The scene is set - incl Low Flying rules and Is there a 'cultural divide'?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to say, Great post Royston ! The account of the hair dye is hillarious !
For god's sake leave him alone, at least he's got the balls to admit both the landing and the dye, and it appears to be doing the trick !
Wear it with pride mate!
F*****G curtain twitchers.
E.
For god's sake leave him alone, at least he's got the balls to admit both the landing and the dye, and it appears to be doing the trick !
Wear it with pride mate!
F*****G curtain twitchers.
E.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controller
The Brits have an endangering offense as well, as ShyTorque said earlier. It just takes the UK CAA three times as long to say what the rule is with 'therein' and such.
Mars
You've got to look at FAR § 91.119 as a whole not one part on its own. It don't take long because the whole rule it aint long and its written in plain English.
Even the 'new improved' UK CAA version is 5 times as long, overcomplicated and British pilots still have a problem understanding it as you can see every time it comes up.
Except when taking off or landing, the FAA minimums for all aircraft are -
(a) Anywhere.
High enough so if a power unit fails you can make an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Congested Areas and Open Air Assemblies.
1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Other than Congested Areas.
500 feet above the surface unless you're over open water or sparsely populated areas when you can go lower than 500 feet so long as you don't go closer than 500 feet to a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters.
Provided you don't cause a hazard to persons or property on the surface, helicopters don't have to comply with (b) and (c).
There are some places where you can't use this exception because the FAA has laid down specified routes or altitudes for helicopters.
Easy to understand and it works.
You don't get hours of discussion over what the rule means like you do over the CAA's Rule 5.
'Cause a hazard' is no more no less a judgement call than 'endangering' which I think most countries have.
If the FAA claims you caused a hazard and decides to prosecute you, the court decides if you did. Just like the courts decide if a pilot endangered a person or property.
B.
The Brits have an endangering offense as well, as ShyTorque said earlier. It just takes the UK CAA three times as long to say what the rule is with 'therein' and such.
Mars
You've got to look at FAR § 91.119 as a whole not one part on its own. It don't take long because the whole rule it aint long and its written in plain English.
Even the 'new improved' UK CAA version is 5 times as long, overcomplicated and British pilots still have a problem understanding it as you can see every time it comes up.
Except when taking off or landing, the FAA minimums for all aircraft are -
(a) Anywhere.
High enough so if a power unit fails you can make an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Congested Areas and Open Air Assemblies.
1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Other than Congested Areas.
500 feet above the surface unless you're over open water or sparsely populated areas when you can go lower than 500 feet so long as you don't go closer than 500 feet to a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters.
Provided you don't cause a hazard to persons or property on the surface, helicopters don't have to comply with (b) and (c).
There are some places where you can't use this exception because the FAA has laid down specified routes or altitudes for helicopters.
Easy to understand and it works.
You don't get hours of discussion over what the rule means like you do over the CAA's Rule 5.
'Cause a hazard' is no more no less a judgement call than 'endangering' which I think most countries have.
If the FAA claims you caused a hazard and decides to prosecute you, the court decides if you did. Just like the courts decide if a pilot endangered a person or property.
B.
Last edited by Bronx; 1st Aug 2006 at 18:52.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: south wales
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,605
Received 466 Likes
on
246 Posts
Not everyone in the USA understands the regulations.
http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/31/tommy-...pilot-charged/
http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/31/tommy-...pilot-charged/
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,605
Received 466 Likes
on
246 Posts
It doesn't. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt because the alternative is that he understood them and failed to comply with them.
Now lets really muddy the water....and perhaps Flying Lawyer might weigh in on this.
The Federal Air Regulations are the "rule". The "rule" sets forth how one does things one would think....right?
Wrong....The "rule" is defined by the standing case law that resulted from Federal Actions (certificate and other) against those accused of violations.
Thus, merely reading the "rule" and complying with the "rule" as one thinks the "rule" is.... does not save you from consequences for violations substantiated by standing legal precedents that you may never have heard of.
How's that for a pickle?
One simple situation.....What is a congested area? How does that apply to sling load operations?
JimL might have some ideas on this one too.
The Federal Air Regulations are the "rule". The "rule" sets forth how one does things one would think....right?
Wrong....The "rule" is defined by the standing case law that resulted from Federal Actions (certificate and other) against those accused of violations.
Thus, merely reading the "rule" and complying with the "rule" as one thinks the "rule" is.... does not save you from consequences for violations substantiated by standing legal precedents that you may never have heard of.
How's that for a pickle?
One simple situation.....What is a congested area? How does that apply to sling load operations?
JimL might have some ideas on this one too.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,605
Received 466 Likes
on
246 Posts
It's not clear! However, the definition I generally go by is that a congested area would have a "meeting place". This would include a village if it had (or appeared to have, from a map or from the air) a public house or a village hall.
the scene is set
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royston
I don't think anyone sensible would disagree that discussion of your particular incident has run its course.
We've moved on to a more general discussion of low flying rules now.
Differences in the laws in different countries etc.
Heliport
I don't think anyone sensible would disagree that discussion of your particular incident has run its course.
We've moved on to a more general discussion of low flying rules now.
Differences in the laws in different countries etc.
Heliport
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
What you describe applies to all areas of law and in all countries with a developed legal system. ‘Case Law’ (often called Common Law or Legal Precedent) evolves from decisions by judges in the higher courts (not Magistrates Courts) concerning words and phrases in legislation.
It is ‘a pickle’ in some ways, and it can lead to people committing offences without realising it and being convicted of offences they didn't know existed, but I don’t know of any country where ignorance of the law is a defence. The principle applies whether the law is contained in a statute, a regulation or a previous case which created a precedent. It can operate unfairly on occasions – but an honest mistake should be reflected in the penalty imposed.
The principle can sometimes operate very unfairly in aviation cases in the UK because our aviation legislation is notoriously badly drafted. It can often be difficult even for an aviation lawyer to determine with certainty whether some conduct is lawful or unlawful – yet pilots/operators are expected to know the law and are at risk of prosecution if they get it wrong.
I don’t mean here just the interpretation of a word or phrase. I mean the incomprehensible language and numerous cross-references to sub sub sub sub clauses which only apply in circumstances set out in some other sub sub sub sub clause of a different section, and then only subject to the proviso in yet another sub sub sub sub sub clause.
The laws relating to Low Flying, what is or isn’t Public Transport or Aerial Work provide obvious examples of unnecessarily complicated, dreadfully drafted legislation - as illustrated by the variety of interpretations offered in numerous threads on those topics by people doing their best to understand what the legislation means and/or trying to work out whether something is legal or illegal.
The CAA eventually tacitly conceded that our old Rule 5 was virtually incomprehensible and in 2002 began the process of revising the rule. After three years, it came up with a version which, as discussions since show, is still difficult to understand and apply.
In contrast, FAR 91.119 is a model of how the legislation should be drafted, not only in its language but in its sensible realistic content.
It’s not perfect but it’s as good as can reasonably be achieved. It uses terms which don’t have a specific definition or objective standard, but that’s unavoidable.
‘What is a congested area?’
As you and ShyTorque say, it’s not clear.
For UK purposes, Article 155 of the ANO says: ‘Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes.
The OED defines ‘settlement’ as a place where people establish a community and ‘community’ as a group of people living together in one place.
As in America, what is or isn’t a congested area is determined on a case by case basis if any action is taken against the pilot. Precedents are of limited value unless the facts of two cases are virtually identical.
‘How does that apply to sling load operations?’
If in doubt, the safest course (in the UK) is to apply for an exemption from Rule 5. The CAA charges a fee, as it does for everything, but it could be less expensive option in the long term.
There’s little point in asking the CAA if they regard the location as a congested area because they almost certainly won’t tell you.
One phrase I’d almost certainly remove from the UK legislation is ”Normal aviation practice”.
It adds yet another imprecise element and provides great scope for unfairness when prosecuting pilots.
What you describe applies to all areas of law and in all countries with a developed legal system. ‘Case Law’ (often called Common Law or Legal Precedent) evolves from decisions by judges in the higher courts (not Magistrates Courts) concerning words and phrases in legislation.
It is ‘a pickle’ in some ways, and it can lead to people committing offences without realising it and being convicted of offences they didn't know existed, but I don’t know of any country where ignorance of the law is a defence. The principle applies whether the law is contained in a statute, a regulation or a previous case which created a precedent. It can operate unfairly on occasions – but an honest mistake should be reflected in the penalty imposed.
The principle can sometimes operate very unfairly in aviation cases in the UK because our aviation legislation is notoriously badly drafted. It can often be difficult even for an aviation lawyer to determine with certainty whether some conduct is lawful or unlawful – yet pilots/operators are expected to know the law and are at risk of prosecution if they get it wrong.
I don’t mean here just the interpretation of a word or phrase. I mean the incomprehensible language and numerous cross-references to sub sub sub sub clauses which only apply in circumstances set out in some other sub sub sub sub clause of a different section, and then only subject to the proviso in yet another sub sub sub sub sub clause.
The laws relating to Low Flying, what is or isn’t Public Transport or Aerial Work provide obvious examples of unnecessarily complicated, dreadfully drafted legislation - as illustrated by the variety of interpretations offered in numerous threads on those topics by people doing their best to understand what the legislation means and/or trying to work out whether something is legal or illegal.
The CAA eventually tacitly conceded that our old Rule 5 was virtually incomprehensible and in 2002 began the process of revising the rule. After three years, it came up with a version which, as discussions since show, is still difficult to understand and apply.
In contrast, FAR 91.119 is a model of how the legislation should be drafted, not only in its language but in its sensible realistic content.
It’s not perfect but it’s as good as can reasonably be achieved. It uses terms which don’t have a specific definition or objective standard, but that’s unavoidable.
‘What is a congested area?’
As you and ShyTorque say, it’s not clear.
For UK purposes, Article 155 of the ANO says: ‘Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes.
The OED defines ‘settlement’ as a place where people establish a community and ‘community’ as a group of people living together in one place.
As in America, what is or isn’t a congested area is determined on a case by case basis if any action is taken against the pilot. Precedents are of limited value unless the facts of two cases are virtually identical.
‘How does that apply to sling load operations?’
If in doubt, the safest course (in the UK) is to apply for an exemption from Rule 5. The CAA charges a fee, as it does for everything, but it could be less expensive option in the long term.
There’s little point in asking the CAA if they regard the location as a congested area because they almost certainly won’t tell you.
One phrase I’d almost certainly remove from the UK legislation is ”Normal aviation practice”.
It adds yet another imprecise element and provides great scope for unfairness when prosecuting pilots.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full text of the UK Rule 5 here - Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2005
Full text of the FAR equivalent here - FAR 91.119
FL
Full text of the FAR equivalent here - FAR 91.119
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 3rd Aug 2006 at 09:36.
SASless,
Thanks for the invitation to comment.
Because of the difficulty of establishing the meaning of congested area, JAR-OPS 3 doesn't use the term (remember rules of the air are not in JAR-OPS 3). For the purpose of the performance regulations, built up areas are partitioned between a congested hostile environment and non-hostile. In the former, operations are restricted but in the latter they are not. It depends upon being able to perform a safe-forced-landing.
However, I cannot escape as easily as that and would like to post the FAA view - which has merit for the examples used.
Jim
Thanks for the invitation to comment.
Because of the difficulty of establishing the meaning of congested area, JAR-OPS 3 doesn't use the term (remember rules of the air are not in JAR-OPS 3). For the purpose of the performance regulations, built up areas are partitioned between a congested hostile environment and non-hostile. In the former, operations are restricted but in the latter they are not. It depends upon being able to perform a safe-forced-landing.
However, I cannot escape as easily as that and would like to post the FAA view - which has merit for the examples used.
9. Discussion of Terms
a. Congested Area; the term “congested” area has been applied on a case-by-case basis since it first appeared in the Air Commerce Regulations of 1926, no precise mathematical or geographic definition has yet been developed. The term has never been defined in any regulation. However, the following guidelines have been applied by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) (now National Transportation Safety Board) in attempting to give the term fair and equitable effect:
(1) The term is administered so as to protect persons and property in small, sparsely settled communities, as well as persons and property in large metropolitan areas, from the hazards and from the noise of low flying aircraft. Thus, the size of the area is not controlling, and violations of the rule have been sustained for operation of aircraft: (i) over a small congested area consisting of approximately 10 houses and a school; (ii) over the campus of a university; (iii) over a beach area along a highway; and (iv) over a boys camp where there were numerous people on the docks and children at play onshore.
(2) The presence of people is important to the determination of whether a particular area is "congested.” Thus, no violation was found in the case of a flight over a large shop building and four one-family dwellings because, in the words of the CAB Examiner, "it was not known whether the dwellings were occupied.” In that case, the area surrounding the buildings was open, flat, and semi-arid. For external-load operations, a factory with adjacent occupied parking lots, filled with employees and vehicles, might be considered a congested area unless the parking lots and employees are vacated and necessary precautions taken to prevent vehicles and persons from reentering the area.
(3) The term is administered to prohibit over-flights that cut the corners of large, heavily congested, residential areas.
(4) As stated in FAR 91.79, the congested area could be any area of a city, town, or settlement. However, no precise density of population, ground traffic, or congestion, or precise description of the proximity of buildings or number of residences, has yet been devised that will achieve both the intended protection of persons and property on the ground, and fair application of the rule to operators of aircraft.
b. Densely Populated Areas. A densely populated area could be considered almost synonymous with a congested area. Those areas of a city, town, or settlement, which contain a large number of occupied homes, factories, stores, schools, university and hospital-type buildings, and other related business structures, might be considered densely populated areas. Additionally, a densely populated area may not contain any buildings, but could consist of a large gathering of persons, such as on a beach area, an air-show, a ball game, fairgrounds, etc.
a. Congested Area; the term “congested” area has been applied on a case-by-case basis since it first appeared in the Air Commerce Regulations of 1926, no precise mathematical or geographic definition has yet been developed. The term has never been defined in any regulation. However, the following guidelines have been applied by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) (now National Transportation Safety Board) in attempting to give the term fair and equitable effect:
(1) The term is administered so as to protect persons and property in small, sparsely settled communities, as well as persons and property in large metropolitan areas, from the hazards and from the noise of low flying aircraft. Thus, the size of the area is not controlling, and violations of the rule have been sustained for operation of aircraft: (i) over a small congested area consisting of approximately 10 houses and a school; (ii) over the campus of a university; (iii) over a beach area along a highway; and (iv) over a boys camp where there were numerous people on the docks and children at play onshore.
(2) The presence of people is important to the determination of whether a particular area is "congested.” Thus, no violation was found in the case of a flight over a large shop building and four one-family dwellings because, in the words of the CAB Examiner, "it was not known whether the dwellings were occupied.” In that case, the area surrounding the buildings was open, flat, and semi-arid. For external-load operations, a factory with adjacent occupied parking lots, filled with employees and vehicles, might be considered a congested area unless the parking lots and employees are vacated and necessary precautions taken to prevent vehicles and persons from reentering the area.
(3) The term is administered to prohibit over-flights that cut the corners of large, heavily congested, residential areas.
(4) As stated in FAR 91.79, the congested area could be any area of a city, town, or settlement. However, no precise density of population, ground traffic, or congestion, or precise description of the proximity of buildings or number of residences, has yet been devised that will achieve both the intended protection of persons and property on the ground, and fair application of the rule to operators of aircraft.
b. Densely Populated Areas. A densely populated area could be considered almost synonymous with a congested area. Those areas of a city, town, or settlement, which contain a large number of occupied homes, factories, stores, schools, university and hospital-type buildings, and other related business structures, might be considered densely populated areas. Additionally, a densely populated area may not contain any buildings, but could consist of a large gathering of persons, such as on a beach area, an air-show, a ball game, fairgrounds, etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
mmmm...see below, from rule 5. what does the "within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome" mean. in the circuit?
(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.
(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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by thecontroller
(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.
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.
Heliport,
It is exactly that you have described and was meant to include all of those manoeuvres that can be carried out without the take-off-transition (because the helicopter can be regarded as being "in flight" - see the definition of flight time in other threads).
Jim
It is exactly that you have described and was meant to include all of those manoeuvres that can be carried out without the take-off-transition (because the helicopter can be regarded as being "in flight" - see the definition of flight time in other threads).
Jim
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim
I read it in a commentary somewhere.
If I hadn't, I would have been as puzzled as thecontroller.
Why the CAA didn't just say that in clear unambigous language is beyond me.
H.
I read it in a commentary somewhere.
If I hadn't, I would have been as puzzled as thecontroller.
Why the CAA didn't just say that in clear unambigous language is beyond me.
H.