Proposed Changes to Rule 5: Second CAA Consultation Paper

[Heliport]

Second consultation on a proposed change to Rule 5 ‘Low flying’ of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1996

The CAA has announced a second consultation on the proposed change to Rule 5 based on a revised proposal resulting from opinions expressed in the first consultation last November.

To read the discussion paper, a summary of submissions made during the first stage consultation and to download the latest draft (@ Annexe A) click on your favourite symbol .......... http://www.caa.co.uk/CodeLibrary/images/white_bg_logo.gif (http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/general_aviation/default.asp?page=1272)

The proposed amendment is certainly more easily understandable than the existing Rule 5 but those Rotorheads who expected, or even hoped for, a full 'back to basics' revision of Rule 5 will be disappointed. As was clear from the first consultation in November, all the CAA invited was comment upon limited options in a limited number of specific areas and not suggestions for a complete revision.
The most significant proposed change is to replace the existing UK ‘1500 foot rule’ with a ‘1000 foot rule to bring us into line with most other ICAO countries.

Previous Rotorheads Discussion
For reference: Our discussion on the first draft, copies of some members' submissions to the CAA and the CAA’s replies to those submissions can be found by clicking ....... Proposed Rule 5 changes: Includes replies from the CAA (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=72379&referrerid=30158)

The replies from the CAA included that classic .... "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."


NB: Comments and views on the proposal must be sent to the CAA by no later than 22 August 2003.


Heliport http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/aktion/action-smiley-085.gif

[Flying Lawyer]

A few preliminary thoughts to start discussion.

Presentation
The language and format of the latest proposal is undoubtedly much more 'user-friendly' than the existing virtually incomprehensible Rule 5, but it still falls short of the equivalent FAA rule. (See below.)
Content
Imagine what could have been achieved if the opportunity had been taken to step back from entrenched thinking and make a genuine root and branch reappraisal of what is actually required. (Not really any need to imagine - See below.) In particular, it's a shame the CAA won't adopt the FAA's sensible and realistic distinction between between aeroplanes and helicopters.

I don't think it's possible to improve on either the style or content of the FAA rule for both fixed-wing and helicopters:
FAR 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. Unfortunately, any suggestion to CAA personnel that the FAA might actually do anything better is invariably met with 'Hmmm ......., the FAA?', accompanied by much drawing in of breath, rolling of eyes and shaking of heads as if America was some banana republic which had just discovered the aeroplane.

The specific suggestion in relation to helicopters made by many experienced helicopter pilots in the previous discussion here, and with which I totally agree, was met with the rather embarrassing response quoted in the introduction to this thread.
Not surprisingly, it produced the following comment from an American contributor: "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 ........................ 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."

[old heliman]

OK then 'lawyer' so what constitutes 'undue hazard' for example?...consideration of engine failure? FAA Rules are ambiguous, I think the new proposal is clearer and at least explicit leaving less for expensive cort officials to argue over!!

As for the FAA and their rules, do you want to fly a single in the GOM or to a rooftop in downtown LA? You can in the USA, not for me thanks.

Incidently I thought this forum was for professional licence holders, or am I wrong?

[Heliport]

old heliman

"Incidently I thought this forum was for professional licence holders, or am I wrong?" You're wrong.
The majority of contributors are professionals, but private licence holders and all others with an interest in helicopters are equally welcome to post.

So you think Flying Lawyer shouldn't post on Rotorheads because he's not a professional licence holder?
I'll be interested to see how much support you get for that idea.

Flying a single in the GOM or to a rooftop in downtown LA is not for you?
Then don't do it. Or do you mean you think there should be a law stopping other people from doing so? I hope we get some responses from our American members on that aspect.


Heliport http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/aktion/action-smiley-085.gif

[Hoverman]

Old heliman

Since you don't post a lot maybe you dont know who the Flying Lawyer is. He's been flying for about 30 years, flies f/w and rotary, done more varied flying than some professionals I know, the top aviation barrister, respected by everyone in the industry, and even off-the-record by our friends at the Belgrano.
You don't have to agree with his opinions on everything or even anything but he's got as much right to post here as any "professional licence holder".

[Mars]

On presentation; Flying Lawyer is correct that the new version is much easier on the eye:

On the title of the Rule; whilst some elements of the rule are about low flying some are not. It might properly be re-titled Minimum Safe Altitudes - General.

On 5(1)(d) The land clear rule; this could either be ‘aeroplanes’ or, if that excludes too many other aircraft, ‘aircraft other than helicopters’. Thus removing the need for 5(2)(d)(ii).

On 5(1)(f) Landing and taking off near open air assemblies; the new rule appears to discontinue the defense permitted in the old 5(1)(d)(ii) that unconnected (to the gathering) landings are permitted. It therefore goes beyond the old rule.

On 5(2)(i) Manoeuvring helicopters; if this text is meant to address the normal training manoeuvres of quick-stop, hovering, etc. on an airfield, perhaps it should say so.

On Flying Lawyer's second point; from the reading of the document, it would appear that only four of the 268 contributors agreed with his position on FAR 91.119. How would the common interest, or safety, have been improved if the CAA had agreed to that suggestion?

For FAR 91.119; it is unclear what the title (Minimum safe altitudes) has to do with helicopters as it does not appear to give any rules on safe altitudes. Leaving aside the issues of engine failure (which is still applicable) and endangerment (which is covered adequately by FAR 91.13) it is difficult to see what the FAA has in mind.

Could it be that a different issue was being addressed with this decision? The regulation of Aerial Work (with the exception of: Part 133 - Rotorcraft External-Load Operations; and Part 137 - Agricultural Aircraft Operations) is under Part 91 - General Operating and Flight Rules. Without the alleviation built into FAR 91.119, any number of Aerial Work activities - other than those in Parts 133 & 137 - would be illegal. The FAA is not minded to produce the type of exemptions that UK operators have for Aerial Work, or put the activity under similar AOC type rules of other European States.

However, if that is the case, why then the alleviation from FAR 91.119(b) Over congested areas - the exemption that a number of us really have the problem with?

[Flying Lawyer]

The figure of 4:268, whilst mathematically correct, means little or nothing.
The CAA's first 'consultation paper' invited us to express preferences from amongst the very limited options which the Authority offered. It's not surprising in those circumstances that the vast majority of those who responded did as they were asked. Adopting FAR 91.119 was not available as an option and we will never know what the response might have been if it was.
I, and some others, chose to make comments/suggestions in addition to expressing our preferences amongst the available options. Most confined their remarks to those areas which directly affect their sphere of operations. I chose to make a general comment upon the rule as a whole, based upon opinions I have formed as a pilot (private) and as a lawyer with a particular interest in aviation law.

Re the 'number of us (who) really have the problem with' the exemption which the FAA grants helicopters. I know Mars and his good friend 'Another KOS' do, and so does Old Heliman. Based on discussions I've had with other helicopter pilots, opinions are divided but with a preference for the FAA rule.
I know there are some who consider that the FAA's rule is hopelessly inadequate, and that qualified pilots cannot be trusted to use common sense, experience and good judgement. Perhaps they assume it's mere good fortune that the American safety record is no better no worse than ours, despite our rules leaving less discretion to pilots. Perhaps they are too deeply entrenched in CAA thinking?

In any event the point is academic because, unfortunately, the FAA option wasn't and won't be offered.

More anon.

FL

[old heliman]

Glad to stir up some discussion. I asked the question because the forum is entitled "professional pilots forum" no more no less. When the topic came up on the first round it seemed to me that a lot of the comments did not seem to come from that source....however its not a point that I seek to argue over. Yes I am aware of who 'flying lawyer' (or T-O) is.

Having flown 206's in the US and flown (just) off a designated route in the Fort Lauderdale area in order to make sure I DID have somewhere to go if the engine quit, only to be told off from deviating by ATC, I am not convinced that FAA do have it right. If you look at the accident record in the GOM it is not good, 6 this year to date I think. Not sure that passengers would opt for one engine over the Gulf if given a choice....but generally commercial considerations mean they won't be.

Benign environment? Tell that to the ones who died of hypothermis this year when their single engined 206 went down offshore.

I have to say that I believe CAA have got it about right...not perfect but not bad.

Incidently with respect to quick-stops on airfields etc, these used to be covered by an exemption I think, following a complaint about noise generated in the west country. Official Record?

[Watchoutbelow]

Old heliman,

If you do much flying around Fort Lauderdale you would see the amount of 206 traffic flying over to the Bahamas, with no problem, also if you think that an ATC instruction may be of danger to you and your aircraft, you do not have to comply with it.

Also look at the amount of Heli traffic in L.A, almost all single engine, in a city much larger then London, I cant remember hearing of any problems in relation to aircraft type endangering the public (crazy pilots maybe, but not the aicraft type!)

GOM Pilots reguarly practice autos into the drink in single engine aircraft, unfortunately there were a couple of accidents recently, but there were also some in the North Sea, a hazard of the industry.

I think that flying in the U.K is in a serious danger of being restricted to large operaters, and once the North Sea dries up, where will we be?

The CAA have to reasonable to the commercial world, and at first glance of this paper, it looks like its making a start (about time).

Flying Lawyer, its great to have somebody of your Caliber fighting in our corner. Keep up the great work!!

[The Nr Fairy]

I've put my two penn'ort in to the nice Mr McGregor at the CAA. Here's my questions, and the responses (responses in dark blue).

Firstly, in section 3.2 it is stated "the original concern identified in the Small Helicopter Action Plan could be addressed by introducing weather limitations similar to those already contained in private pilots’ licences for aeroplanes" - are there plans in place to do this, and if so what sort of timescale is associated with this ?

1) There are no definite plans at present to amend Schedule 8 of the ANO in respect of visiblity limitations for PPL(H) holders, but, given that this is an integral part of the PPL(A) where these are intended to prevent inadvertent IMC and disorientation accidents, you will see the attraction in using the same mechanism in the PPL(H). If the CAA were to go ahead with this idea, I would estimate that it would take a minimum of two years for it to be incorporated in the ANO, even if the go-ahead was given today.

Secondly in the proposed new rule, section 1(f)(ii) prohibits landing or takeoff closer than 1000m to an organised assembly unless previously agreed with the organiser, and in accordance with CAA procedures. How likely is this to impact ad-hoc helicopter charter work, which as far as I can see is one of the few areas this WOULD affect ? Would there be guidelines for organisers to determine if a proposed operation is safe and consistent with the assembly, or would it be left to individual operators to liaise with organisers to try to obtain written permission ? If it's left to operators with no official "best practice" document from the CAA to guide organisers, then I can foresee inconsistencies arising.

2) The restrictions on landings and take-offs within 1,000 metres of an organised open air assembly at the new para (1)(f) are pretty much as they are at present under the existing Rule 5 (1)(d)(i)(aa) and therefore the new rule should not impact further on current operations. The present rule requires the pilot to have the written permission of the CAA and the written consent of the organiser. The new rule envisages that the CAA will promulgate procedures in an AIC in rather the same way that the procedures for charity flights are promulgated. The new rule will allow operations to continue at existing unlicensed aerodromes provided that these procedures (which might include, 'no overflight of the crowd') are observed, without the permission of the organiser of the (car boot sale?) being required. And, when not at an existing unlicensed aerodrome and at the event itself, the organiser would have to give his consent and the procedures in the AIC would have to be followed (minimum distances from the crowd etc.).

Lastly, the proposed new section 2(a)(ii) states "Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice." What is the definition of "normal aviation practice" and would this cover training in mountain and/or pinnacle operations? Or, since the 500' rule is still "not .. . closer than 500 ft to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure" is no relief needed ?

3) Regarding the meaning of 'normal aviation practice', this would not extend to training in mountain and pinnacle operations, in much the same way that the exemption from the 500 ft rule does not extend to PFLs and EFATO training. However, for landing or take off from a site at which the permission of the land owner has been obtained, the exemption would be valid. As you yourself indicate, a 500 ft distance is not too difficult to comply with.

[Heliport]

According to Mr MCGregor 'normal aviation practice' doesn't include training. That means FI's teaching EFATO at some airfields will still be at risk of being prosecuted by the CAA.
Remember the BA instructor at Booker they prosecuted? BA supported the FI in fighting the case and the CAA was spectacularly unsuccessful, but they still tried.

[Thomas coupling]

I think the terms and conditions laid down by the CAA reflect our society thinking in a round about way.
A little more complicated than necessary and occasionally still based on ye olde englishe attitude. The Americans seem to approach it according to their outlook on life: KISS: "keep it simple stupid"!). Each have their problems.
But there does appear to be a glimmer of hope regarding the re-write attempt of this rule. I have noticed that 'nearly' all the FOI's in the helo department at the Glass house, have changed, and that the newbie's are much more accomodating and better prepared for the future - so let's hope this is the start of a new era :eek:

Old heliman:

I don't understand your vitriolic attitude towards FL. There was nothing in his posting to wind anyone up. As usual he was offering a very experienced and professional comment on a subject, which, in this instance, I would argue, he knows more about than you will ever know.
Chill out and don't give the rest of us so called "professional" pilots" a bad reputation amongst our peers.............:8

[Heliport]

Just in case anyone thinks there's any point in e-mailing the CAA, the deadline for comments is tomorrow 22 August.