Question about low flying rule

[CharlieDeltaUK]

Can anyone help me with a question arising from my studying for forthcoming air law exam. I'm looking at the exemptions to the low flying rule, and in particular the exemptions for taking off and landing at a training aerodrome. The more general exemption for taking off and landing appears to apply only to licensed or goverment aerodromes. So, is it correct that only students under instruction (I realise that's not a fully accurate description) can land at aerodromes other than government or licensed aerodromes? Wouldn't that mean that any other aerodromes are off limits to everyone else? Sees a bit odd.

[Jim59]

This is a moving target. The CAA made concessions as part of allowing training at unlicenced airfields and now realises that the changes were not what it had in mind. A public consultation to make further changes has just ended. you can see the documents under 'consultations and letters of intent' on the CAA web site. URL below.



Proposal to Amend Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 | Consultations and Letters of Intent | CAA

[eharding]

Originally Posted by CharlieDeltaUK

Can anyone help me with a question arising from my studying for forthcoming air law exam. I'm looking at the exemptions to the low flying rule, and in particular the exemptions for taking off and landing at a training aerodrome. The more general exemption for taking off and landing appears to apply only to licensed or goverment aerodromes. So, is it correct that only students under instruction (I realise that's not a fully accurate description) can land at aerodromes other than government or licensed aerodromes? Wouldn't that mean that any other aerodromes are off limits to everyone else? Sees a bit odd.

In general:

"Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing"

In particular, there are further exemptions at various categories of establishment to allow for instrument calibration, intentional low-approach and go-around exercises you would expect at training establishments, and the like.

It may have been that they got their murkin furds woddled when the requirement for a licensed airfield for training was lifted, and the..er..furding was amended.

In general, the intention is clear though.

If you beat up the club-house with an inverted pass 30 feet above the roof, push like a bar-steward, roll into the base leg and land off it, the CAA Enforcement Branch will still nail your nads to the wall, on the (justifiable) grounds that the landing was not 'in accordance with normal aviation practice'.

[India Four Two]

Proposal to Amend Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 | Consultations and Letters of Intent | CAA

Obviously written by Sir Humphrey. I found it incomprehensible.

I'm glad I don't have to try and understand it since I don't fly in the UK anymore. I couldn't afford to anyway!

[NigelOnDraft]

My understanding...

Prior this new rule:

1. All training had to be done at Licensed A/Fs.
2. For Landing and TO, all A/Fs (Lic and Unlic) are exempt from the 500' rule
3. For Lic A/Fs, Practice Overshoots are also permitted.
4. For Lic A/Fs, Ldg / T/O / Practice Overshoots are also exempt the 1000' rule.

As a result, at Unlicensed A/Fs, you could not do practice overshoots below 500', nor break the 1000' rule even for Ldg / T/O.

The intent of the new rule was to:

1. Allow Training from Unlic A/Fs.
2. Exempt from 500' rule at Unlic A/Fs Training for Practice Overshoots etc.

However, as written, the new rules appeared to also exempt from the 1000' rule.

All the changes do is clear that up i.e. if you have a built up area nearby, you can only fly over it <1000', Training or not Training, if it is Licensed.

For the OP - hopefully that is clearer? However, to answer a quesiton could be interesting since we have old law, new law and draft re-proposed new law, and "intended law"

NoD

[Whopity]

And of course it will all change again as soon as the EASA Rules of the Air become Law.

Isn't it strange how an essential requirement to match a recent change for the good has to go through a lengthy period of consultation when other changes that remove privileges and increase costs are enacted without any consultation at all. This should all have been done as part of the change to the licensed aerodrome requiremnt, which was recommended by the CAA over 5 years ago.

[Jim59]

One of the anomalies in the current and proposed rules is that whilst power pilots get additional exemptions whilst under training with an instructor at an unlicensed airfield the same does not apply to glider pilots - even if being trained in a motor glider.

This was raised with the CAA in response to the consultation.

[CharlieDeltaUK]

Where does it say that you are exempt from the 500 foot rule for landing and taking off at unlicensed airfields if you are a PPL, and not having instruction?

[Jim59]

Where does it say that you are exempt from the 500 foot rule for landing and taking off at unlicensed airfields if you are a PPL, and not having instruction?

Rule 6 (a) (ii) below...

Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
6

The exemptions from the low flying prohibitions are as follows:
(a) Landing and taking off
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the low flying prohibitions in so far as it is
flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of:
(aa) taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at; or
(bb) checking navigational aids or procedures at,
a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and takingoff in accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing.
(aa) Landing and taking off at a training aerodrome

(i) Any aeroplane of which the maximum total weight authorised...

[Whopity]

Where does it say that you are exempt from the 500 foot rule for landing and taking off at unlicensed airfields if you are a PPL, and not having instruction?

Nowhere, the exemption relates to the aircraft not the pilot!

"Aeroplanes" covers all of these:ANO Schedule 2

(i) Aeroplane (Landplane)
(ii) Aeroplane (Seaplane)
(iii) Aeroplane (Amphibian)
(iv) Aeroplane (Self-launching Motor Glider)

[CharlieDeltaUK]

Thanks Jim, and everyone else, for bringing clarity to this.

I'm finding several publications seem to be unnecessarily convoluted in drafting. I was reading the AIC Pink on wake separation minima and, unless I've misunderstood the details, I'm sure they could change the order of some of the items and cut out some duplication, and the whole thing would be shorter and easier to follow with no loss of detail.