SERA.5005(f)/UK Rules of the Air Rule 6(a) - legal definitions?
 

Does anyone know if the "except when necessary for take-off and landing" exemption from the 500ft rule in SERA.5005(f) or the equivalent in Rule 6(a) of the UK Rules of the Air have ever been subject to a legal definition in a court case? In other words, has a court ever defined in geographical or flight phase terms what constitutes "necessary for take-off and landing"?

I am not trying to be pedantic, but, doesn't it seem to say the obvious, I believe that practicing forced landings over some property not "approved" for the purpose you could get a finger wagging from the powers that be. Even though it is a necessary exercise you need to be aware of said rule.

Well of course you have to be pedantic when it's the law. What I mean is, at what point is it legally OK to fly closer than 500ft to terrain/obstacles during an approach to land - in the whole circuit area? only on finals? Where?
Similarly, at what point after departure is it legally required to clear obstacles by 500ft?

Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions
6. The exemptions from the low flying prohibitions are as follows—
(a) Landing and taking off
(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the low flying prohibitions in so far as it is flying
in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of

(aa) taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at; or
(bb) checking navigational aids or procedures at,
a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in
accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing.


So if it is not a Government or licensed aerodrome, your flight profile has to be in accordance with normal aviation practice. So if you depart from normal aviation practice then you should think.....

Not in a way that is binding on any other court.

You will note that the key words in Rule 6 are "in accordance with normal aviation practice" This was the wording in the old Rule 5. The CAA in a prosecution would normally call evidence as to how a normal circuit would be flown to demonstrate what 'normal aviation practice' would be and to rebut the suggestion that the 25 mile final at 250' was normal. I would expect that they would do similar to demonstrate what is 'necessary' as well as 'normal'.

It's the 1,000 foot (rather than the 500 foot) rule that catches most (helicopter pilots) out and puts them in breach of the law.

You need a written permission from the CAA to disregard the 1,000 foot rule to land at a site that's in a congested area, other than a government or licensed aerodrome. Many don't bother, especially as it costs money.

Quote:

---

(aa) taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at; or
(bb) checking navigational aids or procedures at,
a Government or licensed aerodrome.
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in
accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing.

---

So if I approach a licensed aerodrome with a view to land, but go-around for safety reasons, this is legal. However, if I intend to land at a short farm strip but for safety reasons elect to go-around, then I am at risk of breaking the 500 foot rule if there are any structures close by?

Isn't that 'normal aviation practice?
If you don't like what you see - go around.

This rule, together with "normal aviation practice" and any mention of "licensed aerodromes" in this context, is part of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2007, which were superseded by Part-SERA and the Rules of the Air Regulations 2015 which supplement Part-SERA. The 500 ft rule is in Part-SERA, not RotA2015.

RotA2015 does contain:

Landing and taking off within congested areas and near open-air assemblies
5.—(1) An aircraft must not take off or land within a congested area of any city, town or settlement except—
(a) at an aerodrome in accordance with procedures notified by the CAA; or
(b) at a landing site which is not an aerodrome in accordance with the permission of the CAA.

which ShyTorque alludes to.

To answer the OP's question, I know of no relevant precedent.

I have seen examples cited before about this subject, RE: going around from an unlicensed non airfield, how many times can you "go-around" before you are doing "circuits"?

Wasn't there a very well publicised CAA prosecution some years ago where the pilot was doing just what abdg suggested at an unlicensed strip but someone with a chip on his shoulder was at or near the threshold and claimed he'd had his life in danger. The pilot indeed tried to claim "normal aviation practice" for his go around but the law felt otherwise and he was "done" somewhat brutally iirc.

The moral seemed to be if you go below 500ft on approach to a farm strip you must land or crash, a g/a is not a legal option.

Anyone remember the details with more accuracy? Must have been '80s.

Do you really believe that?

This not a case of anything to do with "morals" it appears to be in breach of a rule that could get you into trouble, however we all know that if you as P1 feel that the approach into your mates unploughed turnip field is not going to plan then who wouldn't throw it away and start again and bugger the consequences.

I do remember one quite some time ago when an account of court proceedings sounded all very reasonable, and it seemed the pilot was being prosecuted for making the choice to make a safe go around instead of landing on a possibly unsafe strip … until I got to the bit that described the subsequent low-level aileron roll as the pilot's "signal to the accompanying aircraft that the strip was unsuitable"… ;)

Thanks all. Bookworm, you get the prize for actually knowing what the current law is ;)

And NB as you say, SERA.5005(f) itself doesn't mention "in accordance with normal aviation practice", and the CAA exemptions only apply that proviso in relation to practising landings at an aerodrome, PFLs, or "flying in accordance with a notified procedure". So the question of whether you're flying "in accordance with normal aviation practice" doesn't apply if all you're doing is a take-off, or an approach to a full-stop landing.

Which brings me back to the question of how far out the 500ft exemption extends - if there's a hill under the downwind do you have to clear it by 500ft or is it covered by the exemption that it's "necessary for take-off or landing".

From what you say bookworm and legalapproach, that's not a question that's been settled in the courts. I've looked at the lists of CAA prosecutions but none of them are detailed enough to answer the question.

NorthSouth does the rule only apply if buildings, people or animals are within 500ft. So in open country if none of the above no worries. if a house fly round it by 500ft. Soon we will need laser range finders to stay legal!

I do remember many years ago someone was fined for fly over WOD ndb at less than 1500ft and that was before Woodley was so built up. May be it has to be extreme to be fined.

Our group had a problem flying over Stockenchurch once on route to Bournemouth. Someone reported us as low flying, we had held lowish as RAF traffic passed over in bound to Benson once they cleared a climb started as it was a Cardinal 177 looked like a 152 to a ground observer so seemed closer and the prop tips make a lot of side line noise so it looked and sounded like low flying, this is the case we put before the CAA and they dropped it as we acted responsibly. All I would say is if you do have to talk to them get your story and facts straight then practise being interviewed before hand with person playing mister nasty. The CAA some time use retired police officers and they are NOT your friends so be defensive and economic with the truth.

Current low flying rule is in SERA, however, see Civil Aviation Authority
SAFETY NOTICE Number: SN–2014/010 Appendix a which modifies SERA. Extract below.

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).

horizon flyer: not buildings but "structures" - so fences, telegraph poles, masts etc all count.

yes people, but not animals

And none of this applies "when necessary for landing or taking off" so you can be as close as you like to persons, vessels, vehicles or structures when you're doing that.

I've sometimes worried about fences, old drystone dykes, and lobster-pot buoys. And old sheep fanks.
I'd never go near 500' to a mammal, deer or domestic, even if legal.
If they're really out to get me, the wording would include geological structures, such as the Moine Thrust.

Of course they're out to get you 😱