The 500ft rule
(Just recalling my instructor getting twitchy because there was a tractor in the next field when I was doing an auto during my 206 requal many years agao.)
Thread Starter
sunnywa,
Please don't miss the point; there are a number of safe practices that would be in breach of the 500ft rule such as 'offshore shuttling' and 'HEMS operations' - both of which are currently permitted (conditionally) below 500ft.
En-route let down is an procedure to permit a descent offshore below LSALT (only with RADAR) to VFR before reaching the destination (to avoid a ARA to a complex where there may be many platforms/rigs). It is not an approach procedure per se. If the required cloud ceiling for VFR at night is 1,500ft (currently 1,200ft to permit VFR en-route transit at 1,000ft), it will force an ARA under circumstances where the en-route descent is the safer option. It will also prevent a night VFR inter-rig transit with a cloud base less than 1,500ft.
The OM cannot contain a procedure that is in contravention of the Rules of the Air; in any case, competence for these rules has been taken by the Airspace Agency (not the Aviation Safety Authority) which has resulted in VFR operational limitations being eliminated from EASA OPS - this has removed the basis for OM procedures in compliance with regulations.
Up to now, Operational Regulations have contained the limitations for such operations with appropriate mitigation.
There is no problem with IFR; however, in the North Sea there are IFR route structures which have low level collision avoidance levels (mostly for icing avoidance). These might now be in contravention of the levels contained in the Appendix to the new regulation.
No, none of this is a big deal but the proposed regulation has been drafted by airspace experts who have no operational experience. ICAO Annex 2 (Rules of the Air) is a combination Annex; it was produced well before Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft) and therefore contains the first attempt at providing SARPs for operations. The distribution of rules between the two Annexes has never been regularised.
Jim
Please don't miss the point; there are a number of safe practices that would be in breach of the 500ft rule such as 'offshore shuttling' and 'HEMS operations' - both of which are currently permitted (conditionally) below 500ft.
En-route let down is an procedure to permit a descent offshore below LSALT (only with RADAR) to VFR before reaching the destination (to avoid a ARA to a complex where there may be many platforms/rigs). It is not an approach procedure per se. If the required cloud ceiling for VFR at night is 1,500ft (currently 1,200ft to permit VFR en-route transit at 1,000ft), it will force an ARA under circumstances where the en-route descent is the safer option. It will also prevent a night VFR inter-rig transit with a cloud base less than 1,500ft.
The OM cannot contain a procedure that is in contravention of the Rules of the Air; in any case, competence for these rules has been taken by the Airspace Agency (not the Aviation Safety Authority) which has resulted in VFR operational limitations being eliminated from EASA OPS - this has removed the basis for OM procedures in compliance with regulations.
Up to now, Operational Regulations have contained the limitations for such operations with appropriate mitigation.
There is no problem with IFR; however, in the North Sea there are IFR route structures which have low level collision avoidance levels (mostly for icing avoidance). These might now be in contravention of the levels contained in the Appendix to the new regulation.
No, none of this is a big deal but the proposed regulation has been drafted by airspace experts who have no operational experience. ICAO Annex 2 (Rules of the Air) is a combination Annex; it was produced well before Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft) and therefore contains the first attempt at providing SARPs for operations. The distribution of rules between the two Annexes has never been regularised.
Jim
Shy ..can they use radar even if you Txsponder is off ? I would have thought there would be so many places they lose contact if you are v low that it would be impossible to prove the contact was you ? This of course adds greatly to safety as we will all now be turning ours off when going low level 
Originally Posted by sunnywa
The 1500ft thing for IFR is, in Australia anyway, based on the fact the lowest LSALT is 1500ft, even over the sea, and IFR aircraft cannot transit below LSALT.
AIP GEN 4.5 deals with NVFR, and 2.2.1 is for IFR/En route calculations. 1500ft is the lowest allowed LSALT based on rounding up from these figures.
Can't see the problem with a CA recce - the whole point of doing it is to choose the best option for the subsequent approach and landing. If you choose not to do that approach, so what!
Thread Starter
If the regulations that John has shown are the only ones, it would appear that night VFR cannot be flown below LSALT either!
I just wonder how offshore inter-rig shuttling is conducted at night when the cloud ceiling is below 1,500ft; surely it does not require an IFR departure and arrival every time?
Jim
I just wonder how offshore inter-rig shuttling is conducted at night when the cloud ceiling is below 1,500ft; surely it does not require an IFR departure and arrival every time?
Jim
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
nigelh, I'm a professional pilot.
There is no way I intend to switch off my transponder, which alerts other TCAS/TAS users to my presence, to break the rules, however new, stupid or arbitrary.
Even so, primary radar returns are also recorded. The AIRPROX system uses this facility.
This needs to be taken very seriously as it has the potential to change the face of GA. How am I supposed to tell the owner of the aircraft I fly that I can no longer do the very same flights that I have been legally and safely doing for years until some EU department with no operational knowledge stuck their noses in?
There is no way I intend to switch off my transponder, which alerts other TCAS/TAS users to my presence, to break the rules, however new, stupid or arbitrary.
Even so, primary radar returns are also recorded. The AIRPROX system uses this facility.
This needs to be taken very seriously as it has the potential to change the face of GA. How am I supposed to tell the owner of the aircraft I fly that I can no longer do the very same flights that I have been legally and safely doing for years until some EU department with no operational knowledge stuck their noses in?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigelh
I agree with you. But you do not have to switch off the transponder, just de select mode "C" when low level.
Shy ..can they use radar even if you Txsponder is off ? I would have thought there would be so many places they lose contact if you are v low that it would be impossible to prove the contact was you ? This of course adds greatly to safety as we will all now be turning ours off when going low level
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: England
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a low hour student pilot (having sat the air law exam, but am currently separated from my book) can I just clarify the proposed change in rules?
From my understanding, as long as you are currently more than 500 feet from the nearest person or habitation/obstacle etc, you can hug the groud to within 5 feet if you really wanted to.
With the new rules however, you could be flying over the atlantic with nothing but water for 50 miles in every direction, and still you'd have to fly at 500ft minimum height?
Now I don't think I'll be a low-level junkie by any means, but one of the things I'm looking forward to after getting my license (and some experience and training of relatively low level flying) is taking a plane up to some remote spot in the lake/peak district etc (where the nearest pair of eyes for miles is those on a sheep) and having a 'low and slow' at 300ft-ish. Would be a shame if such practises were outlawed.
From my understanding, as long as you are currently more than 500 feet from the nearest person or habitation/obstacle etc, you can hug the groud to within 5 feet if you really wanted to.
With the new rules however, you could be flying over the atlantic with nothing but water for 50 miles in every direction, and still you'd have to fly at 500ft minimum height?
Now I don't think I'll be a low-level junkie by any means, but one of the things I'm looking forward to after getting my license (and some experience and training of relatively low level flying) is taking a plane up to some remote spot in the lake/peak district etc (where the nearest pair of eyes for miles is those on a sheep) and having a 'low and slow' at 300ft-ish. Would be a shame if such practises were outlawed.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree.
The current UK rules are common sense, appear to work, and I'm not aware of any logical reason why this rule needs to change.
However, if it is allowed to change - perhaps through apathy - there will be no going back. And then, once someone decides it has to be enforced, it could severely limit many normal operations.
It would be useful to know which organisations (such as HCGB) can lobby on our behalf to support our interests.
The current UK rules are common sense, appear to work, and I'm not aware of any logical reason why this rule needs to change.
However, if it is allowed to change - perhaps through apathy - there will be no going back. And then, once someone decides it has to be enforced, it could severely limit many normal operations.
It would be useful to know which organisations (such as HCGB) can lobby on our behalf to support our interests.
So turning your transponder off (or just Mode C) is a good Idea?
What about those who legally Operate LL and now have the added bonus of you breaking the rules (however you disagree with them) to contend with?
What about those who legally Operate LL and now have the added bonus of you breaking the rules (however you disagree with them) to contend with?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dudley (UK)
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigelh
Have you thought about when you are flying close to the radar heads? The modern ones have a very good 'look down' capability and can see you down to ground level. Do you know where the radar heads are, so that you can avoid them? Did you know that, in most modern countries, their pictures are all linked into a central system and recorded?
Have you considered the many AEW, AWACS and ASTOR aircraft that fly around our airspace and can even watch road vehicles travelling along the ground? Most of their radar pictures are downloaded into the Air Defence Radar systems and are also recorded. It then becomes very easy to track your route, your origin, your destination and flight times even if you have your transponder turned off!
If you want to break the rules, that's up to you. But don't expect that you are not going to get caught.
I would have thought there would be so many places they lose contact if you are v low that it would be impossible to prove the contact was you ?
Have you considered the many AEW, AWACS and ASTOR aircraft that fly around our airspace and can even watch road vehicles travelling along the ground? Most of their radar pictures are downloaded into the Air Defence Radar systems and are also recorded. It then becomes very easy to track your route, your origin, your destination and flight times even if you have your transponder turned off!
If you want to break the rules, that's up to you. But don't expect that you are not going to get caught.
there are a number of safe practices that would be in breach of the 500ft rule such as 'offshore shuttling' and 'HEMS operations' - both of which are currently permitted (conditionally) below 500ft.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MMmm .....
Don't PANIC ..... I'm sure that those operators who have an operational requirement for operations to be carried out below 500' above the surface will be able to obtain the necessary exemption from the rule ... as may be required.
Certainly that has been the case in countries such as Australia for years!
Hasn't it John ???
Don't PANIC ..... I'm sure that those operators who have an operational requirement for operations to be carried out below 500' above the surface will be able to obtain the necessary exemption from the rule ... as may be required.
Certainly that has been the case in countries such as Australia for years!
Hasn't it John ???
I understand the logic that it is possible for you to be traced and caught ...all i am saying is that people have broken the 500ft rule for years flying over houses etc ( sometimes you may have to due to low cloud etc ) and are vitually never reported , so why should that change now ? I think that as long as you are not being annoying ie constantly flying low over a village , then nothing should change . We should still try to stop it as once it is law it will be around for ever !! A lot of this rubbish comes from Europe ..i now hear that our foreign bosses want to protect Black backed sea gulls and next crows ,so we will be lucky to have any small birds around at all within a few years .
How would this affect flight instruction? Hover square, fast stops, precision transitions etc. All below 500 ft and none of it for the purposes of take off or landing.
As for low approaches and go-arounds, I seem to recall a chap (fixed-wing) being prosecuted some years back because he did exactly that. Unfortunately, too many years and beers have passed for me to recall specifics, but I think that in checking out a farm strip, he did a low approach and went around. Can't recall if he subsequently returned and landed or decided it was too tight and disappeared off somewhere else, but someone (an airline pilot, IIRC) complained to the CAA that he'd broken Rule 5 and they concurred. They interviewed him and decided that, as he wasn't intending to land he was in breach, took him to court. Don't recall the outcome, but there could be a problem with the "I was flying low to see if I could get in" defence.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't shoot me down for what I am about to say, as I am still new to this game and I am discovering the sad truth about the endless stream of rules and regs in aviation.
Just playing devils advocate here but if you have the transponder selected "ON" you will still be spotted on TCAS/TAS but without height info, so LL safety is not an issue. The primary radar only returns position, and height can only be determined through the PA reading carried on the signal. If ALT or Mode C is not selected that PA reading cannot be beamed back to the SSR.
I cannot see how this can be practically enforced. I would have thought mode C is not effective below 500' anyway unless you are in line of sight of a radar or your flying over Norfolk, or one gets reported by an aircraft with TCAS fitted?
The only way around this would be to phase out non MODE C transponders, then the possibility to avoid detection would be to switch them off, which essentially is what the daft eurocrats would be encouraging by enforcing such a drakonian law. To make matters worse, I suspect most european pilots would treat it with the contempt it deserves and with little or no consequence, and we would be the only ones abiding through fear of CAA action.
My conclusion is that some Brussels ecohippy bureaucrat has come up with this idea and assumed that all GA have wings. A friend of mine who passed his test recently would have breached this rule on at least 4 occassions and that was just away from the airfield. How else can you demonstrate the ability to handle autos safely and effectively. Somebody should send these clever elected people a picture of a helicopter, as a subtle reminder.
Just playing devils advocate here but if you have the transponder selected "ON" you will still be spotted on TCAS/TAS but without height info, so LL safety is not an issue. The primary radar only returns position, and height can only be determined through the PA reading carried on the signal. If ALT or Mode C is not selected that PA reading cannot be beamed back to the SSR.
I cannot see how this can be practically enforced. I would have thought mode C is not effective below 500' anyway unless you are in line of sight of a radar or your flying over Norfolk, or one gets reported by an aircraft with TCAS fitted?
The only way around this would be to phase out non MODE C transponders, then the possibility to avoid detection would be to switch them off, which essentially is what the daft eurocrats would be encouraging by enforcing such a drakonian law. To make matters worse, I suspect most european pilots would treat it with the contempt it deserves and with little or no consequence, and we would be the only ones abiding through fear of CAA action.
My conclusion is that some Brussels ecohippy bureaucrat has come up with this idea and assumed that all GA have wings. A friend of mine who passed his test recently would have breached this rule on at least 4 occassions and that was just away from the airfield. How else can you demonstrate the ability to handle autos safely and effectively. Somebody should send these clever elected people a picture of a helicopter, as a subtle reminder.