Low Flying

[Tiger_ Moth]

I wondered, how legal is low flying provided its not over a built up area and not in controlled airspace? Does it depend if the club/owner of the plane allows you or is it banned for everyone? By low I mean hedge hopping kind of height, under 50ft-ish type stuff? Dont worry, im not going to start flying circuits at 10 ft or anything , im just curious.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Tiger,

I would ask ,Why fly low, unless you are landing, the land and trees belong to some one, so in theory you would be breaking Rule 5, and what would you do if things went quiet!

[FlyingForFun]

tm,

Quick answer is 500'.

There are a number of different rules (1500', 500', 1000m, ability to land clear, and that's just for VFR - there's a different set for IFR!)

Even 500' isn't necessarilly the lowest you can go. You have to be 500' from any person, vehicle, vessel or structure (or something like that) so if you can find a completely isolated piece of land, you can fly at 10' if you want. (Not saying it's safe, but it might be legal.)

Don't worry - you'll have to learn all this for your air law exam! And you can ask your instructor for more clarification, too, if you want - that's what he's there for.

Take care,

FFF
---------

[SlipSlider]

Not offered as 'gospel', my understanding is that the "minimum 500 foot" rule would be the key, interpreted as being the required separation from living creature (man/animal) or man-made object ..... not trees or land as such, not birds (presumably), not other aircraft (formation flying?), and not when landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice.

Thus for example 10 foot agl could be legal, providing you can guarantee no person / animal / man-made object within a 500 foot radius. Not easy to guarantee.

Similarly 10 foot above the sea could also be legal, providing lateral separation from yachts, ferries etc is at least 500 foot.

Lack of any safety margin is of course a separate issue....

[tiger burn]

Tiger_Moth, get yourself out to NZ & have some fun in the S Island tickling the sheep & barnstorming! Its a different world as its so underpopulated, but safety remains paramount. :D

[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: tiger burn ]

[foxmoth]

I think you will find that animals do not come into it, but structure can be taken as such a simple thing as a fence post, so you need to be very sure that you are clear of even simple things such as these.
Over the sea is legal, BUT, it can be very difficult to judge height accurately and people have been known to fly into the sea getting this wrong!

[tiger burn]

Always, always remember the high tension wires. Many experienced pilots have been caught out by those. Unfortunately, complacency kills :(

[fallen eagle]

Hi Given all the previous advise,ie,500 ft from any person,vessel or structure etc not animals or birds/how many of the latter have been wiped out in bird strikes with no action by the C.A.A./bUT NO MATTER HOW FAR AWAY YOU ARE from the person vessel etc if some good person sees what fun you are having within the law and dont like it /cos they arnt having fun/ the C.A.A.May always prosecute you for endangering the aircraft and or its occupants.Thats a fact.I love low safe flying but,its too worrying with all the do gooders and anti flying people to get the enjoyment now. Bye for now

[Evo7]

While the 500' rule applies to people but not animals, you can (apparently) get done for causing distress to the animals by flying below 500 feet. Can't remember exactly why - I don't think it is part of the ANO - but I believe it has happened. It's in my notes at home.

T_M: Read the warning on page 24 of Thom book 2 first..... :)

[A and C]

A fence post is not a structure acording to rule 5 if it was then i would be jail along with a lot of other instructors who go below 500ft when teaching EFATO and FL,s.

[Evo7]

A quick addition to my earlier post now I have my notes:

Rule 5(1)(e) - The 500ft rule does not preclude flight closer than 500 feet to animals, but you could be in breach of Article 56 of the ANO, which refers to recklessly or negligently endangering property. The could be is one of the many grey areas of Rule 5. Flying Lawyer could probably tell a story or two here.

This is (unsurprisingly) further complicated by the fact that a pilot may be trespassing when he flies over someone's property, but Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act precludes action for trespass or nuisance if the flight is made at a reasonable height and in accordance with aviation legislation. Argue what reasonable means in court. Under 500 feet probably doesn't count.


A & C: This bit seems unclear. You could be correct, but equally Rule 5(3) relaxes Rule 5 when the flight is for the purposes of saving life. It might be argues that teaching EFATO's is covered by Rule 5(3), but that otherwise Rule 5 applies.

(edit)Just to add a possibly useless definition, "a Structure is a thing that has been a contstructed". A tree doesn't count. A fencepost - maybe? The courts decide.

Guess who is studying Air Law... :)

HTH

[ 05 September 2001: Message edited by: Evo7 ]

[Tiger_ Moth]

So many rules :(

[A and C]

Having sat in court for two days wile i mate of mine was in the dock for breaching rule 5 wile teaching EFATO the whole CAA case was based on his "reported" proximity to persons and houses.

He was undoubtedly nearer than 500ft to a fence but the CAA took the view that it was the houses and people that matterd.

As it happend the case was dismissed but im sure that if a fence was within the bounds of rule 5 then the NIMBYS who (in my opinion) fabricated the evidence for this case would be crying fowl by now.

[flying snapper]

I was reading my Thom book last night on low flying and it says "avoid annoying people" which is what I do. I try to stay away from annoying people as much as possible but my boss is really p@£$%^g me off right now and I can't avoid him!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Coming home last night in a slow aeroplane against a horrible headwind I decided to duck down and avoid the worst windstrength. I flew 500ft msd, but was probably as low as 200ft agl at times. I've done this before, but have been taught how to, I wouldn't recommend self-teaching low flying skills.

It's important from a safety viewpoint to fly field-to-field, if you've always got an open field in mind for when the engine coughs, safety isn't jeapardised and much of the "not annoying people" problem is resolved automatically. No field to land in - climb as a matter of habit to keep in glide range of one.

You have to be prepared to climb or go-around houses and even tractors, which I do.

You have to be prepared for some *&(&j horrible turbulence, which as usual I met.

The navigational task is also very different and much more demanding low-level, normal principles don't necessarily apply. You can't see as far, and landmarks look totally different.

But it saved me 10 minutes coming home, and I got a great view of a (completely unconcerned) stag in the middle of a cornfield. How do so many deer exist in the middle of Hampshire without most of the population knowing they're there?

G

[Noggin]

The greatest danger when flying low is from high speed military aircraft who regularly operate at around 250 ft and at speeds in excess of 400 kts, they wont see you and can't avoid you. So, regardless of the laws staying above 500 ft has a lot to commend it.

If you want to fly low, go air racing.

[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: Noggin ]

[Kermit 180]

Having to fly low due to bad weather and or low visbility can be a sign of bad planning or judgement. Consider not going if there is any doubt as to the weather or visibility on the proposed route. If airborne and find conditions deteriorating, consider diverting to another aerodrome or carrying out a precuationary landing somewhere if things are beyond your ability. However, flying low at legal heights is okay if you are both competent, sensible and have an escape route should things turn to custard.

The margins for error are greatly reduced at low level and certainly, as Genghis says, navigation is very different due to the lack of visibility range. It is easy if you are unaccustomed to flying low to become disorientated. A common error is to assume you know where you are because you think you have travelled further than you really have (remember things appear to be faster at low level because drift and ground speed are more apparent). Keep navigating. But remember, as always, AVIATE NAVIGATE COMMUNICATE.

Anyway, a few thoughts on low flying based on my own experiences.

Kermie :)

[Speedbird252]

C`mon Tigger, youve started your lessons now. You should have also started your Air Law.

You should be able to tell us more like....! ;)

[InFinRetirement]

Low flying is essentially a form of flying that only a few can really do well. The rules have been well stated here and should be adhered to.

I was trained in the Army in Auster 7's and 9's and I can tell you it is an exhilarating experience when you are a mere few feet above the ground. The real problem arises when you are unfamiliar with the area you are flying. The hidden dangers ALWAYS prevail. Such as man made structures that do not appear on any map, power lines that you suddenly find, that you have missed on a map, which you should NEVER attempt to go over, you will rarely ever make it.

Our army flying was carefully planned over well used areas of Salisbury Plain but unfamiliar areas are a danger.

One final word. Low speed may sound as though it is the safest way to low fly but this is a foolish notion. You should always fly at least cruise speed. That way you are more likely to get out of unexpected problem than to to stall your way into a problem, or worse, a crash.

Also, as Foxmoth quite rightly says. If you can low fly over the sea beware of the horizon and the sea merging. This is very dangerous situation. Just never go below 100'.

[Captain Dan (2be)]

Introduction

The source document for this information is contained in the UK ANO Rules of the air, in particular Rule 5. It is important to read this rule carefully, but its content is summarised here.

500’ Rule (Rule 5e)

This rule states that: An aircraft shall not fly any closer than 500’ to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure It does not mean that you cannot fly below 500’. As long as there are no persons, vessels, vehicles or structures in the area (below or 500’ to the side) then you may fly as low as you like. For example over a large lake with no boats or swimmers you can fly at one foot altitude if you wish. The same applies over a deserted moorland with no fences or tractors around. However, since it is very hard to determine what structures etc may be in the vicinity (and in the interests of safety), 500’ should be regarded as a minimum for most purposes.

There are of course exceptions to this rule:

Police aviation operations
Officially organised Air Displays
Taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice
A glider which is hill soaring
Picking up or dropping banners etc at an aerodrome
Note that the exception for take off and landing specifies in accordance with normal aviation practice. This means that you cannot practice an engine failure after take off below 500’ or descend to below 500’ in the exercise (unless the climb out path was over the sea for example), since this is not normal aviation practice.

1500’ Rule (Rule 5a)

This rule states that: An aircraft shall not fly over any congested area of a city, town or settlement below

Such height as would enable the aircraft to alight clear without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of the failure of a power unit. (If such an aircraft is towing a banner, such height shall be calculated on the basis that the banner shall not be dropped within the congested area) or
A height of 1500’ above the highest fixed obstacle within 600m of the aircraft
--Whichever is higher—

The ANO defines a congested area as: Any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes. Helicopters have slightly different rules not covered here.

So in the vicinity of built-up areas, we must maintain a minimum of 1500’ above the highest obstacle within 600m. If the built up area is very large, eg London, then clearly 1500’ is not enough height to glide clear in the event of an engine failure, so we would have to fly higher than this. We cannot plan to force land in Hyde Park since this would clearly represent danger to persons and property on the surface. For this reason, only multi-engined aircraft fly over Central London.

Again there are some exceptions to this rule:

On Special VFR flight, the part about 1500’ within 600m is waived, but not the requirement to land clear.
On special routes notified for the purpose (usually entry and exit lanes to airports in or near control zones)
Police Aviation Operations
Taking off or landing at licensed aerodromes.
Open Air Assemblys (Rule 5d)

This rule states that:

An aircraft shall not fly over or within 1000m of any assembly in the open air of more than 1000 persons assembled for the purpose of witnessing or participating in any organised event.
Below such height as would enable it to alight clear of the assembly in the event of the failure of a power unit. (If such an aircraft is towing a banner, such height shall be calculated on the basis that the banner shall not be dropped within 1000m of the assembly)


So note that we cannot fly within 1000m (about 3300’) either overhead or to the side.

Interestingly, note that we cannot fly overhead an any altitude. In theory this means that a 747 cannot fly over an open air rock concert even at 39 000’. This is clearly ridiculous, and so another paragraph is included as follows:

Where a person is charged with an offence under the order ..... it shall be a good defence to prove that the flight of the aircraft ..... was made at a reasonable height and for a reason not connected with the assembly..... Thus although technically in breach of the rule, a prosecution would be unlikely.

Exceptions to this rule are:

Police operations
When written permission of the CAA has been obtained
Officially organised Air Displays

[FlyingForFun]

Capt Dan,

I'm a bit confused as to why you've brought back this thread from 3 1/2 years ago, especially since all you've done is repeat the answers which were given at the time. Unfortunately, though, your reply is not only 3 1/2 years late, but it's also out of date. The low-flying rules were updated recently. See here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%205%20amended%201%20April%202005.pdf).

FFF
--------------