The 500ft rule

[JimL]

Those of you who have spent a large amount of time establishing the exact meaning of UK Rule 5 will be pleased to hear that the proposed European rule (which supersedes the UK rule in 2012) will revert to the exact ICAO Annex 2 text:

4.6 Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:

a) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons at a height less than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;

b) elsewhere than as specified in 4.6 a), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water.

Consultation documents can be found at:

EUROCONTROL - SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY MANDATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDISED EUROPEAN RULES OF THE AIR (SERA) (http://www.eurocontrol.int/enprm/public/standard_page/enprm10002.html)

Jim

[VeeAny]

Jim

This was mentioned by Jeremy James at the BHA pre season brief last week, if anyone disagrees with it and I am sure there are those of us that do, they must comment on the Eurocontrol website individually
.

Don't copy the words of others there is a duplicate submission removal tool, and don't expect that big organisations have big voices.

Gary

[nigelh]

So what is the change for helicopter pilots ?

[notar]

500ft agl as opposed to 500ft separation distance

[md 600 driver]

nigel

maybe its this bit as well

b) elsewhere than as specified in 4.6 a), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water

[Hughes500]

I would vote to keep UK 500 ft rule, much better than Euro rubbish

[JimL]

It is not clear that individuals have a voice in this; the registration and comment document appears to require the declaration of an organisation.

This is not the only proposal, there is a prohibition for flight at night with a cloud base below 1500ft (even for offshore). Night IFR below 3000ft in the 'UK' sense is also not possible as the proposal appears to introduce the spectre of Night VFR (quite unusual in Europe).

It is quite brutal in its approach appearing to remove the ability even to fly the declared IFR levels in such as the North Sea (when there is the chance of icing).

EASA is not to blame this time - Eurocontrol who did it on their own without seeking guidance; clearly it has not been recognised that ICAO Annex 2 was the fore-runner of Annex 6 and, for that reason, has a large number of Operational Rules contained within its covers (not just rules of the air). For the USA, most of the Annex 2 rules can be found in FAR 91.

Jim

[cjbiz]

from an instructional point of view, if the rule prohibits aircraft from operating below 500' (unless taking off or landing, or under prior permission) it would certainly be restrictive in terms of teaching for example confined area operations and pfls.

:ugh:

[helimutt]

and we never go above 3000' IFR!!!

You sure this is correct Jim and if so, when does it actually come into force? I cant see it happening in the uk anytime soon. Not as if CHC will be worried though as they won't be around much longer in the UK at this rate!:eek:

[VeeAny]

Jim

Substitute 'individual organisations' into my earlier ramblings , I think the premise still stands one organisation one voice, regardless of size.

Anyone at EuroControl care to confirm this is the case for us ? Not to comment on the consultation just the process.

Gary

[FLY 7]

I attended the HCGB meeting where this was discussed and, if I'm correct, it's part of a proposed standardisation of European flight rules.

It did highlight the value of HCGB in identifying and representing our interests in such matters. Apparently there are c.500 UK members of HCGB - more than all the other European clubs put together - so, presumably, they can't have much clout when it comes to defending their interests.

[rotordude]

JimL wrote:
there is a prohibition for flight at night with a cloud base below 1500ft (even for offshore)

This must be enroute, right? Well, even if it is enroute, it doesn´t make any sense.
There are several IFR procedures that takes you safely below 1500ft offshore at night. Enroute Descent Offshore, NDB Cloud Break Procedure and ARA, have all their respective minima well below 1500ft.

[kevin_mayes]

Hmm, "open-air assembly of persons "
That could be three or four yobs on the Street corner...?
Kev

[JimL]

I have posted the link to the proposed new rules - you should go and read them rather than speculate on whether they will apply (they will from 2012).

With regard to CAT:

Clearly the imposition of the cloud base limitation of 1,500ft at night affects a number of existing operations. The reason I mentioned that Eurocontrol did not consult operational experts is because it should have been clear that appropriate rules and mitigation exist in JAR-OPS 3 (3.465 and, for HEMS, the appropriate Appendix). This also applies to the 500ft rule.

Hence, both rules could have had an appropriate derogation to "or as prescribed in the applicable air operations legislation" put into Paragraphs 4.3 d) and 4.6.

With regard to GA:

Defence of the UK rules might be appropriate but they are rather out-on-a-limb in Europe - can the UK hold its position in a debate where they are in a minority of one. (Interestingly, the UK 500ft rule is similar to that provided for the US, Canada - not sure about other States.)

Helimutt,

Don't confuse the issue - it is the requirement to fly to the levels explicitly stated in the Appendix to the Proposal that is the issue; not that IFR cannot be flown. That might preclude all 'special' level structures that have been provided for opposing traffic in specific areas.

Rotordude,

Yes, it will have an effect both on night en-route let-down and night (and day) inter-rig shuttling - all of which have appropriate safeguards built in to 3.365 and 3.465. Not too much effect on the offshore en-route let down except that it will raise the forecast night cloud ceiling from 1,200ft to 1,500ft (based upon the fact that en-route let down will have to be followed by a VFR section).

Jim

[MightyGem]

teaching for example confined area operations and pfls.

I though that you couldn't do that anyway, because there is no intention to land? (Just recalling my instructor getting twitchy because there was a tractor in the next field when I was doing an auto during my 206 requal many years agao.)

[nigelh]

I know we should all jump up and down and shout about this but i am afraid the suits have well and truly taken over . There are so many daft rules that most of us dont even know exist . If you are flying AOC i quite understand how this could effect but quite frankly for most private flyers they wont notice any difference !!! I have flown for over 30 yrs never really being sure what hight i am allowed at ( one mimute its 1500 over built up areas then 1,000 ) Just let them get on with it and do your own thing if flying private :ok: The commercial boys have only themselves to blame for allowing the likes of the CAA to squeeze them to death and impose daft rules ....someone should have told them where to get off years ago but it is too late now . Just have your reg as small as possible and paint it mil colours and noone will report you :ok:

[flap flap flap]

Look at the number of prosecutions for low flying each year. Close to zilch.

CAA Prosecutions | About the CAA | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=503&pagetype=90&pageid=6484)

How the hell does joe public know how high you are anyway?

Unless they have some sort of measuring device (unlikely).

I guess they could get the radar trace, but they would only do that if you either crashed/caused a crash/flew over some sort of gathering/Head of CAA's house at 50 feet.

I agree with Nigel, just carry on regardless!

[chopjock]

I though that you couldn't do that anyway, because there is no intention to land? (Just recalling my instructor getting twitchy because there was a tractor in the next field when I was doing an auto during my 206 requal many years agao.)You can change your mind anytime whilst landing or attempting to land.:)
For example, you are flying along at 200 feet and someone complains. In your defense you could say you were attempting to land and then changed your mind, the fact that it may have taken you a long time is not against the ANO.

[sunnywa]

4.6 Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:
a) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons at a height less than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;

b) elsewhere than as specified in 4.6 a), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water.

These are the same rules as Australia follows and should not hurt anyone who is flying in the spirit of the regs. It would be hard to ping anyone for flying 500ft AGL vs Above obstacles vs separation as hard to prove you flew exactly over a 200ft mast or building. Unless you are blatting along at 100ft over a town, they have no hope of prosecuting you. It would be very hard to ping you on the 600m radius thing as well (Sir, in my opinion I was more than 600m from the built up area).

The 1500ft thing for IFR is, in Australia anyway, based on the fact the lowest LSALT is 1500ft, even over the sea, and IFR aircraft cannot transit below LSALT. The descents to rigs etc would surely be authorised by the CAA under approval of the companies Ops Manual, so when they sign off on the OM, they sign off on the IFR let down.

IMHO anyway, nothing here to get upset about. :ok:

[ShyTorque]

In UK, radar returns are recorded. It is possible for a recording to be brought in evidence.

Presumably these new rules for IFR affect operations to and from off-airport sites, which would be an issue to some of us involved with the onshore helicopter industry. The requirement to submit a flight plan for any IFR / night flight would effectively limit or even curtail them when there is no practical way for pilots to submit a flight plan from a field location. Many helicopter operators do not man an ops cell.

It seems to me that the authorities now wish to be made aware of all flights for the purpose of imposing charges. They are now finally going to tax the use of the air in the open FIR as if they own it.

[rotorfan]

(Just recalling my instructor getting twitchy because there was a tractor in the next field when I was doing an auto during my 206 requal many years agao.)I recall the same scenario, doing autos to a field, only I was the twitchy one about the tractor ahead. Instructor says "It's just another obstacle, stay away from it." I think I was mainly concerned about Farmer Joe soiling his shorts when something big falls out of the sky near him.:E

[JimL]

sunnywa,

Please don't miss the point; there are a number of safe practices that would be in breach of the 500ft rule such as 'offshore shuttling' and 'HEMS operations' - both of which are currently permitted (conditionally) below 500ft.

En-route let down is an procedure to permit a descent offshore below LSALT (only with RADAR) to VFR before reaching the destination (to avoid a ARA to a complex where there may be many platforms/rigs). It is not an approach procedure per se. If the required cloud ceiling for VFR at night is 1,500ft (currently 1,200ft to permit VFR en-route transit at 1,000ft), it will force an ARA under circumstances where the en-route descent is the safer option. It will also prevent a night VFR inter-rig transit with a cloud base less than 1,500ft.

The OM cannot contain a procedure that is in contravention of the Rules of the Air; in any case, competence for these rules has been taken by the Airspace Agency (not the Aviation Safety Authority) which has resulted in VFR operational limitations being eliminated from EASA OPS - this has removed the basis for OM procedures in compliance with regulations.

Up to now, Operational Regulations have contained the limitations for such operations with appropriate mitigation.

There is no problem with IFR; however, in the North Sea there are IFR route structures which have low level collision avoidance levels (mostly for icing avoidance). These might now be in contravention of the levels contained in the Appendix to the new regulation.

No, none of this is a big deal but the proposed regulation has been drafted by airspace experts who have no operational experience. ICAO Annex 2 (Rules of the Air) is a combination Annex; it was produced well before Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft) and therefore contains the first attempt at providing SARPs for operations. The distribution of rules between the two Annexes has never been regularised.

Jim

[nigelh]

Shy ..can they use radar even if you Txsponder is off ? I would have thought there would be so many places they lose contact if you are v low that it would be impossible to prove the contact was you ? This of course adds greatly to safety as we will all now be turning ours off when going low level :rolleyes:

[John Eacott]

The 1500ft thing for IFR is, in Australia anyway, based on the fact the lowest LSALT is 1500ft, even over the sea, and IFR aircraft cannot transit below LSALT.

I'm sure that you know that the Australian LSALT calculation is based on 1000ft above the highest point plus 360 feet for undeclared obstructions :ok:

AIP GEN 4.5 (http://www.airservices.gov.au/publications/current/aip/gen/3_3_1-24.pdf) deals with NVFR, and 2.2.1 (http://www.airservices.gov.au/publications/current/aip/gen/3_2_1-10.pdf) is for IFR/En route calculations. 1500ft is the lowest allowed LSALT based on rounding up from these figures.

[oldbeefer]

Can't see the problem with a CA recce - the whole point of doing it is to choose the best option for the subsequent approach and landing. If you choose not to do that approach, so what!

[JimL]

If the regulations that John has shown are the only ones, it would appear that night VFR cannot be flown below LSALT either!

I just wonder how offshore inter-rig shuttling is conducted at night when the cloud ceiling is below 1,500ft; surely it does not require an IFR departure and arrival every time?

Jim

[ShyTorque]

nigelh, I'm a professional pilot.

There is no way I intend to switch off my transponder, which alerts other TCAS/TAS users to my presence, to break the rules, however new, stupid or arbitrary.

Even so, primary radar returns are also recorded. The AIRPROX system uses this facility.

This needs to be taken very seriously as it has the potential to change the face of GA. How am I supposed to tell the owner of the aircraft I fly that I can no longer do the very same flights that I have been legally and safely doing for years until some EU department with no operational knowledge stuck their noses in?

[chopjock]

nigelh
Shy ..can they use radar even if you Txsponder is off ? I would have thought there would be so many places they lose contact if you are v low that it would be impossible to prove the contact was you ? This of course adds greatly to safety as we will all now be turning ours off when going low level :rolleyes:I agree with you. But you do not have to switch off the transponder, just de select mode "C" when low level.:ok:

[Skittles]

As a low hour student pilot (having sat the air law exam, but am currently separated from my book) can I just clarify the proposed change in rules?

From my understanding, as long as you are currently more than 500 feet from the nearest person or habitation/obstacle etc, you can hug the groud to within 5 feet if you really wanted to.

With the new rules however, you could be flying over the atlantic with nothing but water for 50 miles in every direction, and still you'd have to fly at 500ft minimum height?

Now I don't think I'll be a low-level junkie by any means, but one of the things I'm looking forward to after getting my license (and some experience and training of relatively low level flying) is taking a plane up to some remote spot in the lake/peak district etc (where the nearest pair of eyes for miles is those on a sheep) and having a 'low and slow' at 300ft-ish. Would be a shame if such practises were outlawed.

[FLY 7]

I agree.

The current UK rules are common sense, appear to work, and I'm not aware of any logical reason why this rule needs to change.

However, if it is allowed to change - perhaps through apathy - there will be no going back. And then, once someone decides it has to be enforced, it could severely limit many normal operations.

It would be useful to know which organisations (such as HCGB) can lobby on our behalf to support our interests.

[timex]

So turning your transponder off (or just Mode C) is a good Idea?

What about those who legally Operate LL and now have the added bonus of you breaking the rules (however you disagree with them) to contend with?

[Skidkid]

nigelh

I would have thought there would be so many places they lose contact if you are v low that it would be impossible to prove the contact was you ?

Have you thought about when you are flying close to the radar heads? The modern ones have a very good 'look down' capability and can see you down to ground level. Do you know where the radar heads are, so that you can avoid them? Did you know that, in most modern countries, their pictures are all linked into a central system and recorded?

Have you considered the many AEW, AWACS and ASTOR aircraft that fly around our airspace and can even watch road vehicles travelling along the ground? Most of their radar pictures are downloaded into the Air Defence Radar systems and are also recorded. It then becomes very easy to track your route, your origin, your destination and flight times even if you have your transponder turned off!

If you want to break the rules, that's up to you. But don't expect that you are not going to get caught.

[Bertie Thruster]

there are a number of safe practices that would be in breach of the 500ft rule such as 'offshore shuttling' and 'HEMS operations' - both of which are currently permitted (conditionally) below 500ft.

JimL; though in Jarops 300ft is the min cloud base for HEMS, I don't think the CAA have issued any UK AOC HEMS operator with an exemption from the ANO 500ft rule.

[spinwing]

MMmm .....

Don't PANIC ..... I'm sure that those operators who have an operational requirement for operations to be carried out below 500' above the surface will be able to obtain the necessary exemption from the rule ... as may be required.

Certainly that has been the case in countries such as Australia for years!



Hasn't it John ??? ;)

[toptobottom]

Have I missed something? What's the logic behind restricting flight over open water to not less than 500'? :confused:

[nigelh]

I understand the logic that it is possible for you to be traced and caught ...all i am saying is that people have broken the 500ft rule for years flying over houses etc ( sometimes you may have to due to low cloud etc ) and are vitually never reported , so why should that change now ? I think that as long as you are not being annoying ie constantly flying low over a village , then nothing should change . We should still try to stop it as once it is law it will be around for ever !! A lot of this rubbish comes from Europe ..i now hear that our foreign bosses want to protect Black backed sea gulls and next crows ,so we will be lucky to have any small birds around at all within a few years .:D

[Robbo Jock]

How would this affect flight instruction? Hover square, fast stops, precision transitions etc. All below 500 ft and none of it for the purposes of take off or landing.

[Skittles]

Out of interest, who represents pilots on matters such as this?

I understand there are probably several different units representing different levels of pilot.

[Robbo Jock]

As for low approaches and go-arounds, I seem to recall a chap (fixed-wing) being prosecuted some years back because he did exactly that. Unfortunately, too many years and beers have passed for me to recall specifics, but I think that in checking out a farm strip, he did a low approach and went around. Can't recall if he subsequently returned and landed or decided it was too tight and disappeared off somewhere else, but someone (an airline pilot, IIRC) complained to the CAA that he'd broken Rule 5 and they concurred. They interviewed him and decided that, as he wasn't intending to land he was in breach, took him to court. Don't recall the outcome, but there could be a problem with the "I was flying low to see if I could get in" defence.

[JDurrant]

Don't shoot me down for what I am about to say, as I am still new to this game and I am discovering the sad truth about the endless stream of rules and regs in aviation.

Just playing devils advocate here but if you have the transponder selected "ON" you will still be spotted on TCAS/TAS but without height info, so LL safety is not an issue. The primary radar only returns position, and height can only be determined through the PA reading carried on the signal. If ALT or Mode C is not selected that PA reading cannot be beamed back to the SSR.

I cannot see how this can be practically enforced. I would have thought mode C is not effective below 500' anyway unless you are in line of sight of a radar or your flying over Norfolk, or one gets reported by an aircraft with TCAS fitted?

The only way around this would be to phase out non MODE C transponders, then the possibility to avoid detection would be to switch them off, which essentially is what the daft eurocrats would be encouraging by enforcing such a drakonian law. To make matters worse, I suspect most european pilots would treat it with the contempt it deserves and with little or no consequence, and we would be the only ones abiding through fear of CAA action.

My conclusion is that some Brussels ecohippy bureaucrat has come up with this idea and assumed that all GA have wings. A friend of mine who passed his test recently would have breached this rule on at least 4 occassions and that was just away from the airfield. How else can you demonstrate the ability to handle autos safely and effectively. Somebody should send these clever elected people a picture of a helicopter, as a subtle reminder.:ugh:

[Helinut]

JD,

I believe that most/many low flying cases are investigated following complaints from neighbours and people in the vicinity. I recall that the Feds have a "CSI branch" that can determine height from a photograph of the miscreant and such similar non-cricketing activities.

[chopjock]

I have an idea, when this new rule becomes active, why don't we all ask the CAA for an exemption so that we can practice our auto's? Perhaps if they are in undated with requests they might respond? :rolleyes:

[Helinut]

Given that the ICAO 500 ft height rule is in place in many countries, can anyone comment upon how the sort of LL flying that we want to keep is done in those countries?

[nigelh]

I think it is a bit like the 70 MPH motorway speed limit ...we all know its there but noone takes any notice of it :D
How many prosecutions are there each year for low flying ? I think the chances of getting caught are very slim and you would have to be taking the p*ss .

[ShyTorque]

Nigelh,

You seem to be missing the point here. Rule 5 is becoming stricter and it will be easier to determine if this "new interpretation" is being broken. The CAA often don't bother with a prosecution if they don't forsee a good chance of success. In future, they might well decide to proceed with more cases.

[cjbiz]

How would this affect flight instruction? Hover square, fast stops, precision transitions etc. All below 500 ft and none of it for the purposes of take off or landing.

presumably as these exercises are completed on airfield they would come under the banner 'helicopters manoeuvering' and therefore:

"(i) Subject to paragraph (ii), a helicopter shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule
if it is conducting manoeuvres, in accordance with normal aviation practice,
within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome or, with the
written permission of the CAA, at other sites.
(ii) When flying in accordance with this exemption the helicopter must not be
operated closer than 60 metres to any persons, vessels, vehicles or
structures located outside the aerodrome or site."

should hopefully still be safe there...:ok:

[Robbo Jock]

cjbiz,
That's the current rule 5. The proposed new one just seems to make a flat statement: "...shall not be flown ... at a height less than 150m (500ft)...".
I've had a quick wander through the Draft Implementing Rule and I can't see any equivalent of that exemption.

[R44-pilot]

So if the whole 'training from unlicensed airfields' goes ahead, this new rule just seems to ruin it... Or am I missing something?

As has been asked, I understood the current rule (for qualified pilots not sudents) that one could go down to say 5 feet in a field in the middle of nowhere or over open water etc...

So how does this new rule fit into training at unlicensed airfield?:confused:

[cjbiz]

Robbo

Should probably have put more emphasis on the word hopefully in my last post!

CJ

[Robbo Jock]

Maybe I should have read it more carefully. :O

I've submitted a comment to the effect of "How's about adopting these bits of the CAA's Rule 5?" (separation and the bit you quoted above). Undoubtedly be completely ignored, but worth a try.