The chance of making readable rules is here:-
It would be sensible to draft rule 5 in two forms. One for aeroplanes and one for rotary as we accept that the flying capabilities of the two are different.
For helicopters the existing Rule 5 in regard to the '500 feet from' is practical and workable. The 1500 ft/600m is also practical and workable. And it must be upon the pilots mind to fly at a hight and position in regard to the conditions on the surface that enable in the event of a power unit failure that a safe landing without danger to persons on the ground, can be made. In practical term any flight over a built-up area must be illegal as there are no safe landing ares within a built-up area. Roads, sports fields, car parks and open common land will be used by people at random and therefore are excluded as a choice for landing. he existing Sensitive Area above London is for twin engined helicopter operations only and rightly so.
For areoplanes the same logic must apply and unless an aeroplane can be flown clear of a built-up area, hight is the crux here, then that too must be illegal.
In simplistic terms the blanket 500 foot Rule is so restrictive that in the weather conditions that prevail in the UK it would inhibit helicopter flying unnesseccarily and prevent such actions as that of crossing ridges below a cloud base, unless the cloud base was at least 500 ft above the ridge.
To suggest that flying below 500 ft AGL is unsafe is thoughtless. As already mentioned, flying training is the only way there is of learning what technoques to employ in differing circumstances and this is the role of training in the real world. In other words you have to go and practice under supervision those disciplines which you are either ignorant of or out of practice in. To restrict by Rules this facility would be to enhance the likelyhood of accidents.
So please Mr CAA, keep the Rule 5 as we have it but try and simplify the language. Difficult I know, but try anyway
Headsetair,,, I fully support your logic that why are aviators expected to do what others are not. I shall be writing to the CAA and ask that there be Rule 5 A drafted for the fixed wing and Rule 5 H for the rotary wing. To definitely keep the present wording re 500 ft which should be suitably amended to allow off airfield practices for autorotations and confined areas. And the adoption of the 1000 ft over congested areas with the addition of Specified areas over the cental parts of the major cities. This would place a definite no go area to single engined aircraft, restrictive I know but would make it clearer where and where not one can fly. Similar boundaries as are set for danger/restrictive/prisons etc.
Or is this too much to expect?
Last edited by Tail Bloater; 27th November 2002 at 09:54.