ANO distance from people/objects?
 

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!

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

Rule 5 (3) (b):

Thanks, tinpilot!

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".

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?

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.

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

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

I'll let you chance it! :ok:

Cheers,
Ryan

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...

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.

Not if you carry a GPS with the track feature enabled

Quite.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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
 

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.

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

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.

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