500 and 1000 foot rule
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500 and 1000 foot rule
Please can one of the clever CAP quoters remind me of the difference between the 500 and 1000 rule when using an unlicensed site for landing/departing? I seem to recall there is a 1000* foot requirement when using an unlicensed strip, and 500 when it's a licenced one???
* Unless with an instructor, when it's 500 feet???
* Unless with an instructor, when it's 500 feet???
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There ain't no such thing no more as far as I know, basically you can't take off or land within 1000 metres of any gathering unless you are arriving or departing from a recognised airstrip.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't apply if you're "Landing in accordance with normal aviation procedures." and that includes private strips. A low level pass or a go around into a private strip is technicaly illegal.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, that's good news, although it doesn't tally with an LAA article a few years ago which is why I wanted to reconfirm the rules.
So, as it stands, it's perfectly ok for me to land over the M4 into a grass paddock? I miss the road by about 50 feet.
So, as it stands, it's perfectly ok for me to land over the M4 into a grass paddock? I miss the road by about 50 feet.
Monocock asked:
Provided that, in the event of engine failure, you can glide clear of the road, of course.
So, as it stands, it's perfectly ok for me to land over the M4 into a grass paddock? I miss the road by about 50 feet.
My general understanding is that, when taking off, landing, and practicing approaches, (intentional go-arounds) at a licenced airfield, you are exempt from the 500', and the 1,000' rule.
When taking off and landing at an unlicenced airfield, you are exempt from the 500', but not the 1,000' rule.
There are some exceptions for training flights.
MJ
Ps. I've subsequently discovered that, under SERA, the 1,000' rule no longer applies, so long as you are taking off or landing, regardless of the type of airfield. It does still apply to practice approaches(intentional go arounds) at unlicenced airfields.
When taking off and landing at an unlicenced airfield, you are exempt from the 500', but not the 1,000' rule.
There are some exceptions for training flights.
MJ
Ps. I've subsequently discovered that, under SERA, the 1,000' rule no longer applies, so long as you are taking off or landing, regardless of the type of airfield. It does still apply to practice approaches(intentional go arounds) at unlicenced airfields.
Last edited by Mach Jump; 27th Jul 2015 at 23:13. Reason: Added Ps.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to ask, when is a private strip a private strip or just a field ? reason I landed in field with permission of the land owner but clearly it was just a field and not listed as a private strip.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 421 Likes
on
222 Posts
My general understanding is that, when taking off, landing, and practicing approaches, (intentional go-arounds) at a licenced airfield, you are exempt from the 500', and the 1,000' rule.
When taking off and landing at an unlicenced airfield, you are exempt from the 500', but not the 1,000' rule.
When taking off and landing at an unlicenced airfield, you are exempt from the 500', but not the 1,000' rule.
Judging by past experience, most people don't seem to bother do so (or even understand the requirement) but you may be prosecuted if you don't get the permission.
50 foot over the M4
I would suggest the question is 'is it reasonable' to operate in such a way.
Why would anyone wish to put themselves 'and others' in such a position that a mistake or tech failure could cause a major incident of huge proportions that would see the privileges of private aviation questioned.
What are we trying to prove; there is plenty of scope within the law and common sense for everyone to enjoy flying without being seen as being above behaving with courtesy to others.
Why would anyone wish to put themselves 'and others' in such a position that a mistake or tech failure could cause a major incident of huge proportions that would see the privileges of private aviation questioned.
What are we trying to prove; there is plenty of scope within the law and common sense for everyone to enjoy flying without being seen as being above behaving with courtesy to others.
ATC: A 'field' essentially becomes a 'private strip' as soon as you land an aeroplane in it, so there is technically no difference.
Shy: I think you meant, 'Government, or Licenced airfields'.
I deliberately left out reference to Government airfields, as the OP specifically asked about licenced, and unlicenced airfields.
Pobjoy: The question you pose is a perfectly reasonable one, but the OP asked about the legalities.
Radix: See below:-
Civil Aviation Authority Safety Notice SN–2014/010
Page 7 of 11
Appendix A General Exemptions from 4 December 2014
Part A Exceptions to the Minimum Height Requirements
1) General (SERA.5005(f)(2))
a) The CAA permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105 and SERA.5005(f), an aircraft to fly
at a height of less than 150 metres (500 feet) above the highest obstacle within a
radius of 150 metres (500 feet) from the aircraft, subject to the condition set out in
subparagraph (b).
b) The aircraft must not be flown closer than 150 metres (500 feet) to any person, vessel,
vehicle or structure except with the permission of the CAA.
2) Landing and Taking Off
The CAA permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105, SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b), an
aircraft to fly below the heights specified in SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b) if it is flying in
accordance with normal aviation practices and:
a) practising approaches to land at or checking navigational aids or procedures at a
Government or licensed aerodrome;
b) practising forced landings if it is not flown closer than 150 metres (500 feet) to any
person, vessel, vehicle or structure; or
c) flying in accordance with a notified procedure or when specifically authorised by the
CAA in accordance with SERA.5015(b).
3) Landing and Taking Off at a Training Aerodrome
a) The CAA permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105, SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b),
an aeroplane of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 2,730 kg
to fly below the heights specified at SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b) if it is flying in
accordance with normal aviation practice in the circumstances specified in
subparagraph (c).
b) The CAA permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105, SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b), a
gyroplane or helicopter of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed
3,175 kg to fly below the heights specified at SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b) if it is
flying in accordance with normal aviation practice in the circumstances specified in
subparagraph (c).
c) The circumstances specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) are:
i) the aeroplane, gyroplane or helicopter is taking off from, landing at or practising
approaches to landing at a training aerodrome; and
ii) the flight is one on which instruction in flying is being given to a person or a
flying test is being performed by a person for the purpose of becoming qualified
for the grant of a pilot licence or the inclusion or variation of an aircraft rating, a
night rating or a night qualification in a licence.
d) For the purposes of subparagraph (c)(i), a ‘training aerodrome’ means an aerodrome
which the pilot-in-command of the aircraft is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, has
adequate facilities for the safe conduct of flights on which instruction in flying is being
given to a person for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot licence
or the inclusion or variation of any rating or qualification in the licence
MJ
Shy: I think you meant, 'Government, or Licenced airfields'.
I deliberately left out reference to Government airfields, as the OP specifically asked about licenced, and unlicenced airfields.
Pobjoy: The question you pose is a perfectly reasonable one, but the OP asked about the legalities.
Radix: See below:-
Civil Aviation Authority Safety Notice SN–2014/010
Page 7 of 11
Appendix A General Exemptions from 4 December 2014
Part A Exceptions to the Minimum Height Requirements
1) General (SERA.5005(f)(2))
a) The CAA permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105 and SERA.5005(f), an aircraft to fly
at a height of less than 150 metres (500 feet) above the highest obstacle within a
radius of 150 metres (500 feet) from the aircraft, subject to the condition set out in
subparagraph (b).
b) The aircraft must not be flown closer than 150 metres (500 feet) to any person, vessel,
vehicle or structure except with the permission of the CAA.
2) Landing and Taking Off
The CAA permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105, SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b), an
aircraft to fly below the heights specified in SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b) if it is flying in
accordance with normal aviation practices and:
a) practising approaches to land at or checking navigational aids or procedures at a
Government or licensed aerodrome;
b) practising forced landings if it is not flown closer than 150 metres (500 feet) to any
person, vessel, vehicle or structure; or
c) flying in accordance with a notified procedure or when specifically authorised by the
CAA in accordance with SERA.5015(b).
3) Landing and Taking Off at a Training Aerodrome
a) The CAA permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105, SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b),
an aeroplane of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 2,730 kg
to fly below the heights specified at SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b) if it is flying in
accordance with normal aviation practice in the circumstances specified in
subparagraph (c).
b) The CAA permits, under paragraphs SERA.3105, SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b), a
gyroplane or helicopter of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed
3,175 kg to fly below the heights specified at SERA.5005(f) and SERA.5015(b) if it is
flying in accordance with normal aviation practice in the circumstances specified in
subparagraph (c).
c) The circumstances specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) are:
i) the aeroplane, gyroplane or helicopter is taking off from, landing at or practising
approaches to landing at a training aerodrome; and
ii) the flight is one on which instruction in flying is being given to a person or a
flying test is being performed by a person for the purpose of becoming qualified
for the grant of a pilot licence or the inclusion or variation of an aircraft rating, a
night rating or a night qualification in a licence.
d) For the purposes of subparagraph (c)(i), a ‘training aerodrome’ means an aerodrome
which the pilot-in-command of the aircraft is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, has
adequate facilities for the safe conduct of flights on which instruction in flying is being
given to a person for the purpose of becoming qualified for the grant of a pilot licence
or the inclusion or variation of any rating or qualification in the licence
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 26th Jul 2015 at 01:27.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks. I've read it, and I'm not entirely clear on it, I must admit.
Basically, is there anything illegal about landing at a private site that isn't an airstrip, and whilst doing so, flying within 500 feet of a person, vehicle or structure?
Basically, is there anything illegal about landing at a private site that isn't an airstrip, and whilst doing so, flying within 500 feet of a person, vehicle or structure?
Basically, is there anything illegal about landing at a private site that isn't an airstrip, and whilst doing so, flying within 500 feet of a person, vehicle or structure?
But, practice approaches (intentional go arounds) are subject to the 500' rule.
MJ
Ps. In the case in your other thread, uninvited guests have not broken any rules of the air, so long as they land, and takeoff.
Last edited by Mach Jump; 27th Jul 2015 at 23:05. Reason: Modified in line with SERA regarding the 1,000' rule.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 421 Likes
on
222 Posts
The written CAA permissions I've been granted in the past (helicopter landings inside congested areas) specify a minimum distance from persons, vehicles, vessels or structures. This is usually either 20 or 30 metres.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monocock
Basically, is there anything illegal about landing at a private site that isn't an airstrip, and whilst doing so, flying within 500 feet of a person, vehicle or structure?
Basically, is there anything illegal about landing at a private site that isn't an airstrip, and whilst doing so, flying within 500 feet of a person, vehicle or structure?
Mach Jump
No. (unless they have to fly over a congested area below 1,000' to do so.)
But, practice approaches (intentional go arounds) are subject to the 500' rule.
No. (unless they have to fly over a congested area below 1,000' to do so.)
But, practice approaches (intentional go arounds) are subject to the 500' rule.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks MJ.
No, it wasn't to do with that. It was just checking I'm not doing anything illegal when I pop between farms and use paddocks and stubble fields to land in.
Ps. In the case in your other thread, uninvited guests have not broken any rules of the air, so long as they land, and takeoff.