Alleged low flying prosecution
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear oh dear you would have hoped the CAA would have more sense than getting in the middle of a planning dispute.
The sooner the right to prosecute gets removed from the CAA the better.
The sooner the right to prosecute gets removed from the CAA the better.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,583
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
Strange how retired senior officers are often the most vociferous when it comes to complaints. I remember a retired Navy commander who used to constantly complain about helis from Shawbury using the training area near his property for confined areas practice!
One could see either view here, though, it might have happened as alleged or not.... might have been exaggerated.
One could see either view here, though, it might have happened as alleged or not.... might have been exaggerated.
Thread Starter
You are indeed correct Shy Torque. The most vociferous objector to helicopter noise in South Nutfield was a retired Admiral (Sea Lord?) resident in the village.
The second most vociferous was a senior member of the management of the company operating there, also resident in the village, who would anonymously call the tower and complain EVERY time the training school pilots were night flying in the 47's. He figured (quite correctly as it turned out) that by calling EVERY time they were night flying that they would stay away from the village and he wouldn't have to deal with the fall out the next day at work!
Quite a clever strategy actually!
The second most vociferous was a senior member of the management of the company operating there, also resident in the village, who would anonymously call the tower and complain EVERY time the training school pilots were night flying in the 47's. He figured (quite correctly as it turned out) that by calling EVERY time they were night flying that they would stay away from the village and he wouldn't have to deal with the fall out the next day at work!
Quite a clever strategy actually!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cotswolds
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotorboater
I hear that the biggest complainer at Kemble is an ex airline pilot that moved there, you would have thought he knew what an airfield looked like!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,583
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
Originally Posted by Bravo73
Nah, I'm sure it's a chicken farmer...! 
(Memories, eh? Oh happy days).
(Memories, eh? Oh happy days).
Can you or Can't you?
I recently took my wife for lunch at a country house hotel and was told by the owners to land on a specific lawn which I did. It was about 100ft from the building which was full of people having lunch. So did I break the law?
If I wheel my heli out of my hangar at home and take off from the hardstanding next to it (60ft away) or land on it returning is this breaking the law?
Perhaps we should just tie them to a lampost witha 500ft rope and let them hover 'til we return ( copyright S Wright).
Seriously whats the score here?????
If I wheel my heli out of my hangar at home and take off from the hardstanding next to it (60ft away) or land on it returning is this breaking the law?
Perhaps we should just tie them to a lampost witha 500ft rope and let them hover 'til we return ( copyright S Wright).
Seriously whats the score here?????
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test 123
Prepairing a trip to UK-EI, I'll take this as a test, based on the reading material provided by punto:
Landing, so 500 feet rules does not apply.
In most other countries there would be another rules stating that the landing spot (2 diameters..) must be secured from people access, so if not the case at least marshaller should be present to prevent people from rushing to the heli....
my 2cents...
Landing, so 500 feet rules does not apply.
In most other countries there would be another rules stating that the landing spot (2 diameters..) must be secured from people access, so if not the case at least marshaller should be present to prevent people from rushing to the heli....
my 2cents...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go. Rule 5 again. The world's most re-written rule which still manages to confuse.
"5.3.(a)(ii).....landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practise....."
Define normal ? Does normal mean landing closer than 500 ft to a structure which contains persons ? Obviously if the flight is PT there are other rules which prohibit landing next to buildings.....aren't there ?
But what about the catch-all requirement which will be lobbed into your lap by any prosecuting lawyer who's read the ANO......we are all required to fly without endangering people or property on the surface. Until your skids touch mother earth, you're flying.
I think a good guideline can be construed from 5.3 (i)(i) - the reference to flying/manoeuvring at a licensed aerdrome and the 60 metre cordon sanitaire required to any persons, vessels, vehicles, structures located outside the aerdrome or site.
60 m from any person etc when landing is probably a good idea. But then I'm thinking more about R44 downwash than Chinook.
"5.3.(a)(ii).....landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practise....."
Define normal ? Does normal mean landing closer than 500 ft to a structure which contains persons ? Obviously if the flight is PT there are other rules which prohibit landing next to buildings.....aren't there ?
But what about the catch-all requirement which will be lobbed into your lap by any prosecuting lawyer who's read the ANO......we are all required to fly without endangering people or property on the surface. Until your skids touch mother earth, you're flying.
I think a good guideline can be construed from 5.3 (i)(i) - the reference to flying/manoeuvring at a licensed aerdrome and the 60 metre cordon sanitaire required to any persons, vessels, vehicles, structures located outside the aerdrome or site.
60 m from any person etc when landing is probably a good idea. But then I'm thinking more about R44 downwash than Chinook.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Heliport
What answer would you give?
If your site is in a congested area then you'll need CAA permission to exempt you from the 1000ft rule. The ANO defines a ‘Congested area’ in relation to a city, town or settlement, as any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes. If you're in doubt as to whether the CAA would define your hotel as being part of a settlement, then you can ask them. £94 will buy you the answer to your question, and if necessary an annual exemption to land there, if they see fit.
As to your house, same applies. In addition the town and country planning act exempts you from the need for planning permission for up to 28 days use in any year.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe/US
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The poor ships Captain....Ark Royal......is that still floating???
Course the pilot could have been taking avoiding action from potential multiple bird strikes. Glad the letter of the law applies. Could have gone a different way, though!
Course the pilot could have been taking avoiding action from potential multiple bird strikes. Glad the letter of the law applies. Could have gone a different way, though!
Confusing or what?
This rule 5 only seems to confuse matters and leaves many areas open to interpretation. So I'm at a licenced airfield and told to hover taxi to the fuel pumps which obviously don't have a 60 metre hose?????
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: W Mids
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puntosaurus
I think you will find that the 28 day rule actually refers to 'change of use'. This would be applicable if you were landing on a farm paddock next to your house.
If you are landing within the curtilage of your house then the 28 day change of use rule does not apply.
I think you will find that the 28 day rule actually refers to 'change of use'. This would be applicable if you were landing on a farm paddock next to your house.
If you are landing within the curtilage of your house then the 28 day change of use rule does not apply.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bvgs:
Read the rule - 60m from anything OUTSIDE the airfield boundary. (Mind you I can think of many airfields that have pumps very close to their boundary fence.)
And the 28 day rule does not apply to curtilage. Our quaint country and its quaint old language. Please don't get us started on the definition of curtilage.......
So I'm at a licenced airfield and told to hover taxi to the fuel pumps which obviously don't have a 60 metre hose?????
And the 28 day rule does not apply to curtilage. Our quaint country and its quaint old language. Please don't get us started on the definition of curtilage.......
Guest
Posts: n/a
bladeslapper - Happy to be corrected.
bvgs - I'm guessing here (and I'm no CAA defender) but I hope that the CAA would accept that hovertaxiing between landing pads and fuel pumps constitutes landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice. I'm hoping the manoeuvring rule would only be invoked to deal with something that was clearly not landing and taking off, eg. quickstops.
bvgs - I'm guessing here (and I'm no CAA defender) but I hope that the CAA would accept that hovertaxiing between landing pads and fuel pumps constitutes landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice. I'm hoping the manoeuvring rule would only be invoked to deal with something that was clearly not landing and taking off, eg. quickstops.