Is Rule 5 easy to understand and apply?

[leemind]

I was thinking about the thread "Helicopter ace lands in court" but wanted to break away and have a general discussion about Rule 5.

Rule 5, Para 2, Section b)

"Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure"

Rule 5, Para 3 (Exemptions) Section (ii)

"Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice."

So, presumably, the CAA consider landing at your friendly hotel "not normal aviation practice"? Personally I find it quite normal, but I am assuming this is what that other chap broke. (if not please correct me). Am I to assume that the 500' rule applies to its full extent when landing at a private site? i.e. that 500' becomes a horizontal distance when you are on the ground.

Now, picture the scenario. You are doing a mountain flying course with you and a couple of other aircraft. You have a nice friendly hotel with a huge paddock out the back of the hotel miles away from any vehicle, structure or vessel. But wait, your mate is on the ground before you... Can you land within 500' of him???

[flyer43]

leemind

Rule 5 is quite simple to apply, regardless of where you are. However, prior permission to land at a private location such as a hotel should be obtained from the owner prior to arrival. Even then, some people will push the limits by making their approach as close as possible to any obstructions , such as passing low over the roof of a hotel in the middle of nowhere. (I witnessed such a happening with a 206 arriving on Lundy island some years ago. The machine passed so low over the hotel roof that it caused some roofing tiles to flutter.)

In the thread "Helicopter ace lands in court", nobody has said whether the landing at the hotel was with prior permission of the landowner, irrespective of how many persons were present.

[helicopter-redeye]

There is more to R5 about sporting events as well. This may have been at a 'sports venue'.

NB I went to Lundy last week. No hotel. So I guess it blew down ??...

[flyer43]

..redeye

OK so maybe I meant the pub situated near the small harbour, although everything about Lundy is a bit small. I spent a week in Admiralty Lookout near the middle of the island. No telephones, television, or internet facilities for miles at that time - but maybe things have changed for the worse by now......?

[helicopter-redeye]

...Oh The Tavern (note singlular). Yes thats still there.

The Helipad is about 120M from it so back to the original point of the thread after a diversion ....

[puntosaurus]

There are a few more options for breaking rule 5 other than the one you've quoted, and it's possible that the original article has misrepresented the grounds of his prosecution.

For example the first (and arguably most important) part of rule 5 demands that an a/c shall not be flown below such height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.

Unfortunately the only thing that can exempt you from this rule is taking off from, landing, at or practising approaches to landing at or checking navigation aids or procedures at a Government or licensed aerodrome.

So if any part of his approach or departure compromised this, he would have been bang to rights. I've no idea whether this is the case, but it's possible. To this you can add the other possibilities that he failed to get permission for the charitable flight per the AIC, and/or the CAA taking the view that the site constituted a 'congested area' and no permission had been sought.

[Johe02]

I think it was the section 3 (i) bit about 60 metres that got him. . .?

:hmm:

[puntosaurus]

I don't think so. The 60m thing is a very specific exemption to allow non take-off and landing manoeuvres for helicopters (eg. quickstops) INSIDE the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome, closer than 500ft (but not closer than 60m) to objects outside the aerodrome. It's not relevant in this case.

Here's the full Rule 5 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%205%20amended%201%20April%202005a.pdf) text.

[leemind]

so, to answer my original question, is it a breach of Rule 5 if you land at a hotel (or similar) within 500' of another helicopter??

[DubTrub]

The matter of Prior Permission is not related to Rule 5.

So to answer leemind's question: No, if you are landing "in accordance with normal aviation practice"

[Bravo73]

Leemind,

is it a breach of Rule 5 if you land at a hotel (or similar) within 500' of another helicopter??

Nope. Rule 5 doesn't apply when landing or taking off 'in accordance with normal aviation practice.'

For helicopters, landing at a hotel (as long as you have the landowners permission) is 'in accordance with normal aviation practice'. Now, if you were trying to land a Cessna at the hotel, then the CAA might argue that this isn't 'in accordance with normal aviation practice'...! :E


Hope this helps,

B73

[old heliman]

The "taking off or landing in accordance with normal practice" applies only outside a congested area, landing and taking off from an unlicensed site within a congested area is NOT in accordance with normal aviation practice and requires a Permission from the CAA.

[Heliport]

old heliman

'The "taking off or landing in accordance with normal practice" applies only outside a congested area.'

Where is that written in the law?

'landing and taking off from an unlicensed site within a congested area is NOT in accordance with normal aviation practice'

Same question again.


Also, I've never been able to find the official (legal?) definition of "in accordance with normal aviation practice."
Do you know where I can find it?

flyer43 thinks Rule 5 is "quite simple" to apply but I don't and, if the posts on this and the 'ace' thread are any indication, I'm not the only one.

[Jack Plug]

Rule 5 means whatever the CAA want it to mean. If you have the misfortune to come to their attention for any reason it is one of several convenient vehicles to nail you in court. You cant argue with it cos its so vague. Just the way they like it.

'normal aviation practice'. What bollocks.


Edit

Oh yeah

'congested area'??? more bollocks

[puntosaurus]

On the half mil map, the legend has several categories of 'built up areas' all in yellow, different shapes for different size of area. That was given to me as an informal definition of 'congested area' which would give you at least a basis for argument in court, and show that you'd thought about it in advance. Maybe FL would like to opine on whether it would work ?

As far as normal aviation practice is concerned, I think that's pretty straightforward. Vertical descents from 200ft and screaming split assed quickstops probably won't cut it, but anything in the PPL/CPL syllabus for approaches ought to be arguable.

Heliport

Old heliman has paraphrased the rules but is correct in substance. It's not so much that landing in congested areas is outside normal aviation practice, simply that it doesn't have the exemptions you need to do it.

Blanket exemption from rule 5 low flying rules is only at govt. or licensed aerodromes (Rule 3ai). At other sites you're only exempt the 500ft rule, which is fine for sites in open areas but in congested areas you'll break the 1000ft rule if you try to land.

Happily the CAA can exempt you from the 1000ft rule, and old heliman gave us the contact details in a previous post - Bob Jones for AOC and PAOC operators and Keith Thomas for Gen Aviation (01293 573528).

Edited.

Every time I read this thing I get a new take on it. I'm now NOT convinced that the CAA can exempt you from the 1000ft rule except when under special VFR in a control zone or a notified route (Rule 3c). If that's the case I could land at a hotel in the London Zone, but not one in Reading. Can anyone help me here ? Does asking for permission turn it into a 'notified route' per rule 3ci?

[Heliport]

Every time I read this thing I get a new take on it.
Exactly. Most of us do. We all think we have a working knowledge of Rule 5, until .......... . ;)


"normal aviation practice" is pretty straightforward"
Is it?
Are you saying a vertical descent from 200' to a private site is illegal under Rule 5?
And that a quick-stop arrival at a private site is also illegal? Regardless of the size of the private site? eg A country house set in hundreds of acres of open land.

"Blanket exemption from rule 5 low flying rules is only at govt. or licensed aerodromes."
Are you exempt from Rule 5 if you do a practice EFATO at a licensed airfield?
Is an instructor at a licensed airfield exempt from Rule 5 when teaching a student EFATO? (It's in the syllabus. Normal aviation practice?)


in congested areas you'll break the 1000ft rule if you try to land.
Isn't the 1000' rule about flying below 1000ft over a congested area? (Whether or not you land.)
Would it be legal to fly over a congested area above 1000' and then descend and land provided you stay strictly over the confines of a large open field in the congested area?

[puntosaurus]

Yup, I think if someone complained about someone hotdogging into a private site (those are just two I thought up), then I think the CAA would have a case. They would simply point to the syllabus and say show me where it says that's the way to land, and unless you've got a good operational reason to be doing that you'd be bang to rights.

Simulated EFATO has been much discussed and as I understand it the CAA takes the view that it is NOT acceptable at an a/d. That's wrong IMHO, but that's their view. Their wording is quite specific in the latest form "exempt low flying prohibitions in so far as it is flying in accordance with normal aviation practice FOR THE PURPOSE OF

1) taking off from
2) landing at or practising approaches to landing at
3) checking navigation aids or procedures at

a govt. or licensed a/d. EFATO doesn't fit any of those categories, so you can't do it on the field. Presumably they want you to practice it aloft or in a deserted area - daft I agree.

Yes the 1000ft rule is about flying below 1000ft over a congested area whether or not you land. But in attempting to land you'll certainly break it, and no I don't think it will be defensible to say that you stayed over your landing site in a tight spiral. The rule is about whether the site is in a congested area or not, not how you fly into it. Therefore it's important to have a working definition of 'congested area', and hence my question to FL.