500 and 1000 foot rule

[Monocock]

Please can one of the clever CAP quoters remind me of the difference between the 500 and 1000 rule when using an unlicensed site for landing/departing? I seem to recall there is a 1000* foot requirement when using an unlicensed strip, and 500 when it's a licenced one???

* Unless with an instructor, when it's 500 feet???

[Johnm]

There ain't no such thing no more as far as I know, basically you can't take off or land within 1000 metres of any gathering unless you are arriving or departing from a recognised airstrip.

[Croqueteer]

:ok: Doesn't apply if you're "Landing in accordance with normal aviation procedures." and that includes private strips. A low level pass or a go around into a private strip is technicaly illegal.

[Monocock]

Ok, that's good news, although it doesn't tally with an LAA article a few years ago which is why I wanted to reconfirm the rules.

So, as it stands, it's perfectly ok for me to land over the M4 into a grass paddock? I miss the road by about 50 feet.

[Dash8driver1312]

...unless a Special Cargo 51' tall is being transported along the motorway at the time...

[BEagle]

Monocock asked: So, as it stands, it's perfectly ok for me to land over the M4 into a grass paddock? I miss the road by about 50 feet.

Provided that, in the event of engine failure, you can glide clear of the road, of course.

[Mach Jump]

My general understanding is that, when taking off, landing, and practicing approaches, (intentional go-arounds) at a licenced airfield, you are exempt from the 500', and the 1,000' rule.

When taking off and landing at an unlicenced airfield, you are exempt from the 500', but not the 1,000' rule.

There are some exceptions for training flights.


MJ:ok:

Ps. I've subsequently discovered that, under SERA, the 1,000' rule no longer applies, so long as you are taking off or landing, regardless of the type of airfield. It does still apply to practice approaches(intentional go arounds) at unlicenced airfields.

[Above The Clouds]

I have to ask, when is a private strip a private strip or just a field ? reason I landed in field with permission of the land owner but clearly it was just a field and not listed as a private strip.

[ShyTorque]

My general understanding is that, when taking off, landing, and practicing approaches, (intentional go-arounds) at a licenced airfield, you are exempt from the 500', and the 1,000' rule.

When taking off and landing at an unlicenced airfield, you are exempt from the 500', but not the 1,000' rule.

That is correct (but insert "Government or" before unlicensed airfield. You need to obtain a written permission from the CAA to land at an unlicensed site in a congested area. £113 per application at the last count. I have a folder full of them.

Judging by past experience, most people don't seem to bother do so (or even understand the requirement) but you may be prosecuted if you don't get the permission.

[Radix]

............

[funfly]

Unless, of course, you decide that an emergency landing is required just as you are adjacent to your friend's field.

[POBJOY]

I would suggest the question is 'is it reasonable' to operate in such a way.
Why would anyone wish to put themselves 'and others' in such a position that a mistake or tech failure could cause a major incident of huge proportions that would see the privileges of private aviation questioned.
What are we trying to prove; there is plenty of scope within the law and common sense for everyone to enjoy flying without being seen as being above behaving with courtesy to others.

[Mach Jump]

ATC: A 'field' essentially becomes a 'private strip' as soon as you land an aeroplane in it, so there is technically no difference.

Shy: I think you meant, 'Government, or Licenced airfields'.

I deliberately left out reference to Government airfields, as the OP specifically asked about licenced, and unlicenced airfields.

Pobjoy: The question you pose is a perfectly reasonable one, but the OP asked about the legalities.

Radix: See below:-

Civil Aviation Authority Safety Notice SN–2014/010

Page 7 of 11

Appendix A General Exemptions from 4 December 2014

Part A Exceptions to the Minimum Height Requirements

1) General (SERA.5005(f)(2))

a) The 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.

2) Landing and Taking Off
The CAA permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105, SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b), an
aircraft to fly below the heights specified in SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b) if it is flying in
accordance with normal aviation practices and:

a) practising approaches to land at or checking navigational aids or procedures at a
Government or licensed aerodrome;

b) practising forced landings if it is not flown closer than 150 metres (500 feet) to any
person, vessel, vehicle or structure; or

c) flying in accordance with a notified procedure or when specifically authorised by the
CAA in accordance with SERA.5015(b).

3) Landing and Taking Off at a Training Aerodrome

a) The CAA permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105, SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b),
an aeroplane of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 2,730 kg
to fly below the heights specified at SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b) if it is flying in
accordance with normal aviation practice in the circumstances specified in
subparagraph (c).

b) The CAA permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105, SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b), a
gyroplane or helicopter of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed
3,175 kg to fly below the heights specified at SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b) if it is
flying in accordance with normal aviation practice in the circumstances specified in
subparagraph (c).

c) The circumstances specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) are:

i) the aeroplane, gyroplane or helicopter is taking off from, landing at or practising
approaches to landing at a training aerodrome; and

ii) the flight is one on which instruction in flying is being given to a person or a
flying test is being performed by a person for the purpose of becoming qualified
for the grant of a pilot licence or the inclusion or variation of an aircraft rating, a
night rating or a night qualification in a licence.

d) For the purposes of subparagraph (c)(i), a ‘training aerodrome’ means an aerodrome
which the pilot-in-command of the aircraft is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, has
adequate facilities for the safe conduct of flights on which instruction in flying is being
given to a person for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot licence
or the inclusion or variation of any rating or qualification in the licence



MJ:ok:

[Whopity]

The UK legal document is ORS4-1065 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1065.pdf)

[Monocock]

Thanks. I've read it, and I'm not entirely clear on it, I must admit.

Basically, is there anything illegal about landing at a private site that isn't an airstrip, and whilst doing so, flying within 500 feet of a person, vehicle or structure?

[Mach Jump]

Basically, is there anything illegal about landing at a private site that isn't an airstrip, and whilst doing so, flying within 500 feet of a person, vehicle or structure?

No.

But, practice approaches (intentional go arounds) are subject to the 500' rule.


MJ:ok:

Ps. In the case in your other thread, uninvited guests have not broken any rules of the air, so long as they land, and takeoff.

[ShyTorque]

The written CAA permissions I've been granted in the past (helicopter landings inside congested areas) specify a minimum distance from persons, vehicles, vessels or structures. This is usually either 20 or 30 metres.

[Above The Clouds]

Monocock
Basically, is there anything illegal about landing at a private site that isn't an airstrip, and whilst doing so, flying within 500 feet of a person, vehicle or structure?


That was more or less my query as well, in theory then you can land in any field with the land owners permission provided you comply with:-


Mach Jump
No. (unless they have to fly over a congested area below 1,000' to do so.)

But, practice approaches (intentional go arounds) are subject to the 500' rule.


Am I reading that correctly ?

[Mach Jump]

Am I reading that correctly ?

Yes.


MJ:ok:

[Monocock]

Thanks MJ.

Ps. In the case in your other thread, uninvited guests have not broken any rules of the air, so long as they land, and takeoff.

No, it wasn't to do with that. It was just checking I'm not doing anything illegal when I pop between farms and use paddocks and stubble fields to land in.

[Whopity]

I'm not doing anything illegal when I pop between farms and use paddocks and stubble fields to land in. Not if you don't breach the 28 day planning laws i.e. you don't use the same field on more than 28 days of the year.

[Monocock]

Thats not entirely correct, but it's a whole new topic that's frequently misunderstood.

[Sir George Cayley]

My take is that Europe have moved the goal posts on the 500' rule and for the time being the UK has issued a general exemption to SERA in order to maintain the status quo.

The big question is what will be the consequences for the UK if the exemption runs out and SERA remains as is?

SGC

[Gertrude the Wombat]

The big question is what will be the consequences for the UK if the exemption runs out and SERA remains as is?
Even less realistic PFLs?


Is there any data as to the success rate of real forced landings under the different regulatory regimes?

[Heliport]

with the land owners permission



Is that a legal requirement? :confused:

[Mach Jump]

Not under the Rules of the Air, but without it you are trespassing.


MJ:ok:

[Heliport]

MJ

There are a few exceptions but trespassing on land is not generally a criminal offence.

[Mach Jump]

I didn't say it was.


MJ:ok:

[Radix]

............

[Mach Jump]

I was prompted by Radix's last post to take another look at the SERA.

SERA 5005 (e)(1) states as follows:

(e) 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.

No mention here of Licenced and unlicenced airfields, so the 1,000' rule does not apply to aircraft taking off, or landing, but does apply to aircraft flying practice approaches(Intentional go arounds).

SERA 5005 (e)(2) states:

(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.

This is modified by the CAA General Exemption shown in post No. 13.


MJ:ok:

[N-Jacko]

Doesn't apply if you're "Landing in accordance with normal aviation procedures." and that includes private strips. A low level pass or a go around into a private strip is technicaly illegal.I think that a reasonable case could be made that a low pass may be "necessary" for landing at a private or non-radio site - not least because such a procedure is a required part of the flight test for the EASA Mountain ratings.

Or, put another way, what is "normal" or "necessary" depends not only on the type of aircraft (A380, balloon, glider, or whatever) , but also on the crew, the nature and equipment of the landing site and perhaps a score of other variables.

PJ

[Radix]

............

[Mach Jump]

The 1000' rule does not apply to aerodrome ops at all. (take-off/landing/go-around) It is relevant when flying over towns/cities.

It applies if you have to descend below 1,000' over the congested area in order to make a practice approach there. If, for instance, the congested area extends under the final approach, then you would have to be below 1,000' over the congested area at some point.

N-Jacko: I think you probably could make a case for that interpretation.


MJ:ok:

[N-Jacko]

... and consequently, to the extent that landing (like birth, marriage and death) is a process rather than an event, it can't be necessary actually to touch down in order to benefit from the SERA "as necessary for landing" exemption.

PJ

[Mach Jump]

I think you would have to touch down at some point, for it to count as a 'landing'!

You would also have to convince the Magistrates that the low passes that you performed prior to the final approach were an essential and normal part of some kind of integrated landing process.

Having said all that, I find it difficult to believe that even the CAA would be daft/vindictive enough to prosecute anyone for flying a genuine inspection pass prior to landing.


MJ:ok:

[N-Jacko]

The old CAA Rule 5 has gone and the new SERA wording has changed it to the effect that intention to land is all that is required. No longer "when landing..." but "necessary for landing".

A low pass is quasi-obligatory at most alpine altisurfaces, and often as sensible a lowland pre-landing precaution as checking seat belts fastened.

Anyway, if the low pass reveals that someone has left a baby on the runway (to borrow Deakin's phrase), one shouldn't feel obliged to run one's bushwheels over it just to comply with someone else's interpretation of SERA.

[Mach Jump]

I would venture to suggest that few, if any Alpine Altisurfaces have the congested area of a city, town, or settlement less than 1,000' below the final approach.;)


MJ:ok:

[N-Jacko]

Good point, there aren't many. Megève perhaps (but that's a licensed altiport). Valloire Bonnenuit is the only altisurface I can think of which has a town/settlement less than 1,000 ft below the final turn. Even there, one can try to avoid overflying the most congested part if the wind is right.

I was thinking more of the 500 ft rule. SOP for most altisurfaces (where hikers/bystanders are not unusual) is an outbound low pass at 200-300 ft but one is generally not committed to land until interception of the glide path on final.

The same may apply to any unmanned airfield. The airfield owner may give permission to land, but the PIC will determine whether and how to do so.

To give another example of "necessary for landing", clearing sheep off my main runway requires one or more low passes within 500 ft of a building. But if a mountain maggot refuses to budge, I may not land there.

As you point out, it is unlikely that even the UK CAA would be daft enough to pick this particular nit, constrained as it is by the Codes for Crown Prosecutors.

[Tagron]

It looks to me that SERA.5005(e)1 should be read in conjunction with Rule 5 (and Rule 6) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2015 which took effect on April 30.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/840/pdfs/uksi_20150840_en.pdf

It would seem that you may not be constrained in your overflight of the congested area of a city town or settlement provided that you are en route to a landing or take off point which is outside the congested area.

But a landing or take off at a site within the congested area must comply with the requirements of Rule 5 which specifies that it must be: -
- at an aerodrome in accordance with published procedures notified by CAA, or
- if it is at landing site which is not an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by CAA and with the written permission of the organiser of the assembly