The scene is set - incl Low Flying rules and Is there a 'cultural divide'?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,580
Received 438 Likes
on
231 Posts
FL,
Whether rule 5 applies or not, a prosecution might still be brought under Article 64.
Point is, as a private pilot and a professional lawyer you will have a job whether folk land helis unannounced on private property without permission or not - I for one might ask you to defend me against a CAA prosecution.
However, I bear in mind that if you lost the case, you would still have a job, but I might not
Royston, I once considered trying hair dye. You have made me realise it was a very good idea not to!
Whether rule 5 applies or not, a prosecution might still be brought under Article 64.
Point is, as a private pilot and a professional lawyer you will have a job whether folk land helis unannounced on private property without permission or not - I for one might ask you to defend me against a CAA prosecution.
However, I bear in mind that if you lost the case, you would still have a job, but I might not
Royston, I once considered trying hair dye. You have made me realise it was a very good idea not to!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jankara
Age: 64
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading this thread just makes me thankful I don't have to fly in UK if you're all such a bunch of total killjoys who's only interest is other people's business. If people like RV98, ST and B73 are typical of the flying population then you definitely have the CAA you deserve.
Royston you're a cool dude. A man in the prime of life who just want to live his life, have a little harmless enjoyment in his later years and having had the good fortune to be able to do so. Good on yer
The difference between the UK attitude and that of the rest of the world is still well summed up by an old story of the deadbeat by the side of the road who ends up covered in dust when a big fancy Rolls Royce drives past him. If this happened in UK he'd think 'Rich bastard flashing his wealth in the face of the working classes - after the revolution you'll be here with me'. If it happened in USA he 'd think 'Lucky bastard having a great car like that - one day I'll be like you'.
FL, despite your kind visit, then bringing your wealth of legal experience to the thread, there are still many out there from Little Britain who know that you're wrong and they're right
. I sometimes wonder why anybody bothers visiting Prune with all its anonymous, self-professed experts.
Royston you're a cool dude. A man in the prime of life who just want to live his life, have a little harmless enjoyment in his later years and having had the good fortune to be able to do so. Good on yer
The difference between the UK attitude and that of the rest of the world is still well summed up by an old story of the deadbeat by the side of the road who ends up covered in dust when a big fancy Rolls Royce drives past him. If this happened in UK he'd think 'Rich bastard flashing his wealth in the face of the working classes - after the revolution you'll be here with me'. If it happened in USA he 'd think 'Lucky bastard having a great car like that - one day I'll be like you'.
FL, despite your kind visit, then bringing your wealth of legal experience to the thread, there are still many out there from Little Britain who know that you're wrong and they're right
. I sometimes wonder why anybody bothers visiting Prune with all its anonymous, self-professed experts.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
I suppose it could, but IMHO Royston didn't endanger anyone or anything.
I think he's unwise in saying too much on a public forum but that's a separate issue. It's well known that CAA personnel monitor PPRuNe.
(BTW, Article 64 (ANO 2000) has been replaced by Article 74 of the ANO 2005.)
I agree 100% that it's unwise to land without the permission of the land-owner. Why take the risk of someone causing trouble? I hope nothing I've said gives a contrary impression - I've simply responded to specific questions asked and points made.
MamaPut
(Most) Brits love rules and laws, despite claiming not to.
Aviation is no exception.
I visit PPRuNe because I think it's a superb site and I learn a great deal. This forum in particular has a wealth of genuine experts from all over the world.
I find some views irritating, just as I'm sure people sometimes find my views irritating, but the variety of views and personalities makes it even more interesting.
FL
I suppose it could, but IMHO Royston didn't endanger anyone or anything.
I think he's unwise in saying too much on a public forum but that's a separate issue. It's well known that CAA personnel monitor PPRuNe.
(BTW, Article 64 (ANO 2000) has been replaced by Article 74 of the ANO 2005.)
I agree 100% that it's unwise to land without the permission of the land-owner. Why take the risk of someone causing trouble? I hope nothing I've said gives a contrary impression - I've simply responded to specific questions asked and points made.
MamaPut
(Most) Brits love rules and laws, despite claiming not to.
Aviation is no exception.
I visit PPRuNe because I think it's a superb site and I learn a great deal. This forum in particular has a wealth of genuine experts from all over the world.
I find some views irritating, just as I'm sure people sometimes find my views irritating, but the variety of views and personalities makes it even more interesting.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 31st Jul 2006 at 22:54.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,580
Received 438 Likes
on
231 Posts
FL,
I totally agree. My point is that a disgruntled landowner could easily claim that his property or person had been endangered. He didn't in this case, so all is well. However, from past experience it might not have been.
As I pointed out earlier, certain claims were made during my time as the chief pilot of a police helicopter unit, against us whilst carrying out the normal operation of our aircraft to and from the base helipad (over open fields, as it happened). The claims resulted in a warning letter from the CAA Legal Branch. I sent a reply pointing out that we were most definitely not in breach of Rule 5 and were, in any event, exempt from the relevant parts of it under the terms of our PAOC. No further action was taken.
A PPL might suffer more than a mere warning letter. I wonder what Royston would be writing if the landowner in his case had been as outraged by his landing as our "local friend" was.
No further mileage claims made, Royston.
120 hours a month as a Builder with a PPL. Now there's a mileage claim. I take it you are an hours builder
I totally agree. My point is that a disgruntled landowner could easily claim that his property or person had been endangered. He didn't in this case, so all is well. However, from past experience it might not have been.
As I pointed out earlier, certain claims were made during my time as the chief pilot of a police helicopter unit, against us whilst carrying out the normal operation of our aircraft to and from the base helipad (over open fields, as it happened). The claims resulted in a warning letter from the CAA Legal Branch. I sent a reply pointing out that we were most definitely not in breach of Rule 5 and were, in any event, exempt from the relevant parts of it under the terms of our PAOC. No further action was taken.
A PPL might suffer more than a mere warning letter. I wonder what Royston would be writing if the landowner in his case had been as outraged by his landing as our "local friend" was.
No further mileage claims made, Royston.
120 hours a month as a Builder with a PPL. Now there's a mileage claim. I take it you are an hours builder
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is a good example of a fine forum at it's worst.
MamaPut hit the nail right on about the British attitude. Its like a disease and as usual the worst offenders are private pilots, wannabee professionals and new qualified pros.
They struggle to find some rule some pilot's broken and when that's shot down because they don't understand the rule their quoting they try another one. I just don't understand this need to try and prove that someone got something wrong.
ShyTorque
Your final position makes good sense but before you got there you were shifting your ground so quick I could hardly keep up.
"It was the only time a helicopter has landed at the property. So it appears the landing was NOT in accordance with normal aviation practice.”
Unbelievable! especially coming from an experienced professional pilot.
And how you can compare the drive of your house with a hotel or pub that's open to the public beats me.
MamaPut hit the nail right on about the British attitude. Its like a disease and as usual the worst offenders are private pilots, wannabee professionals and new qualified pros.
They struggle to find some rule some pilot's broken and when that's shot down because they don't understand the rule their quoting they try another one. I just don't understand this need to try and prove that someone got something wrong.
ShyTorque
Your final position makes good sense but before you got there you were shifting your ground so quick I could hardly keep up.
"It was the only time a helicopter has landed at the property. So it appears the landing was NOT in accordance with normal aviation practice.”
Unbelievable! especially coming from an experienced professional pilot.
And how you can compare the drive of your house with a hotel or pub that's open to the public beats me.
Thread Starter
.
It still beats me how, as a 6000hr pilot you failed to see a 500 metre strip, hangar and windsock directly opposite, (75 metres away) on the other side of the road.
Like everything else in life its all very well untill some thing goes wrong.
Regardless of Rule 5,trespass, chips in car paint work, or obtaining the owners permission first,
You have just landed, engine at flight idle cooling down , suddenly the labradors roar out and start circling the helicopter. Its too late when they have spoilt your tail rotor paint work!!!! Same thing applies with inquisitive children. I still maintain a courteous phone call first will eliminate any potential problems.
I stand by my original post's comment
35 Knot wind? when was that then??
Established heli pad? I live within a few miles of the pub, use that road daily and have never seen, or heard of a heli in there before.
Childish personal attack deleted - Heliport
It still beats me how, as a 6000hr pilot you failed to see a 500 metre strip, hangar and windsock directly opposite, (75 metres away) on the other side of the road.
Like everything else in life its all very well untill some thing goes wrong.
Regardless of Rule 5,trespass, chips in car paint work, or obtaining the owners permission first,
You have just landed, engine at flight idle cooling down , suddenly the labradors roar out and start circling the helicopter. Its too late when they have spoilt your tail rotor paint work!!!! Same thing applies with inquisitive children. I still maintain a courteous phone call first will eliminate any potential problems.
I stand by my original post's comment
35 Knot wind? when was that then??
Established heli pad? I live within a few miles of the pub, use that road daily and have never seen, or heard of a heli in there before.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,580
Received 438 Likes
on
231 Posts
Hi Bronx,
I haven't changed my position at all. I have voiced my opinion, based on a number of years flying in UK, that it isn't a good idea to land in these circumstances without first gaining permission because it could easily result in a court case being brought.
I have passed no personal judgement on the pilot's actions, except to jokingly call him a wimp for only having one pint.
Please read my posts again. Are we separated by a common language?
What is straightforward in the USA might not be so here. If you think the rules are bad in UK, try landing like this in France, with or without a landowner's permission....
I haven't changed my position at all. I have voiced my opinion, based on a number of years flying in UK, that it isn't a good idea to land in these circumstances without first gaining permission because it could easily result in a court case being brought.
I have passed no personal judgement on the pilot's actions, except to jokingly call him a wimp for only having one pint.
Please read my posts again. Are we separated by a common language?
What is straightforward in the USA might not be so here. If you think the rules are bad in UK, try landing like this in France, with or without a landowner's permission....
Interesting thread, apart from the sad, strange people making personal attacks.
What a lot of fuss about nothing. If I know ahead I'm going to be landing in a particular spot, then a call ahead is the done thing. If not, upon landing, walk over to the nearest Pub, house, etc, and ask if it's ok to park there. Any problems then I will move.
Selecting a site: far enough away as not to cause problems with downwash, and large enough to fit into, which will depend on your experience and the type.
Roll back a few years and a couple of 500's, or more, parked beside a country pub in New Zealand, after a days venison hunting, was the norm.
What a lot of fuss about nothing. If I know ahead I'm going to be landing in a particular spot, then a call ahead is the done thing. If not, upon landing, walk over to the nearest Pub, house, etc, and ask if it's ok to park there. Any problems then I will move.
Selecting a site: far enough away as not to cause problems with downwash, and large enough to fit into, which will depend on your experience and the type.
Roll back a few years and a couple of 500's, or more, parked beside a country pub in New Zealand, after a days venison hunting, was the norm.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ST
I gave the two main things you said that I disagreed with. Just my 2 cents.
When I said about the British attitude I didn't mean the UK rules themselves. Although I reckon some of them are too strict I know the French are even stricter with helicopters and I think Germany is as well.
I meant the British attitude to the rules and to anyone who breaks one.
I agree with you and the other folk who say this pilot was taking a risk of getting into trouble landing without permission in the UK. Fair comment, good advice, but then you get all the pontifacating posts with people trying every which way to try to show he broke the law. That attitude just beats me. I just don't get it.
I guess its not surprising they get the rule wrong themselves because the UK low flying rules are so compliacted. All that consultation about a new simpler Rule 5 a while back and the new one still aint easy to understand.
Every time the UK Rule 5 comes up, people disagree over what some part of the rule means and forget you have to look at some other part somewhere else.
Brits always seem to be so quick to criticise another pilot. I don't understand that attitude.
The FAA's not perfect but our low flying rules are much more sensible and realistic for helicopters. Ask an American helo pilot what the low flying rule is and they'll tell you. They most likely won't be able to recite the actual words but they'll get what the rule says right because its written in plain English and easy to understand.
TOT
So you stand by your original post?
That's kinda strange because we now know a lot of what you said aint true.
B.
I gave the two main things you said that I disagreed with. Just my 2 cents.
When I said about the British attitude I didn't mean the UK rules themselves. Although I reckon some of them are too strict I know the French are even stricter with helicopters and I think Germany is as well.
I meant the British attitude to the rules and to anyone who breaks one.
I agree with you and the other folk who say this pilot was taking a risk of getting into trouble landing without permission in the UK. Fair comment, good advice, but then you get all the pontifacating posts with people trying every which way to try to show he broke the law. That attitude just beats me. I just don't get it.
I guess its not surprising they get the rule wrong themselves because the UK low flying rules are so compliacted. All that consultation about a new simpler Rule 5 a while back and the new one still aint easy to understand.
Every time the UK Rule 5 comes up, people disagree over what some part of the rule means and forget you have to look at some other part somewhere else.
Brits always seem to be so quick to criticise another pilot. I don't understand that attitude.
The FAA's not perfect but our low flying rules are much more sensible and realistic for helicopters. Ask an American helo pilot what the low flying rule is and they'll tell you. They most likely won't be able to recite the actual words but they'll get what the rule says right because its written in plain English and easy to understand.
TOT
So you stand by your original post?
That's kinda strange because we now know a lot of what you said aint true.
B.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I meant the British attitude to the rules and to anyone who breaks one.
However, some, myself included, have received a clarification of Rule 5. I do not take it as criticism but part of a learning process. Comments are raised, others correct them and all is well. It's not a matter of pontificating but raising a query - a "what about this?"
If you want to talk about the British Character, then it's the "British Character" which means we could all sit in a pub and have a laugh and shake hands about it afterwards. Anything else just wouldn't be cricket what ho?
Cheers
Whirls
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,580
Received 438 Likes
on
231 Posts
"When I said about the British attitude I didn't mean the UK rules themselves. Although I reckon some of them are too strict I know the French are even stricter with helicopters and I think Germany is as well.
I meant the British attitude to the rules and to anyone who breaks one."
In which case I suggest you look up the threads on UK speed cameras - you might be a little surprised!
At least with speed cameras you get more than one chance and it's only a £60 fine.
I meant the British attitude to the rules and to anyone who breaks one."
In which case I suggest you look up the threads on UK speed cameras - you might be a little surprised!
At least with speed cameras you get more than one chance and it's only a £60 fine.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: algarve
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i still dont understand the new rule 5 or the old one come to think about it its a shame the caa dont put it in plain english so every one can complie
but for the benefit of me [and lots of other pilots but they wont ask ]
can we get each persons different defination of rule 5 I like fl but i dont want to employ him
but for the benefit of me [and lots of other pilots but they wont ask ]
can we get each persons different defination of rule 5 I like fl but i dont want to employ him
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South of North and East of West!
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough is enough!!
TOT,
Seeing as you like talking about dogs, how about "let sleeping dogs lie!"
I think being British you should understand that one! You have stirred the proverbial sh*t long enough now and it's time to move on.
What's done is done and should there be a next time I'm sure everyone on this thread will think twice before just setting down anywhere.
We're all pilots of some form so let's act like it and try and get on!
I'll get off my soap box now!
Cpt Jim
Seeing as you like talking about dogs, how about "let sleeping dogs lie!"
I think being British you should understand that one! You have stirred the proverbial sh*t long enough now and it's time to move on.
What's done is done and should there be a next time I'm sure everyone on this thread will think twice before just setting down anywhere.
We're all pilots of some form so let's act like it and try and get on!
I'll get off my soap box now!
Cpt Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B—Flight Rules
General
Browse Previous | Browse Next
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
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 2,000 feet 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 500 feet 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. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B—Flight Rules
General
Browse Previous | Browse Next
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
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 2,000 feet 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 500 feet 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. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
Guest
Posts: n/a
mmm... well there's always this rule to catch anyone out!
So... landing in a car park unnanounced and spraying gravel over those little toddlers enjoying their pizza and chips could get you into trouble if you are flying an N-reg machine under Part 91 (UK or USA)
>>>>>>
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart A—General
§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
So... landing in a car park unnanounced and spraying gravel over those little toddlers enjoying their pizza and chips could get you into trouble if you are flying an N-reg machine under Part 91 (UK or USA)
>>>>>>
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart A—General
§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.