Gash low level flying LAW question...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gash low level flying LAW question...
Microlights, at an estimated 10' across a SSCI/ Natural England reserve, what law(s) have they broken??
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northampton
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None, unless there happened to be any persons, vehicles, man made structures or, at a long stretch, vessels within 500 feet. Unless of course there is a 'hard to uncover' rule governing the operation of aircraft above such 'reserves'? I should imagine that in the case of engine failure and subsequent damage to any protected parts should spark an inquiry as to the pilot's actions.
Interesting question though - I remember when I was younger walking along the promenade at Hunstanton, a chappie flying his motor powered paraglider at about 10' above the beach, about the same distance from the promenade with lots of rubber necked tourists gawking at him like myself! I should imagine that would perhaps attract the attention of the CAA more than aforementioned example!
Cheers, Jack.
Interesting question though - I remember when I was younger walking along the promenade at Hunstanton, a chappie flying his motor powered paraglider at about 10' above the beach, about the same distance from the promenade with lots of rubber necked tourists gawking at him like myself! I should imagine that would perhaps attract the attention of the CAA more than aforementioned example!
Cheers, Jack.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 foot overhead?
...then yes, he did break the law unless he was coming into land or taking off.
When I was taught maths, 10 was certainly less than 500. (units being the same, obviously!)
It's called rule 5.
When I was taught maths, 10 was certainly less than 500. (units being the same, obviously!)
It's called rule 5.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
unless he was coming into land or taking off
"Well, we'll be landing eventually, won't we."
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lister Noble
Some nature/bird reserves have min height marked on chart-eg Minsmere 2000'
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
'Tis possible rule 5 does not apply in this scenario - depends on how remote said location is!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northampton
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello all!
As far as I am aware, Rule 5 bears no direct link to the prohibition of flying below 500' agl. To be specific, the rule states that an aircraft shall not fly within 500' of any person, vehicle, man made structure or vessel - or words to that effect.
That is my understanding? And I relate it to this topic as in such an area as is mentioned, I should think it quite possible that there are locations within which none of the above are to be found. Of course we SHOULD take the rule to mean anywhere below 500' agl (unless taking off or landing) as one cannot be sure that no people are hiding behind trees/in caves/hidden from view etc!
My interpretation and open ended answer to the original question is, I don't believe we can be sure as to whether it was legal or illegal.
Please do not misunderstand me - I always err on the side of safety and am merely attempting to address a technicality!
All the best, Jack.
As far as I am aware, Rule 5 bears no direct link to the prohibition of flying below 500' agl. To be specific, the rule states that an aircraft shall not fly within 500' of any person, vehicle, man made structure or vessel - or words to that effect.
That is my understanding? And I relate it to this topic as in such an area as is mentioned, I should think it quite possible that there are locations within which none of the above are to be found. Of course we SHOULD take the rule to mean anywhere below 500' agl (unless taking off or landing) as one cannot be sure that no people are hiding behind trees/in caves/hidden from view etc!
My interpretation and open ended answer to the original question is, I don't believe we can be sure as to whether it was legal or illegal.
Please do not misunderstand me - I always err on the side of safety and am merely attempting to address a technicality!
All the best, Jack.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
Unfortunately Rule 5 doesn't include an exemption clause for remote locations! The 500 foot rule always applies in UK unless taking off or landing or where an exemption has been obtained (and paid for) from the CAA.
Originally Posted by Halfbaked_Boy
My interpretation and open ended answer to the original question is, I don't believe we can be sure as to whether it was legal or illegal.
Originally Posted by Final 3 Greens
Microlights, at an estimated 10' across the sea within UK territorial limits, flies over a submarine sumerged 100 feet under the surface what law(s) have they broken?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Final, you're looking at Rule 6 (b). Rule 5 (3) (b) is headed The 500 feet rule and says 'Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.'
In your scenario, assuming there's nothing pertinent that you're not telling us, I cannot see why any of the exemptions in Rule 6 would apply.
Dunno why, but I like these thought games. Maybe I should have been a lawyer......I'm sure I would have made more money!
In your scenario, assuming there's nothing pertinent that you're not telling us, I cannot see why any of the exemptions in Rule 6 would apply.
Dunno why, but I like these thought games. Maybe I should have been a lawyer......I'm sure I would have made more money!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Final, you're looking at Rule 6 (b)
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1676/Rule%...il%202005a.pdf
In your scenario, assuming there's nothing pertinent that you're not telling us, I cannot see why any of the exemptions in Rule 6 would apply.
So, if a pilot overflies a cave, with a couple of potholers in it at less than 500', is s/he in breach of rule 5?
Except that at 10' asl, the pilot could not possibly see the submarine and therefore did not intend to overfly it.
(b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing.
Interesting these mind games, what?
Last edited by FREDAcheck; 13th Oct 2008 at 17:50. Reason: spelling