Not if you don't breach the 28 day planning laws i.e. you don't use the same field on more than 28 days of the year.

Thats not entirely correct, but it's a whole new topic that's frequently misunderstood.

My take is that Europe have moved the goal posts on the 500' rule and for the time being the UK has issued a general exemption to SERA in order to maintain the status quo.

The big question is what will be the consequences for the UK if the exemption runs out and SERA remains as is?

SGC

Even less realistic PFLs?


Is there any data as to the success rate of real forced landings under the different regulatory regimes?

Is that a legal requirement? :confused:

Not under the Rules of the Air, but without it you are trespassing.


MJ:ok:

MJ

There are a few exceptions but trespassing on land is not generally a criminal offence.

I didn't say it was.


MJ:ok:

500 and 1000 foot rule
 

............

I was prompted by Radix's last post to take another look at the SERA.

SERA 5005 (e)(1) states as follows:

No mention here of Licenced and unlicenced airfields, so the 1,000' rule does not apply to aircraft taking off, or landing, but does apply to aircraft flying practice approaches(Intentional go arounds).

SERA 5005 (e)(2) states:

This is modified by the CAA General Exemption shown in post No. 13.


MJ:ok:

I think that a reasonable case could be made that a low pass may be "necessary" for landing at a private or non-radio site - not least because such a procedure is a required part of the flight test for the EASA Mountain ratings.

Or, put another way, what is "normal" or "necessary" depends not only on the type of aircraft (A380, balloon, glider, or whatever) , but also on the crew, the nature and equipment of the landing site and perhaps a score of other variables.

PJ

............

It applies if you have to descend below 1,000' over the congested area in order to make a practice approach there. If, for instance, the congested area extends under the final approach, then you would have to be below 1,000' over the congested area at some point.

N-Jacko: I think you probably could make a case for that interpretation.


MJ:ok:

... and consequently, to the extent that landing (like birth, marriage and death) is a process rather than an event, it can't be necessary actually to touch down in order to benefit from the SERA "as necessary for landing" exemption.

PJ

I think you would have to touch down at some point, for it to count as a 'landing'!

You would also have to convince the Magistrates that the low passes that you performed prior to the final approach were an essential and normal part of some kind of integrated landing process.

Having said all that, I find it difficult to believe that even the CAA would be daft/vindictive enough to prosecute anyone for flying a genuine inspection pass prior to landing.


MJ:ok:

The old CAA Rule 5 has gone and the new SERA wording has changed it to the effect that intention to land is all that is required. No longer "when landing..." but "necessary for landing".

A low pass is quasi-obligatory at most alpine altisurfaces, and often as sensible a lowland pre-landing precaution as checking seat belts fastened.

Anyway, if the low pass reveals that someone has left a baby on the runway (to borrow Deakin's phrase), one shouldn't feel obliged to run one's bushwheels over it just to comply with someone else's interpretation of SERA.

I would venture to suggest that few, if any Alpine Altisurfaces have the congested area of a city, town, or settlement less than 1,000' below the final approach.;)


MJ:ok:

Good point, there aren't many. Megève perhaps (but that's a licensed altiport). Valloire Bonnenuit is the only altisurface I can think of which has a town/settlement less than 1,000 ft below the final turn. Even there, one can try to avoid overflying the most congested part if the wind is right.

I was thinking more of the 500 ft rule. SOP for most altisurfaces (where hikers/bystanders are not unusual) is an outbound low pass at 200-300 ft but one is generally not committed to land until interception of the glide path on final.

The same may apply to any unmanned airfield. The airfield owner may give permission to land, but the PIC will determine whether and how to do so.

To give another example of "necessary for landing", clearing sheep off my main runway requires one or more low passes within 500 ft of a building. But if a mountain maggot refuses to budge, I may not land there.

As you point out, it is unlikely that even the UK CAA would be daft enough to pick this particular nit, constrained as it is by the Codes for Crown Prosecutors.

It looks to me that SERA.5005(e)1 should be read in conjunction with Rule 5 (and Rule 6) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2015 which took effect on April 30.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...0150840_en.pdf

It would seem that you may not be constrained in your overflight of the congested area of a city town or settlement provided that you are en route to a landing or take off point which is outside the congested area.

But a landing or take off at a site within the congested area must comply with the requirements of Rule 5 which specifies that it must be: -
- at an aerodrome in accordance with published procedures notified by CAA, or
- if it is at landing site which is not an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by CAA and with the written permission of the organiser of the assembly