Take-off and landing

[handysnaks]

As no one else has put it on rotorheads (and I’ve been somewhat dormant).
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP2613.pdf (https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP2613.pdf)

[P3 Bellows]

I think if we have to define what take-off and landing means, we are in trouble as an industry.

[ShyTorque]

If 500’ agl or below is the relevant altitude I spent much of my early career never actually getting to the en route sector…

[Hughes500]

Dont go there, been told by CAA inspector that my manuals are all wrong as i have used the term he/she and need to change it to they . So being told what landing and taking off is not unrealistic.

[handysnaks]

I think the reason behind the change is quite clear. Steering pilots towards the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.

[Hughes500]

The law is the law, spirt has nothing to do with it, unless it is Blackbushe

[handysnaks]

​​​​​The law is the law, spirt has nothing to do with it​​ Well it appears the CAA have a different opinion.😊

[ApolloHeli]

For context: this clarification is as a result of the G-LAWX incident (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6114dd1c8fa8f53dcaedea22/Sikorsky_S-92A_G-LAWX_08-21.pdf). In that incident (discussed in this thread on pprune (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/627996-g-lawx-s92-incident-aaib.html?highlight=g-lawx)), the aircraft overflew the M40/M42 junction (a major motorway in the UK) at a height of less than 500'. The report carries on to say:
There is no alleviation from the requirement to remain in VMC when flying under visual flight rules. During this serious incident, descending below 500 ft (potentially within 500 ft of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure) at around 1737 hrs demonstrated either an intention to begin the landing, a willingness to breach the Rules of the Air, or a misunderstanding of those rules. The consequence of this decision to fly at an altitude of less than 500 ft agl, below the elevation of the LS towards high ground, was that the helicopter was in an undesired state.

[tipsock]

Appears to have been withdrawn...

[Northernstar]

Did a multi nominated postholder CEO threaten legal action on this like he did the AAIB's work?

[gipsymagpie]

Appears to have been withdrawn...

I suspect that is because it was not adequately proof-read. It actually would prevent you from making an approach to land at a heliport in an urban area (eg Battersea). You are not permitted within 1000ft of people/structures/vessels unless take off and landing. So how do you get from the cruise to the "landing" phase (ie sub 500ft)?

But as pointed out 👇 it's not vanished after all. But perhaps it still needs a re-think

[ApolloHeli]

Still available: CAP2613 (https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP2613%20Helicopter%20Take%20Off%20and%20Landing.pdf)

[paco]

"​​​​​The law is the law, spirt has nothing to do with it"

This is quite true - the legal precedent is one of the law lords (Lord Diplock?) who said that the law must be read in plain words, i.e. given their ordinary meaning unless the Act concerned specifically dictates a definition otherwise.

The CAA try and fob you off by quoting the intent of the person who wrote the regulation. Not correct.

[212man]

Appears to have been withdrawn...
To correct the error in the AAIB reference, that I pointed out on Linkedin, it appears (now correct)

[gipsymagpie]

I suspect that is because it was not adequately proof-read. It actually would prevent you from making an approach to land at a heliport in an urban area (eg Battersea). You are not permitted within 1000ft of people/structures/vessels unless take off and landing. So how do you get from the cruise to the "landing" phase (ie sub 500ft)?

But as pointed out 👇 it's not vanished after all. But perhaps it still needs a re-think
As someone has also pointed out, this rule also prevents descent on an IFR approach below 1000ft. (See SERA.5015(B))

[212man]

As someone has also pointed out, this rule also prevents descent on an IFR approach below 1000ft. (See SERA.5015(B))
Does that not come under the expression "or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority", i.e. a published instrument approach is an approved procedure to descend below 1000 ft?

[gipsymagpie]

Does that not come under the expression "or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority", i.e. a published instrument approach is an approved procedure to descend below 1000 ft?

​​​​​​No, such permissions are usually expressly outlined in individual permissions (eg I would expect offshore to have such a permission) or via a general permission (like an ORS 4).

[212man]

​​​​​​No, such permissions are usually expressly outlined in individual permissions (eg I would expect offshore to have such a permission) or via a general permission (like an ORS 4).
seems absurd - it’s not even RW specific!