Take-off and landing
Tightgit
Thread Starter
Take-off and landing
As no one else has put it on rotorheads (and I’ve been somewhat dormant).
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP2613.pdf
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP2613.pdf
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
If 500’ agl or below is the relevant altitude I spent much of my early career never actually getting to the en route sector…
The following users liked this post:
Dont go there, been told by CAA inspector that my manuals are all wrong as i have used the term he/she and need to change it to they . So being told what landing and taking off is not unrealistic.
Tightgit
Thread Starter
I think the reason behind the change is quite clear. Steering pilots towards the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.
Tightgit
Thread Starter
The law is the law, spirt has nothing to do with it
For context: this clarification is as a result of the G-LAWX incident. In that incident (discussed in this thread on pprune), the aircraft overflew the M40/M42 junction (a major motorway in the UK) at a height of less than 500'. The report carries on to say:
There is no alleviation from the requirement to remain in VMC when flying under visual flight rules. During this serious incident, descending below 500 ft (potentially within 500 ft of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure) at around 1737 hrs demonstrated either an intention to begin the landing, a willingness to breach the Rules of the Air, or a misunderstanding of those rules. The consequence of this decision to fly at an altitude of less than 500 ft agl, below the elevation of the LS towards high ground, was that the helicopter was in an undesired state.
I suspect that is because it was not adequately proof-read. It actually would prevent you from making an approach to land at a heliport in an urban area (eg Battersea). You are not permitted within 1000ft of people/structures/vessels unless take off and landing. So how do you get from the cruise to the "landing" phase (ie sub 500ft)?
But as pointed out 👇 it's not vanished after all. But perhaps it still needs a re-think
But as pointed out 👇 it's not vanished after all. But perhaps it still needs a re-think
Last edited by gipsymagpie; 30th Nov 2023 at 04:23.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
"The law is the law, spirt has nothing to do with it"
This is quite true - the legal precedent is one of the law lords (Lord Diplock?) who said that the law must be read in plain words, i.e. given their ordinary meaning unless the Act concerned specifically dictates a definition otherwise.
The CAA try and fob you off by quoting the intent of the person who wrote the regulation. Not correct.
This is quite true - the legal precedent is one of the law lords (Lord Diplock?) who said that the law must be read in plain words, i.e. given their ordinary meaning unless the Act concerned specifically dictates a definition otherwise.
The CAA try and fob you off by quoting the intent of the person who wrote the regulation. Not correct.
I suspect that is because it was not adequately proof-read. It actually would prevent you from making an approach to land at a heliport in an urban area (eg Battersea). You are not permitted within 1000ft of people/structures/vessels unless take off and landing. So how do you get from the cruise to the "landing" phase (ie sub 500ft)?
But as pointed out 👇 it's not vanished after all. But perhaps it still needs a re-think
But as pointed out 👇 it's not vanished after all. But perhaps it still needs a re-think
Does that not come under the expression "or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority", i.e. a published instrument approach is an approved procedure to descend below 1000 ft?
