CAA to amend low flying rule?

[singaporegirl]

The CAA has just published a consultation document on whether to amend rule 5 of the Rules of the Air. See:

http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/general_aviation/document.asp?groupid=362

Apparently the UK low flying rule uses 1,088 words compared with its ICAO equivalent of 160 words (shurely shome mishtake?!), and they think that this makes it overly complicated and therefore less understandable...

What I didn't realise is that the UK differs from ICAO in specifying a minimum height of 1,500 ft over congested areas (as opposed to 1,000 ft) - presumably on the grounds that we are more densely populated? Also ICAO specifies a minimum height outside these areas of 500 ft whereas the UK rule is a minimum separation of 500 ft (eg should you want to you could fly at a height of 20 ft as long as you are at least 500 ft away from any person, structure, or vessel – may not be safe, but it is legal).

The thrust of the paper seems to be that the CAA is not intending to bring the UK into line with ICAO in these areas, but just to redraft the wording to make it simpler to understand. Just as long as they don't then promote it through the Notam website! :rolleyes:

[drauk]

1. Given the "land clear" requirement why should it be necessary to specify a higher-than-ICAO limit because the UK is densely populated?

2. Doesn't the specification of a rule of distance using two different units for measurement seem a bit daft? Greengrocers get in trouble for selling potatoes by the pound, but we have rules that talk about X feet and Y metres.

3. *Personally* I'd rather they clarified the use of a SEP plane to transit over the City than worry about this other stuff (which might be 5 times as long as it needs to be, but isn't that difficult to understand). If they think the existing rules are hard to read perhaps they should think about how hard it is to implement them in such a case.