PFL Training and Rule 5

[pulse1]

I see that AAIB have asked the CAA to look again at the effects of Rule 5 on training pilots for PFL's. This follows a recent AAIB bulletin which gives comments of an instructor who carried out a successful real forced landing.

Link [URL=http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_027742.hcsp]

[Heliport]

This link might be easier.
AAIB Report (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_027742.hcsp)

Interesting that the AAIB report says: It is a widely held view in the flying training community that the CAA will take firm action against those who break the rule, regardless of whether the transgressors are doing so in a reckless fashion or inadvertently breaking the rule as part of a responsibly planned and realistically carried out training exercise.

The BA Flying Club instructor who was wrongly prosecuted a few years ago could confirm 'the widely held view' is accurate.

[BEagle]

Tried to get them to include a statement exempting pilots practising forced landings under the supervision of an authorised instructor from Rule 5 last year.

Answer from the CAA legal fools was 'no'. PFLs are required to be demonstrated for licence issue, but are not considered 'normal aviation practice'. Which is utter stupid, crass, banal nonsense!

[Tinstaafl]

You made me laugh with derision, Beagle. Directed agains the CAA, I mean. Not you.

Got to love the new-speak concept that something that is trained for, is a significant part of the training syllabus & time with practice events on most training flights, and is tested in nearly every s/e test - ISN'T normal aviation practice.

Bloody idiots.

[homeguard]

It is only an opinion that the CAA legal beagles (rockweilers) promote, not an established legal fact. I have, over and over again, witnessed CAA legal representatives try to convince the court that flight lower than 500' AGL is the issue, which it is clearly not. Not yet seen a Magistrate who fell for it either.

While it is possible to carefully select the place over which a PFL is practised in order to not wind up the local folk or their animals, I think it would be difficult to argue that such a practice should be exempt Rule '5'. There is always somewhere without a; person, vehicle, vessle or structure (field boundary fences don't count nor does a person akip in the middle of a corn field)

However, to say that the much more postion specific drill of EFATO training being given to a pre-solo student must surely be in accordance with "normal aviation practice". Indeed much of a Pilots later training qualified or not will be in accordance with such a normal aviation practice. If ever the CAA attempt to proscecute a Pilot following a EFATO I'd like to witness the que of us just waiting outside the door of the court to cry simply, "of course it bloody is!".

[MobiusTrip]

Just guesting in here so please excuse the intrusion - but I am astonished by what I read. I've been out of GA for many many years so I don't have my finger on the pulse, but this interpretation of rule 5 thing sounds like an utter, crass failure of common sense. Is it a new JAR thing? I remember regularly doing PFLs for my PPL - and subsequently needing those skills in 'anger' further down the road (albeit not in a GA aircraft).

If the CAA decided to prosecute for an EFATO (sim) then, as has been said, things would get 'uncomfortable' for the CAA.

Yours in astonished dis-wonderment,

MT

[Hare O Plane]

Of course it's a bloody normal aviation procedure!

As long as we fly single engined aeroplanes, we run the risk of an EFATO or a failure at altitude. If the CAA rule that we have to demo it for licence issue then obviously they realise it could happen in the course of a "normal" flight (not simulated under test conditions) and as such we have to deal with and train students for it accordingly. That in my book means being realistic. The chances are if the engine quits on take off, it'll be <500' when it lets go.

But hey I know......... We'll teach pointless and unrealistic demo EFATOs at higher levels and protect our licences, just to keep the CAA legal beagles happy (only dogs I'd like to see taken to the vets)

[homeguard]

Should the CAA legal team get lucky with their latest job creation scheme then it won't only be SEP aircraft that are targeted!

If EFATO practice was considered not to be 'normal aviation practice', the principle would equally apply to MEP or any type or class that you may think of.

Remember the exemption from rule '5' only applies when taking off and approaching to land ..................... etc. in accordance with ............. etc. No mention of specific types. Just doing it at all would be a crime!

Whats the breakfast like in your local nick!

[Send Clowns]

If you ever have a problem with the CAA I would suggest contacting Tudor Owen, who posts as Flying Lawyer here. I seem to recall he has experience of defeating the Campaign Against Aviation on the issue. I also have a friend who is an expert witness and an instructor. I am sure he would produce an honest opinion on any case people have, taking into account common aviation practice.

Has there been any formal, academic study of this aspect of the training requirement? Sounds a bit strange, as little work has been done in the area of aviation training as far as I can find (hence the groundschool courses of JAA are such junk. Did consider looking for funding for a PhD on the issue, but got a job instead) but such a study would clear up the issue, and probably hold some weight in a court.

[BlueLine]

Every now and again this thread appears and raises the issue of "normal aviation practice". The only reference to the latter in the ANO is with respect to one of the exemptions to Rule 5, which is for aircraft "landing and taking off" in accordance with normal aviation practice.

In the case of a PFL, the aircraft is deemed "not to be taking off" because the power has been deliberately reduced, and there is no intention of landing either; therefore it is outside the Rule 5 exemption.

The issue is not whether a PFL is or is not normal aviation practice, its whether it could reasonably be considered to be a "landing" or a "take-off" because that is what the exemption is for.

There is ample space to conduct PFL and EFATO training that avoids persons vehicles vessels etc by 500 ft, and still allows the aircraft to be flown sufficiently close the ground to determine the outcome. It may not be at the end of the runway, but does that really matter?

Rule 5 has been around for a long time, it is not affected by the JAA in any way. PFL and EFATO training are essential, they are syllabus items for the PPL and CPL and are tested in every SE prof check or skill test. They can be conducted without fear of prosecution however, it is the pilots responsibility to avoid the specified objects by 500 ft; that is not unreasonable.

[homeguard]

In regard to the PFL, I agree.

As to the EFATO, Bluelines thoughts are jibberish!

[BEagle]

Perhaps - but he does work for the CAA!

Conducting any part of an approved training syllabus should be considered 'normal aviation practice' and specific exemption from Rule 5 should be introduced to facilitate that.

Assessing the last 500' or so is essential. Which is why we had a 100' a.g.l. limit for practising PFLs in HM's Bulldogs!

The lowest level in the civil world is 1 molecule - so long as you aren'r within 500' of a person, vehicle, vessel or 'structure'. What constitutes a 'structure'? Do tell, blueline!

[Field In Sight]

I did a little bit of training a few years ago in Canada and I seem to remember that they had an exception for going lower than 500 ft during PFL's provided you were with an instructor.

Then again I had way to much "Moose Beer" whilst I was over there and my memory may be a little hazy.

FIS.

[Hare O Plane]

Perhaps we should upgrade our training fleets with RAD ALTS guys!!!!

Be cheaper than the fine and admin fees!!!

[homeguard]

A problem for those working at the CAA is that common sense is not allowed to be left switched on. They quite often do switch back to common sense during private conversations, however.

Has anyone ever been prosecuted following an EFATO? Anyone know?

Not that many years ago Eric Thurston from Stapleford Tawny was prosecuted by the CAA following a PFL conducted during a PPL Skill Test. He was initially found guilty by the Magistrates but successfully appealed.

The Jury found him not guilty and the Appeal Judge concurred with some very strong words to the CAA for bringing the prosecution in the first place. The judge found that there was no definition of 'structure' within the ANO or guidance as to what would be a reasonable defence in the case of flight too near to persons. He obviously considered that it was not clear cut. He made rulings in regard to the whole of Rule '5'.

If I remember it correctly; A boundary fence around a field would not for the purposes of the ANO be considered a 'structure'. A roadway is to be considered a structure i.e. it is there for the use of people and vehicles and they should be expected to be found there. With regard to persons, if an individual or say a courting couple were laid down in a field it would be reasonable to say that the Pilot couldn't know that, for it was not a place that people would normally be expected to be found.

The ANO did not prescribe flight below 500'. If a pilot was to be expected to always avoid flight within 500' of a vehicle or person, whatever the circumstances, the effect would inevitablely be that flight could not be undertaken without risk of prosecution when flying below 500', even when over open countryside and should a person without warning pop up. He reasoned that if Parliament had intended that no flight must take place below 500' they would have said so.

It would be helpful if Tudor sees this to have his more professional observations.

[martinidoc]

I would go slightly further (and slightly tangentially) and say that it should become normal practice during precautionary landings to actually land, (by agreement etc) in a suitable field.

We had an interesting dicsussion at the senior intsructors forum,at Cranwell last week about PPLs reluctance to perform precautionary landings. It was suggested that several weather related fatalities over the years might have been avoided if a precautionary landing had been carried out.

The problem is that for a PPL who will be as stressed as hell when he finds he cannot get back to his destination/base/divertion field will have an intense inertia to performing something he has never done before. His instinct will be to stick with the familiar and try at all costs to get back to a proper familiar airfield.

The only way tp overcome this inertia is for him to have previously actually landed in a field safely under controlled conditions. He is then much more likely to take the right decision in the stress of the situation.

The CAA should work with the FTOs tp try and facilitate this type of more realistic emergency training.

[FlyingForFun]

It should become normal practice during precautionary landings to actually landThat's very interesting... and I can see the sense in what you're saying. But I don't know that I agree.

When I did my float-plane rating, I did actually land off of PFLs. Of course there's not much difference between a planned landing on an unprepared lake (which is what I did for most of the rest of the rating) and an unplanned landing on an unprepared lake, apart from the lack of power. Did I benefit from it? Well, not really.... there was certainly nothing lost by landing off of PFLs, but I don't think there was very much gained, either. The landing itself is no different to a planned glide-approach. And it's perfectly possible to see if you're going to make the field (or lake) without actually having to land, and to make appropriate corrections to your technique for next time.

As for doing the same on land - in a field, there are all kinds of invisible obstacles that may be lurking in the vegetation, waiting to cause damage to the aircraft - something which isn't going to happen at an airfield. I know you stressed that it would be done under controlled conditions.... but how? If you're going to pick a specific field that's been prepared in advance, it's no different to doing a glide-approach to an airfield. Part of the skill is in picking a suitable field, and that means having a number of fields to choose between - not all of which will be suitably prepared.

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

[Keygrip]

Martini - the airspace/airfield structure here in the USA often allows me to do PFL's into airfields (without warning to the victim - err, sorry - - student) - and providing a suitable touch down area is achieved then I feel some value has been gained.

Much to my disappointment though - a large number of schools here (both private and "academy" level) have a mandate that you will not land their aircraft on grass runways under any circumstances.

Short field and soft field take-offs being limited to 5<10 thousand feet tarmac runways. Makes a joke of the whole thing. The idea of a PFL to land into anywhere other than a fully prepared strip would be outrageous to the schools - and with the authorities requiring fire/ambulance cover within three minutes of the alarm being raised, I doubt you would fare well if you had an incident whilst doing as you suggest.

Trouble is - I full agree with you. There should be more landings.

[BlueLine]

Homeguard

In May 2000 BALPA conviened a meeting at the request of one of their members to discuss the issues relating to EFATO and Rule 5. It was attended by representitives from Gapan, AOPA and the CAA legal dept who gave their considered opinion, not fact, as you say.

At the end of the meeting the "jiberish" to which you refer was issued as a statement and published in a at least one GA magazine regarding EFATO and Rule 5.

I am not aware that anything has changed since that meeting other than the redrafting of Rule 5 in a simpler format.

Any proposed change to the content of Rule 5 would of course give the fraternity of complainers who live at the end of most runways, the opportunity they are looking for, to lobby support for even more stringent rules to prevent aviation all together.

[BEagle]

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'.....

[Send Clowns]

At the end of the meeting the "jiberish" to which you refer was issued as a statement and published in a at least one GA magazine regarding EFATO and Rule 5.And? Just because it is published by the aviation authorities does not mean it isn't gibberish. I am sure that the CAA had control of any output of the meeting, even if others were present.

[bookworm]

BlueLine

While I think your thoughts are far from 'jibberish', I do think you overlook the mindset that that Rule 5 induces.

PFL and EFATO training are essential, they are syllabus items for the PPL and CPL and are tested in every SE prof check or skill test. They can be conducted without fear of prosecution however, it is the pilots responsibility to avoid the specified objects by 500 ft; that is not unreasonable.

The problem is that while they may be conducted without prosecution, they cannot be conducted "without fear of prosecution". It may be possible to be 90% satisfied that a PFL carried out down to low level satisfies Rule 5, but there is still the possibility of:

a) overlooking a person, vehicle, vessel or structure
b) misjudging distances to a person, vehicle, vessel or structure
c) encountering vexatious (or even merely mistaken) complainants whose distance estimates are different from the pilot's

without negligence on the part of the pilot.

As a result of the fear of prosecution, as a PPL I simply gave up practising off-airport PFLs. I figured that the combination of probability and severity of unfavourable consequences of the practice outweighed the probability of engine failure and marginal benefits of the practice.

This was and is the only area where legislation discouraged me from regular practice to maintain and improve proficiency. I do not believe that I can be alone feeling that way. If that was my mindset as a PPL, instructors conducting ab initio training must be affected even more severely.

There is a serious possibility that the legislation, phrased as it is without exemption for reasonably conducted training and parctice, makes a negative contribution to overall aviation safety. If that is the case, it needs changing.