ANO distance from people/objects?

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Can anyone point me to the current UK ANO that indicates the closest distance a GA aircraft can fly to a person or object?

I believe it is 1,500', but I would like to check definitions and caveats.

A search on the web has proved inconclusive.

Thanks in advance!

[tinpilot]

CAP 393
Section 2 The rules of the air regulations > Section 3 Low flying rule.

Rule 5 (3) (b):

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.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Thanks, tinpilot!

[mixsfour]

Slightly different from the question but maybe relevant, in the subsequent rules of CAP393 you must fly at least 1000ft above built up areas and organised assemblies of over 1000 people and high enough to glide clear in the event of engine failure.

Neither this nor the 500ft rule apply when landing or taking off from a licensed aerodrome "in accordance with normal aviation practice".

[Ryan5252]

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.

Unless taking off or landing - therefore this does not extend to PFL's

[Spitoon]

Originally Posted by Ryan5252

Unless taking off or landing - therefore this does not extend to PFL's

Don't understand - are you saying that the 500ft rule doesn't apply if you're doing a PFL?

[beatnik]

Ryan5252 means that the exemption of the 500ft rule granted while taking off and landing from a licenced aerodrome does not apply when doing PFLs.

So whilst doing PFLs - you must remain more than 500ft away from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

[flybymike]

However, the CAA have stated that they would take a pragmatic view about prosecution under such circumstances.

[Ryan5252]

Ryan5252 means that the exemption of the 500ft rule granted while taking off and landing from a licenced aerodrome does not apply when doing PFLs.

There is no requirement that I am aware of that states the TO/LDG are to be made from a licensed aerodrome.

However, the CAA have stated that they would take a pragmatic view about prosecution under such circumstances.

I'll let you chance it!

Cheers,
Ryan

[Pilot DAR]

My opinon is that this is one of those things that if you are trying to prove that you did not break the regulation, you probably lack the evidence you need to support your position. If you go over at 400 feet, and no body cares, you have no problem. If you go over at 700 feet, and someone makes a stink about it, you'll have a heck of a time actually proving that you were high enough.

Though the regulation is written with numbers (because that is the only way), the real intent is; don't fly so that people on the ground are angered or feel threatened by the proximity of the plane.

I had occasion decades ago, while trying to prevent what could have been 3 unseen drownings, to fly over a very crowded beach at 20 feet to get the required attention. Everything worked out fine, and apparently my action helped. I called in, and reported myself, reasoning that someone should, so I my as well be first, and get the basis for a defense in. Months later I happened upon the same inforcement staff member, who told me that not one low flying report had come in about me! Go figure... Did everyone on that beach, and all of the neighbouring cottages, know what I was trying to accomplish!

Just fly like a good neighbour as much as you can... Numbers are hard to prove in this instance...

[Mike Cross]

Rule 6, which contains the exemptions to Rule 5 changed last month.

I'm not going to try and summarise it here but you can find it by clicking here.

You get an exemption from the 500ft rule for take-off, landing, and practising approaches at a licensed, government or training aerodrome. For any other aerodrome the exemption does not include practising approaches.

This is basic air law that any licence holder should know.

[172driver]

If you go over at 700 feet, and someone makes a stink about it, you'll have a heck of a time actually proving that you were high enough.

Not if you carry a GPS with the track feature enabled

This is basic air law that any licence holder should know.

Quite.

[S-Works]

If you go over at 700 feet, and someone makes a stink about it, you'll have a heck of a time actually proving that you were high enough.

Or the complainant would have a hell of a time proving you were not. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Quote:
However, the CAA have stated that they would take a pragmatic view about prosecution under such circumstances.
I'll let you chance it!

The CAA have issued formal written guidance on the subject. I suggest you read it before suggesting people may be chancing anything.

[gasax]

And it is worth remembering that the CAA have prosecuted an instructor for breaching the 500ft rule during PFLs......................

[BackPacker]

Not if you carry a GPS with the track feature enabled

I doubt whether that would be admissible in court. It's dead easy to import the track in, say, OziExplorer, modify the altitudes and then export it again into the GPS.

Unless you have a sealed, tamperproof model (like the ones gliders use to record their achievements) and follow proper chain-of-evidence procedures, my guess is that the prosecutor would have no problem throwing this "evidence" out.

Apart from the fact that GPS isn't all that accurate in the vertical and if you want to argue that you flew at 501' instead of 499', your GPS is not going to help you.

[Whopity]

Quote:
However, the CAA have stated that they would take a pragmatic view about prosecution under such circumstances.
I'll let you chance it!

As an attendee at a meeting held by the CAA regarding Rule 5 and EFATOs some years ago, this was not the case!

The CAA legal department made the point that as an EFATO (single engine) involved closing the throttle; the aircraft was then not capable of continuing the take off and as it was a simulated emergency, there was no intention of landing therefore: the exemption to Rule 5 did not cover this case. The same applies to a PFL. Their view was not in any way pragmatic!

The FCL view was that EFATOs and PFLs were an essential part of training and should be conducted bearing in mind the above. Height is not limited to 500 feet AGL so long as there are no people, vehicles, vessels, structures etc within that distance. As has already been said, its all about not appearing to threaten or annoy people.

[1800ed]

You could argue this until the cows come home, but the attitude Pilot DAR has described is the right way to go about things in my opinion.

[Penny Washers]

Penny Washers

And if you are thinking of doing any low flying, just remember that may be a youngster on a frisky pony hidden behind the next hedge! Or, for that matter, an Army helicopter coming the other way.

[Shiver me timbers!]

What if the weather deteriorates and you have to maintain 400ft for a short period? And you receive a complaint?

[flythisway]

So whilst doing PFLs - you must remain more than 500ft away from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

You are unlikely to (and should not) get that close to a person, vessel or vehicle while conducting a PFL-the only real problem is a fence or hedge-so a lawyer would have to argue whether a fence or hedge is a structure--in my opinion a hedge is definitely not a structutre and neither would I think a fence is--i think that the law is written to describe a structure as something that would house a vehicle, vessel or person.