PPL training /SFH in South Africa
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pleased to help.
I also heard favourable comments about Good Hope Flying Club at Cape Town International. You're more likely to experience delays than at Stellenbosch but, that said, operating with the big boys at an international airport is useful experience - and good fun.
BTW, although Kersefontein Farm I mentioned previously is a guest house, you can fly in for lunch - booking required.
Here's another pic to whet your appetite - taken on the way back to CT from Kersefontein.
Low level Saldanha Beach
I also heard favourable comments about Good Hope Flying Club at Cape Town International. You're more likely to experience delays than at Stellenbosch but, that said, operating with the big boys at an international airport is useful experience - and good fun.
BTW, although Kersefontein Farm I mentioned previously is a guest house, you can fly in for lunch - booking required.
Here's another pic to whet your appetite - taken on the way back to CT from Kersefontein.
Low level Saldanha Beach
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tudor - nice shot - I'm now officially jealous!!! 
Pretty impressed - flying around 135 kts @45ft - assume that was QFE and not QNH!! And I won't even ask about the 500 ft rule / Rule 5 in SA!!
Pretty impressed - flying around 135 kts @45ft - assume that was QFE and not QNH!! And I won't even ask about the 500 ft rule / Rule 5 in SA!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you mean the one about 45' and still not in breach of Rule 5 - which does mean something similar in RSA!
Or do you mean the one about QFE/QNH where if I recall QNH is pretty much used exclusively as the in-country elevation range is so great that it would be impossible to set QFE at somewhere like Rand (circa 5500') and then be able to set QFE/QNH on the coast (Praia d'Ouro 28')?
Stik
Or do you mean the one about QFE/QNH where if I recall QNH is pretty much used exclusively as the in-country elevation range is so great that it would be impossible to set QFE at somewhere like Rand (circa 5500') and then be able to set QFE/QNH on the coast (Praia d'Ouro 28')?
Stik
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliport - spotted and corrected!! Now sitting at the back of the class with a pointy hat with a 'D' on it!!
Should have looked twice and typed once!! Point remains the same, if not amplified, however!
Should have looked twice and typed once!! Point remains the same, if not amplified, however!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Circuit Basher
I think that you're sejourn to the back of the class might last a little longer than you think
Please explain to me why he IS NOT in breach of rule 5!
Stik
I think that you're sejourn to the back of the class might last a little longer than you think
Please explain to me why he IS NOT in breach of rule 5!
Stik
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dorset
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SnR - never suggested that he wasn't - just said I wouldn't ask about it!
For info - not too sure on SA Flying regs, plus he may have been 'flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at or checking navigational aids or procedures at a Government or licensed aerodrome' OR 'landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice'.
Anyway, it MAY be Rule 6 in SA!!
For info - not too sure on SA Flying regs, plus he may have been 'flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at or checking navigational aids or procedures at a Government or licensed aerodrome' OR 'landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice'.
Anyway, it MAY be Rule 6 in SA!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stik
It's not only Circuit Basher who needs a "sojourn to the back of the class."
There's no breach of the South Africa low flying rules, nor would there have been a breach of Rule 5 if the flight had been in the UK.
People often make the mistake of thinking of UK Rule 5 (the 500' rule) as a 'minimum height' rule. It's not; it's a 'minimum proximity' rule.
In contrast, the RSA equivalent is a 'minimum height' rule - but you are allowed to fly below the minimum height provided you can do so without hazard or nuisance to people or property:
South Africa: Part 91.06.32
"............... except with prior written approval of the Commissioner, no aircraft …... shall be flown at a height less than 500 feet above the ground or water, unless the flight can be made without hazard or nuisance to persons or property on the ground or water."
(The FAA has a similar provision which applies to helicopters only.)
UK: Rule 5 Low flying
Rule 5 (2) (b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
As cloud69 points out, there are no persons, vessels, vehicles or structures - just miles of totally deserted white sandy beach.
The last time I did anything similar in a f/w was in a Harvard along Padre Island off the South coast of Texas about 15 years ago. You can do the same sort of thing along many parts of the California coastline. More limited in a f/w, but plenty of opportunity in a helicopter because the FAA low flying rules for helicopters are more sensible than ours.
Tudor Owen
It's not only Circuit Basher who needs a "sojourn to the back of the class."
There's no breach of the South Africa low flying rules, nor would there have been a breach of Rule 5 if the flight had been in the UK.
People often make the mistake of thinking of UK Rule 5 (the 500' rule) as a 'minimum height' rule. It's not; it's a 'minimum proximity' rule.
In contrast, the RSA equivalent is a 'minimum height' rule - but you are allowed to fly below the minimum height provided you can do so without hazard or nuisance to people or property:
South Africa: Part 91.06.32
"............... except with prior written approval of the Commissioner, no aircraft …... shall be flown at a height less than 500 feet above the ground or water, unless the flight can be made without hazard or nuisance to persons or property on the ground or water."
(The FAA has a similar provision which applies to helicopters only.)
UK: Rule 5 Low flying
Rule 5 (2) (b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
As cloud69 points out, there are no persons, vessels, vehicles or structures - just miles of totally deserted white sandy beach.
The last time I did anything similar in a f/w was in a Harvard along Padre Island off the South coast of Texas about 15 years ago. You can do the same sort of thing along many parts of the California coastline. More limited in a f/w, but plenty of opportunity in a helicopter because the FAA low flying rules for helicopters are more sensible than ours.
Tudor Owen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if the 500' proximty rule says that you are now allowed to fly within a sphere of radius 500' from any vessel., person, structure etc AND a flight is defined as starting as soon as you release the brakes with the intention of flying - does this mean that all aircraft such be parked 500' away from all buildings etc?
(sorry, its a slow afternoon here)
(sorry, its a slow afternoon here)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer,
I fear that I have been misunderstood!
I, have an RSA licence and I was trying to point out to CircuitB that you were NOT infringing any regulations:
If I may, m'lud, I'd like to refer you to my first post on this thread,
Do you mean the one about 45' and still not in breach of Rule 5 - which does mean something similar in RSA!
When CB then realised that he'd misread the altimeter, (see Heliport's post) he went on to state, "corrected", ie 350 now reads 45 and then stated, "Point remains the same, if not amplified, however
It was this statement that I asked him to qualify!
Stik
I fear that I have been misunderstood!
I, have an RSA licence and I was trying to point out to CircuitB that you were NOT infringing any regulations:
If I may, m'lud, I'd like to refer you to my first post on this thread,
Do you mean the one about 45' and still not in breach of Rule 5 - which does mean something similar in RSA!
When CB then realised that he'd misread the altimeter, (see Heliport's post) he went on to state, "corrected", ie 350 now reads 45 and then stated, "Point remains the same, if not amplified, however
It was this statement that I asked him to qualify!
Stik
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stik
Sorry, I saw "Please explain to me why he IS NOT in breach of rule 5!" and thought you were suggesting I was.
I think the point which CB meant still stood was "I'm now officially jealous."
Just in case anyone else is concerned about a possible breach of the SA low flying rules, this pic gives a better view of the miles of beach I mentioned - no "person or property on the ground or water." (And, if the flight had been in the UK, no "person, vessel, vehicle or structure" within considerably more than 500' of the aircraft. )
Kolibear
If you meant "now" allowed, that part of Rule 5 hasn't changed. You can't now fly within a (semi)sphere of radius 500' from any person, vessel etc, and you couldn't before the amendment.
If that was a typo and you meant 'not' allowed --
The Low flying prohibitions in Rule 5 start with:
Rule 5 (1) (a) “An aircraft shall comply with the low flying prohibitions set out in paragraph (2), subject to the low flying exemptions set out in paragraph (3)."
After reading the prohibitions in 5 (2), you need to go to 5 (3) to find the exemptions.
They include:
Rule 5 (3) (a) (i) “Any aircraft shall be exempt from any low flying prohibition in so far as it is flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at or checking navigational aids or procedures at a Government or licensed aerodrome."
and
Rule 5 (3) (a) (ii) “Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice.”
The South Africa rules, like the FAA rules, are rather simpler to follow and understand.
Part 91.06.32 (cited in my previous post) starts off:
“Except when necessary for taking off or landing, or except with prior written approval of the Commissioner, no aircraft …. shall be flown ….. etc"
Phew! Too much law for a Friday evening.
Time for a glass of wine.
Sorry, I saw "Please explain to me why he IS NOT in breach of rule 5!" and thought you were suggesting I was.
I think the point which CB meant still stood was "I'm now officially jealous."
Just in case anyone else is concerned about a possible breach of the SA low flying rules, this pic gives a better view of the miles of beach I mentioned - no "person or property on the ground or water." (And, if the flight had been in the UK, no "person, vessel, vehicle or structure" within considerably more than 500' of the aircraft. )
Kolibear
If you meant "now" allowed, that part of Rule 5 hasn't changed. You can't now fly within a (semi)sphere of radius 500' from any person, vessel etc, and you couldn't before the amendment.
If that was a typo and you meant 'not' allowed --
The Low flying prohibitions in Rule 5 start with:
Rule 5 (1) (a) “An aircraft shall comply with the low flying prohibitions set out in paragraph (2), subject to the low flying exemptions set out in paragraph (3)."
After reading the prohibitions in 5 (2), you need to go to 5 (3) to find the exemptions.
They include:
Rule 5 (3) (a) (i) “Any aircraft shall be exempt from any low flying prohibition in so far as it is flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at or checking navigational aids or procedures at a Government or licensed aerodrome."
and
Rule 5 (3) (a) (ii) “Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice.”
The South Africa rules, like the FAA rules, are rather simpler to follow and understand.
Part 91.06.32 (cited in my previous post) starts off:
“Except when necessary for taking off or landing, or except with prior written approval of the Commissioner, no aircraft …. shall be flown ….. etc"
Phew! Too much law for a Friday evening.
Time for a glass of wine.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may to try Virginia Flight School in Durban. I know that they are doing foreign training and have been audited by a JAA inspector. I am not absolutely certain but they are worth a try.
SC
SC
Guest
Posts: n/a
have a look at www.43aırschool.co.za
thınk ıt ıs the best one overall for zero to hero traınıng(o to frozen atpl) ıf u want for a better phrase! may be many others good just for ppl tho.
cheap beer and wıne too!!!!
enjoy!
thınk ıt ıs the best one overall for zero to hero traınıng(o to frozen atpl) ıf u want for a better phrase! may be many others good just for ppl tho.
cheap beer and wıne too!!!!
enjoy!