Proposed Rule 5 changes: Includes replies from the CAA

[cyclic_fondler]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/srg_gad_rule5-letter.pdf

and the discussion paper itself
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/srg_gad_rule5-discussion%20paper.pdf

The bit about flying over central London looks like it's the end for single engine heli ops.

[Heliport]

I've made this topic a 'sticky' because Rule 5 affects all UK helicopter pilots, professional and private.
Your guess is as good as mine whether the CAA will take the slightest notice of what pilots/operators say, but it's got to be worth trying.
This is an opportunity to try to make the Rule more sensible, realistic and workable.

Bear in mind:
More pilots are prosecuted for alleged low flying than for any other single 'offence'.
Most CAA bods have little or no experience of the industry, flying in the civvy world.

Can anyone of our American contributors help by giving us the FAA regs re Low Flying?
As I remember, the FAA regs are simpler, more intelligible and much more sensible.

[RobertWittmann]

Heliport wrote:

>Bear in mind:
>More pilots are prosecuted for alleged low flying than for any >other single 'offence'.
>Most CAA bods have little or no experience of the industry, flying i>n the civvy world.


Of course we all know what is low & fast.
BUT (me being no expert in aviation law in the UK): What are the terms _by_law_ of beeing _too_low in the UK?

TIA!

Robert

[Nick Lappos]

FAR is very specific, and pretty reasonable:

Sec. 91.119

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.


Y

[MightyGem]

Anthing that makes Rule 5 easier to understand has to be an improvement. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see it having any effect on the London Heli routes. All they have done is transfer the details of the Secified Area out of Rule 5 and into the Restriction of Flying Regs. The wording is still the same, and you can still fly between the high water marks.

[Flying Lawyer]

Thanks Nick.
As you can see below, our rules are just as easy for UK pilots to understand and apply. ;)

Rule 5: Low flying
(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3):
(a) an aircraft other than a helicopter shall not fly over any congested area of a city, town or settlement below:
(i) such height as would enable the aircraft to alight clear of the area and without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit and 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
(ii) a height of 1500 feet above the highest fixed object within 600 metres of the aircraft:
whichever is the higher;

(b) a helicopter shall not fly below such height as would enable it to alight without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit;

(c) except with the permission in writing of the Authority and in accordance with any conditions therein specified a helicopter shall not fly:
(i) over a congested area of a city, town or settlement below a height of 1500 feet above the highest fixed object within 600 metres of the helicopter; or
(ii) over the area hereinafter specified, below such height as would enable it to alight clear of the area in the event of failure of a power unit, that is to say the area bounded by straight lines joining successively the following points:
Kew Bridge (N5129.18 W00017.17);
The Eastern extremity of Brent Reservoir (N5134.30 W00014.02);
Gospel Oak Station (N5133.27 W00008.97);
The South East corner of Springfield Park (N5134.12 W00003.20);
Bromley-by-Bow Station (N5131.47 W00000.65);
The South West corner of Hither Green (N5126.72 W00000.63);
Herne Hill Station (N5127.18 W00006.07);
Wimbledon Station (N5125.23 W00012.27);
The North West corner of Castelnau Reservoir (N5128.87 W00014.03);
Kew Bridge (N5129.18 W00017.17):
excluding so much of the bed of the River Thames as lies within that area between the ordinary high water marks on each of its banks;
(d)
(i) subject to paragraph (ii) an aircraft shall not fly:
(aa) over, or within 1000 metres of, any assembly in the open air of more than 1000 persons assembled for the purpose of witnessing or participating in any organised event, except with the permission in writing of the Authority and in accordance with any conditions therein specified and with the consent in writing of the organisers of the event; or
(bb) below such height as would enable it to alight clear of the assembly in the event of the failure of a power unit and if such an aircraft is towing a banner such height shall be calculated on the basis that the banner shall not be dropped within 1000 metres of the assembly;
(ii) where a person is charged with an offence under the Order by reason of a contravention of sub-paragraph (d)(i), it shall be a good defence to prove that the flight of the aircraft over, or within 1000 metres of, the assembly was made at a reasonable height and for a reason not connected with the assembly or with the event which was the occasion for the assembly;

(e) an aircraft shall not fly closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

(2)
(a) The provisions of paragraphs (1)(a)(ii) and (1)(c)(i) shall not apply to an aircraft flying:
(i) on a route notified for the purposes of this rule; or
(ii) on a special VFR flight;
unless the aircraft is landing or taking off.
(b) Paragraphs (1)(a)(ii), (1)(c), (1)(d) and (1)(e) shall not apply to an aircraft flying under and in accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate.
(c) Paragraphs (1)(d)(i)(aa) and (1)(e) shall not apply to the flight of an aircraft over or within 1000 metres of an assembly of persons gathered for the purposes of witnessing or participating in an event which consists:
(i) wholly or partly of an aircraft race or contest if the aircraft is taking part in such race or contest or is engaged on a flight arranged by, or made with the consent in writing of, the organisers of the event;
(ii) wholly or partly of an exhibition of flying for which a permission under article 61 of the Order is required, if the aircraft is taking part in such exhibition or is engaged on a flight arranged by or made with the consent of the organisers of the event and the flight is made:
(aa) in accordance with the terms of a permission granted to the organiser of the exhibition of flying under article 61 of the Order; and
(bb) in accordance with the conditions of a display authorisation granted to the pilot under article 61 of the Order; or
(iii) wholly or principally of an exhibition of flying for which a permission under article 61 of the Order is not required, if the aircraft is taking part in such exhibition or is engaged on a flight arranged by or made with the consent of the organisers of the event.

(d) Paragraph (1)(e) shall not apply to:
(i) any aircraft while it is landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice;
(ii) any glider while it is hill-soaring;
(iii) any aircraft while it is flying in accordance with article 48(3)(f) of the Order;
(iv) any aircraft while it is flying under and in accordance with the terms of an aerial application certificate granted to the operator thereof under article 50 of the Order; or
(v) any aircraft while it is flying for the purpose of picking up or dropping tow ropes, banners or similar articles at an aerodrome.

(3) Nothing in this rule shall prohibit an aircraft from flying in such a manner as is necessary for the purpose of saving life.

(4)
(a) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), nothing in this rule shall prohibit any aircraft from flying in accordance with normal aviation practice, for the purpose of taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at, or checking navigational aids or procedures at, a Government aerodrome, an aerodrome owned or managed by the Authority or a licensed aerodrome in the United Kingdom or at any aerodrome in any other country.
(b) The practising of approaches to landing shall be confined to the airspace customarily used by aircraft when landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice at the aerodrome concerned.

(5) Nothing in this rule shall apply to any captive balloon or kite.

[Thomas coupling]

This is an attempt by the CAA to fall into line with the JAA.

Currently the ANO takes 1060 words to explain Rule 5, compared to 160 words in its European equivalent:eek:

Christ, even the bible is winning the 'plain english' awards for its latest updates.

Mind you perhaps the CAA think they are above all that :D

[misterbonkers]

It looks like an ok adjustment, it certainly reads better.

I see the bit affecting london - it says in the event of a power unit failure must be able to fly clear, thus a single wouldn't. But can we can still route Lee Valley lakes to isle of dogs? (north south)

Also, the 500ft bit, can we still go down to surface as long as were 500ft away from things?

[Thomas coupling]

Rule 1 (e) 500' rule: Persons - Vessels - Vehicles - Structures. In other words: the desert:D

[Grainger]

I think it's important to realise that's the part they are thinking of changing.

There are three choices on offer:

A: ICAO rule "Not less than 500ft above the surface"

B: Mixture "Not less than 500ft above the surface nor closer than 500ft to any person, vehicle, vessel or structure."

C: Existing rule "Not closer than 500ft to any person, vehicle, vessel or structure"

So A allows you to hover 500ft above the ground right next to a mast or tower, but B doesn't.

The real problem is that, as far as I can tell A and B do not allow you to practice a confined area, or pinnacle approach - even if it's in the middle of nowhere. Unless there's an exemption somewhere else, you will also have to abort PFLs at 500ft agl.

It's unclear to me whether 5(b) [exempt when taking off or landing ... ] applies only to licenced airfields - otherwise A or B would prevent you using a private landing site !!!!

It's open for discussion so if you have a strong opinion on A vs. B vs. C, then you should write to the CAA.

[Q max]

... just a matter of finding the least unintended 'fallout'.

There are some excellent and uniquely British points of logic and simplicity contained within the existing UK Rule5:

C is best since: Clearly it is the Person Vessel Vehicle and Structure which should not be offended against.
fallout: Hovering in your garden or even an airfield is illegal if whithin 500ft of structures (a nail in a post) Ignored in an 'unwritten' way.

Ones actual height above the surface is and should be immaterial - where no offence or danger is caused - which is covered elswhere anyhow! - 'Endangerment'

What is a structure and built up area? these definitions are vague and leave absurd interpretation open: eg. the 50 acres of football pitches (not in use) when 'attached' to a built up area is considered part of the built up area ( so subject to 1500ft PART) even if it is open country leading up to them.

'Landing and T/O in accordance with normal aviation practice' - is a great phrase - no it obviously does not have not be a 'licensed or govt airfield' - quite right too! Yes they should be 1500ft exempt.

The 'in the event of the failure of a power unit' only sounds sensible - but it's just a cheap jibe against the single engined - particularly in those cases where the chance of that engine failing is not relevant. Where really what counts is your chance of being forced to land in general.


The greatest rules on which so much depends are the:
Unwritten 'parts' of rule 5:

U5i: Try despatately hard not to annoy people. For this is still possible within the rules.

U5ii: Fly a reasonable distance from Chequers 1500ft ish.

U5iii: Any sensible interpretation of 'congested area' and 'structure' are ok provide you are not in breach of rule U5i.

So a re-draft of the existing rule (in fact all the rules) into English would be fine!

FARs are legible so US pilots know them.
In the UK you just had to know 75% of some of the really obscure ones once - 20 yrs ago. And obey Rule U5i (otherwise there is always a catchall rule under which you can be 'got'.)

(I despair.... end rant)

[rotorspeed]

Amongst the various issues to be considered, a key point is the implications of the proposed (largely) blanket minimum height of 500ft, rather than the existing UK 500ft from person, vehicle, vessel, structure, rule.

In a helicopter in sparsely populated, rural areas it is often possible to fly safely and legally at say 300ft - 400ft, to keep beneath a say, 500ft cloudbase, usually by reducing airspeed and picking the route carefully ahead. Such flights would be illegal if our 500ft 'away' rule was superceded. The reality is that for VFR heli ops in poor weather it is impossible to know what the minimum cloudbase will be along the entire route. With a minimum 500ft height rule, many more VFR flights will not go ahead if the new rules are to complied with.

Will there be increasing pressure to keep that minimum 500ft height in poor weather with increasing risk of ending up in IMC? Probably.

Two other points. Is there not a strong case for helicopters to be treated differently to aeroplanes, which do not have the ability to slow right down and manoeuvre, to comply with the existing 500ft 'away' rule? The thought of a PA28 flying as above is very alarming, yet the rules do not differentiate.

Secondly with regard to ICAO integration, the unique circumstances of the UK should surely be considered. We tend to have poorer weather than much of Europe, being exposed to more Atlantic frontal systems, whilst we also have large areas of the country which are sparsely populated.

Seems this forum is an ideal debating platform for just these sort of issues.

[Figure Of Merit]

Thanks for posting this - It is REALLY important that we don't end up with something we don't want by not reading the document and proposal thoroughly. We could be stuck with a new rule for YEARS.

The CAA have given us the opportunity to influence the environment we fly in so let's not waste it.

As I see it--

1. The 1500 foot rule is to be made less restrictive and allows us to use our judgement more. This should be supported.

2. The 500 foot rule is in danger of being amended to a blanket 500 foot restriction (as others have pointed out) rather than a "500 feet away from persons, vehicles...". I think we should be focussing NOT on whether this will stop us flying in low ceilings - as (debateably, I admit) flying in less than 500 foot cloudbase could be regarded as unsafe. We ought to be emphasizing that a blanket 500 foot rule will stop us practising confined areas, pinnacles and PFL's even into areas where there is no risk to persons or property on the ground. Such a restriction will have negative effects on flight safety by impairing the ability safely to train pilots and will result in no added safety benefit to those on the ground.

Let's get mailing and get the rules we need!

FoM

[soggyboxers]

The FAR Rules show just how legislation should be - simple, clear, easy to understand (and, therefore, to be complied with) and logical. The section referring specifically to helicopters is also safe, logical and clear. All of these are obvious reasons why the CAA will never adopt them:mad:

[SASless]

Nick,

Your input was factual....and accurately posted, however one must remember to add Part 135 rules into the equation as well in that "air taxi" operators have additional restrictions placed upon them beyond FAR Part 91 rules. Also, we have airspace and altitude restrictions that are placed into effect by NOTAM and via special use airspace rules such as that being proposed by the FAA dealing with National Parks, Monuments, and Tribal Lands.

Also, when reading FAA rules.....please be very aware of the wording...."aircraft" applies to everyone, "airplane" does not include helicopters.....and "rotorcraft" means helicopters and gyroplanes.

The FAA rules are not as simple as everyone thinks.....but compared to the CAA gibberish that lead to this thread....seem like childs play. I can see Flying Lawyer thumbing through the new car ads now.....looking for Bentley's or some other nice ride....certainly going to be good for the UK lawyers this change!

[Heliport]

SAS
The UK also has other restrictions on top of the gibberish in our Rule 5.
It's the basic Low Flying rules which are under review.

[Hoverman]

I don't think we could do any better than the FAA version posted by Nick. It's simple, and covers everything necessary.
Sadly, I can't see the CAA adopting (d). It's far too sensible.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.
Enough to give a CAA type a heart attack! :D

[Whirlybird]

We discussed this at the Helicopter Safety Seminar in Farnborough yesterday. I mentioned the problem with confined area approach practice, and also pinnacle approaches and a lot of mountain flying, if the rule was changed to 500 ft above agl. Being f/w pilots, they seemed to have a hard time following me, and said wouldn't it be covered by exemptions for takeoffs and landings. I tried to explain that you're not allowed to land in the Snowdonia National Park, but you can do approaches and recover to a hover. They said to write in and explain. I think we all need to, in words of one syllable for people who have f/w blinkers on. :eek: The good news is they had a straw poll of attendees, and the vote was almost unanimous for no change to Rule 5.

[Helinut]

Whirly is absolutely right. We need to bury the CAA in objections based upon the issue she raises.

It is particularly relevant for instructors carrying out training. During training, you are only supposed to land at a licensed airfield. This means that during training you should not land at a confined area off airfield. If away from a licensed airfield, the "500 ft minimum height" version of Rule 5 would mean you had to break off your confined area training at 500 ft agl - hardly very realistic or useful training?:eek: :mad:

[headsethair]

So - answer me this. The British Airways Millenium Eye tops out at 135m (440 ft).
I'm batting down the river on H4 past it (but not over it - difficult I know, but possible). My height is (say) 750ft agl.

Am I legal :

(a) now
(b) post rule 5 rewrite

:confused:

[The Nr Fairy]

headsethair :

Not legal currently - 1500' from highest object within 600 metres.

[Helinut]

I think that NR Fairy is correct in suggesting that 750ft alt around the Millenium Eye is not legal. And as far as I can see, it would not be legal under any of the proposed change options either.

The Eye is (just) outside the London Heathrow Zone (Cat A) but inside the City Zone (Cat D Airspace). Inside the Heathrow Zone any ATC clearance on the routes will be SVFR, which gives an automatic exemption from the 1,500 ft rule. So, inside the Heathrow Zone the 500 ft rule and landing safely in the event of an engine failure are the main low flying concerns. In the City Zone, you need to be a bit careful. At the "standard altitude" on H4 of 2,000ft you should be OK, but be careful of any reduction from this. Thames Radar often offers clearances such as "hold at London Bridge at 1,000ft". If this is a VFR clearance which it will be during the day, the helicopter will inevitably break the 1,500 ft rule. I have tried to raise this in discussions with London Area ATCers but it seems to fall into the "too difficult category". Even the standard "at 1,500 ft" clearance for direct tracks through the City zone for twin engine heles would probably involve a breach of the 1,500 ft rule, since there are lots of (fairly) tall buildings in that area.

Just hope they do not find a 1,500 ft measuring tape!

There was a similar problem a while back as you leave the Heathrow Zone at Bagshot on H3. This inevitably involves flying over congested areas. A well known and regarded pilot was threatened with prosecution for breaking the 1,500 ft rule just outside the zone. Within the zone there is a SVFR clearance, so no need to follow the 1,500 ft rule. However, the max alt allowed on that route at the zone boundary is 1,500 ft. This forces you to fly at or below 1,500 ft at the zone boundary. When you step 1 inch outside the boundary you must then instantaneously increase your altitude by several hundred feet.

Some resident NIMBY complained to the CAA about overflying, they presumably looked at the radar traces and hey-presto case proven.

In the end, the prosecution was dropped after lots of industry pressure was applied but you have been warned. Common sense is a fairly rare commodity.:eek:

[Heliport]

I've deleted the last couple of posts because we were going off on a tangent.

As of last week, there had only been about 20 responses to the consultation about the new Low Flying Rules.

Please can I encourage you to read the proposals and send off you comments. It would be a good idea if you posted a copy here so that others can read and think about your ideas.

Many people think we should adopt the FAA version. If you agree, why not write saying just that.

If you don't want to send formal comments on the proposals, post your views here. Your ideas may help others who intend to write formulate their submissions.

Time is running out.
We'll have to live with whatever they do now for a very long time.

[MBJ]

I think its a good idea to do a re-write in English! But...

The crucial thing is that we maintain the present UK 500ft rule, which is given as Option 3 of the consultative document - i.e 500ft away from ..etc etc. Losing this would be a disaster for filming and many other aspects of our work and training.

I personally believe we should try to get 1000ft over congested areas (which is on offer as an ICAO standard) because it is covered by the fact that you must be able to land clear of structures etc and not cause damage - in other words the deserted football pitch may be defined as a "congested area" but it should be acceptable as an emergency LS if the donk quits.

The Lea Valley used not to be a congested area (Yes, I am that old!) and it was customary to fly down it to the river at 1000ft or less if weather so demanded. The proposed changes in the ruling doesn't really affect the awkwardness of deeming it to be open space when clearly its not any more.

Inserting a new heliroute North-South through (over) the dome would clear that issue.

[Tail Bloater]

The chance of making readable rules is here:-

It would be sensible to draft rule 5 in two forms. One for aeroplanes and one for rotary as we accept that the flying capabilities of the two are different.

For helicopters the existing Rule 5 in regard to the '500 feet from' is practical and workable. The 1500 ft/600m is also practical and workable. And it must be upon the pilots mind to fly at a hight and position in regard to the conditions on the surface that enable in the event of a power unit failure that a safe landing without danger to persons on the ground, can be made. In practical term any flight over a built-up area must be illegal as there are no safe landing ares within a built-up area. Roads, sports fields, car parks and open common land will be used by people at random and therefore are excluded as a choice for landing. he existing Sensitive Area above London is for twin engined helicopter operations only and rightly so.

For areoplanes the same logic must apply and unless an aeroplane can be flown clear of a built-up area, hight is the crux here, then that too must be illegal.

In simplistic terms the blanket 500 foot Rule is so restrictive that in the weather conditions that prevail in the UK it would inhibit helicopter flying unnesseccarily and prevent such actions as that of crossing ridges below a cloud base, unless the cloud base was at least 500 ft above the ridge.

To suggest that flying below 500 ft AGL is unsafe is thoughtless. As already mentioned, flying training is the only way there is of learning what technoques to employ in differing circumstances and this is the role of training in the real world. In other words you have to go and practice under supervision those disciplines which you are either ignorant of or out of practice in. To restrict by Rules this facility would be to enhance the likelyhood of accidents.

So please Mr CAA, keep the Rule 5 as we have it but try and simplify the language. Difficult I know, but try anyway

Headsetair,,, I fully support your logic that why are aviators expected to do what others are not. I shall be writing to the CAA and ask that there be Rule 5 A drafted for the fixed wing and Rule 5 H for the rotary wing. To definitely keep the present wording re 500 ft which should be suitably amended to allow off airfield practices for autorotations and confined areas. And the adoption of the 1000 ft over congested areas with the addition of Specified areas over the cental parts of the major cities. This would place a definite no go area to single engined aircraft, restrictive I know but would make it clearer where and where not one can fly. Similar boundaries as are set for danger/restrictive/prisons etc.
Or is this too much to expect?

[headsethair]

I've written a response to Mr McGregor at the CAA - and I would urge all UK heli pilots to do the same. We need clarity for helicopters - and we need rules based on fact and actual statistics. For pilots of single-engine helis who use The Specified Area of London and the heli-routes : read the proposal because they are trying to take away your freedom and pleasure for no real reason.

Name the last time that a single-engine machine had an engine failure in TSA - and tell me if there was a disaster. Of course there hasn't been an incident like this for years - I think there was a "moment" for a heli at Battersea in the last 12 months - but he autoed back to the platform as per training.

If my donkey fails me going past the Houses of Parliament, I'm not going to choose the "congested area" for my landing, I'm going to choose the river or any green space I can find. What I don't understand is why aviators have to give any more consideration to pedestrians than car drivers do. If the brakes fail on your car, you are not required by law to avoid pedestrians.......you are required to do everything you can to maintain control of the vehicle. So - if the low flying laws (or their defence of pedestrians)were applied to other forms of transport, none of us would be able to drive, boat, scoot or do anything in or on a vehicle in a congested area. Mad.

I am also in full agreement that the CAA proposals will unnecessarily restrict pilot training. We need to practise confined area and autos - and we can't keep practising at airfields because, in reality, an airfield isn't where any emergency is going to happen.

Unless, of course, this proposal is the first step towards making us only operate from licensed fields..........:eek:

[Rotator]

A good Topic - A good Discussion. Just a couple of thoughts:

Since the recent ICAO audit we, as an industry, have been hit by a stream of FODCOMs etc. from the CAA imposing changes to many long-established and safe practices (remember Aerodrome Standards trying to close down the Northern Helipad at Silverstone 2001?) Their reason is that "CAA policy is NOT to apply for National differences from ICAO standards".

To follow this policy through, the CAA should be proposing acceptance of ICAO's "Not below1000 feet" instead of maintaining the 1500 feet National Difference.

Essential that industry applies as much pressure as possible NOW to ensure that any changes to existing rules are in the best interests of 1. Safety and 2. Pilots / Operators and not as the CAA would wish to impose.

In addition to this forum and a direct approach to CAA, please write to BHAB who are working hard on this right now. Any additional comments will only help to add weight to our cause.

[headsethair]

A response to my email within 24 hours - and he's a heli pilot. So c'mon Rob - what's your pprune handle ??

"Thank you for taking the time to give me your views on the discussion paper. You have raised some interesting points which I have noted in the spreadsheet of comments received.

At this stage the CAA is seeking opinion regarding the minimum height over congested areas and outside congested areas. I can see that you like the rule in FAR 91.119 and so, I guess, you would support 1,000 ft over congested areas and no closer than 500 ft from any person vessel vehicle or structure. We plan to issue a second round of consultation with the rule refined in these areas, towards the end of January.

FAR 91.119 is very simple. Unfortunately, America being a place with lots of wide open spaces, their low flying rules are not, generally speaking, detailed enough to suit the heavily populated countries of Europe. That said, you will see that the primary paragraphs in our proposal for the revised UK rule are very similar. What takes up the space are all the alleviations that are necessary in order to interface the wishes of pilots with the safety and wishes of those of the rest of society.

You will see that under the existing and proposed UK rules:

1) Aircraft can fly lower than the normal minimum height over congested areas when they are operating in a control zone in accordance with a special VFR clearance.

2) It is accepted and expected that, in accordance with the rule that allows helicopters to fly over congested areas, that a helicopter pilot will be able to do a safe, engine off landing on an empty football pich. (N.B. remember that the term 'congested area' has a specialised meaning in aviation law).

3) The UK has, for example, alleviations for gliders, aerial spraying, police helicopters, the saving of life, and even a proposal to ease the problems of becalmed balloons.

A qualified helicopter pilot does not need a licensed aerodrome at which to practice PFLs and confined areas, but there could obviously be a problem with PFLs to below 500 ft in the open countryside if the ICAO form of the rule was adopted without associated and numerous alleviations. However, the main concern which the restriction of training to licensed aerodromes is aimed at is safety (rescue and fire fighting) for the pilots involved."

Yours sincerely

Rob McGregor

P.S. I am, actually, a helicopter pilot myself

[Tail Bloater]

My suggestion to Mr McGregor goes roughly as follows;-

Split Rule 5 into AEROPLANE and HELICOPTER

Rule 5 HELICOPTER

5. (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)
(a) a helicopter shall not fly closer than 500 feet to any
person, vessal, vehicle or structure other than:-
(i) landing and taking off in accordance with normal
aviation practice
(ii) flying under and in accordance with the terms of the
police operators certificate
(iii) carrying out flying training to practice autorotation
and confined area recconnaisance, approach,
manouvreing and departures
(b) a helicopter shall not fly closer than 1500 feet to a
congested area of a city, town or settlement, or a
gathering of 1000 people or more, nor below such a
height as would enable to alight clear in the event of
failure of a power unit, whichever is higher, except
(i) with permission in writing of the Authority and in
accordance with any conditions contained therein
specified.
(ii) under special conditions (SVFR) clearances issued by
a competant authority(ATSU), subject to 5.(1) (a)

Any objectors to this? I also added that paragraphs like the existing 5 (d) (ii) must be scrapped, as meaningless. Suggestion of burden removed from the rules which makes reference to action which are not placed upon other persons in charge of mechanical device. A bus driver is not bound to avoid persons and property in the event of a mechanical failure, nor is a mariner, nor is a taxi driver.

Spelling accepted, I would like to think this is something near to what we'd like to see as a Rule, but obviously written in legaleese.

[arm the floats]

I don't accept the CAA's answer to the 91.119 FAA rules.
A great deal of helicopter flying in the US is spent in and around built up areas.
America per capita has more helicopters than anywhere else in the world.

As a professional helicopter pilot, I need to have the decision making flexibility to be able to fly below 500 '.

Why?
1. Low cloud.I need to be able to transit, as I do now, from the East coast of Scotland to the West coast of Scotland ,(a sparsely populated area) VFR.I can never guarantee good wx in this unpredictable part of the world over the entire route.

2. Turbulence.Getting low is very often safer and more comfortable when mechanical turbulence prevails.

3. Fast jets.I am very unwilling to sit at 550' agl through the HRA whilst the RAF whistle round me at 250 knots.I need the flexibility to contour the terrain when neccessary avoiding the high risk areas.

As the rules stand there is nothing to differentiate between fixed wing and helicopters .Therefore a Cessna 152 or indeed a Boeing 737 if it so wished could fly into a Scottish glen with a 500' cloudbase in exactly the same manner as a helicopter.Surely this is madness.

I think the problem with the CAA and 91.119 is that there would have to be a massive philosophy change with regard to helicopters and their flexibility.They really don't want helicopter pilots making too many decisions for themselves.

If helicopters are prevented from flying below 500'agl on transit flights over sparsely populated areas such as in the Scottish Highlands ,the economic effect will be devastating.Fish Farms ,Construction,Forestry,fencing contractors would all be hit.
What is particularly ironic is that when I eventually complete the transit and get to the job I spend my whole day flying low level with external loads.

Thanks to pprune for the thread and the feedback

[old heliman]

Guys, I'm not always a lover of the CAA but there is some extra lift being generated here via hot air. As I understand it the relevance of the JAA is nil despite assertions to the contrary in this column elsewhere. These are Rules of the Air and NOT ANO changes and so the JAA don't come into it.

I agree with a previous correspondent that the main issues of proposed change relate to the 1500' and 500' Rule. I don't know how many of us know of the Official Record but the CAA had to put an exemption there a few years ago to let us do some of the low flying activities we currently do on airfields, I guess they will have to do something similar to cover PFL's etc.

The engine failure case quoted already exists and isn't a change so and as I see it s/e ops over London are not affected one jot.

[Q max]

Tail Bloater's draft looks damn good.

The talk (...McGregor) of 'yards' of convoluted exceptions fills me with dread. KeepItSimpleStupid KISS

MBJ like wise - tragic to lose the "500' away from" concept.

Although a person should be able to 'consent' and give permission for a helicopter to fly within 500' of their person, vessels, vehicles or structures.

The murky truth is that some well meaning old duffers think that this tinkering might stop people flying into the ground in bad weather!

The current practice and 'POLICY' - concerning weather is counter productive - anything which further discourages people to slow down and come down as required to stay out of cloud - will further dilute this already almost forgotten life saving principal.

How bad is a regulator allowed to be ?

[Heliport]

Point taken.

The deadline is 17 January 2003.
I'll post a reminder nearer then

[captainkt]

Rule 5 - The implications of changing it so that you must remain 500ft above the surface are many and I cannot believe heli pilots do not realise how serious this is. Once changed it will be forever.
Most pilots I have spoken too shrug their shoulders and say they will simply ignore the changes proposed. Why should we suddenly become cowboys and law breakers for no good reason, I PREFER TO FLY LEGAL. These proposed changes mean - the annual heli club trip across the Channel under the notoriuos sea fog will not be possible. Commercial operators and clubs will no longer be able to go mountain flying. The obvious training/autos to the ground no longer possible etc.
Increased risk of mid air collision - at the moment helicopter pilots in bad weather pick their own height to negotiate a ridge or hill, If they are trying to maintain 500ft, one from one side and one from the other its hardly safer. To comply helicopters will suddenly be flying up with the fixed wings dodging around in the clouds then trying to find a hole to get down with all the problems of control - overspeeds - negative G etc. Another result will be increased traffic over towns and villages as pilots turn right or left to follow the valley instead of flying through the 400 ft gap over the sparesely populated ridge. Pilots will be flying up a valley for half an hour to find the are trapped by a cloud base either side, if they decide to turn back and not fly through - fuel becomes another worry.
Commercial operators will be hard hit by having to turn back , passengers will be baffled when a pilot tells them he has to turn back because there is only a 450ft gap and he cannot break the 500ft rule and fly over the hill.
When the weather catches a pilot out the safety option to fly down to the surface must be kept, I am alive today by staying visual with the surface when conditions have got bad and on two occasions landing in a field. You have enough to worry about without the thought of being procecuted. I have never flown fixed wing but if these rules go through whats the point of having the manouverability of a helicopter?

[Whirlybird]

captainkt,

I agree with all of that, and so should everyone. But if we don't write to the CAA and say so, the changes will happen due to our apathy.

I mentioned all this when I went flying today, and got the same reaction as you - people shrugged, implied they'd do what they liked in the mountains anyway, and it wasn't important. It is important, and everyone needs to email the CAA. Follow the links earlier on this thread; that's what I did, and I ended up having some fairly comprehensive email correspondence with Rob McGregor at the CAA, who replied and asked me to clarify a couple of points - I'd emailed in a hurry and hadn't been that clear. But the main point is, he has a list, and is counting the number of votes he gets for keeping Rule 5 as it is, simplifying it, or making it ICAO compliant. You don't need to send him that brilliantly argued treatise on Rule 5 which you're still thinking about, just your opinion.

Seriously, YOUR VOTE COUNTS - and we only have till mid-January!

[bladeslapper]

The deadline for submissions is 17th January.....only days away!

A simple email to '[email protected]' is all it takes.

Please act now.

[Grainger]

Thanx for the reminder - that's my comments away. I'll let you know what Rob says....

[Heliport]

Deadline for the first round of consultation is tomorrow 17 January.
Remember you can e-mail.

eg If you favour the FAA rule and, in particular, the exemption for helicopters, why not send an email saying just that. It would only take a few minutes.FAR Sec. 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters.
Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed ........... if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator. I realise the FAA treats qualified pilots as qualified adults capable of making decisions, and the chances of the CAA doing the same thing are pretty remote, but you may think it's worth at least trying!

I have no idea to what extent, if at all, this 'consultation' is genuine or just window-dressing. I suspect the latter, but nothing would please me more than being proved wrong.
I realise it's not very encouraging when the person collecting submissions has already said (in reply to 'Headsethair': "Unfortunately, America being a place with lots of wide open spaces, their low flying rules are not, generally speaking, detailed enough to suit the heavily populated countries of Europe." :rolleyes:

Many people say there's no point in sending submissions because the CAA will always do what they want and aren't interested in what pilots actually out flying think. I can easily understand that reaction, and to a large extent agree it may well be accurate, but:

(1) we should still try

(2) the CAA is bound to trumpet the revised rule with claims that it's been done after extensive consultation with the industry, pilots etc etc

(3) once restrictions are imposed, they are rarely lifted.


Click here for main thread on this topic, and links to the CAA consultation doc. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=72379&referrerid=30158)

[GLSNightPilot]

"Unfortunately, America being a place with lots of wide open spaces, their low flying rules are not, generally speaking, detailed enough to suit the heavily populated countries of Europe."

Obviously, this person has never been to America. Not surprising that he is using a stereotype of the country - everyone else seems to do so. There are certainly areas of wide open spaces, but there are also large areas that are at least as heavily populated as Europe. The difference is the attitude of the people toward government, & vice versa. Here, the government doesn't give us rights, they are all ours until we surrender one. But no matter the country, once a bureaucracy is in place, it will spend most of its time justifying its existence & expanding its scope. Once a government passes an ordinance, it's rarely rescinded. Good luck on getting relief.

[IHL]

These are the Canadian regs for those interested. CAR 602.14

602.14 Minimum Altitudes and Distances
(1) For the purposes of this Section and Section 602.15, an aircraft shall be deemed to be operated over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons where that built-up area or open-air assembly of persons is within a horizontal distance of

(a) 500 feet from a helicopter or balloon; or

(b) 2,000 feet from an aircraft other than a helicopter or balloon.


(2) Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where permitted under Section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft

(a) over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons unless the aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the event of an emergency necessitating an immediate landing, it would be possible to land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface, and, in any case, at an altitude that is not lower than

(i) for aeroplanes, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 2,000 feet from the aeroplane,

(ii) for balloons, 500 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the balloon, or

(iii) for an aircraft other than an aeroplane or a balloon, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the aircraft; and


(b) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a), at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.


602.15 Permissible Low Altitude Flight
(1) A person may operate an aircraft at altitudes and distances less than those specified in subsection 602.14(2) where the aircraft is operated at altitudes and distances that are no less than necessary for the purposes of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated

(a) for the purpose of a police operation that is conducted in the service of a police authority;

(b) for the purpose of saving human life;

(c) for fire-fighting or air ambulance operations;

(d) for the purpose of the administration of the Fisheries Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act;

(e) for the purpose of the administration of the national or provincial parks; or

(f) for the purpose of flight inspection.

(2) A person may operate an aircraft, to the extent necessary for the purpose of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, at altitudes and distances less than those set out in

(a) paragraph 602.14(2)(a), where operation of the aircraft is authorized under Subpart 3 or Section 702.22; or

(b) paragraph 602.14(2)(b), where the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated for the purpose of

(i) aerial application or aerial inspection,

(ii) aerial photography conducted by the holder of an air operator certificate,

(iii) helicopter external load operations, or

(iv) flight training conducted by or under the supervision of a qualified flight instructor.

[Heliport]

Comments sent to CAA by Rotorhead A
Dear Rob :>> I'm contacting you with regard to the proposed changes to the ANO's Rule>5, regarding low flying. My perception, and that of a lot of helicopter>pilots I have spoken with, is that the proposed legislation seems to ignore>the requirements of helicopter flying.>> Speaking as a helicopter pilot, the capability of legally flying a>helicopter within 500 feet of the ground when safe to do so, for example>when making approaches to pinnacles in mountainous areas, or making an>approach ( for training purposes ) to a confined area which is not on an>airfield, is vital to allow pilots to be trained in those procedures before>they fly them on a PT flight. I have chosen those two examples as>illustrative and it's not intended to be a complete list.>> My preference for legislation would be along the lines of the American>FARs, allowing helicopters to come as low to the ground as they like, while>remaining safe and consistent with neigbourly flying.>> Please feel to contact me if you have any questions.Reply from CAA
Dear Mr A
>>Thank you for sending me your views on the Rule 5 discussion paper. I have>noted your comments and they will be considered when the CAA refines the>rule prior to a second round of consultation in February.>>The trouble is that flight below 500 ft agl can have safety implications.If>for example, you were flying downwind at less than 500 ft in a single engine>machine, you would be unlikely to pull off a successful autorotational>landing if the engine failed. >>When you are landing or taking off from an aerodrome as defined in Article>129 of the ANO, you are exempt from compliance with the 500 ft rule whatever>form it comes in.>>I did consider FAR 91.119, but it does not transfer well into the UK.>>Kind regards>>Rob McGregorFollow up by A
Rob :Thanks for that. My gut feeling is that this legislation has been designedwithout thought to helicopter operations. For example in helicopter companies,a proportion of PT flights are conducted to, from and between private landingsites which do not seem to fall into the remit of an aerodrome as definein Article 129 and none of the proposed options, nor the one currently seemingto be favoured by the CAA, seem to take helicopters into account.With regard to safety generally, you are absolutely right in that continuedflight below 500' downwind is unsafe. Any helicopter pilot operating there needs to have assessed the risks and satisfied themselves that there is noother way to achieve the aims of the flight. I can understand that a legislativeframework needs to be in place to ensure that any aviation activity takesplace safely and with minimum disruption to the non-aviating community. The way things appear to be developing during this consultation seems tofavour legislation to prevent reasonable judgement being exercised.Legislation should allow for reasonable judgement by a pilot given the circumstances relevant to the flight. A reasonable framework of legislationshould allow that flexibility - otherwise commercial helicopter operationsmay be restricted to an unneccesary degree.Lastly, my interpretation of your comment that "When you are landing ortaking off from an aerodrome as defined in Article 129 of the ANO, you areexempt from compliance with the 500 ft rule" is that other than at an aerodrome,flight within 500' of persons, vessels, vehicles and structures is not allowed(unless exempted under current procedures). Am I correct in this interpretation? If so does an ad-hoc private landing site need to be exempted on an individualbasis to make it legal ? If so, then an exemption must be written into thelegislation, or this may well affect one of the main raisons d'etre of thehelicopter. If there is no such blanket exemption to allow this use of helicopters,then I can foresee a huge workload increase in the relevant CAA department.I was concerned by your response, if it is a reflection of the CAA's intentionsand thinking on the proposed changes. I hope my concerns are unfounded,and I look forward to the next round of consultation.
Yours etc In his email to me, Mr A says he's worried. I suspect he's right to be.

[Flying Lawyer]

I'm afraid this is rather long, but I commented upon the rule in general as well as it's particular application to helicopters, and commented upon the format of the new rule from a lawyer's perspective. 1. Summary
(a) Of the three limited options which the Authority has put forward for comment, I favour Option 3:
(i) reducing the minimum height over congested areas and organised assemblies to 1000 feet as per ICAO;
(ii) retaining the existing UK 500 feet linear separation rule.

(b) Given a free choice rather than choosing between the limited options offered, I would strongly favour the adoption of FAR 91.119 amended only to substitute a 500 feet linear separation requirement.

(c) In any event, the new UK rule should adopt the exemption for helicopters contained in FAR 91.119 (d). The revision is an ideal opportunity to reflect the fact that helicopters are more flexible than other aircraft and that it is illogical to subject them to the same restrictions.

2. Proposed Rule 5 (1)(a)
I favour the ICAO rule. ie 1000 feet.
(a) There is no justification for the existing 1500 feet requirement.

(b) The safety aspects are adequately covered by the provisions of sub-paragraphs (b) and (c)

(c) In weather conditions which often prevail in the UK, a reduction to 1000 feet might well make the difference between an aircraft being obliged to fly along a cloud base and being able to fly legally just below it.

3. Proposed Rule 5 (2)
(a) The existing UK rule, ie 500 feet linear separation, keeps aircraft an acceptable distance away from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures and is more conducive to flight safety than the ICAO (and indeed FAR) 500 feet minimum height requirements.

(b) There is nothing inherently dangerous in flying over a sparsely populated area below 500 feet.

(c) Pilots caught in poor weather conditions, under pressure of complying with a minimum height might be tempted to enter cloud when that is may not be the safest option.

(d) The value of practising EFATO and Forced Landings Without Power in fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters would be greatly reduced if aircraft had to recover by 500 feet. The last few hundred feet are the most critical, and the only true means of discovering whether the aircraft would have reached the selected field. The Authority has already made it very clear that it does not regard training students to cope with EFATO and FLWP as falling within 'normal aviation practice' for the purpose of Rule 5. Strange, but true.

(e) Helicopters pilots would be unable to practise confined area operations off airfield, and Instructors would be unable to teach this part of the syllabus off airfield.

(f) The existing UK rule allows display pilots to fly down to sensible and safe heights near their home base in order to practise and remain current. Given that a 500 feet minimum height would be simply too high for the majority of display pilots, where would they practise? Very few airfields could accommodate them, and increased activity at those few which could would be bound to lead to an increase in noise complaints and environmental problems. There is a real risk that difficulty in finding suitable practice airfields together with the additional cost of transits to the limited number of airfields available would inevitably lead to display pilots operating at public displays with the minimum legal amount of currency. That is not conducive to safety.
Similar considerations apply to aerobatic pilots who fly at Unlimited level in competition who have a lower limit of 300 feet.

(g) I appreciate that some of these problems could be resolved by the introduction of yet further exemptions. However, the volume of applications for exemptions from each of the categories would make the process unnecessarily complicated, generate unnecessary additional work for both the Authority and the applicants and, inevitably lead to extra cost.

(h) Helicopters can land almost anywhere if necessary, and
should not be subject to the same restrictions as fixed-wing aircraft. The distinction is reflected in the exemption which FAR 91.119 (d) provides. In my view, the revised UK rule should include the same exemption.

(i) I note that the Authority is concerned about a rising trend in the number of accidents involving small helicopters, the inference being that the accidents are related to pilots continuing en route in conditions of low cloud and poor visibility. Of all aircraft, helicopters should cause the least concern in bad weather conditions because they can slow down and they can land virtually anywhere.

(j) In my submission, if there is a problem, the remedy does not lie in adopting the ICAO 500 feet minimum height rule but in re-emphasising to inexperienced and/or bold pilots the importance of landing safely long before an accident becomes a real risk.

(k) Imposing a minimum height of 500 feet is not only unnecessary but, given the weather conditions which often prevail in the UK, would frequently prevent perfectly safe flights from being completed. eg Where the cloud base is such that a pilot can neither fly legally over a congested area in a valley nor fly perfectly safely through a 450' gap over the adjacent sparsely populated ridge. If I may borrow a slogan much used in a different context, I argue that "Education, education, education" is preferable to yet more restrictions.

4. Proposed Rule 5 (3)
Whilst I can at least understand the social and environmental arguments for prohibiting aircraft from over-flying such a gathering, I fail to see the safety aspects of prohibiting aircraft (without the written permission of the CAA) from taking off or landing a kilometre away from such an assembly. And in particular, but not only, where the site is routinely used by aircraft.

5. General Comments
(a) Legislation, both primary and secondary, inevitably remains unchanged for long periods. That, in my view, is all the more reason why the Authority should take this opportunity to reconsider Rule 5 entirely, not merely tinker with some elements.

(b) Given that one of the primary objectives was to formulate a simpler, shorter rule, the proposed amendments is only a limited success. Even in it's revised form, the rule is still unnecessarily complicated and remains potentially difficult to understand.

(c) Comparison with ICAO Rules of the Air and FAR 91.119
(i) The existing UK Rule 5 (as set out in Annex C) takes up three pages of A4.
(ii) The proposed amendment (Annex A) takes up just under two pages. Some improvement but due, to a significant extent, to the removal of the Specified Area rules rather than to a simplification of the primary rule.
(iii) The equivalent ICAO Rule (Annex D) takes up just less than half a page.
(iv) FAR 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes is only slightly longer than the ICAO rule, but is a model of simplicity. Three specific paragraphs cover flying aircraft: (a) Anywhere, (b) Over congested areas and (c) Over other than congested areas. The fourth paragraph (d) provides Helicopters exemptions. Not only is the rule easy to understand and apply, but it is a reasonable rule.

(d) Why does the UK rule have to be so long and complicated? In fairness to the draftsman of the revised rule, he has been given a difficult task. It is difficult to draft, in readily understandable language, a rule which provides for aeroplanes, helicopters, gliders and becalmed balloons where the restrictions and exemptions applicable to each depend not only upon the type of aircraft but upon which of numerous specified activities it is carrying out at the time.

(e) In relation to the FAR version, I note from a discussion in the 'Rotorheads' forum of the Professional Pilots Rumour Network ( www.pprune.org ) that one pilot who responded advocating that the UK should adopt the FAR version received a reply stating "FAR 01.119 is very simple. Unfortunately, America being a place with lots of wide open spaces, their low flying rules are not generally speaking, detailed enough to suit the heavily populated countries of Europe." Of course America has areas of wide open space, but it also has numerous densely populated areas to which the same simple rule applies. The simple rule nonetheless works well and achieves flight safety.

(f) FAR 91.119 is a simple rule which (as in the UK) is subject to an over-riding legal requirement not to cause danger and, if a pilot causes danger, he is (as in the UK) liable to prosecution. In relation to helicopters, the FAA appears to treat qualified pilots as responsible adults who have been trained to a standard which enables them to make proper decisions regarding what is safe in particular circumstances. In effect, the FAA rules say: "Comply with the prescribed minimums and don't cause a danger. If you breach the minimums or cause a danger you are liable to prosecution." That approach, in my opinion, places the emphasis where it should be. ie On the pilot to fly safely and not endanger anyone. FAR 91.119 (d) gives the pilot a discretion, but again puts a clear emphasis upon his responsibility to ensure safety: "Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in (b) and (c) if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface." I favour adopting the format of FAR 91.119 and, with one exception (referred to above), it's terms. That would not only achieve the objective of simplicity, but result in a more reasonable rule.
Reply from Mr McGregor
(After ackowledgement) .............. "I'm not too sure about FAR 91.119 (d), that is the rule that allows single engine helicopters to fly across downtown Dallas at 300 ft, safely they say! I will put it all into the mill and we shall see what comes out."
Response to Mr McGregor
Thank you for your reply.
You say "FAR 91.119 (d) .......... is the rule that allows single engine helicopters to fly across downtown Dallas at 300 ft, safely they say!"
That's not really a fair comment upon the rule.

(1) The exemption in section (d) has a corresponding proviso which must be satisfied before a pilot may take advantage of the exemption, ie "............ if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface."

(2) Helicopters are not exempt from the over-riding rule in section (a) "Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."

(3) FAR 91.13 'Careless or reckless operation' provides that "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

(4) Is there any evidence that the rule leads to helicopter accidents in downtown Dallas, or any other American city? (You'll find the answer is 'No'.)

(5) Notwithstanding my preference for the FAR low flying rule, I do not oppose the retention of the Specified Area restrictions, if only out of an abundance of caution.

I doubt if my views will carry much, if any, weight. I'm only a PPL and, as a regular thorn in their flesh on behalf of pilots and air operators, I don't think I'm the CAA's favourite aviation lawyer!
Still, I tried. :D

Tudor Owen

[Heliport]

Rotorhead B to the CAA
I am the holder of a CPL(H) and PPL(A).
I feel the current 500ft from person, vessel, vehicle or structure wording should be retained - I think that having a minimum height of 500 feet would reduce the flexibility in helicopter operations enormously; having a 500ft 'bubble' around things is just as safe and a lot more flexible. In the same air of flexibility, the reduction of the fifteen hundred foot rule to one thousand feet (the ICAO version) seems to be a good idea.
I do however think there's a possibility of confusion with the various paragraphs:
5 (1) is about congested areas and gatherings of more than a 1000 people;
sub-para (b) seems to allow me to fly at (say) 250ft over the upwind edge of them, particularly as 5 (2) starts with "Elsewhere", so it only applies in places other than a congested area and gatherings of more than 1000 people.
Then 5 (3) chips in and says that an aircraft can't take-off or land within 1000 metres of the congested area or gathering.
In sum, this implies that if there's 1001 people standing around, I can fly as close as I like to them, as long as I can alight clear if the donkey conks, but I can't take-off or land within a kilometre of them, even if I'm heading in entirely a different direction. But if there's only 1 person standing in the middle of a field, no matter what I'm doing I can't fly nearer than 500 feet to him.

To get the spirit of the regulation, with 5 (1) and (2) in force, I think (3) is not required. I.e. it shouldn't matter whether I'm taking-off, landing, flying straight and level or hover-taxying, the only important provision is that I must be able to safely alight clear of any gathering/congested area/person vessel vehicle or structure, if the power unit fails.Response from Mr McGregor
Thank you for your comments on the discussion paper on Rule 5, and I have noted your views on the 500 ft and 1500 ft aspects of the rule.
You have made some perceptive remarks and if it were a simple world the rule would be just as you say. I want to protect people and property in congested areas, and in line with the ICAO rule, gatherings of 1000 persons as well, hence the minimum height of 1,000/1,500 ft and the glide clear/ alight safely aspects. Elsewhere, in the open countryside only the 500 ft rule will be applicable. However, the existing Rule 5 (1)(d),which is very complex, has the effect of prohibiting aircraft from landing in the car park at an> agricultural show, unless there are adequate safety measures in place; hence my para (3). You can't fly as close as you like to a crowd, because you have to comply with the 500 ft rule. Unless, that is, you are landing or taking-off - hence the para (3) to protect the gathering from aircraft landing and taking-off at the event, except when there are adequate procedures in place.

Rotorhead B comments:
I still think that the 'elsewhere' can and will be interpreted to mean "if you're not over a crowd, the 500 foot rule applies, if you are then it doesn't", though Flying Lawyer would have a more accurate opinion on that bit.
And I don't like the idea of the additional bit about the take-off/landing within 1km of a crowd. For example, a farmer deciding to hold some sortofshow in his field will effectively cause his neighbour to not be able to use his strip/helipad, even if the flight path is directly away from the event. (I reckon any 500'/1000' above a fixed object rule should preclude theneighbour from flying near the crowd, without the imposition of this extra bit.)

[Heliport]

Rotorhead C to the CAA:
Sir
I wish to register my opposition to the proposed changes. I know large numbers of more detailed submissions have been made by both the fixed wing and rotary wing groups / individuals. I will not be adding anything new to the arguments other than to say that I am a helicopter pilot and can see so many difficulties arising. Private / Unlicenced landing sites. Mountain flying and training. Etc, etc etc. The very nature and attributes of a helicopter appear to be totally at odds with this proposal.

Regulation and legislation should be used as a line of last resort. If there are COMPELLING SAFETY ISSUES here, then you have not put them across to the industry as a whole. Opinions might be changed in the aviation world if you could produce facts and figures. In this day and age and the extraordinary levels of spin, we have all become very cynical of bureaucrats, so in some respects I have sympathy for you in the SRG, but that does not let you off the hook. This Country is beset by jobs-worths producing regulations which appear to be for regulation
sake, (not just in Aviation) and if you are to overcome our cynicism, you need to be out plugging your proposals in the same way that Mr Cockburn goes out to spread the message of GA safety. (He does it well)
If proposals can stand that acid test then you ARE doing something for aviation. Otherwise, I believe that you are merely perpetuating the 'them & us' scenario that David works so hard to dispel.
I therefore respectfully urge you to consign this nonsense to the
bin........where it should have gone in the first place!Reply from the CAA
Thank you for your comments on the discussion paper. I take it that you wish the UK low flying rule to remain unchanged. At this time the consultation concerns a discussion paper which lays out the options for change, one of which is to do nothing.
At the present time the CAA was mainly seeking opinions from the aviation community with regard to the major parameters
which might be changed. Annex A contains a revision of the text of the rule which attempted to reduce the length, repetition and extensive cross referencing necessary in the existing rule, but the basic provisions remain largely unchanged.

What exactly do you want to be allowed to do with your helicopter that would not pose a hazard to other members of society, which is not prohibited by the current rule 5 , but would be prohibited by the revised form at Annex A?
P.S. David Cockburn sends his regardsResponse by Rotorhead C
Thank you for your most prompt (and not really expected reply).

I have just learned that you are a pilot (H) which is perhaps an
assistance when I expand to say that while there may be merit in
ensuring the clarity of the rule 5 message, I certainly do not wish to see any change to the concept of 500ft from....as opposed to 500ft above....

I agree that a 'plain English' version of all aspects of the rules (and not just Aviation) should and I think would be welcomed by all. But my inbuilt cynicism of intentions comes to the forefront when there appears to be no good reason for change of the rules themselves.
Thank you again for taking the trouble to respond.

[Heliport]

The CAA said there would be a second round of consultations in February when the responses to the first had been considered.

Has anyone heard anything?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I haven't, but know that several of the key people in that area have left in the last few months, so a delay wouldn't surprise me.

G

[The Nr Fairy]

I was speaking with an examiner some weeks ago and the impression I got from him was that his impression, if you know what I mean, that the rule was to be changed to "500' from the ground".

Bad news, if you ask me - I prefer 500' from things, and let common sense prevail. and if people haven't got common sense THEN get the heavies involved.