Rule 5 ammendment
sua cuique voluptas
Thread Starter
Rule 5 ammendment
At last, something sensible to come out of the "harmonisation" of EASA. The 1500' rule now becomes the 1000' rule.
Document here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%2...ril%202005.pdf
Ripline
Document here:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/Rule%2...ril%202005.pdf
Ripline
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's more sensible if this type of rule is harmonised across Europe as pilots like me with small brains have trouble remembering all the different rules that applied across Europe otherwise!
Maybe you think the 500' reduction makes a material difference to safety (what's that in terms of glide distance?) or the potential for noise complaints? Note that the "land clear" rule still applies anyway...
Interested in your views - but on the whole I think it sounds helpful.
Andy
Maybe you think the 500' reduction makes a material difference to safety (what's that in terms of glide distance?) or the potential for noise complaints? Note that the "land clear" rule still applies anyway...
Interested in your views - but on the whole I think it sounds helpful.
Andy
Last edited by Aussie Andy; 14th Apr 2005 at 10:52.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it will be mean more people flying low over residential areas resulting in more noise complaints. I also think there will be a greater risk of someone getting themselves in a position from which they do not, in fact, glide clear.
I read a report by the CAA saying that they did not intend to change the 500ft rule as they, quite rightly, felt that the UK wording was far superior to the ICAO wording. What prompted them to change the 1500ft rule then?
This new rule is an Aerial Photographers' Charter and is not good news for the image of GA.
I read a report by the CAA saying that they did not intend to change the 500ft rule as they, quite rightly, felt that the UK wording was far superior to the ICAO wording. What prompted them to change the 1500ft rule then?
This new rule is an Aerial Photographers' Charter and is not good news for the image of GA.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In what is sometimes refered to as 'The Triangle of Death', that volume of sky between London, Luton & Stansted, the base of CAS is 2500'.
Various spot heights in N London are about 360', so to make life easier, assume ground level to be 400'. Add on 1500 which gives 1900' and subtract that from 2500'. This gives a sliver of sky 600' thick max. to fly in.
For the purpose of a prosecution, the CAA's definition of a settlement is 'two houses or more', so going much lower than 1900' QNH isnt a good idea, unless you want to weave around the houses.
So this means all the east-west traffic to the north of London gets squeezed into a slice of airspace 500-600 ' deep and I would imagine that the same conditions apply to the south, between London & Gatwick too.
That extra 500 feet has just doubled the volume of airspace available.
Various spot heights in N London are about 360', so to make life easier, assume ground level to be 400'. Add on 1500 which gives 1900' and subtract that from 2500'. This gives a sliver of sky 600' thick max. to fly in.
For the purpose of a prosecution, the CAA's definition of a settlement is 'two houses or more', so going much lower than 1900' QNH isnt a good idea, unless you want to weave around the houses.
So this means all the east-west traffic to the north of London gets squeezed into a slice of airspace 500-600 ' deep and I would imagine that the same conditions apply to the south, between London & Gatwick too.
That extra 500 feet has just doubled the volume of airspace available.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this means all the east-west traffic to the north of London gets squeezed into a slice of airspace 500-600 ' deep and I would imagine that the same conditions apply to the south, between London & Gatwick too.
2D
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you deduct height for realising that you do indeed have a dead engine that won't re-start, then a bit more for a turn towards the most suitable field, then keep a bit more in reserve for lining up and dropping into the field over any trees or wires.
You started with 1000ft.
How much have you got left?
In nil wind, how much gliding distance does that give you?
You started with 1000ft.
How much have you got left?
In nil wind, how much gliding distance does that give you?
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In nil wind, how much gliding distance does that give you?
sua cuique voluptas
Thread Starter
bar shaker
Well, I'd say we were both putting an interpretation on the revised rules that reflects our own prejudices and the type of equipment that we fly. That's OK, isn't it? We all do that to some extent. Just because the legal boundaries have changed doesn't mean that everyone has to fly lower automatically. I see it as a common sense change that allows you as a pilot more freedom of choice of action within the capabilities of both the aircraft and your own assessment of the situation.
OK, I'm a balloon pilot. There are several Rules of the Air that are applied to the conduct of all GA aircraft and there are many which are not appropriate to the way in which some of them fly. All I'm saying here is that while it is probably foolish to overfly a heavily built-up area in a PA-28 at 1000', a balloon with plenty of fuel on board and calm weather would not represent anything like the same risk to those below even if all systems failed completely. Slow, low-level flight is what balloons are superbly equiped to do well and safely, hence my positive reaction to this announcement!
Ripline
This new rule is an Aerial Photographers' Charter and is not good news for the image of GA.
OK, I'm a balloon pilot. There are several Rules of the Air that are applied to the conduct of all GA aircraft and there are many which are not appropriate to the way in which some of them fly. All I'm saying here is that while it is probably foolish to overfly a heavily built-up area in a PA-28 at 1000', a balloon with plenty of fuel on board and calm weather would not represent anything like the same risk to those below even if all systems failed completely. Slow, low-level flight is what balloons are superbly equiped to do well and safely, hence my positive reaction to this announcement!
Ripline
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low flying?
What is perhaps more significant for most people is the provision of Rule5 (3) (ii) which now appears to allow take off and landing at a non licenced and Government aerodromes (private strips) without reference to the 500' rule.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ripline
I completely understand why you were so pleased now. A balloon has a substantially better glide ratio than a lump of 30 year old metal
I do still think we must all continue to respect the public's right to privacy and peace and quiet, though. The public have a strange perception of height of aircraft (and balloons).
Andy
I would expect the extra 500ft to halve the potential glide, once you take the non variables out from both events.
Homegaurd
This has been the case for longer than I have been flying. The ruling was also changed about 18 months ago to allow permit aircraft to over fly congested areas, if taking off or landing at a licensed or gov strip. They aren't allowed to over fly under normal flight conditions.
I completely understand why you were so pleased now. A balloon has a substantially better glide ratio than a lump of 30 year old metal
I do still think we must all continue to respect the public's right to privacy and peace and quiet, though. The public have a strange perception of height of aircraft (and balloons).
Andy
I would expect the extra 500ft to halve the potential glide, once you take the non variables out from both events.
Homegaurd
This has been the case for longer than I have been flying. The ruling was also changed about 18 months ago to allow permit aircraft to over fly congested areas, if taking off or landing at a licensed or gov strip. They aren't allowed to over fly under normal flight conditions.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a storm in a tea-cup I like the idea of a relaxed rule myself, though what would be better is to not squeeze your average GA aircraft down so low.....but thats another matter.
I like the idea of a relaxed rule myself, though what would be better is to not squeeze your average GA aircraft down so low.....but thats another matter.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Homeguard
The ANO has always (in my time) exempted aircraft landing and taking off from Rule 5, irrespective of whether the field was licensed or not.
Otherwise landing or taking off at any unlicensed field with a hangar, farm house or group of spotters on the grass would have been illegal.
Please feel free to quote a recent edition of the ANO and prove me wrong.
The ANO has always (in my time) exempted aircraft landing and taking off from Rule 5, irrespective of whether the field was licensed or not.
Otherwise landing or taking off at any unlicensed field with a hangar, farm house or group of spotters on the grass would have been illegal.
Please feel free to quote a recent edition of the ANO and prove me wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Correct bar shaker. Current Rule 5 says:
It's the practising of approaches that has always been restricted to licensed or Govt aerodromes.
NS
Incidentally ripline the changes to Rule 5 have nothing whatsoever to do with EASA. EASA has no jurisdiction over airspace. The rule change was part of a general review of aspects of UK air law which were found by an ICAO audit not to be in accordance with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices.
(1)(e) An aircraft shall not fly closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure…
(2)(d) Paragraph (1)(e) shall not apply to:
(i) any aircraft while it is landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice
(2)(d) Paragraph (1)(e) shall not apply to:
(i) any aircraft while it is landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice
NS
Incidentally ripline the changes to Rule 5 have nothing whatsoever to do with EASA. EASA has no jurisdiction over airspace. The rule change was part of a general review of aspects of UK air law which were found by an ICAO audit not to be in accordance with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,580
Received 437 Likes
on
230 Posts
The amendment is very welcome news! The amendment of the minimum altitude to 1000ft will make it easier to stay within the law.
The perennial problem for 365 days a year operators is cloudbase, especially when icing conditions mean we must stay VFR below cloud. The 1500' rule was difficult to comply with at times, especially around the London control zone.
For once we get something LESS restrictive from the CAA.
The perennial problem for 365 days a year operators is cloudbase, especially when icing conditions mean we must stay VFR below cloud. The 1500' rule was difficult to comply with at times, especially around the London control zone.
For once we get something LESS restrictive from the CAA.
