Calm down, it's the Kessock Bridge, no Tower Bridge....

[piesupper]

Investigation launched after two planes 'seen flying under bridge' | Highlands & Islands | News (http://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/1321752-investigation-launched-after-two-planes-seen-flying-under-bridge/)

[gordon field]

I read that the CAA have been notified, is it correct that though the CAA are responsible for investigation of such events but it is only the Procurator Fiscal's Office not the CAA that can bring charges in Scotland?

[DeltaV]

This is in my neck of the woods and it's a tempting thing to do and would, in my opinion, not really be dangerous but I'm sure it would fall foul of the 500ft clear rule.

Some years ago there were, if I recall correctly, three Spanish flyers who flew under the Ballachulish bridge, a much smaller structure and therefore more challenging and they all came out with a plea of being caught in a downdraft despite them taking it one at a time, so not really very convincing.

But if this Kessock bridge under-flight really occurred someone will have it on video, for everyone has a camera in their pocket these day and that's one reason for being circumspect with such stunts. Good fun I'm sure, but potentially costly in fines and maybe loss of licence.

Wish I'd seen it.

[Maoraigh1]

From voices heard on scanner, non-UK? Went along Loch Ness later? I heard from workers at the harbour.
Spanish guys did it at Ballachulish - prosecuted - got off on excuse of a downdraft.
An English guy flew a Pa28 under the Skye Bridge - prosecuted - got off on excuse of dodging a flock of seagulls.
I hope these guys are treated as a Scottish non-aristocrat would be treated by the legal system.
As I understand it, the CAA can pay to bring a prosecution in Scotland - and pay costs if it fails. The Procurator fiscal can prosecute even if the CAA decide not to - eg the successful prosecution of the C172 pilot who hit a car on approach to Insch, although the CAA decided not to take action.
PS A Chinook flew under it on an exercise - the pilot was said to have had permission.

[Jetblu]

Most probably a simultaneous carb ice issue. Glad that they climbed away ok. :)

[Vilters]

Judge : Did you have permission sir?
Pilot : Sure thing sir, I asked my wife.
-------------------------------------------

Judge : What happened?
Pilot : Sudden and uncontrollable increase in Earths Gravity sir.

-------------------------------------------

Judge : What happened?
Pilot : A boat filled with magnets pulled me down sir. Honest, cross my heart.

--------------------------------------------

Judge; What happened?
Pilot : Well sir, what goes up comes down. I was just in time to recover it and go up again.

--------------------------------------------

Judge; What happened?
Pilot : Well sir, newton said; "When the appel fell from the tree", and the rest is not so clear any more.
--------------------------------------------

Judge : Next !

"Would the pictures have been better if I had done it inverted?"
-----------------------------------------------
"My brother told me to do it backwards."

Furious pilot : "What clown build a bridge right in my flightpath! "

Judge : Why did you fly under that bridge?

Inocent looking pilot: "It was not there yesterday sir".

[Jetblu]

I'm not sure what all the fuss and news is about. Is there a Toll?

[9 lives]

Is there a Toll?

The toll is only for traveling along the axis of the bridge, not across it...

[Jetblu]

Ah ha. Makes more sense now. They just ducked it didn't they. :)

[The Ancient Geek]

Just someone having a bit of relatively safe but illegal fun. Nothing to see here, move along please.

Many years ago some idiot flew up the Avon Gorge and under the Bristol suspension bridge. Thats what I call dangerous, ISTR it was an RAF type but ICBW, it was a long time ago.

<Googles> - there have been several, including a police helicopter.
ASN Aircraft accident 03-FEB-1957 de Havilland Vampire FB.Mk 9 WR260 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=137052)
Stories from the archives | The Clifton Suspension Bridge (http://www.cliftonbridge.org.uk/visit/history/bridge-as-an-icon)

[Maoraigh1]

Not dangerous. Not requiring skill. Not legal. Previous non-Scottish pilots have got off with this. A Scottish based pilot was convicted (though the CAA decided not to prosecute) after getting too low on the approach and hitting a car on a road just short of the numbers.
If people want to do this sort of thing, do it in your home country, and take the consequences.

[Silvaire1]

If you're going to fly under a bridge, do as Jurgis Kairys does and let a few people know... so they can stand on the bridge and watch!

zz5AcbaJzLo

[N-Jacko]

Not dangerous. Not requiring skill. Not legal

Technically, even in that God-forsaken part of Scotland, it's not an offence until there has been a prosecution, a conviction, and the final appeal has failed. At present, no one has even set a toe on that ladder.

All we can hope for the time being is that the third pilot (the one who allegedly bottled it) was a Canadian or had some other valid excuse :ugh:

[Vilters]

With a Bonanza under the Eifel tower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_txdqnVP3-c

_txdqnVP3-c

[SWX833]

This is in my neck of the woods and it's a tempting thing to do and would, in my opinion, not really be dangerous but I'm sure it would fall foul of the 500ft clear rule.


If you are in this neck of the woods, you will no doubt be well aware that there is often maintenance work being undertaken to the underside of the bridge deck from a moving cradle. It's not uncommon to see steel hawsers, ropes, etc. hanging from it.

And there's plenty of boats passing under with rather tall masts that may be obscured by the bridge pillars until it's too late.

[phiggsbroadband]

Dangerous?... You might bump into other traffic coming the other way !

[dont overfil]

Two planes spotted flying under Kessock Bridge - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-32909867)

Piccies of the offenders and their buddy.

[BillieBob]

....but I'm sure it would fall foul of the 500ft clear rule.No longer exists. It's now 500ft above the ground or water or 500ft above the highest obstacle within a radius of 500ft from the aircraft.

[Unusual Attitude]

Did the CAA not opt to stick with what we had already with regards Rule 5? Sure I read that a couple of months back, not that I would ever fly below 500'....... ;)

As for the bridge bandits, certainly 2 of them are not from round these parts..... was it dangerous, not really, silly, most certainly.

Regards

UA

[gasax]

You've got to go to France for a microlight helicopter - where they are known as Category 6 aircraft.

Of course UK air is too complicated for them to fly in!

Mind you the way Inverness ATc 'police' the local airspace I'll be surprised if they did not ring plod at the time of the alleged offence!

[gasax]

I'm also pretty sure that the old 500 ft rule has been retained, not the otherwise universal 500 ft SERA rule which Billiebob quotes

[OpenCirrus619]

I'm also pretty sure that the old 500 ft rule has been retained, not the otherwise universal 500 ft SERA rule which Billiebob quotes

Correct (at least as far as I can see):

ORS4No1065.pdf (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1065.pdf)

Extract:
General (SERA.5005(f)(2))
a) The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105 and SERA.5005(f), an aircraft to fly at a height of less than 150 metres (500 feet) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 metres (500 feet) from the aircraft, subject to the condition set out in subparagraph (b).
b)The aircraft must not be flown closer than 150 metres (500 feet) to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure except with the permission of the CAA.

OC619

[pulse1]

I fancy a Microlight Helicopter.
How about this one. My neighbour has one but, up to now, he has only hovered it in his garden. I have no idea how legal it is.

Mosquito Aviation - Home of the Ultimate Ultralight Helicopter : Index (http://www.innovator.mosquito.net.nz/mbbs2/index.asp)

[BillieBob]

The ORS permission addresses only half of the SERA rule, that relating to the minimum distance from obstacles. There is no permission to fly at less than 500ft above ground or water.

[OpenCirrus619]

The ORS permission addresses only half of the SERA rule, that relating to the minimum distance from obstacles. There is no permission to fly at less than 500ft above ground or water.

a) The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105 and SERA.5005(f), an aircraft to fly at a height of less than 150 metres (500 feet) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 metres (500 feet) from the aircraft, subject to the condition set out in subparagraph (b).
b)The aircraft must not be flown closer than 150 metres (500 feet) to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure except with the permission of the CAA.

Am I missing something here - as I read it, providing I am 501 feet horizontally from "and person, vessel, vehicle or structure", then I am legal flying along 1 foot AGL.

OC619

[Prop swinger]

I find that ORS very puzzling, particularly the definition of obstacle in a):... above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 metres (500 feet) from the aircraft ...If you are 450' away from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure then you violate para b) & para a) does not apply. If you are 550' away from any person, etc then para b) is OK but para a) doesn't apply anyway.

The only way that the ORS makes sense is if you interpret obstacle as something that isn't a person, vessel, vehicle or structure. Ground, water & very tall trees would seem to be the only obstacles that aren't structures.

[gasax]

I was basing my comment on this;
Minimum Heights By Day

Although SERA changes the minimum height to a blanket 500 ft above the surface, the CAA has used the flexibility provided in SERA to allow aircraft in the UK to fly below 500 ft provided they are 500 ft away from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures – in other words no change from the UK’s former '500ft Rule' that people flying in the UK are used to applying. The CAA has also granted generic permissions to allow for all the long-standing exceptions to the old rule 5 that were contained in rule 6 – i.e. gliders hill-soaring, aircraft picking-up and dropping articles at aerodromes, practising forced landings and flying displays/air races/contests, to continue unaffected. Otherwise 1000 ft is the minimum height over cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft.


Which comes from the CAA website - of course that in itself does not necessarily make it true!!!!! It is however a lot more understandable than the ORS....... When is the highway code of the air going to be published? That might bring these threads to an end!

[Crash one]

My guess, yes.
I did that last week, no pier though.

[BillieBob]

Your guess is incorrect. Whatever the previously expressed intention of the CAA, the extent of the permission granted by the ORS is clear.

SERA.5005(f)(2) reads:

elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a height less than 150m (500 ft) above the ground or water, or 150m (500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150m (500 ft) from the aircraft.

The ORS specifies that the permission in relation to this requirement applies only to flight within 150m (500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150m (500 ft) from the aircraft but does not include permission to fly below 500 ft above the ground or water. This has the effect, in the UK, of amending the SERA requirement to read:

elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a height less than 150m (500 ft) above the ground or water, or closer than 150m (500 ft) to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure except with the permission of the CAA.

It may well be that this is yet another cock-up by an Authority that (as its middle management now openly admits) is in terminal decline but, until it is rectified, VFR flight below 500 ft above the ground or water is not permitted unless taking-off or landing or with the permission of the competent authority.

Should anyone object to flight along a 'deserted' beach at 20ft, one would be hard pushed to find legal justification before the beak.

[Crash one]

I don't have the rules in front of me but I remember recently, months, hearing that the EASA new version, 500 ft above the surface or anything, was rejected by the CAA in favour of the status quo, 500 foot rule.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

BillieBob,

I read it that you are granted a 'General Permission' to fly below 500ft by Para 2(a). The condition, at Para 2(b), further clarifies it to state that to exercise this permission, you must be in excess of 500ft from persons, vehicles etc, instead of having just a blanket permission to fly lower that 500ft, as the original permission in Para 2(a) states. A general permission with conditions...

Certainly confusing, and written in legalese by lawyers for simple pilots. No wonder it's a mess. Flying under a bridge is a dumb thing to do and of course, will end up giving the rest of us rich weekend hobby pilots a bad name from Joe public and the likes of the Daily Mail.

If only we had a small booklet like the Highway Code.....:E

[gasax]

Billiebob has it.

Whilst the CAA have published in various places that the old 500ft rule remains, the actual regulation prohibits flight at less than 500ft over ground or water.

Calling them a bunch of plonkers would seem to be an apt technical description of their collective ability. Publishing advice which their own enactment of the regulations makes incorrect just about sums up what is wrong with most of this sort of regulation!

[Crash one]

Standard British justice system, make the rule as ambiguous as possible then they can charge us whatever we do.

[dagowly]

http://flyontrack.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SERA.pdf

Sums it up nicely.

[gasax]

no dagowly, Irv has copied the same statement from the CAA that I quoted.

Billibob quoted the actual regulation, which as he states, does not agree with what the CAA published in these bulletins.

That the regulator can make such a mess really takes the biscuit.

[4RTR]

This morning I had the pleasure of meeting the two guys who flew under the bridge. They were on the homeward journey of an impressive trip from the Continent almost to the tip of the UK and back again, one in an open cockpit.
The bridge incident was not deliberate but forced on them by a combination of being caught in a down draught, not being on the same frequency as the seaplane flying above them and losing sight of him so not able to risk climbing in time to avoid the bridge. All told to me with a straight face over coffee.
Anyway, a very cool pair of flyers whom I had the privilege of flying in formation with on the start of their journey home this morning and am looking forward to meeting up with at their home field later in the year. Perhaps they will include a bridge or two in their familiarisation flight there also.....?

[27/09]

Standard British justice system, make the rule as ambiguous as possible then they can charge us whatever we do.

The converse also applies. The ambiguity also works in the defendants favour.

[DeltaV]

They were on the homeward journey of an impressive trip from the Continent almost to the tip of the UK and back again, one in an open cockpit.
In that case I think I can work out who one of them must have been so I'll be keeping an eye on his YouTube page to see if anything turns up.

Like Maoraigh1, while I really don't think this was in any way hazardous it'd be better if it didn't happen. We're presently fighting off an airspace grab by Inverness and although this exploit occurred below their ambitions it is another small incident with the potential to be used for chipping away at our freedoms.

I know of several losses of facilities that were triggered by the exuberant actions of one pilot. So while I don't want to be a killjoy, we really don't need more.

[Above The Clouds]

How high is the highest part of the road span above the water ?

If greater than 500ft (which I doubt is the case) but then of course they would have been clear of persons, objects, obstacles and vessels by 500ft vertically and laterally if flying at sea level, only a thought. :E

Those Scottish down drafts are very powerful :D

[2 sheds]

For the barrack room lawyers:


SERA:
(f) Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:
(1) 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;
(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water, or 150 m (500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m (500 ft) from the aircraft.

[dagowly]

Gasax, I'll be honest, the only place that argue over this is on pprune. I have been in touch with the CAA about this and they have stated that this:

the UK to fly below 500 ft provided they are 500 ft away from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures – in other words no change from the UK’s former '500ft Rule' that people flying in the UK are used to applying.

.. Is how we are to operate in the UK. So if you follow SERA, you're going to be safe and cautious, although we are allowed to operate under he previous 500' rule through the flexibility in the SERA document. This is where I think most of the confusion stems from.

It's actually laid down in black and white (well, blue) further in the main SERA document. Official Record Series 4 No.1065 General Permissions summarises it - pdf - http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1065.pdf

[gasax]

Dagowly if you cannot understand the post directly before your latest then I cannot help you.

I think there is no doubt the CAA intended to retain the old 500ft rule.

Unfortunately what they actually wrote into the regulation did not do that. Perhaps it is not surprising that they decline to admit their incompetence .

[Flyingmac]

150mtrs/500ft FROM the paddlers, Legal. Less than that, it isn't. Simples:).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5ln_IsWtsM

[2 sheds]

...and your reference for that statement, Flyingmac?

2 s

[N-Jacko]

I think there is no doubt the CAA intended to retain the old 500ft rule.


uncomfortable though it feels to side with the Cleptocracy Against Aviation (there being no kinder name for an agency which charges $60 to send an email and which can't bring itself to ask any of its executive board members to scrape by on less dosh than the British prime minister), the way I read the ORS is that it means exactly what it is intended to mean.

But more to the point, no court in the UK will ever decide otherwise, not least because no Prosecutor or Fiscal will see it as being in the public interest to argue that the CAA (peace and blessings, etc.) has its head up its institutional backside.

[2 sheds]

N-Jacko


I would have thought that quite the opposite would apply - that a court would have to abide by the law, European and UK, whatever the CAA might have intended.


2 s

[Flyingmac]

and your reference for that statement, Flyingmac?


2 Sheds. Rather than getting into a tedious debate, how about you interpreting rule 5 in the most restrictive way possible?


I'll continue to interpret rule 5 as I understand it. 500ft FROM, not ABOVE. Secure in the knowledge that I won't meet you coming the other way.:)

[Fly Through]

Check out UK AIP ENR 1.2-1 para 1.3

(a) General
(i) The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105 and SERA.5005(f), an aircraft to fly at a
height of less than 150 m (500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m (500 ft) from the aircraft,
subject to the condition set out in sub-paragraph (a)(ii).
(ii) The aircraft must not be flown closer than 150 m (500 ft) to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure except with the
permission of the CAA.

[Flyingmac]

Don't forget to trim slightly nose up. That way, should you relax your grip on the stick, you will climb. Watch out for gulls or grouse.:)