About 12 yrs ago the CAA ruled that for the purposes of Rule 5 a runway constitutes a structure because (IIRC) of the number of "low overshoots" being brought to their attention for various reasons (like crashing!)

Whether this ruling is still extant I don't know, but I'd be reluctant to test it!
:eek:

I think it's been done to death now...the general consensus seems to be stay 500' or more away from anything that is not the ground.

IMHO 500' is low enough for any GA. Bear in mind that some of the main line electrical pylons are 250' high and can be difficult to spot if you're not specifically aware they are in the area...even flying just a little low around those things would cause severe puckering of the seat.

DSAA wrote:
IMHO 500' is low enough for any GA. Bear in mind that some of the main line electrical pylons are 250' high and can be difficult to spot if you're not specifically aware they are in the area...even flying just a little low around those things would cause severe puckering of the seat.

Fair point that caution must always be exercised when down 'under the radar' but if you're to properly practice PFL's you've got to go down to at least 100ft-ish. That's the case for microlights anyway. Don't know how it is for you GA chaps.

Kit d'R KG wrote:
No. It applies to 'people or things with internal volume' (CAA ARE edict). The internal volume need not be enclosed.

Chapter and verse please! I've often wondered whether an electric fence was a 'structure'. Presumably anything the CAA says is only guidance, because it's for the Courts to interpret what the Rules of the Air Regs actually mean not bureaucrats, but any clarification from epaulette central would be welcome.

So how did the CAA deal with this one??

http://whatsthecrack.net/article/Fun...Videos_78.html

Well Lucy, you can always apply for an exemption... :} :ok:

Yeah, fair play...a PFL to a field is often necessary to descend to 100' in order to get as close to that final approach as you can. I was speaking more in the realms of low level nav or getting under weather if you're not IMC rated.:)

Think you're right. And according to the Autumn 2006 edition of GASCo's Flight Safety magazine (p.4) the CAA has confirmed that provided:

1) a PFL is undertaken in good faith (ie. not an excuse for a beat up)

2) with no intent to breach the 500' rule

3) reasonable care is taken to check the area is clear and

4) where you become aware of a previously unseen person you immediately initiate a go-around

then you will not be prosecuted.

Seems sensible :D

No, an electric fence is not, as it has no internal volume.

'Chapter and verse' is impossible as this information is from CAA ARE briefings. Yes the courts make the decisions, but the CAA bring the prosecutions, and they tend to do so very carefully and seriously intent on success (almost always, rightly so, in my experience - you wouldn't believe the idiotic things people get away with because the CAA choose not to prosecute).

Kit d'Rection KG

"..... the CAA bring the prosecutions"
True.
"and they tend to do so very carefully"
If you mean no expense is spared in gathering evidence to try to obtain a conviction, I agree. (The CAA is reimbursed handsomely: By a combination of the pilot and the DfT if they win; by the DfT if they lose.)
If you mean the CAA only prosecutes serious breaches/deliberate breaches/repeat offenders, that is certainly not correct.
"and seriously intent on success"
That is true, very true indeed. And it's completely the wrong approach to prosecuting. (I speak as an experienced prosecutor.)
A prosecutor should not be "seriously intent on success." It's not a prosecutor's role to be all out to win the case. That attitude, by police and/or lawyers, is one of the causes of notorious miscarriages of justice over the years.
"almost always, rightly so, in my experience"
I don't know what/how much experience you have of CAA prosecutions - or whether it's what you've been told at "CAA ARE briefings."
It's not my view, based on my experience.


TST Tom

What you quote sounds sensible - and encouraging.
But:
1) "in good faith"
Will the pilot's word be sufficient, or does it depend upon what the CAA ARE think?
2) "no intent to breach the 500' rule"
As above.
3) "reasonable care is taken to check the area is clear"
As above. And, reasonable in whose opinion?
4) "where you become aware of a previously unseen person you immediately initiate a go-around"
Will the pilot's account of when he became aware be accepted, or will ARE decide whether he saw the person or, if he didn't, whether he should have?
(I'm not suggesting you can answer the questions - I'm simply pointing that it may not be quite as straightforward as it might appear.)

I hope it is an indication of the current Head of ARE's approach. A previous Head was responsible for one the most ridiculous prosecutions I've known - the prosecution of an Instructor at Wycombe teaching EFATO - which should never have been brought.
The CAA was as always "seriously intent on success" but, fortunately, the credibility of the CAA's witnesses (Nimbies) was totally demolished in cross-examination and the FI was found Not Guilty. Taking their accounts apart, demonstrating that they'd put their heads together to tell the same story and exposing their underlying Nimby agenda was sheer joy. :)

I could give many examples, but that one came to mind because it's relevant to the discussion here.


FL

Here in Belgium: 500ft above countryside, 1000ft above highest object above cities, dense populations etc...
Safe, altough sometimes I want to get lower.

That sounds like "perverting the course of justice". Did any of them get prosecuted?

Yup that sounds like the law! I'm a solicitor too in the day job - though not criminal or advocacy.

:ok:

Hmmm,

Flying Lawyer, thanks for your reply. I did once endeavour to get hold of you to discuss something of interest to both of us - sadly, you didn't have the courtesy to reply to my note to you. Your choice, of course.

No, much more than ARE briefings, as you'd have found out if we had spoken. Certainly, a missed opportunity from my point of view, I'm sad to say, as I believe we both might have gained from being in touch.

And just remember it is 1000 feet above a crowd of 1000 or more.

For those who have not discovered it:
Standardised European Rules of the Air –
Exceptions to the Minimum Height Requirements ORS1174

Yes I’ve never known there to be a CAA known minimum altitude for VFR traffic (IFR has different requirements), except the 500ft (Rule 5) rule. Which specifies a minimum distance of 500ft in any direction from a person, structure, vehicle or vessel. If you find yourself in an area where none of these are present then you can fly at any altitude you require.

I find it difficult to be able to do this in the area I fly as you can’t really fly that low for long as you’ll definitely end up breaching this rule pretty quickly.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong however there is exceptions to this rule:

1. The A/C is taking off or landing.
2. The aircraft is in distress or executing a forced landing etc.
3. The A/C is receiving a Special VFR clearance (SVFR).

Rule 5 disappeared nearly 3 year ago!

And therein lies the danger of resurrecting a ten year old thread.

Personally, I never fly lower than 10ft over the sea - got to be safe you know:=:sad::ok:

On the Rad Alt or the Pressure Alt?