Then you might have to explain to the CAA why you continued your flight in IMC conditions without declaring an emergency, or doing something else that's sensible.

After all, if you can't legally maintain VMC conditions, you're IMC.

Select a better area to do it then, without the persons, vehicles, vessels and structures present..... Even though we are a fairly 'congested' island, PFLs can be done to ground level in most counties of the UK. If you hang around and do several to the same piece of land, you'll get complaints..

ISTR when the CAA amended Rule 5 back in 2004/5ish, the UK continued to file a difference to ICAO to allow flight below a minimum height of 500ft agl. The UK is still one of the few countries that doesn't have a minimum height rule..

And if you want to extend the "practice approaches" aspect v unlicensed airfields, NB you cannot plan to make an approach to Go Around <500' - either overshoot >500' or intend to land/T&G :ok:

NoD

Obviously, in the example, good airmanship should prevail and a diversion made / 180 turn / head home - but curious given a situation where the weather turned extremely quickly and the sensible thing was to maintain VMC by dropping to 400ft for a couple of minutes.

Would a polite heads up to ATC in flight help your case if a complaint was made?

The CAA indicated that a structure was considered to be a place where you might reasonably expect to find people, vehicles, vessels etc. So unless you are sitting on the fence that is not likely to be an issue. I believe there is a legal precedent already.

C'mon fellow pilots, it's thinking and weasleing like this which gives the regulators the traction to make more regulation. If you're scudd running at all at 400 feet, you're asking for all sorts of trouble, some a lot more sudden than inforcement action. Have I done it? Yep! Was it a good idea? Nope - particularly with cell phone towers popping up like Dandiloins. While remaining below a 400' ceiling, you're already way too far into the poor weather to press on - what are you doing?

It's not to say that there are not occasional good reasons, beyond just landing and takeoff for being below 500', but generally they involve extra planning and disclipline (and are not being done because of the ceiling!). The pilots who do that kind of flying are sitting by the sidelines here cringing at the thought of yet again having to defend why they need to fly low, while more regulation is being contemplated because of casual low fliers.

While doing an off airport PFL, do you need to go below 500' to prove your technique? If so, ask the landowner's premission! I allow the local school to PFL onto my runway as they wish. Landing is a different thing! As long as you're not scaring the livestock, some farmers should be okay with it...

We are responsible for being good neighbours to all, whether they like planes or not. Trying to find excuses to "get away" with public nuisence low flying is just not the "professional" way of doing things. Let's embrace the spirit of the low flying regulations as they are worded - my opinion is that they are reasonably worded, and respect the needs of all. PFL's to the ground, are what airports/aerodromes are for......

Also if your altimeter is showing 400ft, then you are likely to be signficiantly closer to the ground than 400ft, unless you're flying over a beach.

You can disregard any rule for the purposes of life preservation.

dublinpilot,

True - I always find 1,000 on the QNH a good minimum marker for most 'average' locations in the UK.

:)

Not here in the Netherlands. We have several airfields with negative elevation figures.:ok:

As you have quoted me I take it that your quip is intended for me? Allow me please Sir Bose to ramble;

My remark was clearly jesting and I suggest you mind your own as I did not challenge youto 'chance' it. I will clarify again for you so as not to be misunderstood (you appear to have a problem of properly understanding) It was suggested that the CAA are unlikely to prosecute if an innocent breach were to occur and that common sense should prevail. I, however would not like to take this risk and this was the point of original post.

I would also like to know on what basis you can indirectly say I have not read the formal written guidance?

I am amazed that two pages of twisting legislation has evolved from a subject which is relatively black and white. Don't fly within 500' of anything you likely to damage, break, destroy, distress or kill unless you are taking off or landing or an emergency situation occurs beyond your control whereby to not infringe the rule would put life or property at risk. Simples!

On the definition of a "structure" it is not that many years since the advice given to controllers by the lawyers that be was that a runway constituted a structure. So no planned go arounds below 500 ft QFE. Most of us wondered what planet these people came from. They obviously didn't understand airfields as there was never any mention of approach lights or localisers.

But if Mrs Miggins pops up from behind said hedge/fence as you pass over it.......?????

Of course, as we are all aware, this will become academic when the EU adopts Eurocontrol's Draft Implementing Rule on Standardised European Rules of the Air when Rule 5/6 will be replaced by:

4.6 Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the
competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:

a) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air
assembly of persons at a height less than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest
obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;

b) elsewhere than as specified in 4.6 a), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft)
above the ground or water.

Since a PFL is not 'necessary for take-off or landing' and there is no exemption for training, it will be illegal to descend below 500ft agl. Oh yes, and the comment period closed in April - we all made our comments before then, didn't we?

Perhaps going off on a tangent but.....what about crop spraying, or does that no longer happen in the UK?

I stand to be corrected, but as far as I'm aware it's all but a dead industry in the UK now with the advent of more advanced fluids and methods of distribution, with the small amount that needs doing being performed by helicopters.

There are a few companies still approved by the CAA to do crop spraying, all helicopter operators. An Exemption from the 500ft rule is included in the Aerial Application certificate..

Rule 5 at sea
 

My son has just bought a high speed camera and we were discussing ways of getting some slow motion shots of the aeroplane at low level.

We could do this over the sea with him on his jetski (OK I hate them too) and well away from other vessels but, the way I interpret Rule 5, this would still be illegal if I came closer than 500' to him. Am I right?

Pulse 1 yes you are correct, rule 5 means any vehicle / vessel including your own solitary one!! Does a structure include a sunken (buried) Roman settlement, un-occupied sheep shelter, birds nest? For the sake of clarification I am being flippant!!

Has the recent change been prompted by the removal of licensing requirements for aerodromes conducting only flying training?

Sir George Cayley