The 500ft rule

[Helinut]

JD,

I believe that most/many low flying cases are investigated following complaints from neighbours and people in the vicinity. I recall that the Feds have a "CSI branch" that can determine height from a photograph of the miscreant and such similar non-cricketing activities.

[chopjock]

I have an idea, when this new rule becomes active, why don't we all ask the CAA for an exemption so that we can practice our auto's? Perhaps if they are in undated with requests they might respond?

[Helinut]

Given that the ICAO 500 ft height rule is in place in many countries, can anyone comment upon how the sort of LL flying that we want to keep is done in those countries?

[nigelh]

I think it is a bit like the 70 MPH motorway speed limit ...we all know its there but noone takes any notice of it
How many prosecutions are there each year for low flying ? I think the chances of getting caught are very slim and you would have to be taking the p*ss .

[ShyTorque]

Nigelh,

You seem to be missing the point here. Rule 5 is becoming stricter and it will be easier to determine if this "new interpretation" is being broken. The CAA often don't bother with a prosecution if they don't forsee a good chance of success. In future, they might well decide to proceed with more cases.

[cjbiz]

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.

presumably as these exercises are completed on airfield they would come under the banner 'helicopters manoeuvering' and therefore:

"(i) Subject to paragraph (ii), a helicopter shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule
if it is conducting manoeuvres, in accordance with normal aviation practice,
within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome or, with the
written permission of the CAA, at other sites.
(ii) When flying in accordance with this exemption the helicopter must not be
operated closer than 60 metres to any persons, vessels, vehicles or
structures located outside the aerodrome or site."

should hopefully still be safe there...

[Robbo Jock]

cjbiz,
That's the current rule 5. The proposed new one just seems to make a flat statement: "...shall not be flown ... at a height less than 150m (500ft)...".
I've had a quick wander through the Draft Implementing Rule and I can't see any equivalent of that exemption.

[R44-pilot]

So if the whole 'training from unlicensed airfields' goes ahead, this new rule just seems to ruin it... Or am I missing something?

As has been asked, I understood the current rule (for qualified pilots not sudents) that one could go down to say 5 feet in a field in the middle of nowhere or over open water etc...

So how does this new rule fit into training at unlicensed airfield?

[cjbiz]

Robbo

Should probably have put more emphasis on the word hopefully in my last post!

CJ

[Robbo Jock]

Maybe I should have read it more carefully.

I've submitted a comment to the effect of "How's about adopting these bits of the CAA's Rule 5?" (separation and the bit you quoted above). Undoubtedly be completely ignored, but worth a try.