Microlights..Are they exempt the ANO?

[BoeingBoy]

I am not being a NIMBY, nor am I trying to spoil another pilots fun, but for the last two days a Blade microlight has been operating at around 100' over my house and the immediate area. I don't mind, but frankly combined with the other ML's operating from the same strip he has been a nuisance.

Are these aircraft exempt the '500' from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure rule' or should they conform to the same low flying rules as the rest of us.

No offence buddy, but if you want to see Little Moreton Hall that close up....Drive there!

(Yes, I do have the registration, and have the owners name from G-INFO)

[Parapunter]

No they're not is the short answer.

[gasax]

But ringing the guy is going to achieve an awful lot more than posting here!

[modelman]

gasax wrote:
But ringing the guy is going to achieve an awful lot more than posting here!


I guess BB probably plans to but needed to be clued up.A friendly word from a fellow aviator may not be well received and it's a comfort to have the (air)law backing you up.

MM

[Jucky]

BB,

The best thing you can do is approach the owner/operator of the airstrip and tell him what's happened and that if it happens again you will complain to the CAA about it. Most farm strip operators are not tollerant of this kind of behaviour, due to planing contrainsts, NIMBYS etc. Especially if it endangers the existance of their strip. The last thing they want is some idiot messing it all up for them. A quiet word in the strip owner's ear should nip it in the bud. It is very difficult to prove and convict low flying in court as some fairly hard evidence is required and most witness staments are fairly inaccurate because they are not pilots. You would probably be best to have a camera to hand so that if he does it again you can get a photo with the aircraft reg and a reference in the background to measure height off to prove he was low flying. It shouldn't need to come to that, like I say a word with the strip owner should sort it out.

Regards,

JUCKY

[Whopity]

Are these aircraft exempt the '500' from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure rule'
Only when landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice
Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
6. The exemptions from the low flying prohibitions are as follows—
(a) Landing and taking off
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the low flying prohibitions in so far as it is flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of—
(aa) taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at; or
(bb) checking navigational aids or procedures at,
a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing.

[BoeingBoy]

Thanks for the replies.

I think I've made my point so I won't take matters any further. I'm sure my post will make it back to where it needs to be.

BB;)

[magpienja]

BB where is Little Moreton Hall.

Nick.

[LH2]

Isn't that a bit lacking in social skills? Complaining about someone on a public internet forum when it would probably be so much easier to just walk over to their airstrip and have a chat. Might even make a friend :ok:

[MadamBreakneck]

Just a small point - are you sure it was 100ft? Do you have something to compare aircraft's height with?

I just ask, 'cos it's notoriously difficult judge the the height of an aircraft from the ground. Not saying you're wrong, just wondering if you might be.

Perhaps a neat way would be to ring up the owner (not necessarily the pilot) and ask what height they were at and tell them (politely) that you and others found it disturbing.

Hope you find an amicable solution.

MB

[BoeingBoy]

As I originally asked. Are microlights exempt the 500' rule?...no they're not, so I have my answer.

Thank you for your replies. If the miscreant appears in the same area again at the same height then I will deal with the matter locally.

BB.

[ShyTorque]

It's sometimes useful to read a poster's profile...... I think the original poster has quite some aviation experience himself and probably already knows about the problems of estimating the height of a passing aircraft. :)

[gasax]

And was completely unaware that a registered aircraft might not be exempt form the ANO?

Seems less than likely - all that air law?

[ShyTorque]

So you think he lied on his profile? I suppose he could have but it's not my concern and I'm not going to argue the toss. :hmm:

[BRL]

Just a small point - are you sure it was 100ft? Do you have something to compare aircraft's height with?

Got to say BB is one of the most experienced captains I know. (and old) :D

[flyingpig2303]

We have an ex BA training captain who now runs a small business getting people over their fear of flying yet is a mainstay of our local Nimbys. He has provided his expertise and credentials in an attempt to 'rubbish' the log book and booking in sheet evidence that we have submitted in support of our Certificate of lawful use application.
When that failed he has claimed that we have been flying unlawfully by virtue of the fact that we have 'admitted' training from an unlicensed airfield.

Perhaps the drivers of big planes are genuinely not aware of the regulations as they apply to us little boys.

You have your answer, hopefully there won't be a next time with this 'idiot' microlight pilot but if there is he really should be spoken to. Most of us don't bite and has already been said on this thread a polite complaint would be far more likely to get the required result than a whinge on here.

PS

Our locals had made one complaint in the past 20 years. as a club we have in that time had the occasional idiot that has flown inconsiderately but peer pressure soon stops that. The opposition from our local (4 miles from the strip) ex BA captain appears to be based on the fact that we have had the temerity to apply for the lawful use certificate only. :=

Dave

[MadamBreakneck]

Of course another point to remind readers is that the 500' rule applies to a 500 foot 'bubble' around the vessel, vehicle, structure or assembly of persons in question. It is perfectly possible and legal to go lower than 500 foot as long as the 'bubble' isn't infringed... except of course when the location is a 'congested area' in which case the 1000 foot rule (formerly the 1500' rule) applies.

MB

[ShyTorque]

The original question was not about the content or meaning of Rule 5, but whether or not it applied to a particular category of aircraft, which it does. :)

[Nibbler]

just for clarity

'congested area' in which case the 1000 foot rule (formerly the 1500' rule) applies.

I thought microlights were not allowed to overfly a congested area.

Can someone advise on this point?

[GyroSteve]

They are allowed to now.

[The Flying Pram]

The "Congested Area" overflight restriction for all U.K. permit aircraft was lifted recently.

[Nibbler]

thanks. that explains why i missed it.

[wulf190a]

Microlights have just recently been allowed to overfly built up areas, subject to the usual conditions










Wulf

[Crash one]

The rule preventing Permit aircraft from overflying was repealed recently.

Edit : must read page 2 first!

[flyingpig2303]

The reasoning given for lifting the congested area restriction for ALL permit aircraft (with a few sensible limitations) was that statistics have shown that bits fall off our machines with no more regularity than off C of A machines and we are no more likely to drop from the sky.

It did seem a bit strange to be lawfully flying my flexwing over parts of North London a couple of weekends ago.:ok:

[13thDuke]

and we are no more likely to drop from the sky
In a graceful and controlled manner obviously;)

Total thread drift here but, I understood that 2 stroke engines are more likely to fail than 4 stroke engines. Of course, your kite may also have a 4 stroke engine, but am I talking rubbish?

[Rod1]

“Permit aircraft” are now allowed to fly over built up arrears because they are less likely, based on accident stats, to brake up, than C of A aircraft. Engines will always fail, but this is covered by the glide clear rule, not the over flight restriction.

Rod1

[The Flying Pram]

Total thread drift here but, I understood that 2 stroke engines are more likely to fail than 4 stroke engines.

I've got nearly 1200 hrs in front of (it's a trike remember!) a Rotax 447 and it hasn't let me down yet. I think most of the "bad" reputation is down to poor handling and lack of regular servicing.

And don't assume that a "conventional" engine will never let you down - there used to be 2/3rds of a C90 crankshaft lying around in the local club room - it came from a Jodel I believe.

[BoeingBoy]

Before I become a despised Boeing Despot complaining loudly about private pilots enjoying themselves on a sunny afternoon for no good reason let me make one thing clear.

Firstly, I still fly a Chipmunk and a Cherokee and I am fully aware of the ANO regulations regarding low flying. However as my airline has operations manuals that total thousands of pages I have more important things to read than the various exceptions and rules that pertain to aircraft that I do not fly. Hence the reason that I asked a simple question. Are microlights exempt low flying rules? No they are not.

As for mentioning the area that the offence occured in, that is simply a way of letting the miscreant know that he should not reattempt his acts by virtue of someone on this forum having a word in his ear. Never underestimate the power of prune! (And it saves me time and motoring costs visiting the site)

As for whether I am angry at the person who wandered over my house at a height that I could read not only the registration, but the make and model of the aircraft. No, I'm not. I am simply jealous! If I had blasted over the house in the Chipmunk at 130kts at the same height and pulled up into a slow roll I would be on the CAA's door step the next morning........But would I do that if I thought I could get away with it? .....You bet!!:E

Let's leave it that folks. This thread is getting way beyond what was intended. The question is answered and the point made with the relevant message making it's way back to where it's needed.

Job done.