British Rule 5 and private sites

[Bronx]

Can the Brits here settle a crew-room argument for me.


Do helos on private flights in the UK have to comply with the 500 feet rule when landing and taking off from private sites?


I read here you just got a new Rule 5 but I dont know if that's changed anything.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Rule 5 is modified when "taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice".

This includes suspension of the 500ft separation rule.

The new rule 5 hasn't changed in that particular aspect so far as I'm aware.

G

[jbrereton]

Check it out at

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


JB

[Heliport]

So is the answer Yes or No, jb? ;)

[206 jock]

My answer is no, we don't have to comply with the 500 foot rule when landing at a private site in the UK, as long as we are flying in accordance with 'normal aviation practice'.

If the CAA had meant to exclude private sites/strips, they would have said 'at a goverment aerodrome'.

What constitutes 'normal aviation practice'? Well, I interpret that to mean not directly overflying a person animal vehicle or structure on my approach....I can get closer than 500 ft during the arrival/departure, but should be prepared to vary my approach path where possible to minimise the danger/inconvenience to those/objects on the ground. And I can land closer than 500 ft to my neighbour's house.

But it's a good question - is there a better definition of 'normal aviation practice' in this context?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I can't help suspect that we are all far better off leaving that vague, so that somebody else has to prove that we did not follow normal aviation practice.

G

[paco]

Yeah - rather like when they say you "have to be prepared for any expected event", then arguing that an engine failure is not an expected event! :p

It would appear that 'normal aviation practice' does not include quickstops or engine offs, but does include manoeuvring and taxiing for a decent landing position. This from a CAA guy. Unofficial. Well, maybe not. He heard it from a friend. In the bar. And it was in colour, so it's got to be true.

Phil

[jbrereton]

Common sense prevails.

Of course you can land and take off as long as you obey the rules which seem quite straight forward to me.

JB

[Helinut]

Don't forget the new 1,000 ft rule though (part of Rule 5). This is really the old congested area rule which does prevent you landing at a site in a congested area, without specific CAA permission.

Depends what a congested area is - the CAA view (unproven in a court) is pretty much anythng but farmland is congested.

[headsethair]

And don't forget the new rules for landing within 1 km of an organised assembly of more than 1000 people. You have to have the written permission of the event organiser AND the written permission of the owner of the land you will use. (Unless landing at a licensed aerodrome.)

One simple question - a swarm of answers.

[rotorfossil]

I suspect that one trap that could catch helicopter pilots out landing at private sites is that by the letter of the rule you are only absolved from the rule when LANDING in accordance with normal aviation practice: NOT when overflying the site to check its suitability, even though a Practice Approach is still mentioned in Ex. 26 in the JAR FCL helicopter training syllabus.
I seem to remember one of our fixed wing colleagues fell foul of this one, admittedly after overflying the strip several times, as it was held that he was within 500 ft of a person and had no immediate intention of landing.
As usual, we won't know until someone complains and it is tested in court.