The 1500 ft Rule.

[jau]

Hi all,
I'm studying for my air law exam at the moment and have a question about the congested area 1500ft rule. It states that you must fly at minimum 1500 ft above the highest object within 600m OR at an altitude that will allow you to land clear of the congested area in the event of engine failure. What happens if you are over a particuarly large area/city? If you have class A at 3000ft, but you need to fly over the city, in the event of an engine failure, you won't be able to land clear because the city is too large and your only at 3000ft to keep clear of the class A. My solution would be to go around the city, but what happens if have to conform to a traffic pattern or for some reason have to go over the area?
Thanks
Jau

[MikeJeff]

If you're in Class G airspace under the class A, then you won't have to conform to any traffic pattern, so you're first idea is the best and only solution. With an SVFR clearance you are absolved from the 1500ft rule, but not the rest of rule 5, including the land clear requirement.

[FlyingForFun]

Quite a common situation over central London - it's been discussed here a few times before.

London City (Class D) controllers can, perfectly legally, clear a single-engined aircraft to fly through their zone, right across the centre of London, but only up to 2400' (above that is the London TMA, which is Class A). It's very unlikely that any single-engined aircraft could accept this clearance legally, though, and for that reason some City controllers have said on these forums that they won't offer this clearance in the first place.

Remember that obeying the rules of the air and flying safely is always the pilot's responsibility, and you can always refuse an instruction from ATC if you don't believe the instruction is safe and legal.

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

[Three Mile Final]

The LCY guys once offered me a clearance to cross via London Bridge in a Warrior at 2400 ft. Needless to say I declined.

[IO540]

I was offered by LCY a direct route from MAY through LCY (going to Elstree); I declined for the reasons given here.

There was an article in one of the free rags (GASIL I think) claiming that SEP pilots accepting this clearance (it specifically stated within the Class D zone) have been prosecuted by the CAA. Does anyone know anything about this??

However when flying the supposedly "legit" route, just outside the LCY Class D zone, it is apparent there is more than enough water, never mind greenery, to land on.

Views?

[englishal]

Isn't there something to do with the 1500' rule, which states "unless otherwise authorized by ATC" or words to that effect? ie if ATC give you a clearance which takes you through CAS at a height no meeting the 1500' rule, then you're ok.....??

[FlyingForFun]

Englishal,

I think there are certain times when the 1500' rule doesn't apply, although I can't remember off the top of my head what they are.

But the rule that we're discussing here is actually the Glide Clear rule (despite the confusing title of the thread), and there is never an exemption from that rule.

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

[Stoney X]

To back up what FFF was saying, here's a few bits from Rule 5 in the ANO. (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF)
(2) (a) The provision of paragraphs (1)(a)(ii) and (1)(c)(i) shall not apply to an aircraft flying: (i) on a route notified for the purposes of this rule; or (ii) on a special VFR flight; unless the aircraft is landing or taking off.
paragraph (1)(c)(i) is specific to helicopters so I'll ignore it for now.

paragraph (1)(a)(ii) states :
(ii) a height of 1500 feet above the highest fixed object within 600 metres of the aircraft:
As FFF says, there is nothing in there that exempts you from the glide clear rule which reads :
(i) such height as would enable the aircraft to alight clear of the area and without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit and if such an aircraft is towing a banner such height shall be calculated on the basis that the banner shall not be dropped within the congested area; or
Hope that clears it all up.

Regards
Stoney X

[bookworm]

But the rule that we're discussing here is actually the Glide Clear rule (despite the confusing title of the thread), and there is never an exemption from that rule.

Well actually...

Rule 5 (4) exempts aircraft from all parts of the rest of the rule, including the glide clear rule, for the purpose of taking-off, landing or practising approaches at a licensed aerodrome in accordance with normal aviation practice.

Without that exemption, instrument approaches on Runway 05 at Cambridge, for example, would be nigh on impossible. For those of us who live within the congested area on the final approach track, there is no comfort in Rule 5. :)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Without that exemption, instrument approaches on Runway 05 at Cambridge, for example, would be nigh on impossible. For those of us who live within the congested area on the final approach track, there is no comfort in Rule 5. Most of the concern from the public about living under the 05 approach (which I get to hear about as a city councillor) is about an airliner crashing on them. I do explain to people that an EFATO in a light aircraft taking off from 23 is more likely. I hadn't thought about a SEP instrument approach to 05.

[fudgy2000]

Couldnt you accept the clearance by ATC and fly at 2400ft over london? This is greater than 1500ft. However, there are parks to land in and it depends on the skill of the pilot. doesnt it??

[englishal]

Gets a bit tricky doesn't it :D Comes back to this definition of "Congested area". If say Hyde or other parks are not a congested area by definition, then you could, as you always have the ability to "glide clear" . If the whole of London is defined as a congested area then, say your glide ratio is 1:10, and you have at least 10 miles to glide (50,000' or so) then you would need to be at least 5,000-6,000' to be able to comply. Which makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Would probably have to be tested in court, a good lawyer could probably argue that a park is not congested and so you didn't break any rules. If you don't glide clear, but end up in someones picture window, then I suppose you wouldn't care anyway ;)

What about the Manchester LL route? 1200' I think is the max altitude, yet there are towns and settlements along the route....what do you do then? Weave around trying to avoid these areas or take the (safer?) option of just going overhead.

Nice high VFR routes with no ATC required whould be nice over major towns and airports....

Cyer
EA

[Spiney Norman]

englishal.
Re-the Manchester Low level route. The route is a designated route as Stoney X quotes in his post outlining the ANO. Therefore the 'alight clear' rules apply. I'd say you would have no problem complying with this except for the Warrington portion. Personally I always transit East of Warrington where there is a large area of sports fields and waste land which runs for some distance up to the Thelwall viaduct. Wouldn't really want to try and land on it though!

Spiney

[bookworm]

Gets a bit tricky doesn't it Comes back to this definition of "Congested area".

There's a subtle difference between the way this is handled in US and UK law. The FARs simply require you to be able to land without hazard to persons or property if a power plant fails. You might well be able to justify landing in a park.

The UK however requires that you are able to land clear of the congested area itself. I get the impression that congested area is intended to represent the entire area of a city or town, not a patchwork of individual squares within the town that are or are not more heavily used. A park surrounded by houses is probably still part of the congested area.

But of course it's up to the judge...

[Spiney Norman]

Bookworm.
Yes, your last line sums up the unfortunate situation we've got into in the U.K. An individual incident is the only way that any specific guidance is recieved, and that means some poor s*d has ended up in court. I well remember the Guy who was prosecuted for making a practice approach to a strip and overflew an ex-RAF officer who happened to be fishing nearby! Or a case that involved the legal argument that the centre of a village was 'the congested area of a city, town, or settlement'! I know there were other features to both of these cases but increasingly the defenition of the law is very grey for those of us trying to obey it!

Spiney

[FNG]

These rules, and landing in parks and so forth, were also discussed in the recent "circuits at unlicensed aerodromes" thread, in which there is some useful stuff buried amongst some criminally bad jokes perpetrated by me and some others.

Hyde Park etc, Regents Park, Hampstead Heath are themselves congested areas, because they are substantially used for recreation, and thus fall within the definition set out in the ANO. The Thames in central London is, similarly, a congested area, because it is substantially used for commerce and for recreation. Speaking for myself, I would not even contemplate flying single engined fixed wing over central London, but some people do it (didn't we discuss last year sightings of C150s over Hampstead etc?)

[fudgy2000]

why are people being prosicuted then?? If the controller clears you then its ok?? He also knows your a SEP from your RT calls. Sounds like madness to me??!!

[bookworm]

why are people being prosicuted then?? If the controller clears you then its ok?? He also knows your a SEP from your RT calls. Sounds like madness to me??!!

No. A clearance is not a legal approval. In principle, it's an assurance of separation from other traffic while you fly a prescribed route and level. It doesn't guarantee that the other aspects of the flight are legal, nor should it -- that's entirely the responsibility of the commander.

(In practice, a VFR clearance into class D doesn't assure any separation at all, but the same terminology is used.)

[BEagle]

The LCY situation I pointed out to an hours-builder many years ago who though that it was OK to ignore the 'glide clear' rule just because some Air Trafficker gave him route clearance. When he argued, I said 'Either replan the flight or I'll cancel your booking'. He replanned it.

Also led a 3-ship of SEP ac into Northolt some years ago (with special approval) for a charity purpose - flying Beaujolais Nouveau in from Manston. Ignored Northolt ATC's attempts to vector us in over congested North London and had much fun instead weaving down from Bovingdon obeying the glide clear rule, then joined downwind for stream glide landings.

[FlyingForFun]

why are people being prosicuted then?? If the controller clears you then its ok?? He also knows your a SEP from your RT calls. Sounds like madness to me??!!He may know you're a SEP, he may not. But he certainly won't know your glide ratio. Some aircraft have a variety of different wings which give different glide ratios, so even if the controller knew the gliding capabilities of every aircraft he still wouldn't have all the information he'd require. And he doesn't know the actual wind, either. So he's really not in any kind of position to know whether an aircraft can legally fly in any particular place - although he may be able to make a sensible guess. That's the reason that the final responsibility always lies with the pilot.

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