Rule 5 Amendment?

[rustle]

There's a new consultation document to be found on the CAA website here: http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/general_aviation/document.asp?groupid=362

It's all about 'Rule 5', and whether the CAA should change it or leave it alone.

Basically, the options under consideration are:

Option 1 To leave the UK low flying rule in its present form, notwithstanding that it is difficult to interpret.

Option 2 To redraft the UK low flying rule so that it is aligned with the ICAO Rules of the Air.

Option 3 To redraft the low flying rule to make it readily understood by operational pilots, and, where possible, to align it more closely in style and content with the ICAO Rules of the Air, but allowing, where appropriate, retention of existing parameters contained in the current Rule 5.

(Taken from the CAA document)

Have your say!

We whinged when AIS changed things without consulting us, let's not be the victims of our own apathy again. :)

BTW, I was going to post this as a poll with the three options, but 1. it wouldn't actually mean anything to CAA, and 2. there may be a "poll-backlash" ;)

BRL, if you think a poll is a good idea please incorporate it, but remember that to be heard you'll need to register your views to the CAA/SRG

[2Donkeys]

Yesterday on this very forum, somebody was complaining about the CAA looking at changing the rules of Low Flying. Perhaps the two of you should get together :D

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72384

[rustle]

Yeah, just L:rolleyes::rolleyes:K at the huge response it got :)

(PS:2D, read your PM)

[Aussie Andy]

Well I think its interesting! Will read...

[QNH 1013]

No more polls here please.

I will respond to the CAA via the AIS website. Suggest we all do and then perhaps the CAA will consult pilots more.

[Aussie Andy]

Its not a poll, its a discusion... :confused:

[Aussie Andy]

I've read through the CAA document (on the train on the way home) and I am a bit worried that if they change to ICAO style Rule 5 option then we will not be able to descend below 500' under any circumstances, whereas we can now theoretically descend to any height ("depth"!?) as long as we are not "within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure".

When doing PFLs, it is good to be able to take the training scenario much lower than 500' in my view as it helps student to really appreciate whether they would "make the field" and see the picture (including wires!?!) from low level. When done a good safe distance from anyone or anything (i.e > 500'), then I think this is safe.

I'm interested to hear what others think about this particular aspect of the proposed changes. At first glance, I think we should oppose this possibility.

Otherwise, I suppose it makes sense to rationalise the complex existing rules (less work for lawyers ;)) but I'm not sure that this needs to be high on the CAA's list of priorities... is the existing wording really causing much difficulty?

[QDMQDMQDM]

I've also written protesting the 500 ft minimum height thing. If you want to go haring down a deserted beach or desolate mountain top at 50 ft, why the hell shouldn't you? I'm feeling my human rights being intruded on here!

QDM

[QNH 1013]

AA, I am well aware that this is not a poll (yet). However, if you read the first post you will see that BRL was invited to make it one if he wished. Hence my comment.

[Aussie Andy]

Gotcha QNH 1013 - apologies, hadn't spotted the context of your comment...

[QNH 1013]

AA, You're a gentleman.

[Aussie Andy]

... my wife doesn't think so ;)

[Who has control?]

Andy,

Article 2.1.3 specifical addresses PFLs and states that several states routinely allowflights below 500' for engine failure training, France allows flight down to 170'.

Annex A 5.3 states that an aircraft will not be allowed to land within 1000m of a gathering of 1000 people without written permission of the CAA.

At North Weald, we have the world's biggest market on a saturday morning, so I hope that some sort of blanket exemption will be allowed, otherwise the CAA Permission Granting Department will be on overtime :)

Otherwise, I like the 1000' overflight height - in my local area we have towns at 300', + 1500 clearance =1800'. London TMA is at 2500' so we only have 700 feet to play with. OK, so I can always try and avoid direct overflight, but any increase has to be a good thing.

[Aussie Andy]

Who has control?:

Hi... While its tue that the discussion paper (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/srg_gad_rule5-discussion%20paper.pdf) points out in para 2.1.3 that several states routinely allowflights below 500' for engine failure training, France allows flight down to 170'. ... they go on to argue that The United Kingdom, on the other hand, has filed a difference with ICAO because the UK Rules of the Air specify a minimum height of 1,500 ft over congested areas and a minimum separation distance of 500 ft (rather than a minimum height) outside these areas. It follows that these subtly different concepts and different parameters have the potential to lead to operational and regulatory confusion and may have an adverse effect on safety. ... and so therefore the proposal detailed in Annex A of this document does not appear to contain any such exemptions - hence my concern.

[knobbygb]

Well, I've just sent my views to the CAA. One thing that worried my which reading through the proposal was that althought it would be useful to be able to overly built up areas at 1000ft, this would likely cause even more complaints from the public and even more 'bad-blood' between 'us and them'. With our crap weather it would be a useful change but perhaps not a thing we should do when not absolutley necessary.

who has control, interestingly subparagraph (5)(C) on the same page exempts aircraft from the 1000m from a gathering rule when 'practising approaches to, or checking navigational aids or procedures at, a Government aerodrome or licensed aerodrome' So, basically you can do practice approaches to a go-around over the market all day but can't actually land. Mad or what?

[Mike Cross]

Who has control said:-

Annex A 5.3 states that an aircraft will not be allowed to land within 1000m of a gathering of 1000 people without written permission of the CAA.


There was an exemption in the old rule but it ain't in the proposed one.

Don't tell the NIMBY's at LHR that all they'll need to do is get 1000 of them outside the perimeter fence!

Or maybe the CAA will have someone in the tower ready to write out the permisisons?

Mike

[Who has control?]

As a matter of interest, obviously a footy match or a market is an 'organised gathering' but what about somewhere like Lakeside or Bluewater, where the crowds are bigger than 1000?

Does this mean I can with impunity cruise over Lakeside and its associated retail parks at 1500' agl but have to give our local team a wide berth if they are playing at home? (Not that they've ever attracted more than 1000 spectators.)

[BEagle]

Anyone know of a piece of private land within 1 Km of LHR, GTW, STN etc where we could hold an open-air tiddlywinks contest at which we could expect more than 1000 people?

I have just written to [email protected] to point out this folly; I have suggested that aircraft should not be flown within 1000 meters of such gatherings, but that an exemption should be given to that for take-offs and landings in accordance with normal aviation practice.

[Aussie Andy]

BEagle - the correct email address for Rob McGregor is [email protected] (there's atypo above).

[Aussie Andy]

Sent my email to Rob McGregor this morning re- my PFL concerns, and very quickly got an intelligent response asking follow-up questions. I encourage others to write in - we're lucky that we have a regulatory organisation which is actively listening to our views, and so we should actively engage and be heard :)

[BEagle]

Oops...

Fortunately I sent my comments to the correct address!

No reply as yet - but I share Aussie Andy's view that the oft-maligned Authority does now listen to our views. Long may that continue! Incidentally, I also proposed a new paragraph to give legal backing to the conduct of routine emergency training approved by authorised FIs:

An aircraft shall be exempt from compliance with:

(m) paragraph (2) when being flown for the purpose of conducting routine emergency training with the prior approval of an authorised Flight Instructor.

I consider that such an amendment would give reasonable legal protection to the legitimate conduct of essential training exercises whilst maintaining protection for the general public from unauthorised low flying.

[FlyingForFun]

I wouldn't like to see a "routine emergency training" exemption limited to flights approved by FIs. I quite regularly do "routine emergency training" such as PFLs without approval by an instructor.

I think this is something which we all need to get involved in. But since I'm not an expert in these matters, I'll certainly be reading everything which anyone posts here very carefully first! Others have noticed glaring problems with the proposals which went straight by me on my initial reading.

FFF
---------------

[bluskis]

The first question is why change, and there is an option suggesting keeping the rule as is.

The objective stated is to align with IACO, or perhaps JAA rules. We have seen in the case of the NPPL the usefulness of having national flexibility to suit local conditions.

Another objective is to make the rule more readable, and the question is then does the proposal achieve any substantial improvement.

In the discussion document/proposals para 4.4 is written as a blank cheque, intentionally or otherwise.

The proposal reads as if it is helicopters which are driving the changes, so it is for those experienced in their operation to come up with rules suitable for their type of flying. This will not necessarily translate to be suitable for light fixed wing craft.

A hugely important question for the GA fraternity is, will any rewrite of the rules make it more certain that pilots incorrectly accused of infringements will be aquitted.

As to any safety consideration, the question to be asked is how many accidents have occoured while keeping to the current rules.

Flight under the London TMA, and into airfields in this area already requires particular care, will any of the proposed changes make this safer or worse.

It is my opinion that the present 500 ft rule gives much more flexibility than the proposed, is understood by all pilots, and any change may well introduce problems, some of which have been discussed in this forum.

Having made the above comments I would like to read more opinions before submitting comment to the CAA.

[Ludwig]

I agree with bluskis. 500 from something or someone is easy to understand. Hieghts above ground preclude low level over the sea and unihabited ares, and as an early poster said, round mountains etc, non of which will add to safety, but remove the fun.

The no landing within 1000 metres of a 1000 person organised outdoor gathering has some interesting airfield closing potential.

Let's say renta crowd got 4,000 people together (not impossible 250,000 went on th liberty an dlivlihood march) organised an open air gathering within 1KM of Heathrow, Stanstead, Luton and Birmigham all day on easter saturday - that would shut down everything quite well under the new proposal. Even a good sized fete in the village near your local airfield would put you out of business on a summer saturday!

Keep it the same I say, and have sent my 2p worth to the CAA, an welcome their open consultation - well done to them.

[BEagle]

I have now had an informative reply from Rob. It would appear that, due to the plethora of commas, sub-para (5)(c) is open to ambiguity of interpretation. It's supposed to read that take-offs, landings, practice approaches and checking navaids or procedures at licensed or Government aerodromes only are exempted from the rule regarding 1000 gathered in the open! As are take-offs and landings at any other aerodrome in another country.

So, regrettably, we can't hold the first 1000 person open-air PPRuNe bash 999 metres from Gatwick on a busy holiday weekend......

The revised draft is supposed to protect the Great Unwashed at, say, a local agricultural show from someone in a private helicopter trying to land in the car park, it would seem. But if introduced as currently written, it could cause huge difficulties for those flying from an unlicensed strip everytime Fiona and Samantha hold a pony club show within 1 km - or if yet another thieves' paradise ('car boot sale') is set up in Farmer Giles' field just over the boundary fence........

[knobbygb]

I also had a personal reply from Rob which raised the same concerns as BEagle mentions, but in his reply to me he didn't indicate that there was any ambiguity in (5)(c) and implied that it was indeed meant to mean no landings within 1000ft of gatherings, even at licensed airfields. He did however concede that 'this area may need revisiting'. Looks like he may have changed his mind after receiving more feedback.

After a promising start, this is again turning into somthing more typical of the CAA. The re-drafting was meant to clarify the rules and has clearly failed to do this at the first hurdle since we collectivley still cannot interpret them!

On another note, have these proposals been sent out to people involved in GA (clubs, airfields etc.) as I spoke to my CFI and some instructors yesterday and neither he or anyone else present knew anything about the proposals.

[BEagle]

Sorry - it wasn't Rob who said that there was any ambiguity, it was me in my reply. His intent regarding exemptions for take-offs and landings at Licensed or Government aerodromes within 1 km is at variance with the way in which (5)(c) has been interpreted by most people in this thread.

The true intent of (5)(c), if I deduce it correctly after considering Rob's reply is something like:

'An aircraft shall be exempt from compliance with:

Paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) while utilising the airspace customarily used by aircraft when landing, taking off, practising approaches, checking navigational aids or procedures in accordance with normal aviation practice at:

a. A Government aerodrome

b. A licensed aerodrome in the UK

or when utilising the airspace customarily used by aircraft when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice at any aerodrome in any other country'

However, I still think that the exemption should apply to all aerodromes; it would be unreasonable to restrict legitimate aviation activities at an unlicensed aerodrome just beacuse Farmer Giles has let 1000 thieves stage a so-called 'car boot sale' just over the boundary fence! The problem, it seems, is in deciding precisely what constitutes an 'aerodrome'......

[rustle]

Another one, where the deadline for submissions is approaching :)


10. Responses

Comments on the proposals contained in this paper should be sent to:

Mr R McGregor
General Aviation Department
Civil Aviation Authority
1W Aviation House
Gatwick Airport South
West Sussex
RH6 0YR

e-mail: [email protected]

to arrive no later than 17 January 2003.
In the absence of comment the CAA will assume that there is no objection to the proposals and will proceed to the second stage of the consultation process.