Proposed Rule 5 changes: Includes replies from the CAA
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that NR Fairy is correct in suggesting that 750ft alt around the Millenium Eye is not legal. And as far as I can see, it would not be legal under any of the proposed change options either.
The Eye is (just) outside the London Heathrow Zone (Cat A) but inside the City Zone (Cat D Airspace). Inside the Heathrow Zone any ATC clearance on the routes will be SVFR, which gives an automatic exemption from the 1,500 ft rule. So, inside the Heathrow Zone the 500 ft rule and landing safely in the event of an engine failure are the main low flying concerns. In the City Zone, you need to be a bit careful. At the "standard altitude" on H4 of 2,000ft you should be OK, but be careful of any reduction from this. Thames Radar often offers clearances such as "hold at London Bridge at 1,000ft". If this is a VFR clearance which it will be during the day, the helicopter will inevitably break the 1,500 ft rule. I have tried to raise this in discussions with London Area ATCers but it seems to fall into the "too difficult category". Even the standard "at 1,500 ft" clearance for direct tracks through the City zone for twin engine heles would probably involve a breach of the 1,500 ft rule, since there are lots of (fairly) tall buildings in that area.
Just hope they do not find a 1,500 ft measuring tape!
There was a similar problem a while back as you leave the Heathrow Zone at Bagshot on H3. This inevitably involves flying over congested areas. A well known and regarded pilot was threatened with prosecution for breaking the 1,500 ft rule just outside the zone. Within the zone there is a SVFR clearance, so no need to follow the 1,500 ft rule. However, the max alt allowed on that route at the zone boundary is 1,500 ft. This forces you to fly at or below 1,500 ft at the zone boundary. When you step 1 inch outside the boundary you must then instantaneously increase your altitude by several hundred feet.
Some resident NIMBY complained to the CAA about overflying, they presumably looked at the radar traces and hey-presto case proven.
In the end, the prosecution was dropped after lots of industry pressure was applied but you have been warned. Common sense is a fairly rare commodity.
The Eye is (just) outside the London Heathrow Zone (Cat A) but inside the City Zone (Cat D Airspace). Inside the Heathrow Zone any ATC clearance on the routes will be SVFR, which gives an automatic exemption from the 1,500 ft rule. So, inside the Heathrow Zone the 500 ft rule and landing safely in the event of an engine failure are the main low flying concerns. In the City Zone, you need to be a bit careful. At the "standard altitude" on H4 of 2,000ft you should be OK, but be careful of any reduction from this. Thames Radar often offers clearances such as "hold at London Bridge at 1,000ft". If this is a VFR clearance which it will be during the day, the helicopter will inevitably break the 1,500 ft rule. I have tried to raise this in discussions with London Area ATCers but it seems to fall into the "too difficult category". Even the standard "at 1,500 ft" clearance for direct tracks through the City zone for twin engine heles would probably involve a breach of the 1,500 ft rule, since there are lots of (fairly) tall buildings in that area.
Just hope they do not find a 1,500 ft measuring tape!
There was a similar problem a while back as you leave the Heathrow Zone at Bagshot on H3. This inevitably involves flying over congested areas. A well known and regarded pilot was threatened with prosecution for breaking the 1,500 ft rule just outside the zone. Within the zone there is a SVFR clearance, so no need to follow the 1,500 ft rule. However, the max alt allowed on that route at the zone boundary is 1,500 ft. This forces you to fly at or below 1,500 ft at the zone boundary. When you step 1 inch outside the boundary you must then instantaneously increase your altitude by several hundred feet.
Some resident NIMBY complained to the CAA about overflying, they presumably looked at the radar traces and hey-presto case proven.
In the end, the prosecution was dropped after lots of industry pressure was applied but you have been warned. Common sense is a fairly rare commodity.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've deleted the last couple of posts because we were going off on a tangent.
As of last week, there had only been about 20 responses to the consultation about the new Low Flying Rules.
Please can I encourage you to read the proposals and send off you comments. It would be a good idea if you posted a copy here so that others can read and think about your ideas.
Many people think we should adopt the FAA version. If you agree, why not write saying just that.
If you don't want to send formal comments on the proposals, post your views here. Your ideas may help others who intend to write formulate their submissions.
Time is running out.
We'll have to live with whatever they do now for a very long time.
As of last week, there had only been about 20 responses to the consultation about the new Low Flying Rules.
Please can I encourage you to read the proposals and send off you comments. It would be a good idea if you posted a copy here so that others can read and think about your ideas.
Many people think we should adopt the FAA version. If you agree, why not write saying just that.
If you don't want to send formal comments on the proposals, post your views here. Your ideas may help others who intend to write formulate their submissions.
Time is running out.
We'll have to live with whatever they do now for a very long time.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its a good idea to do a re-write in English! But...
The crucial thing is that we maintain the present UK 500ft rule, which is given as Option 3 of the consultative document - i.e 500ft away from ..etc etc. Losing this would be a disaster for filming and many other aspects of our work and training.
I personally believe we should try to get 1000ft over congested areas (which is on offer as an ICAO standard) because it is covered by the fact that you must be able to land clear of structures etc and not cause damage - in other words the deserted football pitch may be defined as a "congested area" but it should be acceptable as an emergency LS if the donk quits.
The Lea Valley used not to be a congested area (Yes, I am that old!) and it was customary to fly down it to the river at 1000ft or less if weather so demanded. The proposed changes in the ruling doesn't really affect the awkwardness of deeming it to be open space when clearly its not any more.
Inserting a new heliroute North-South through (over) the dome would clear that issue.
The crucial thing is that we maintain the present UK 500ft rule, which is given as Option 3 of the consultative document - i.e 500ft away from ..etc etc. Losing this would be a disaster for filming and many other aspects of our work and training.
I personally believe we should try to get 1000ft over congested areas (which is on offer as an ICAO standard) because it is covered by the fact that you must be able to land clear of structures etc and not cause damage - in other words the deserted football pitch may be defined as a "congested area" but it should be acceptable as an emergency LS if the donk quits.
The Lea Valley used not to be a congested area (Yes, I am that old!) and it was customary to fly down it to the river at 1000ft or less if weather so demanded. The proposed changes in the ruling doesn't really affect the awkwardness of deeming it to be open space when clearly its not any more.
Inserting a new heliroute North-South through (over) the dome would clear that issue.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chance of making readable rules is here:-
It would be sensible to draft rule 5 in two forms. One for aeroplanes and one for rotary as we accept that the flying capabilities of the two are different.
For helicopters the existing Rule 5 in regard to the '500 feet from' is practical and workable. The 1500 ft/600m is also practical and workable. And it must be upon the pilots mind to fly at a hight and position in regard to the conditions on the surface that enable in the event of a power unit failure that a safe landing without danger to persons on the ground, can be made. In practical term any flight over a built-up area must be illegal as there are no safe landing ares within a built-up area. Roads, sports fields, car parks and open common land will be used by people at random and therefore are excluded as a choice for landing. he existing Sensitive Area above London is for twin engined helicopter operations only and rightly so.
For areoplanes the same logic must apply and unless an aeroplane can be flown clear of a built-up area, hight is the crux here, then that too must be illegal.
In simplistic terms the blanket 500 foot Rule is so restrictive that in the weather conditions that prevail in the UK it would inhibit helicopter flying unnesseccarily and prevent such actions as that of crossing ridges below a cloud base, unless the cloud base was at least 500 ft above the ridge.
To suggest that flying below 500 ft AGL is unsafe is thoughtless. As already mentioned, flying training is the only way there is of learning what technoques to employ in differing circumstances and this is the role of training in the real world. In other words you have to go and practice under supervision those disciplines which you are either ignorant of or out of practice in. To restrict by Rules this facility would be to enhance the likelyhood of accidents.
So please Mr CAA, keep the Rule 5 as we have it but try and simplify the language. Difficult I know, but try anyway
Headsetair,,, I fully support your logic that why are aviators expected to do what others are not. I shall be writing to the CAA and ask that there be Rule 5 A drafted for the fixed wing and Rule 5 H for the rotary wing. To definitely keep the present wording re 500 ft which should be suitably amended to allow off airfield practices for autorotations and confined areas. And the adoption of the 1000 ft over congested areas with the addition of Specified areas over the cental parts of the major cities. This would place a definite no go area to single engined aircraft, restrictive I know but would make it clearer where and where not one can fly. Similar boundaries as are set for danger/restrictive/prisons etc.
Or is this too much to expect?
It would be sensible to draft rule 5 in two forms. One for aeroplanes and one for rotary as we accept that the flying capabilities of the two are different.
For helicopters the existing Rule 5 in regard to the '500 feet from' is practical and workable. The 1500 ft/600m is also practical and workable. And it must be upon the pilots mind to fly at a hight and position in regard to the conditions on the surface that enable in the event of a power unit failure that a safe landing without danger to persons on the ground, can be made. In practical term any flight over a built-up area must be illegal as there are no safe landing ares within a built-up area. Roads, sports fields, car parks and open common land will be used by people at random and therefore are excluded as a choice for landing. he existing Sensitive Area above London is for twin engined helicopter operations only and rightly so.
For areoplanes the same logic must apply and unless an aeroplane can be flown clear of a built-up area, hight is the crux here, then that too must be illegal.
In simplistic terms the blanket 500 foot Rule is so restrictive that in the weather conditions that prevail in the UK it would inhibit helicopter flying unnesseccarily and prevent such actions as that of crossing ridges below a cloud base, unless the cloud base was at least 500 ft above the ridge.
To suggest that flying below 500 ft AGL is unsafe is thoughtless. As already mentioned, flying training is the only way there is of learning what technoques to employ in differing circumstances and this is the role of training in the real world. In other words you have to go and practice under supervision those disciplines which you are either ignorant of or out of practice in. To restrict by Rules this facility would be to enhance the likelyhood of accidents.
So please Mr CAA, keep the Rule 5 as we have it but try and simplify the language. Difficult I know, but try anyway
Headsetair,,, I fully support your logic that why are aviators expected to do what others are not. I shall be writing to the CAA and ask that there be Rule 5 A drafted for the fixed wing and Rule 5 H for the rotary wing. To definitely keep the present wording re 500 ft which should be suitably amended to allow off airfield practices for autorotations and confined areas. And the adoption of the 1000 ft over congested areas with the addition of Specified areas over the cental parts of the major cities. This would place a definite no go area to single engined aircraft, restrictive I know but would make it clearer where and where not one can fly. Similar boundaries as are set for danger/restrictive/prisons etc.
Or is this too much to expect?
Last edited by Tail Bloater; 27th Nov 2002 at 09:54.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common Sense and Statistics
I've written a response to Mr McGregor at the CAA - and I would urge all UK heli pilots to do the same. We need clarity for helicopters - and we need rules based on fact and actual statistics. For pilots of single-engine helis who use The Specified Area of London and the heli-routes : read the proposal because they are trying to take away your freedom and pleasure for no real reason.
Name the last time that a single-engine machine had an engine failure in TSA - and tell me if there was a disaster. Of course there hasn't been an incident like this for years - I think there was a "moment" for a heli at Battersea in the last 12 months - but he autoed back to the platform as per training.
If my donkey fails me going past the Houses of Parliament, I'm not going to choose the "congested area" for my landing, I'm going to choose the river or any green space I can find. What I don't understand is why aviators have to give any more consideration to pedestrians than car drivers do. If the brakes fail on your car, you are not required by law to avoid pedestrians.......you are required to do everything you can to maintain control of the vehicle. So - if the low flying laws (or their defence of pedestrians)were applied to other forms of transport, none of us would be able to drive, boat, scoot or do anything in or on a vehicle in a congested area. Mad.
I am also in full agreement that the CAA proposals will unnecessarily restrict pilot training. We need to practise confined area and autos - and we can't keep practising at airfields because, in reality, an airfield isn't where any emergency is going to happen.
Unless, of course, this proposal is the first step towards making us only operate from licensed fields..........
Name the last time that a single-engine machine had an engine failure in TSA - and tell me if there was a disaster. Of course there hasn't been an incident like this for years - I think there was a "moment" for a heli at Battersea in the last 12 months - but he autoed back to the platform as per training.
If my donkey fails me going past the Houses of Parliament, I'm not going to choose the "congested area" for my landing, I'm going to choose the river or any green space I can find. What I don't understand is why aviators have to give any more consideration to pedestrians than car drivers do. If the brakes fail on your car, you are not required by law to avoid pedestrians.......you are required to do everything you can to maintain control of the vehicle. So - if the low flying laws (or their defence of pedestrians)were applied to other forms of transport, none of us would be able to drive, boat, scoot or do anything in or on a vehicle in a congested area. Mad.
I am also in full agreement that the CAA proposals will unnecessarily restrict pilot training. We need to practise confined area and autos - and we can't keep practising at airfields because, in reality, an airfield isn't where any emergency is going to happen.
Unless, of course, this proposal is the first step towards making us only operate from licensed fields..........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proposed Rule 5 Changes
A good Topic - A good Discussion. Just a couple of thoughts:
Since the recent ICAO audit we, as an industry, have been hit by a stream of FODCOMs etc. from the CAA imposing changes to many long-established and safe practices (remember Aerodrome Standards trying to close down the Northern Helipad at Silverstone 2001?) Their reason is that "CAA policy is NOT to apply for National differences from ICAO standards".
To follow this policy through, the CAA should be proposing acceptance of ICAO's "Not below1000 feet" instead of maintaining the 1500 feet National Difference.
Essential that industry applies as much pressure as possible NOW to ensure that any changes to existing rules are in the best interests of 1. Safety and 2. Pilots / Operators and not as the CAA would wish to impose.
In addition to this forum and a direct approach to CAA, please write to BHAB who are working hard on this right now. Any additional comments will only help to add weight to our cause.
Since the recent ICAO audit we, as an industry, have been hit by a stream of FODCOMs etc. from the CAA imposing changes to many long-established and safe practices (remember Aerodrome Standards trying to close down the Northern Helipad at Silverstone 2001?) Their reason is that "CAA policy is NOT to apply for National differences from ICAO standards".
To follow this policy through, the CAA should be proposing acceptance of ICAO's "Not below1000 feet" instead of maintaining the 1500 feet National Difference.
Essential that industry applies as much pressure as possible NOW to ensure that any changes to existing rules are in the best interests of 1. Safety and 2. Pilots / Operators and not as the CAA would wish to impose.
In addition to this forum and a direct approach to CAA, please write to BHAB who are working hard on this right now. Any additional comments will only help to add weight to our cause.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply from Rob McGregor at the CAA
A response to my email within 24 hours - and he's a heli pilot. So c'mon Rob - what's your pprune handle ??
"Thank you for taking the time to give me your views on the discussion paper. You have raised some interesting points which I have noted in the spreadsheet of comments received.
At this stage the CAA is seeking opinion regarding the minimum height over congested areas and outside congested areas. I can see that you like the rule in FAR 91.119 and so, I guess, you would support 1,000 ft over congested areas and no closer than 500 ft from any person vessel vehicle or structure. We plan to issue a second round of consultation with the rule refined in these areas, towards the end of January.
FAR 91.119 is very simple. Unfortunately, America being a place with lots of wide open spaces, their low flying rules are not, generally speaking, detailed enough to suit the heavily populated countries of Europe. That said, you will see that the primary paragraphs in our proposal for the revised UK rule are very similar. What takes up the space are all the alleviations that are necessary in order to interface the wishes of pilots with the safety and wishes of those of the rest of society.
You will see that under the existing and proposed UK rules:
1) Aircraft can fly lower than the normal minimum height over congested areas when they are operating in a control zone in accordance with a special VFR clearance.
2) It is accepted and expected that, in accordance with the rule that allows helicopters to fly over congested areas, that a helicopter pilot will be able to do a safe, engine off landing on an empty football pich. (N.B. remember that the term 'congested area' has a specialised meaning in aviation law).
3) The UK has, for example, alleviations for gliders, aerial spraying, police helicopters, the saving of life, and even a proposal to ease the problems of becalmed balloons.
A qualified helicopter pilot does not need a licensed aerodrome at which to practice PFLs and confined areas, but there could obviously be a problem with PFLs to below 500 ft in the open countryside if the ICAO form of the rule was adopted without associated and numerous alleviations. However, the main concern which the restriction of training to licensed aerodromes is aimed at is safety (rescue and fire fighting) for the pilots involved."
Yours sincerely
Rob McGregor
P.S. I am, actually, a helicopter pilot myself
"Thank you for taking the time to give me your views on the discussion paper. You have raised some interesting points which I have noted in the spreadsheet of comments received.
At this stage the CAA is seeking opinion regarding the minimum height over congested areas and outside congested areas. I can see that you like the rule in FAR 91.119 and so, I guess, you would support 1,000 ft over congested areas and no closer than 500 ft from any person vessel vehicle or structure. We plan to issue a second round of consultation with the rule refined in these areas, towards the end of January.
FAR 91.119 is very simple. Unfortunately, America being a place with lots of wide open spaces, their low flying rules are not, generally speaking, detailed enough to suit the heavily populated countries of Europe. That said, you will see that the primary paragraphs in our proposal for the revised UK rule are very similar. What takes up the space are all the alleviations that are necessary in order to interface the wishes of pilots with the safety and wishes of those of the rest of society.
You will see that under the existing and proposed UK rules:
1) Aircraft can fly lower than the normal minimum height over congested areas when they are operating in a control zone in accordance with a special VFR clearance.
2) It is accepted and expected that, in accordance with the rule that allows helicopters to fly over congested areas, that a helicopter pilot will be able to do a safe, engine off landing on an empty football pich. (N.B. remember that the term 'congested area' has a specialised meaning in aviation law).
3) The UK has, for example, alleviations for gliders, aerial spraying, police helicopters, the saving of life, and even a proposal to ease the problems of becalmed balloons.
A qualified helicopter pilot does not need a licensed aerodrome at which to practice PFLs and confined areas, but there could obviously be a problem with PFLs to below 500 ft in the open countryside if the ICAO form of the rule was adopted without associated and numerous alleviations. However, the main concern which the restriction of training to licensed aerodromes is aimed at is safety (rescue and fire fighting) for the pilots involved."
Yours sincerely
Rob McGregor
P.S. I am, actually, a helicopter pilot myself
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My suggestion to Mr McGregor goes roughly as follows;-
Split Rule 5 into AEROPLANE and HELICOPTER
Rule 5 HELICOPTER
5. (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)
(a) a helicopter shall not fly closer than 500 feet to any
person, vessal, vehicle or structure other than:-
(i) landing and taking off in accordance with normal
aviation practice
(ii) flying under and in accordance with the terms of the
police operators certificate
(iii) carrying out flying training to practice autorotation
and confined area recconnaisance, approach,
manouvreing and departures
(b) a helicopter shall not fly closer than 1500 feet to a
congested area of a city, town or settlement, or a
gathering of 1000 people or more, nor below such a
height as would enable to alight clear in the event of
failure of a power unit, whichever is higher, except
(i) with permission in writing of the Authority and in
accordance with any conditions contained therein
specified.
(ii) under special conditions (SVFR) clearances issued by
a competant authority(ATSU), subject to 5.(1) (a)
Any objectors to this? I also added that paragraphs like the existing 5 (d) (ii) must be scrapped, as meaningless. Suggestion of burden removed from the rules which makes reference to action which are not placed upon other persons in charge of mechanical device. A bus driver is not bound to avoid persons and property in the event of a mechanical failure, nor is a mariner, nor is a taxi driver.
Spelling accepted, I would like to think this is something near to what we'd like to see as a Rule, but obviously written in legaleese.
Split Rule 5 into AEROPLANE and HELICOPTER
Rule 5 HELICOPTER
5. (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b)
(a) a helicopter shall not fly closer than 500 feet to any
person, vessal, vehicle or structure other than:-
(i) landing and taking off in accordance with normal
aviation practice
(ii) flying under and in accordance with the terms of the
police operators certificate
(iii) carrying out flying training to practice autorotation
and confined area recconnaisance, approach,
manouvreing and departures
(b) a helicopter shall not fly closer than 1500 feet to a
congested area of a city, town or settlement, or a
gathering of 1000 people or more, nor below such a
height as would enable to alight clear in the event of
failure of a power unit, whichever is higher, except
(i) with permission in writing of the Authority and in
accordance with any conditions contained therein
specified.
(ii) under special conditions (SVFR) clearances issued by
a competant authority(ATSU), subject to 5.(1) (a)
Any objectors to this? I also added that paragraphs like the existing 5 (d) (ii) must be scrapped, as meaningless. Suggestion of burden removed from the rules which makes reference to action which are not placed upon other persons in charge of mechanical device. A bus driver is not bound to avoid persons and property in the event of a mechanical failure, nor is a mariner, nor is a taxi driver.
Spelling accepted, I would like to think this is something near to what we'd like to see as a Rule, but obviously written in legaleese.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Aberdeen,UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't accept the CAA's answer to the 91.119 FAA rules.
A great deal of helicopter flying in the US is spent in and around built up areas.
America per capita has more helicopters than anywhere else in the world.
As a professional helicopter pilot, I need to have the decision making flexibility to be able to fly below 500 '.
Why?
1. Low cloud.I need to be able to transit, as I do now, from the East coast of Scotland to the West coast of Scotland ,(a sparsely populated area) VFR.I can never guarantee good wx in this unpredictable part of the world over the entire route.
2. Turbulence.Getting low is very often safer and more comfortable when mechanical turbulence prevails.
3. Fast jets.I am very unwilling to sit at 550' agl through the HRA whilst the RAF whistle round me at 250 knots.I need the flexibility to contour the terrain when neccessary avoiding the high risk areas.
As the rules stand there is nothing to differentiate between fixed wing and helicopters .Therefore a Cessna 152 or indeed a Boeing 737 if it so wished could fly into a Scottish glen with a 500' cloudbase in exactly the same manner as a helicopter.Surely this is madness.
I think the problem with the CAA and 91.119 is that there would have to be a massive philosophy change with regard to helicopters and their flexibility.They really don't want helicopter pilots making too many decisions for themselves.
If helicopters are prevented from flying below 500'agl on transit flights over sparsely populated areas such as in the Scottish Highlands ,the economic effect will be devastating.Fish Farms ,Construction,Forestry,fencing contractors would all be hit.
What is particularly ironic is that when I eventually complete the transit and get to the job I spend my whole day flying low level with external loads.
Thanks to pprune for the thread and the feedback
A great deal of helicopter flying in the US is spent in and around built up areas.
America per capita has more helicopters than anywhere else in the world.
As a professional helicopter pilot, I need to have the decision making flexibility to be able to fly below 500 '.
Why?
1. Low cloud.I need to be able to transit, as I do now, from the East coast of Scotland to the West coast of Scotland ,(a sparsely populated area) VFR.I can never guarantee good wx in this unpredictable part of the world over the entire route.
2. Turbulence.Getting low is very often safer and more comfortable when mechanical turbulence prevails.
3. Fast jets.I am very unwilling to sit at 550' agl through the HRA whilst the RAF whistle round me at 250 knots.I need the flexibility to contour the terrain when neccessary avoiding the high risk areas.
As the rules stand there is nothing to differentiate between fixed wing and helicopters .Therefore a Cessna 152 or indeed a Boeing 737 if it so wished could fly into a Scottish glen with a 500' cloudbase in exactly the same manner as a helicopter.Surely this is madness.
I think the problem with the CAA and 91.119 is that there would have to be a massive philosophy change with regard to helicopters and their flexibility.They really don't want helicopter pilots making too many decisions for themselves.
If helicopters are prevented from flying below 500'agl on transit flights over sparsely populated areas such as in the Scottish Highlands ,the economic effect will be devastating.Fish Farms ,Construction,Forestry,fencing contractors would all be hit.
What is particularly ironic is that when I eventually complete the transit and get to the job I spend my whole day flying low level with external loads.
Thanks to pprune for the thread and the feedback
Last edited by arm the floats; 1st Dec 2002 at 20:31.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rule 5
Guys, I'm not always a lover of the CAA but there is some extra lift being generated here via hot air. As I understand it the relevance of the JAA is nil despite assertions to the contrary in this column elsewhere. These are Rules of the Air and NOT ANO changes and so the JAA don't come into it.
I agree with a previous correspondent that the main issues of proposed change relate to the 1500' and 500' Rule. I don't know how many of us know of the Official Record but the CAA had to put an exemption there a few years ago to let us do some of the low flying activities we currently do on airfields, I guess they will have to do something similar to cover PFL's etc.
The engine failure case quoted already exists and isn't a change so and as I see it s/e ops over London are not affected one jot.
I agree with a previous correspondent that the main issues of proposed change relate to the 1500' and 500' Rule. I don't know how many of us know of the Official Record but the CAA had to put an exemption there a few years ago to let us do some of the low flying activities we currently do on airfields, I guess they will have to do something similar to cover PFL's etc.
The engine failure case quoted already exists and isn't a change so and as I see it s/e ops over London are not affected one jot.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proposal Seconded
Tail Bloater's draft looks damn good.
The talk (...McGregor) of 'yards' of convoluted exceptions fills me with dread. KeepItSimpleStupid KISS
MBJ like wise - tragic to lose the "500' away from" concept.
Although a person should be able to 'consent' and give permission for a helicopter to fly within 500' of their person, vessels, vehicles or structures.
The murky truth is that some well meaning old duffers think that this tinkering might stop people flying into the ground in bad weather!
The current practice and 'POLICY' - concerning weather is counter productive - anything which further discourages people to slow down and come down as required to stay out of cloud - will further dilute this already almost forgotten life saving principal.
How bad is a regulator allowed to be ?
The talk (...McGregor) of 'yards' of convoluted exceptions fills me with dread. KeepItSimpleStupid KISS
MBJ like wise - tragic to lose the "500' away from" concept.
Although a person should be able to 'consent' and give permission for a helicopter to fly within 500' of their person, vessels, vehicles or structures.
The murky truth is that some well meaning old duffers think that this tinkering might stop people flying into the ground in bad weather!
The current practice and 'POLICY' - concerning weather is counter productive - anything which further discourages people to slow down and come down as required to stay out of cloud - will further dilute this already almost forgotten life saving principal.
How bad is a regulator allowed to be ?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hereford
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rule 5
Rule 5 - The implications of changing it so that you must remain 500ft above the surface are many and I cannot believe heli pilots do not realise how serious this is. Once changed it will be forever.
Most pilots I have spoken too shrug their shoulders and say they will simply ignore the changes proposed. Why should we suddenly become cowboys and law breakers for no good reason, I PREFER TO FLY LEGAL. These proposed changes mean - the annual heli club trip across the Channel under the notoriuos sea fog will not be possible. Commercial operators and clubs will no longer be able to go mountain flying. The obvious training/autos to the ground no longer possible etc.
Increased risk of mid air collision - at the moment helicopter pilots in bad weather pick their own height to negotiate a ridge or hill, If they are trying to maintain 500ft, one from one side and one from the other its hardly safer. To comply helicopters will suddenly be flying up with the fixed wings dodging around in the clouds then trying to find a hole to get down with all the problems of control - overspeeds - negative G etc. Another result will be increased traffic over towns and villages as pilots turn right or left to follow the valley instead of flying through the 400 ft gap over the sparesely populated ridge. Pilots will be flying up a valley for half an hour to find the are trapped by a cloud base either side, if they decide to turn back and not fly through - fuel becomes another worry.
Commercial operators will be hard hit by having to turn back , passengers will be baffled when a pilot tells them he has to turn back because there is only a 450ft gap and he cannot break the 500ft rule and fly over the hill.
When the weather catches a pilot out the safety option to fly down to the surface must be kept, I am alive today by staying visual with the surface when conditions have got bad and on two occasions landing in a field. You have enough to worry about without the thought of being procecuted. I have never flown fixed wing but if these rules go through whats the point of having the manouverability of a helicopter?
Most pilots I have spoken too shrug their shoulders and say they will simply ignore the changes proposed. Why should we suddenly become cowboys and law breakers for no good reason, I PREFER TO FLY LEGAL. These proposed changes mean - the annual heli club trip across the Channel under the notoriuos sea fog will not be possible. Commercial operators and clubs will no longer be able to go mountain flying. The obvious training/autos to the ground no longer possible etc.
Increased risk of mid air collision - at the moment helicopter pilots in bad weather pick their own height to negotiate a ridge or hill, If they are trying to maintain 500ft, one from one side and one from the other its hardly safer. To comply helicopters will suddenly be flying up with the fixed wings dodging around in the clouds then trying to find a hole to get down with all the problems of control - overspeeds - negative G etc. Another result will be increased traffic over towns and villages as pilots turn right or left to follow the valley instead of flying through the 400 ft gap over the sparesely populated ridge. Pilots will be flying up a valley for half an hour to find the are trapped by a cloud base either side, if they decide to turn back and not fly through - fuel becomes another worry.
Commercial operators will be hard hit by having to turn back , passengers will be baffled when a pilot tells them he has to turn back because there is only a 450ft gap and he cannot break the 500ft rule and fly over the hill.
When the weather catches a pilot out the safety option to fly down to the surface must be kept, I am alive today by staying visual with the surface when conditions have got bad and on two occasions landing in a field. You have enough to worry about without the thought of being procecuted. I have never flown fixed wing but if these rules go through whats the point of having the manouverability of a helicopter?
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captainkt,
I agree with all of that, and so should everyone. But if we don't write to the CAA and say so, the changes will happen due to our apathy.
I mentioned all this when I went flying today, and got the same reaction as you - people shrugged, implied they'd do what they liked in the mountains anyway, and it wasn't important. It is important, and everyone needs to email the CAA. Follow the links earlier on this thread; that's what I did, and I ended up having some fairly comprehensive email correspondence with Rob McGregor at the CAA, who replied and asked me to clarify a couple of points - I'd emailed in a hurry and hadn't been that clear. But the main point is, he has a list, and is counting the number of votes he gets for keeping Rule 5 as it is, simplifying it, or making it ICAO compliant. You don't need to send him that brilliantly argued treatise on Rule 5 which you're still thinking about, just your opinion.
Seriously, YOUR VOTE COUNTS - and we only have till mid-January!
I agree with all of that, and so should everyone. But if we don't write to the CAA and say so, the changes will happen due to our apathy.
I mentioned all this when I went flying today, and got the same reaction as you - people shrugged, implied they'd do what they liked in the mountains anyway, and it wasn't important. It is important, and everyone needs to email the CAA. Follow the links earlier on this thread; that's what I did, and I ended up having some fairly comprehensive email correspondence with Rob McGregor at the CAA, who replied and asked me to clarify a couple of points - I'd emailed in a hurry and hadn't been that clear. But the main point is, he has a list, and is counting the number of votes he gets for keeping Rule 5 as it is, simplifying it, or making it ICAO compliant. You don't need to send him that brilliantly argued treatise on Rule 5 which you're still thinking about, just your opinion.
Seriously, YOUR VOTE COUNTS - and we only have till mid-January!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: W Mids
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The deadline for submissions is 17th January.....only days away!
A simple email to '[email protected]' is all it takes.
Please act now.
A simple email to '[email protected]' is all it takes.
Please act now.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do it TONIGHT!!
Deadline for the first round of consultation is tomorrow 17 January.
Remember you can e-mail.
eg If you favour the FAA rule and, in particular, the exemption for helicopters, why not send an email saying just that. It would only take a few minutes.
I realise the FAA treats qualified pilots as qualified adults capable of making decisions, and the chances of the CAA doing the same thing are pretty remote, but you may think it's worth at least trying!
I have no idea to what extent, if at all, this 'consultation' is genuine or just window-dressing. I suspect the latter, but nothing would please me more than being proved wrong.
I realise it's not very encouraging when the person collecting submissions has already said (in reply to 'Headsethair': "Unfortunately, America being a place with lots of wide open spaces, their low flying rules are not, generally speaking, detailed enough to suit the heavily populated countries of Europe."
Many people say there's no point in sending submissions because the CAA will always do what they want and aren't interested in what pilots actually out flying think. I can easily understand that reaction, and to a large extent agree it may well be accurate, but:
(1) we should still try
(2) the CAA is bound to trumpet the revised rule with claims that it's been done after extensive consultation with the industry, pilots etc etc
(3) once restrictions are imposed, they are rarely lifted.
Click here for main thread on this topic, and links to the CAA consultation doc.
Remember you can e-mail.
eg If you favour the FAA rule and, in particular, the exemption for helicopters, why not send an email saying just that. It would only take a few minutes.
FAR Sec. 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 ........... 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.
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 ........... 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.
I have no idea to what extent, if at all, this 'consultation' is genuine or just window-dressing. I suspect the latter, but nothing would please me more than being proved wrong.
I realise it's not very encouraging when the person collecting submissions has already said (in reply to 'Headsethair': "Unfortunately, America being a place with lots of wide open spaces, their low flying rules are not, generally speaking, detailed enough to suit the heavily populated countries of Europe."
Many people say there's no point in sending submissions because the CAA will always do what they want and aren't interested in what pilots actually out flying think. I can easily understand that reaction, and to a large extent agree it may well be accurate, but:
(1) we should still try
(2) the CAA is bound to trumpet the revised rule with claims that it's been done after extensive consultation with the industry, pilots etc etc
(3) once restrictions are imposed, they are rarely lifted.
Click here for main thread on this topic, and links to the CAA consultation doc.
Last edited by Heliport; 16th Jan 2003 at 17:03.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unfortunately, America being a place with lots of wide open spaces, their low flying rules are not, generally speaking, detailed enough to suit the heavily populated countries of Europe."
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are the Canadian regs for those interested. CAR 602.14
602.14 Minimum Altitudes and Distances
(1) For the purposes of this Section and Section 602.15, an aircraft shall be deemed to be operated over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons where that built-up area or open-air assembly of persons is within a horizontal distance of
(a) 500 feet from a helicopter or balloon; or
(b) 2,000 feet from an aircraft other than a helicopter or balloon.
(2) Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where permitted under Section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft
(a) over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons unless the aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the event of an emergency necessitating an immediate landing, it would be possible to land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface, and, in any case, at an altitude that is not lower than
(i) for aeroplanes, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 2,000 feet from the aeroplane,
(ii) for balloons, 500 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the balloon, or
(iii) for an aircraft other than an aeroplane or a balloon, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the aircraft; and
(b) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a), at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
602.15 Permissible Low Altitude Flight
(1) A person may operate an aircraft at altitudes and distances less than those specified in subsection 602.14(2) where the aircraft is operated at altitudes and distances that are no less than necessary for the purposes of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated
(a) for the purpose of a police operation that is conducted in the service of a police authority;
(b) for the purpose of saving human life;
(c) for fire-fighting or air ambulance operations;
(d) for the purpose of the administration of the Fisheries Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act;
(e) for the purpose of the administration of the national or provincial parks; or
(f) for the purpose of flight inspection.
(2) A person may operate an aircraft, to the extent necessary for the purpose of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, at altitudes and distances less than those set out in
(a) paragraph 602.14(2)(a), where operation of the aircraft is authorized under Subpart 3 or Section 702.22; or
(b) paragraph 602.14(2)(b), where the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated for the purpose of
(i) aerial application or aerial inspection,
(ii) aerial photography conducted by the holder of an air operator certificate,
(iii) helicopter external load operations, or
(iv) flight training conducted by or under the supervision of a qualified flight instructor.
602.14 Minimum Altitudes and Distances
(1) For the purposes of this Section and Section 602.15, an aircraft shall be deemed to be operated over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons where that built-up area or open-air assembly of persons is within a horizontal distance of
(a) 500 feet from a helicopter or balloon; or
(b) 2,000 feet from an aircraft other than a helicopter or balloon.
(2) Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where permitted under Section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft
(a) over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons unless the aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the event of an emergency necessitating an immediate landing, it would be possible to land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface, and, in any case, at an altitude that is not lower than
(i) for aeroplanes, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 2,000 feet from the aeroplane,
(ii) for balloons, 500 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the balloon, or
(iii) for an aircraft other than an aeroplane or a balloon, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the aircraft; and
(b) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a), at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
602.15 Permissible Low Altitude Flight
(1) A person may operate an aircraft at altitudes and distances less than those specified in subsection 602.14(2) where the aircraft is operated at altitudes and distances that are no less than necessary for the purposes of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated
(a) for the purpose of a police operation that is conducted in the service of a police authority;
(b) for the purpose of saving human life;
(c) for fire-fighting or air ambulance operations;
(d) for the purpose of the administration of the Fisheries Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act;
(e) for the purpose of the administration of the national or provincial parks; or
(f) for the purpose of flight inspection.
(2) A person may operate an aircraft, to the extent necessary for the purpose of the operation in which the aircraft is engaged, at altitudes and distances less than those set out in
(a) paragraph 602.14(2)(a), where operation of the aircraft is authorized under Subpart 3 or Section 702.22; or
(b) paragraph 602.14(2)(b), where the aircraft is operated without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface and the aircraft is operated for the purpose of
(i) aerial application or aerial inspection,
(ii) aerial photography conducted by the holder of an air operator certificate,
(iii) helicopter external load operations, or
(iv) flight training conducted by or under the supervision of a qualified flight instructor.