Comments sent to CAA by Rotorhead A
Dear Rob :>> I'm contacting you with regard to the proposed changes to the ANO's Rule>5, regarding low flying. My perception, and that of a lot of helicopter>pilots I have spoken with, is that the proposed legislation seems to ignore>the requirements of helicopter flying.>> Speaking as a helicopter pilot, the capability of legally flying a>helicopter within 500 feet of the ground when safe to do so, for example>when making approaches to pinnacles in mountainous areas, or making an>approach ( for training purposes ) to a confined area which is not on an>airfield, is vital to allow pilots to be trained in those procedures before>they fly them on a PT flight. I have chosen those two examples as>illustrative and it's not intended to be a complete list.>> My preference for legislation would be along the lines of the American>FARs, allowing helicopters to come as low to the ground as they like, while>remaining safe and consistent with neigbourly flying.>> Please feel to contact me if you have any questions.
Reply from CAA
Dear Mr A
>>Thank you for sending me your views on the Rule 5 discussion paper. I have>noted your comments and they will be considered when the CAA refines the>rule prior to a second round of consultation in February.>>The trouble is that flight below 500 ft agl can have safety implications.If>for example, you were flying downwind at less than 500 ft in a single engine>machine, you would be unlikely to pull off a successful autorotational>landing if the engine failed. >>When you are landing or taking off from an aerodrome as defined in Article>129 of the ANO, you are exempt from compliance with the 500 ft rule whatever>form it comes in.>>I did consider FAR 91.119, but it does not transfer well into the UK.>>Kind regards>>Rob McGregor
Follow up by A
Rob :Thanks for that. My gut feeling is that this legislation has been designedwithout thought to helicopter operations. For example in helicopter companies,a proportion of PT flights are conducted to, from and between private landingsites which do not seem to fall into the remit of an aerodrome as definein Article 129 and none of the proposed options, nor the one currently seemingto be favoured by the CAA, seem to take helicopters into account.With regard to safety generally, you are absolutely right in that continuedflight below 500' downwind is unsafe. Any helicopter pilot operating there needs to have assessed the risks and satisfied themselves that there is noother way to achieve the aims of the flight. I can understand that a legislativeframework needs to be in place to ensure that any aviation activity takesplace safely and with minimum disruption to the non-aviating community. The way things appear to be developing during this consultation seems tofavour legislation to prevent reasonable judgement being exercised.Legislation should allow for reasonable judgement by a pilot given the circumstances relevant to the flight. A reasonable framework of legislationshould allow that flexibility - otherwise commercial helicopter operationsmay be restricted to an unneccesary degree.Lastly, my interpretation of your comment that "When you are landing ortaking off from an aerodrome as defined in Article 129 of the ANO, you areexempt from compliance with the 500 ft rule" is that other than at an aerodrome,flight within 500' of persons, vessels, vehicles and structures is not allowed(unless exempted under current procedures). Am I correct in this interpretation? If so does an ad-hoc private landing site need to be exempted on an individualbasis to make it legal ? If so, then an exemption must be written into thelegislation, or this may well affect one of the main raisons d'etre of thehelicopter. If there is no such blanket exemption to allow this use of helicopters,then I can foresee a huge workload increase in the relevant CAA department.I was concerned by your response, if it is a reflection of the CAA's intentionsand thinking on the proposed changes. I hope my concerns are unfounded,and I look forward to the next round of consultation.
Yours etc
In his email to me, Mr A says he's worried. I suspect he's right to be.