Rule 5 ammendment

[Ripline]

At last, something sensible to come out of the "harmonisation" of EASA. The 1500' rule now becomes the 1000' rule.

Document here:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%205%20amended%201%20April%202005.pdf

Ripline

[bar shaker]

and how is that sensible?

[Aussie Andy]

It's more sensible if this type of rule is harmonised across Europe as pilots like me with small brains have trouble remembering all the different rules that applied across Europe otherwise!

Maybe you think the 500' reduction makes a material difference to safety (what's that in terms of glide distance?) or the potential for noise complaints? Note that the "land clear" rule still applies anyway...

Interested in your views - but on the whole I think it sounds helpful.

Andy :ok:

[bar shaker]

I think it will be mean more people flying low over residential areas resulting in more noise complaints. I also think there will be a greater risk of someone getting themselves in a position from which they do not, in fact, glide clear.

I read a report by the CAA saying that they did not intend to change the 500ft rule as they, quite rightly, felt that the UK wording was far superior to the ICAO wording. What prompted them to change the 1500ft rule then?

This new rule is an Aerial Photographers' Charter and is not good news for the image of GA.

[Kolibear]

In what is sometimes refered to as 'The Triangle of Death', that volume of sky between London, Luton & Stansted, the base of CAS is 2500'.

Various spot heights in N London are about 360', so to make life easier, assume ground level to be 400'. Add on 1500 which gives 1900' and subtract that from 2500'. This gives a sliver of sky 600' thick max. to fly in.

For the purpose of a prosecution, the CAA's definition of a settlement is 'two houses or more', so going much lower than 1900' QNH isnt a good idea, unless you want to weave around the houses.

So this means all the east-west traffic to the north of London gets squeezed into a slice of airspace 500-600 ' deep and I would imagine that the same conditions apply to the south, between London & Gatwick too.

That extra 500 feet has just doubled the volume of airspace available.

[2Donkeys]

So this means all the east-west traffic to the north of London gets squeezed into a slice of airspace 500-600 ' deep and I would imagine that the same conditions apply to the south, between London & Gatwick too.

Whilst you can't fault the analysis, the fact is that most traffic operating VFR under the London TMA manages to select 2400 QNH to fly-at without any form of regulatory intervention. The revelation that there is a slice 500-600' thick would actually be a breath of fresh air.

2D

[Aussie Andy]

Guys, I just don't see how an extra 500' makes a really big difference to get excited about in terms of risk..!

Andy :ok:

[Kolibear]

2Donks - you are absolutely correct, my altimeter only reads up to 2400 :O

[bar shaker]

If you deduct height for realising that you do indeed have a dead engine that won't re-start, then a bit more for a turn towards the most suitable field, then keep a bit more in reserve for lining up and dropping into the field over any trees or wires.

You started with 1000ft.

How much have you got left?

In nil wind, how much gliding distance does that give you?

[Aussie Andy]

In nil wind, how much gliding distance does that give you? Not much more than at 1500'..! Just because there's a MINIMUM rule doesn't mean we're all to go CRUISING around at that level does it...

[Ripline]

bar shaker This new rule is an Aerial Photographers' Charter and is not good news for the image of GA.

Well, I'd say we were both putting an interpretation on the revised rules that reflects our own prejudices and the type of equipment that we fly. That's OK, isn't it? We all do that to some extent. Just because the legal boundaries have changed doesn't mean that everyone has to fly lower automatically. I see it as a common sense change that allows you as a pilot more freedom of choice of action within the capabilities of both the aircraft and your own assessment of the situation.

OK, I'm a balloon pilot. There are several Rules of the Air that are applied to the conduct of all GA aircraft and there are many which are not appropriate to the way in which some of them fly. All I'm saying here is that while it is probably foolish to overfly a heavily built-up area in a PA-28 at 1000', a balloon with plenty of fuel on board and calm weather would not represent anything like the same risk to those below even if all systems failed completely. Slow, low-level flight is what balloons are superbly equiped to do well and safely, hence my positive reaction to this announcement!

Ripline

[PPRuNe Towers]

Wecome back 2D,

Thoroughly enjoyed following your adventure. Admittedly Rule 5 didn't make up a major portion of your blog so that's enough off topic from me:D

Rob

[homeguard]

What is perhaps more significant for most people is the provision of Rule5 (3) (ii) which now appears to allow take off and landing at a non licenced and Government aerodromes (private strips) without reference to the 500' rule.

[bar shaker]

Ripline

I completely understand why you were so pleased now. A balloon has a substantially better glide ratio than a lump of 30 year old metal ;)

I do still think we must all continue to respect the public's right to privacy and peace and quiet, though. The public have a strange perception of height of aircraft (and balloons).

Andy

I would expect the extra 500ft to halve the potential glide, once you take the non variables out from both events.

Homegaurd

This has been the case for longer than I have been flying. The ruling was also changed about 18 months ago to allow permit aircraft to over fly congested areas, if taking off or landing at a licensed or gov strip. They aren't allowed to over fly under normal flight conditions.

[englishal]

It is a storm in a tea-cup ;) I like the idea of a relaxed rule myself, though what would be better is to not squeeze your average GA aircraft down so low.....but thats another matter.

[homeguard]

Bar Shaker

Until the latest change an aircraft was NOT exempt from any part of rule 5 when taking off from or approaching to land at 'private strips'.

[bar shaker]

Homeguard

The ANO has always (in my time) exempted aircraft landing and taking off from Rule 5, irrespective of whether the field was licensed or not.

Otherwise landing or taking off at any unlicensed field with a hangar, farm house or group of spotters on the grass would have been illegal.

Please feel free to quote a recent edition of the ANO and prove me wrong.

[NorthSouth]

Correct bar shaker. Current Rule 5 says:
(1)(e) An aircraft shall not fly closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure…
(2)(d) Paragraph (1)(e) shall not apply to:
(i) any aircraft while it is landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice
It's the practising of approaches that has always been restricted to licensed or Govt aerodromes.
NS

Incidentally ripline the changes to Rule 5 have nothing whatsoever to do with EASA. EASA has no jurisdiction over airspace. The rule change was part of a general review of aspects of UK air law which were found by an ICAO audit not to be in accordance with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices.

[High Wing Drifter]

NorthSouth,

But it seems we have still done well because, if I recall correctly, ICAO specify a min height of 500' above the ground. We are still only constrained by proximity to people, structures, etc.

[ShyTorque]

The amendment is very welcome news! The amendment of the minimum altitude to 1000ft will make it easier to stay within the law.

The perennial problem for 365 days a year operators is cloudbase, especially when icing conditions mean we must stay VFR below cloud. The 1500' rule was difficult to comply with at times, especially around the London control zone.

For once we get something LESS restrictive from the CAA.