low flying flight instruction and flight examining
Sponsoring area: Personnel Licensing and Aeronautical Services
Issue
The purpose of this bulletin is to state the CAA’s position on the interpretation of CAR
91.311(c) with respect to flight training and examination activity conducted otherwise than
in accordance with the exception to the low flying rule provided in 91.311(d).
Background
The “low flying rule”, CAR 91.311(a), provides as follows:
(a) A pilot-in-command of an aircraft must not operate the aircraft under
VFR—
(1) over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any
open air assembly of persons at a height of less than 1000 feet
above the surface or any obstacle that is within a horizontal radius
of 600 metres from the point immediately below the aircraft; or
(2) over any other area—
(i) at a height of less than 500 feet above the surface; or
(ii) at a height of less than 500 feet above any obstacle, person,
vehicle, vessel, or structure that is within a horizontal radius
of 150 metres from the point immediately below the aircraft;
and
(3) for any operation, at a height less than that required to execute an
emergency landing in the event of engine failure without hazard to
persons or property on the surface.
Exceptions are provided to the rule in CAR 91.311(b), (c) and (d).
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to a pilot-in-command of an aircraft—
(1) conducting a take-off or landing; or
(2) conducting a balked landing or discontinued approach; or
(3) taxiing.
(c) Paragraph (a)(2) does not apply to a pilot-in-command of an aircraft if
the bona fide purpose of the flight requires the aircraft to be flown at a
height lower than that prescribed in paragraph (a)(2), but only if—
(1) the flight is performed without hazard to persons or property on
the surface; and
(2) only persons performing an essential function associated with the
flight are carried on the aircraft; and
(3) the aircraft is not flown at a height lower than that required for the
purpose of the flight; and
(4) the horizontal distance that the aircraft is flown from any obstacle,
person, vessel, vehicle, or structure is not less than that necessary
for the purpose of the flight, except that in the case of an
aeroplane, the aeroplane remains outside a horizontal radius of 150
metres from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure that is not
associated with the operation.
(d) Paragraph (a)(2) does not apply to a pilot-in-command—
(1) who is the holder of, or authorised by the holder of, a current
instructor rating issued under Part 61 and who is conducting flight
training or practice flights consisting of—
(i) simulated engine failure after take-off commencing below
1000 feet above the surface; or
(ii) simulated engine failure commencing above 1000 feet above
the surface provided that descent below 500 feet above the
surface is conducted within a low flying zone in accordance
with 91.131; or
(2) who is the holder of a current instrument rating issued under Part
61 and who is conducting IFR training, testing, or practice flights
under VFR, but only if the pilot-in-command conducts the flight in
accordance with 91.413, 91.423 and 91.425; or
(3) operating an aircraft within a low flying zone in accordance with
91.131; or
(4) operating an aircraft at an aviation event in accordance with
91.703.
CAA Position
The exceptions to the low flying rule listed in 91.311 are not expressed as applying
exclusively to the situation described in each exception. Accordingly, the rule does not
preclude pilots engaged in flying training activities from relying on the exception in
91.311(c) despite the express reference to flight training in 91.311(d).
Where the bona fide purpose of the flight is dual flight training or during a flight
examination in the exercise forced landings without power which may require an aircraft to
be operated at height lower than that described in 91.311(a)(2), the pilot-in-command may
rely on the exception provided in 91.311(c) as long as the requirements in that rule are
complied with.
I am going back a few years to when this was of interest to me. An important point was to ensure the student appreciated the significance of the exception to the rule and therefore respected the appropriate altitude restriction during
solo sorties.
Also, for me it wasn't a case of descending below 500' AGL on every attempt, but having the legal right to do so on the occasion I deemed it necessary and safe was at least one that hadn't been taken away.