Alleged low flying prosecution
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't the CAA wonderful?
They spend months (or was it a couple of years?) cobbling together a new rule 5 to replace the old one that everyone found difficult to understand/apply and all they come up with is a new rule that everyone finds difficult to understand/apply.
They spend months (or was it a couple of years?) cobbling together a new rule 5 to replace the old one that everyone found difficult to understand/apply and all they come up with is a new rule that everyone finds difficult to understand/apply.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600m of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 150 meters to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.
Now, who can explain the differences, besides the pain in the ass formulation of Rule 5?
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600m of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 150 meters to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.
Now, who can explain the differences, besides the pain in the ass formulation of Rule 5?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thebigblade
How kind of you to register just to post your version.
"I can't see how he got away with it"
Err .... because the court heard both sides and decided the pilot didn't break the law.
Were you one of those who (allegedly ) had to duck?
How kind of you to register just to post your version.
"I can't see how he got away with it"
Err .... because the court heard both sides and decided the pilot didn't break the law.
Were you one of those who (allegedly
) had to duck?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a PPL who does a lot of flying into private sites, here is my take on Rule 5 for what its worth.
The British mentality is to gold plate rules and make them more restrictive and complex than the drafter of the rule intended. Assuming you are not near an open air assemby of 1000 people the only bits of rule 5 that apply to a helicopter WHEN LANDING or TAKING OFF outside a congested area are paragraphs:
2a. Failure of the power unit. An aircraft shall not be flown below such a height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.
and
3a (ii). "Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice."
I think we can take it that a few properties in the vicinity of the LZ does not constitute a congested area.
To Thebigblade, I would argue that overflying a single house at a hundred feet on approach does not contravene para 2a, as in the event of a power failure it will be possible to avoid hitting the house using normal piloting skills. The aircraft is exempt from the 500 ft rule. It isn't considerate or good PR but its not illegal.
So, you can land anywhere as long as you dont risk crashing into someones house and it is normal practice. Great. Whats normal?
For me, as a PPL(H) using a helicopter for personal transport, it is normal practice to land in some pretty damn difficult areas at confined private sites which are sometimes very near to public areas and other peoples private property. Many of these sites are hotels/pubs.
A few examples:
Devonshire arms. LZ is 20 yards from the seating area outside the Bistro. No fence between the drinking public and the landing aircraft.
Old Stone Trough near Foulridge. LZ is literally in the car park.
Swan. Newby Bridge. LZ adjacent to car park.
Fayrer Gardens. It is almost impossible not to overfly someones property on the approach.
etc, etc.
On the basis that these and many others are normal aviation practice, landing pretty much anywhere should be defensible in court provided you are sensible and can justify it.
As was the case here, you should be found not guilty however may people you irritate.
Pissing people off is not against the law but may put you in a position where you may have to defend your actions in court, and being in the right does not guarantee you will win the case, such is the lottery of the British legal system.
Fly considerately - try to stay out of court.
The British mentality is to gold plate rules and make them more restrictive and complex than the drafter of the rule intended. Assuming you are not near an open air assemby of 1000 people the only bits of rule 5 that apply to a helicopter WHEN LANDING or TAKING OFF outside a congested area are paragraphs:
2a. Failure of the power unit. An aircraft shall not be flown below such a height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.
and
3a (ii). "Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice."
I think we can take it that a few properties in the vicinity of the LZ does not constitute a congested area.
To Thebigblade, I would argue that overflying a single house at a hundred feet on approach does not contravene para 2a, as in the event of a power failure it will be possible to avoid hitting the house using normal piloting skills. The aircraft is exempt from the 500 ft rule. It isn't considerate or good PR but its not illegal.
So, you can land anywhere as long as you dont risk crashing into someones house and it is normal practice. Great. Whats normal?
For me, as a PPL(H) using a helicopter for personal transport, it is normal practice to land in some pretty damn difficult areas at confined private sites which are sometimes very near to public areas and other peoples private property. Many of these sites are hotels/pubs.
A few examples:
Devonshire arms. LZ is 20 yards from the seating area outside the Bistro. No fence between the drinking public and the landing aircraft.
Old Stone Trough near Foulridge. LZ is literally in the car park.
Swan. Newby Bridge. LZ adjacent to car park.
Fayrer Gardens. It is almost impossible not to overfly someones property on the approach.
etc, etc.
On the basis that these and many others are normal aviation practice, landing pretty much anywhere should be defensible in court provided you are sensible and can justify it.
As was the case here, you should be found not guilty however may people you irritate.
Pissing people off is not against the law but may put you in a position where you may have to defend your actions in court, and being in the right does not guarantee you will win the case, such is the lottery of the British legal system.
Fly considerately - try to stay out of court.
Last edited by Gaseous; 3rd May 2006 at 01:10.
Gaseous: just because these pubs have landing sites doesn't give the pilot carte blanche to shoot an apporoach
Rule 5(d): blah blah blah...."conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface".
Is the critical bit. You can't land at a pub where you intend to touch down 20 yds from the public, just because it's a legal landing site??????
YOU the pilot have to take every measure to minimise damage to persons vehicles vessels and structures....OR ELSE accept the consequences.
Rule 5(d): blah blah blah...."conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface".
Is the critical bit. You can't land at a pub where you intend to touch down 20 yds from the public, just because it's a legal landing site??????
YOU the pilot have to take every measure to minimise damage to persons vehicles vessels and structures....OR ELSE accept the consequences.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm tempting the wrath of the ppruners here, but IMHO the reason Rule 5 is not as straightforward as we'd like is because the issues it attempts to deal with are not straightforward.
Everyone (I hope !) would agree that good judgement, solid airmanship, and good neighbourliness are the key issues about using non-licensed sites. If the world was a perfect place, we could end with that.
As an attempt to codify what that means, Rule 5 is IMHO not a bad shot. It focuses on what it is we're trying to prevent (damage to persons or property in the event of engine failure) rather than attempting to substitute for pilot's judgement. As the outcome in the case underlying this thread clearly shows, it is actually a pilot's best line of defence against small mindedness and nimbyism IF we behave 'reasonably' .
If I could add one final point, the reason I posted a link to the text of Rule 5 wasn't just to be glib it's that IMHO more people actually read the rule, rather than relying on other people's interpretations, then they'd be better equipped. If you know the rules then you can interpret them and fly with confidence rather than adopting the slightly hunted tone we often see in these pages.
Everyone (I hope !) would agree that good judgement, solid airmanship, and good neighbourliness are the key issues about using non-licensed sites. If the world was a perfect place, we could end with that.
As an attempt to codify what that means, Rule 5 is IMHO not a bad shot. It focuses on what it is we're trying to prevent (damage to persons or property in the event of engine failure) rather than attempting to substitute for pilot's judgement. As the outcome in the case underlying this thread clearly shows, it is actually a pilot's best line of defence against small mindedness and nimbyism IF we behave 'reasonably' .
If I could add one final point, the reason I posted a link to the text of Rule 5 wasn't just to be glib it's that IMHO more people actually read the rule, rather than relying on other people's interpretations, then they'd be better equipped. If you know the rules then you can interpret them and fly with confidence rather than adopting the slightly hunted tone we often see in these pages.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC. You are correct in that the pilot must accept the consequences of his actions.
I would contend that you have the right to 'shoot an appraoch' as you put it as long as you are not outside the law. The law in this case being rule 5.
quote:
Rule 5(d): blah blah blah...."conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface".
I suggest you re-read Rule 5 as there is no such clause in it. It is hard enough for people to interpret the rule without having to contend with exta bits that you think should be in it. Puntosaurus posted the link above. I assume that this is the most recent version of rule 5. If you can post a link which includes your clause I will stand corrected.
I chose my example sites carefully as they all get lots of traffic and so I would contend are 'normal practice'.
it is quite possible to comply with Rule 5 para 2a at all these sites.
There is nothing in rule 5 which says you cannot land 20 yards from the public. It is quite possible to do this at a certain apron at EGNH. Whether it is sensible to do so is up to the pilot.
I would contend that you have the right to 'shoot an appraoch' as you put it as long as you are not outside the law. The law in this case being rule 5.
quote:
Rule 5(d): blah blah blah...."conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface".
I suggest you re-read Rule 5 as there is no such clause in it. It is hard enough for people to interpret the rule without having to contend with exta bits that you think should be in it. Puntosaurus posted the link above. I assume that this is the most recent version of rule 5. If you can post a link which includes your clause I will stand corrected.
I chose my example sites carefully as they all get lots of traffic and so I would contend are 'normal practice'.
it is quite possible to comply with Rule 5 para 2a at all these sites.
There is nothing in rule 5 which says you cannot land 20 yards from the public. It is quite possible to do this at a certain apron at EGNH. Whether it is sensible to do so is up to the pilot.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah. This might make the great TC blush and hide. He's confused his rules.
First 5(d), as noted by TC, hasn't existed in Rule 5 since last April. 5(d) was in the old Rule 5.
What he has quoted is almost an extract from the ICAO Rules of the Air. But not quite. See below. So TC - go to the bike shed and take with you an ANO 2005. And whilst you're there, check you're not in possession of an old PAOM....
ICAO Annex 2 Chapter 3 Paragraph 3.1.2 - Minimum heights
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the appropriate authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
ICAO Annex 2 Chapter 4 Paragraph 4.6
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the appropriate 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.
And why do we always have to assume/operate as if the "public" is completely devoid of brain cells ? Why can't they take responsibility for their own actions ? See a helicopter obviously coming into land - move to a safe distance. (Yes - I am a realist - they actually run towards it....)
First 5(d), as noted by TC, hasn't existed in Rule 5 since last April. 5(d) was in the old Rule 5.
What he has quoted is almost an extract from the ICAO Rules of the Air. But not quite. See below. So TC - go to the bike shed and take with you an ANO 2005. And whilst you're there, check you're not in possession of an old PAOM....
ICAO Annex 2 Chapter 3 Paragraph 3.1.2 - Minimum heights
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the appropriate authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
ICAO Annex 2 Chapter 4 Paragraph 4.6
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the appropriate 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.
And why do we always have to assume/operate as if the "public" is completely devoid of brain cells ? Why can't they take responsibility for their own actions ? See a helicopter obviously coming into land - move to a safe distance. (Yes - I am a realist - they actually run towards it....)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: u.k
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heliport
Thebigblade
How kind of you to register just to post your version.
"I can't see how he got away with it"
Err .... because the court heard both sides and decided the pilot didn't break the law.
Were you one of those who (allegedly ) had to duck?
How kind of you to register just to post your version.
"I can't see how he got away with it"
Err .... because the court heard both sides and decided the pilot didn't break the law.
Were you one of those who (allegedly
) had to duck?
to gaseous (To Thebigblade, I would argue that overflying a single house at a hundred feet on approach does not contravene para 2a, as in the event of a power failure it will be possible to avoid hitting the house using normal piloting skills. The aircraft is exempt from the 500 ft rule. It isn't considerate or good PR but its not illegal.)
It was not just one house but a number of house and power line in the path he took, and he should have took the approach which he nomal does which is over open land .
Last edited by Thebigblade; 4th May 2006 at 17:12.
Gaseous,
You say: "There is nothing in rule 5 which says you cannot land 20 yards from the public."
I think there is:
Rule 5 (i) Manoeuvring helicopters
A helicopter shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when conducting manoeuvres in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome, or at other sites with the permission of the CAA; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption the helicopter must not be operated closer than 60 metres to persons, vessels, vehicles or structures located outside the aerodrome or site.
Apart from 60 metres, another key word is 'permission'. Are the sites you mentioned licenced, inspected or approved? Just because a land owner says helicopters can land doesn't make it right or safe.
I would be shocked to hear that you or any other helicopter pilots have been landing 20 yards from an uncontrolled group of the public. The apron at EGNH, is there a fence around it?
I have seen and attended a lot of accidents were small, usually privately owned helicopters, have gone into sites that are either too small or unsuitable.
The rotary world in UK has a hard enough time getting the support of the public, let's not give them any more ammunition.
FNW.
You say: "There is nothing in rule 5 which says you cannot land 20 yards from the public."
I think there is:
Rule 5 (i) Manoeuvring helicopters
A helicopter shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when conducting manoeuvres in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome, or at other sites with the permission of the CAA; provided that when flying in accordance with this exemption the helicopter must not be operated closer than 60 metres to persons, vessels, vehicles or structures located outside the aerodrome or site.
Apart from 60 metres, another key word is 'permission'. Are the sites you mentioned licenced, inspected or approved? Just because a land owner says helicopters can land doesn't make it right or safe.
I would be shocked to hear that you or any other helicopter pilots have been landing 20 yards from an uncontrolled group of the public. The apron at EGNH, is there a fence around it?
I have seen and attended a lot of accidents were small, usually privately owned helicopters, have gone into sites that are either too small or unsuitable.
The rotary world in UK has a hard enough time getting the support of the public, let's not give them any more ammunition.
FNW.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyclic: What sort of edumification did you have ? Below is the Macmillan English Dictionary definition of phat. And I now don't understand the context in which BB used the word. phucced if i no.
Phat is an informal term for expressing general approval for someone or something, and can be used in expressing admiration of various qualities, including being fashionable, intelligent, cool or sexy. Dated as ‘late 20th century’, phat is now beginning to enter the latest editions of mainstream dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic. Earlier this year it appeared in the new edition of the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, and a July 2003 article in the Los Angeles Times reports its inclusion in the eleventh edition of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. The term has also this year been added to the new edition of the Oxford English Dictionary along with other terms from ‘rap’ culture such as bling bling, meaning ‘expensive, ostentatious clothing or jewellery, or the wearing of them’. Background
The adjective phat has emerged from hip hop, a cultural movement originating among young African Americans in the United States and associated with rap music, graffiti art and breakdancing. Deriving from Black English Vernacular, phat is a deliberate misspelling of fat, intended to invert its meaning, though it has also been associated with descriptions of ‘rounded’ rear body shapes of black American women.
Phat often appears in advertising slogans precisely because it looks like a misspelling of fat, e.g. phat farm, and is often used alongside words which carry similar plays on spelling, e.g. phat phasun (fashion) or as seen in the citation above ‘Our goal … is to keep you PHITTED (fitted) in the PHATEST gear…’ .
Phat is an informal term for expressing general approval for someone or something, and can be used in expressing admiration of various qualities, including being fashionable, intelligent, cool or sexy. Dated as ‘late 20th century’, phat is now beginning to enter the latest editions of mainstream dictionaries on both sides of the Atlantic. Earlier this year it appeared in the new edition of the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, and a July 2003 article in the Los Angeles Times reports its inclusion in the eleventh edition of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. The term has also this year been added to the new edition of the Oxford English Dictionary along with other terms from ‘rap’ culture such as bling bling, meaning ‘expensive, ostentatious clothing or jewellery, or the wearing of them’. Background
The adjective phat has emerged from hip hop, a cultural movement originating among young African Americans in the United States and associated with rap music, graffiti art and breakdancing. Deriving from Black English Vernacular, phat is a deliberate misspelling of fat, intended to invert its meaning, though it has also been associated with descriptions of ‘rounded’ rear body shapes of black American women.
Phat often appears in advertising slogans precisely because it looks like a misspelling of fat, e.g. phat farm, and is often used alongside words which carry similar plays on spelling, e.g. phat phasun (fashion) or as seen in the citation above ‘Our goal … is to keep you PHITTED (fitted) in the PHATEST gear…’ .
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i wuz walkin twarz de phato las phriday wen i sore a elicoter doin a phorced landin. e phloo it dan phrom abaat 1000 pht and it like didn't ave no engin or nuphin makin a noiz. den i wen to de caphe an got me bacon sarnie an a cuppa. then i met me matz who were well phat an we got our phatest gear outta de shed. we phlew off chasin chavs pher a coupla hourz. i did awl de phlying and de chattin on de raydio. de bloke in de control tower sed
"yo! perlice 356. yo is cleared pher take oph. wind 240 15 notz."
i sed "ey oop batty boy. yo is well out oph orda. i ain't got no problems wiv me kerphupher valve. yo should stop behavin like orl dem girly pilotz and get yourselph back in menz cloves!"
dat made me larph orl day. wicked man. dis is a cool job.
(dis is de phirst time i ave writted anyphink wiv paragraffs.)
Thomas Coupling
Age 16
"yo! perlice 356. yo is cleared pher take oph. wind 240 15 notz."
i sed "ey oop batty boy. yo is well out oph orda. i ain't got no problems wiv me kerphupher valve. yo should stop behavin like orl dem girly pilotz and get yourselph back in menz cloves!"
dat made me larph orl day. wicked man. dis is a cool job.
(dis is de phirst time i ave writted anyphink wiv paragraffs.)
Thomas Coupling
Age 16
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FNW,
Not at all sure about your interpretation of the new Rule 5. If it were me being hung out to dry, I would say that I was relying on the exemption available during take-off and landing in accordance with normal aviation practice (Exemption 3(a)(i)). If that exemption applies, then it says I don't need to keep more than 500 feet from all those things we are not supposed to go close to. It doesn't add anything else.
I think that your reference to the "manoeuvring helicopters" clause is a bit of red herring. It only applies to licensed airfields. As the note from the CAA says, it is intended to allow "ground cushion manoeuvres" to be done at such airfields, most likely during training.
Of course, we will only know when some poor mug gets taken to a higher court.
For those of you who don't have the "privilege" of having to fly in the UK - please forgive us for boring the pants off you. Put it another way, just think how lucky you are not to have to fly here.........
Not at all sure about your interpretation of the new Rule 5. If it were me being hung out to dry, I would say that I was relying on the exemption available during take-off and landing in accordance with normal aviation practice (Exemption 3(a)(i)). If that exemption applies, then it says I don't need to keep more than 500 feet from all those things we are not supposed to go close to. It doesn't add anything else.
I think that your reference to the "manoeuvring helicopters" clause is a bit of red herring. It only applies to licensed airfields. As the note from the CAA says, it is intended to allow "ground cushion manoeuvres" to be done at such airfields, most likely during training.
Of course, we will only know when some poor mug gets taken to a higher court.
For those of you who don't have the "privilege" of having to fly in the UK - please forgive us for boring the pants off you. Put it another way, just think how lucky you are not to have to fly here.........
Thread Starter
Thanks for the info hsh, I guess I must have formally turned into an old fart, when I have no comprehension of the modern vernacular! I did enjoy the example of it in context though, made me laugh that did!
Maybe in this instance, it should be Rule Phive?
Maybe in this instance, it should be Rule Phive?