Rule 5 Amendment?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rule 5 Amendment?
There's a new consultation document to be found on the CAA website here: http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/general_avi...sp?groupid=362
It's all about 'Rule 5', and whether the CAA should change it or leave it alone.
Basically, the options under consideration are:
Option 1 To leave the UK low flying rule in its present form, notwithstanding that it is difficult to interpret.
Option 2 To redraft the UK low flying rule so that it is aligned with the ICAO Rules of the Air.
Option 3 To redraft the low flying rule to make it readily understood by operational pilots, and, where possible, to align it more closely in style and content with the ICAO Rules of the Air, but allowing, where appropriate, retention of existing parameters contained in the current Rule 5.
(Taken from the CAA document)
Have your say!
We whinged when AIS changed things without consulting us, let's not be the victims of our own apathy again.
BTW, I was going to post this as a poll with the three options, but 1. it wouldn't actually mean anything to CAA, and 2. there may be a "poll-backlash"
BRL, if you think a poll is a good idea please incorporate it, but remember that to be heard you'll need to register your views to the CAA/SRG
It's all about 'Rule 5', and whether the CAA should change it or leave it alone.
Basically, the options under consideration are:
Option 1 To leave the UK low flying rule in its present form, notwithstanding that it is difficult to interpret.
Option 2 To redraft the UK low flying rule so that it is aligned with the ICAO Rules of the Air.
Option 3 To redraft the low flying rule to make it readily understood by operational pilots, and, where possible, to align it more closely in style and content with the ICAO Rules of the Air, but allowing, where appropriate, retention of existing parameters contained in the current Rule 5.
(Taken from the CAA document)
Have your say!
We whinged when AIS changed things without consulting us, let's not be the victims of our own apathy again.
BTW, I was going to post this as a poll with the three options, but 1. it wouldn't actually mean anything to CAA, and 2. there may be a "poll-backlash"
BRL, if you think a poll is a good idea please incorporate it, but remember that to be heard you'll need to register your views to the CAA/SRG
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yesterday on this very forum, somebody was complaining about the CAA looking at changing the rules of Low Flying. Perhaps the two of you should get together 
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=72384
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=72384
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PFLs???
I've read through the CAA document (on the train on the way home) and I am a bit worried that if they change to ICAO style Rule 5 option then we will not be able to descend below 500' under any circumstances, whereas we can now theoretically descend to any height ("depth"!?) as long as we are not "within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure".
When doing PFLs, it is good to be able to take the training scenario much lower than 500' in my view as it helps student to really appreciate whether they would "make the field" and see the picture (including wires!?!) from low level. When done a good safe distance from anyone or anything (i.e > 500'), then I think this is safe.
I'm interested to hear what others think about this particular aspect of the proposed changes. At first glance, I think we should oppose this possibility.
Otherwise, I suppose it makes sense to rationalise the complex existing rules (less work for lawyers) but I'm not sure that this needs to be high on the CAA's list of priorities... is the existing wording really causing much difficulty?
When doing PFLs, it is good to be able to take the training scenario much lower than 500' in my view as it helps student to really appreciate whether they would "make the field" and see the picture (including wires!?!) from low level. When done a good safe distance from anyone or anything (i.e > 500'), then I think this is safe.
I'm interested to hear what others think about this particular aspect of the proposed changes. At first glance, I think we should oppose this possibility.
Otherwise, I suppose it makes sense to rationalise the complex existing rules (less work for lawyers
) but I'm not sure that this needs to be high on the CAA's list of priorities... is the existing wording really causing much difficulty?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've also written protesting the 500 ft minimum height thing. If you want to go haring down a deserted beach or desolate mountain top at 50 ft, why the hell shouldn't you? I'm feeling my human rights being intruded on here!
QDM
QDM
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Weald, UK
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy,
Article 2.1.3 specifical addresses PFLs and states that several states routinely allowflights below 500' for engine failure training, France allows flight down to 170'.
Annex A 5.3 states that an aircraft will not be allowed to land within 1000m of a gathering of 1000 people without written permission of the CAA.
At North Weald, we have the world's biggest market on a saturday morning, so I hope that some sort of blanket exemption will be allowed, otherwise the CAA Permission Granting Department will be on overtime
Otherwise, I like the 1000' overflight height - in my local area we have towns at 300', + 1500 clearance =1800'. London TMA is at 2500' so we only have 700 feet to play with. OK, so I can always try and avoid direct overflight, but any increase has to be a good thing.
Article 2.1.3 specifical addresses PFLs and states that several states routinely allowflights below 500' for engine failure training, France allows flight down to 170'.
Annex A 5.3 states that an aircraft will not be allowed to land within 1000m of a gathering of 1000 people without written permission of the CAA.
At North Weald, we have the world's biggest market on a saturday morning, so I hope that some sort of blanket exemption will be allowed, otherwise the CAA Permission Granting Department will be on overtime
Otherwise, I like the 1000' overflight height - in my local area we have towns at 300', + 1500 clearance =1800'. London TMA is at 2500' so we only have 700 feet to play with. OK, so I can always try and avoid direct overflight, but any increase has to be a good thing.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who has control?:
Hi... While its tue that the discussion paper points out in para 2.1.3 that
... they go on to argue that
... and so therefore the proposal detailed in Annex A of this document does not appear to contain any such exemptions - hence my concern.
Hi... While its tue that the discussion paper points out in para 2.1.3 that
several states routinely allowflights below 500' for engine failure training, France allows flight down to 170'.
The United Kingdom, on the other hand, has filed a difference with ICAO because the UK Rules of the Air specify a minimum height of 1,500 ft over congested areas and a minimum separation distance of 500 ft (rather than a minimum height) outside these areas. It follows that these subtly different concepts and different parameters have the potential to lead to operational and regulatory confusion and may have an adverse effect on safety.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I've just sent my views to the CAA. One thing that worried my which reading through the proposal was that althought it would be useful to be able to overly built up areas at 1000ft, this would likely cause even more complaints from the public and even more 'bad-blood' between 'us and them'. With our crap weather it would be a useful change but perhaps not a thing we should do when not absolutley necessary.
who has control, interestingly subparagraph (5)(C) on the same page exempts aircraft from the 1000m from a gathering rule when 'practising approaches to, or checking navigational aids or procedures at, a Government aerodrome or licensed aerodrome' So, basically you can do practice approaches to a go-around over the market all day but can't actually land. Mad or what?
who has control, interestingly subparagraph (5)(C) on the same page exempts aircraft from the 1000m from a gathering rule when 'practising approaches to, or checking navigational aids or procedures at, a Government aerodrome or licensed aerodrome' So, basically you can do practice approaches to a go-around over the market all day but can't actually land. Mad or what?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who has control said:-
Annex A 5.3 states that an aircraft will not be allowed to land within 1000m of a gathering of 1000 people without written permission of the CAA.
There was an exemption in the old rule but it ain't in the proposed one.
Don't tell the NIMBY's at LHR that all they'll need to do is get 1000 of them outside the perimeter fence!
Or maybe the CAA will have someone in the tower ready to write out the permisisons?
Mike
Annex A 5.3 states that an aircraft will not be allowed to land within 1000m of a gathering of 1000 people without written permission of the CAA.
There was an exemption in the old rule but it ain't in the proposed one.
Don't tell the NIMBY's at LHR that all they'll need to do is get 1000 of them outside the perimeter fence!
Or maybe the CAA will have someone in the tower ready to write out the permisisons?
Mike
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Weald, UK
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of interest, obviously a footy match or a market is an 'organised gathering' but what about somewhere like Lakeside or Bluewater, where the crowds are bigger than 1000?
Does this mean I can with impunity cruise over Lakeside and its associated retail parks at 1500' agl but have to give our local team a wide berth if they are playing at home? (Not that they've ever attracted more than 1000 spectators.)
Does this mean I can with impunity cruise over Lakeside and its associated retail parks at 1500' agl but have to give our local team a wide berth if they are playing at home? (Not that they've ever attracted more than 1000 spectators.)
Anyone know of a piece of private land within 1 Km of LHR, GTW, STN etc where we could hold an open-air tiddlywinks contest at which we could expect more than 1000 people?
I have just written to [email protected] to point out this folly; I have suggested that aircraft should not be flown within 1000 meters of such gatherings, but that an exemption should be given to that for take-offs and landings in accordance with normal aviation practice.
I have just written to [email protected] to point out this folly; I have suggested that aircraft should not be flown within 1000 meters of such gatherings, but that an exemption should be given to that for take-offs and landings in accordance with normal aviation practice.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct email address for Rob McGregor
BEagle - the correct email address for Rob McGregor is [email protected] (there's atypo above).
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sent my email to Rob McGregor this morning re- my PFL concerns, and very quickly got an intelligent response asking follow-up questions. I encourage others to write in - we're lucky that we have a regulatory organisation which is actively listening to our views, and so we should actively engage and be heard