CAA v FAA approach to 'Low Flying' Regs

[Heliport]

The FAA recognises that helicopters can land virtually anywhere if the need arises. Accordingly, the FAA ‘Minimum Safe Altitudes’ regulations distinguish between helicopters and other aircraft.

FAR 91.119
”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. (1000’ rule)
(c) Over other than congested areas. (500’ rule)
(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."


(The safety provision in Section (a) applies to all aircraft, including helicopters.)

Do you think such an exemption should be included in the new UK Rule 5?

Notes:
The Poll is intended to obtain the views of UK helicopter pilots.
The views and experience of FAA helicopter pilots would be very welcome.

Heliport

[Circuit Basher]

As a fixed wing PPL, I've voted 'No' on this one and felt it may be worth explaining why......

There is an ever increasing pressure on the GA community to be more 'neighbourhood friendly' as a result of pressure from community action groups. I realise that rotaries don't need airfields for everyday operations, but they still need centres of aviation activity when it comes to fuel, maintenance, C of A and training. If airfields are steadily chopped as a result of complaints of noise / low flying (whether rotary or F/W), then the GA community as a whole suffers.

I realsie that the majority of the pilots amongst you are considerate to the local community, but I still have concerns that one or two impetuous idiots could stuff it all up for the entire GA community.

Thank you for welcoming one of the 'rigid' community onto your pages - hope I haven't upset anyone! ;) :D I shall now return to Private Flying forum and am unlikely to darken your doorsteps again unless invited!!

[nonradio]

Helicopters (d) : I always thought that it was without UNDUE hazard as well. Has the rule changed or was that just wishful thinking?

[Flying Lawyer]

nonradio
Section (a) which applies to all aircraft requires pilots to fly at a height which, if a power unit fails, allows an emergency landing "without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."
The exemption for helicopters in Section (d) is subject to a stricter proviso that "the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface." Given that it allows an exemption from complying with the primary rule, I don't think it's unreasonable that the pilot has to satisfy a stricter test.

-------------------------------

The FAA gives the reason for allowing helicopter operations to be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft as: "The helicopter's unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is its ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power failure." That is an excerpt from the part of the FAA's website which explains the 'low flying' rules to citizens considering reporting aircraft for alleged low flying. It explains to the public that helicopters present less of a danger to people on the ground than other aircraft and, for that reason, are permitted to fly lower. (Isn't it refreshing to see a positive image being promoted. :) )
The exemption for helicopters is entirely sensible for the reason the FAA gives. I'd estimate the chances of the CAA adopting the idea here as approximately nil.

[nonradio]

Flying Lawyer: Thankyou; just out of interest can you give a legal definition of "danger"?

[virgin]

I've worked under the FAA as an instructor for three years in Florida years ago. There's no comparison. The FAA is much much better. But there's not a cat in hell's chance the CAA would ever admit they could learn anything from the FAA.
The CAA talks about the FAA as if America's some new country which has just discovered the aeroplane and don't know anything about flight safety.:rolleyes:

[Chuck K]

The rule works fine here. None of the horror stories your CAA believes. The FAA has a good attitude to helos and tells citizens positive things, like for example emergency landings in small spaces. Makes up for the movies the guys up the road make. :D Result is helos are just another form of transportation. A helo flies by, no big deal. Most don't even look up. Some folks wave when we fly low along the beach, that's about it. If you fly low somewhere stupid the FAA kicks butt. If you lfy safe, no problem.

Maybe you guys can't be trusted to judge for yourselves what's safe? ;) ;) ;)
Don't flame me guys, I'm not serious. :D

[captainkt]

Circuit Basher

A lot of helicopters operate from private sites and do not visit airfields unless they have to, autos and confined areas are practiced throughout the countryside. If proposals to alter the 500ft rule go ahead then weekends at your local airfield will be used by heli pilots wanting to practice skills and do circuits. That will not please nearby residents or the fixed wing fraternity. Helicopter training was stopped at BHX over 10yrs ago due to conflicts with fixed wing - I had to fly students from Birmingham down to Wellesbourne to practice engine failures and circuits.