Proposed Rule 5 changes: Includes replies from the CAA
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 1
From: UK
Comments sent to CAA by Rotorhead A
Dear Rob :>> I'm contacting you with regard to the proposed changes to the ANO's Rule>5, regarding low flying. My perception, and that of a lot of helicopter>pilots I have spoken with, is that the proposed legislation seems to ignore>the requirements of helicopter flying.>> Speaking as a helicopter pilot, the capability of legally flying a>helicopter within 500 feet of the ground when safe to do so, for example>when making approaches to pinnacles in mountainous areas, or making an>approach ( for training purposes ) to a confined area which is not on an>airfield, is vital to allow pilots to be trained in those procedures before>they fly them on a PT flight. I have chosen those two examples as>illustrative and it's not intended to be a complete list.>> My preference for legislation would be along the lines of the American>FARs, allowing helicopters to come as low to the ground as they like, while>remaining safe and consistent with neigbourly flying.>> Please feel to contact me if you have any questions.
Dear Rob :>> I'm contacting you with regard to the proposed changes to the ANO's Rule>5, regarding low flying. My perception, and that of a lot of helicopter>pilots I have spoken with, is that the proposed legislation seems to ignore>the requirements of helicopter flying.>> Speaking as a helicopter pilot, the capability of legally flying a>helicopter within 500 feet of the ground when safe to do so, for example>when making approaches to pinnacles in mountainous areas, or making an>approach ( for training purposes ) to a confined area which is not on an>airfield, is vital to allow pilots to be trained in those procedures before>they fly them on a PT flight. I have chosen those two examples as>illustrative and it's not intended to be a complete list.>> My preference for legislation would be along the lines of the American>FARs, allowing helicopters to come as low to the ground as they like, while>remaining safe and consistent with neigbourly flying.>> Please feel to contact me if you have any questions.
Reply from CAA
Dear Mr A
>>Thank you for sending me your views on the Rule 5 discussion paper. I have>noted your comments and they will be considered when the CAA refines the>rule prior to a second round of consultation in February.>>The trouble is that flight below 500 ft agl can have safety implications.If>for example, you were flying downwind at less than 500 ft in a single engine>machine, you would be unlikely to pull off a successful autorotational>landing if the engine failed. >>When you are landing or taking off from an aerodrome as defined in Article>129 of the ANO, you are exempt from compliance with the 500 ft rule whatever>form it comes in.>>I did consider FAR 91.119, but it does not transfer well into the UK.>>Kind regards>>Rob McGregor
Dear Mr A
>>Thank you for sending me your views on the Rule 5 discussion paper. I have>noted your comments and they will be considered when the CAA refines the>rule prior to a second round of consultation in February.>>The trouble is that flight below 500 ft agl can have safety implications.If>for example, you were flying downwind at less than 500 ft in a single engine>machine, you would be unlikely to pull off a successful autorotational>landing if the engine failed. >>When you are landing or taking off from an aerodrome as defined in Article>129 of the ANO, you are exempt from compliance with the 500 ft rule whatever>form it comes in.>>I did consider FAR 91.119, but it does not transfer well into the UK.>>Kind regards>>Rob McGregor
Follow up by A
Rob :Thanks for that. My gut feeling is that this legislation has been designedwithout thought to helicopter operations. For example in helicopter companies,a proportion of PT flights are conducted to, from and between private landingsites which do not seem to fall into the remit of an aerodrome as definein Article 129 and none of the proposed options, nor the one currently seemingto be favoured by the CAA, seem to take helicopters into account.With regard to safety generally, you are absolutely right in that continuedflight below 500' downwind is unsafe. Any helicopter pilot operating there needs to have assessed the risks and satisfied themselves that there is noother way to achieve the aims of the flight. I can understand that a legislativeframework needs to be in place to ensure that any aviation activity takesplace safely and with minimum disruption to the non-aviating community. The way things appear to be developing during this consultation seems tofavour legislation to prevent reasonable judgement being exercised.Legislation should allow for reasonable judgement by a pilot given the circumstances relevant to the flight. A reasonable framework of legislationshould allow that flexibility - otherwise commercial helicopter operationsmay be restricted to an unneccesary degree.Lastly, my interpretation of your comment that "When you are landing ortaking off from an aerodrome as defined in Article 129 of the ANO, you areexempt from compliance with the 500 ft rule" is that other than at an aerodrome,flight within 500' of persons, vessels, vehicles and structures is not allowed(unless exempted under current procedures). Am I correct in this interpretation? If so does an ad-hoc private landing site need to be exempted on an individualbasis to make it legal ? If so, then an exemption must be written into thelegislation, or this may well affect one of the main raisons d'etre of thehelicopter. If there is no such blanket exemption to allow this use of helicopters,then I can foresee a huge workload increase in the relevant CAA department.I was concerned by your response, if it is a reflection of the CAA's intentionsand thinking on the proposed changes. I hope my concerns are unfounded,and I look forward to the next round of consultation.
Yours etc
Rob :Thanks for that. My gut feeling is that this legislation has been designedwithout thought to helicopter operations. For example in helicopter companies,a proportion of PT flights are conducted to, from and between private landingsites which do not seem to fall into the remit of an aerodrome as definein Article 129 and none of the proposed options, nor the one currently seemingto be favoured by the CAA, seem to take helicopters into account.With regard to safety generally, you are absolutely right in that continuedflight below 500' downwind is unsafe. Any helicopter pilot operating there needs to have assessed the risks and satisfied themselves that there is noother way to achieve the aims of the flight. I can understand that a legislativeframework needs to be in place to ensure that any aviation activity takesplace safely and with minimum disruption to the non-aviating community. The way things appear to be developing during this consultation seems tofavour legislation to prevent reasonable judgement being exercised.Legislation should allow for reasonable judgement by a pilot given the circumstances relevant to the flight. A reasonable framework of legislationshould allow that flexibility - otherwise commercial helicopter operationsmay be restricted to an unneccesary degree.Lastly, my interpretation of your comment that "When you are landing ortaking off from an aerodrome as defined in Article 129 of the ANO, you areexempt from compliance with the 500 ft rule" is that other than at an aerodrome,flight within 500' of persons, vessels, vehicles and structures is not allowed(unless exempted under current procedures). Am I correct in this interpretation? If so does an ad-hoc private landing site need to be exempted on an individualbasis to make it legal ? If so, then an exemption must be written into thelegislation, or this may well affect one of the main raisons d'etre of thehelicopter. If there is no such blanket exemption to allow this use of helicopters,then I can foresee a huge workload increase in the relevant CAA department.I was concerned by your response, if it is a reflection of the CAA's intentionsand thinking on the proposed changes. I hope my concerns are unfounded,and I look forward to the next round of consultation.
Yours etc
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,913
Likes: 0
From: London
I'm afraid this is rather long, but I commented upon the rule in general as well as it's particular application to helicopters, and commented upon the format of the new rule from a lawyer's perspective.
I doubt if my views will carry much, if any, weight. I'm only a PPL and, as a regular thorn in their flesh on behalf of pilots and air operators, I don't think I'm the CAA's favourite aviation lawyer!
Still, I tried.
Tudor Owen
1. Summary
(a) Of the three limited options which the Authority has put forward for comment, I favour Option 3:
(i) reducing the minimum height over congested areas and organised assemblies to 1000 feet as per ICAO;
(ii) retaining the existing UK 500 feet linear separation rule.
(b) Given a free choice rather than choosing between the limited options offered, I would strongly favour the adoption of FAR 91.119 amended only to substitute a 500 feet linear separation requirement.
(c) In any event, the new UK rule should adopt the exemption for helicopters contained in FAR 91.119 (d). The revision is an ideal opportunity to reflect the fact that helicopters are more flexible than other aircraft and that it is illogical to subject them to the same restrictions.
2. Proposed Rule 5 (1)(a)
I favour the ICAO rule. ie 1000 feet.
(a) There is no justification for the existing 1500 feet requirement.
(b) The safety aspects are adequately covered by the provisions of sub-paragraphs (b) and (c)
(c) In weather conditions which often prevail in the UK, a reduction to 1000 feet might well make the difference between an aircraft being obliged to fly along a cloud base and being able to fly legally just below it.
3. Proposed Rule 5 (2)
(a) The existing UK rule, ie 500 feet linear separation, keeps aircraft an acceptable distance away from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures and is more conducive to flight safety than the ICAO (and indeed FAR) 500 feet minimum height requirements.
(b) There is nothing inherently dangerous in flying over a sparsely populated area below 500 feet.
(c) Pilots caught in poor weather conditions, under pressure of complying with a minimum height might be tempted to enter cloud when that is may not be the safest option.
(d) The value of practising EFATO and Forced Landings Without Power in fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters would be greatly reduced if aircraft had to recover by 500 feet. The last few hundred feet are the most critical, and the only true means of discovering whether the aircraft would have reached the selected field. The Authority has already made it very clear that it does not regard training students to cope with EFATO and FLWP as falling within 'normal aviation practice' for the purpose of Rule 5. Strange, but true.
(e) Helicopters pilots would be unable to practise confined area operations off airfield, and Instructors would be unable to teach this part of the syllabus off airfield.
(f) The existing UK rule allows display pilots to fly down to sensible and safe heights near their home base in order to practise and remain current. Given that a 500 feet minimum height would be simply too high for the majority of display pilots, where would they practise? Very few airfields could accommodate them, and increased activity at those few which could would be bound to lead to an increase in noise complaints and environmental problems. There is a real risk that difficulty in finding suitable practice airfields together with the additional cost of transits to the limited number of airfields available would inevitably lead to display pilots operating at public displays with the minimum legal amount of currency. That is not conducive to safety.
Similar considerations apply to aerobatic pilots who fly at Unlimited level in competition who have a lower limit of 300 feet.
(g) I appreciate that some of these problems could be resolved by the introduction of yet further exemptions. However, the volume of applications for exemptions from each of the categories would make the process unnecessarily complicated, generate unnecessary additional work for both the Authority and the applicants and, inevitably lead to extra cost.
(h) Helicopters can land almost anywhere if necessary, and
should not be subject to the same restrictions as fixed-wing aircraft. The distinction is reflected in the exemption which FAR 91.119 (d) provides. In my view, the revised UK rule should include the same exemption.
(i) I note that the Authority is concerned about a rising trend in the number of accidents involving small helicopters, the inference being that the accidents are related to pilots continuing en route in conditions of low cloud and poor visibility. Of all aircraft, helicopters should cause the least concern in bad weather conditions because they can slow down and they can land virtually anywhere.
(j) In my submission, if there is a problem, the remedy does not lie in adopting the ICAO 500 feet minimum height rule but in re-emphasising to inexperienced and/or bold pilots the importance of landing safely long before an accident becomes a real risk.
(k) Imposing a minimum height of 500 feet is not only unnecessary but, given the weather conditions which often prevail in the UK, would frequently prevent perfectly safe flights from being completed. eg Where the cloud base is such that a pilot can neither fly legally over a congested area in a valley nor fly perfectly safely through a 450' gap over the adjacent sparsely populated ridge. If I may borrow a slogan much used in a different context, I argue that "Education, education, education" is preferable to yet more restrictions.
4. Proposed Rule 5 (3)
Whilst I can at least understand the social and environmental arguments for prohibiting aircraft from over-flying such a gathering, I fail to see the safety aspects of prohibiting aircraft (without the written permission of the CAA) from taking off or landing a kilometre away from such an assembly. And in particular, but not only, where the site is routinely used by aircraft.
5. General Comments
(a) Legislation, both primary and secondary, inevitably remains unchanged for long periods. That, in my view, is all the more reason why the Authority should take this opportunity to reconsider Rule 5 entirely, not merely tinker with some elements.
(b) Given that one of the primary objectives was to formulate a simpler, shorter rule, the proposed amendments is only a limited success. Even in it's revised form, the rule is still unnecessarily complicated and remains potentially difficult to understand.
(c) Comparison with ICAO Rules of the Air and FAR 91.119
(i) The existing UK Rule 5 (as set out in Annex C) takes up three pages of A4.
(ii) The proposed amendment (Annex A) takes up just under two pages. Some improvement but due, to a significant extent, to the removal of the Specified Area rules rather than to a simplification of the primary rule.
(iii) The equivalent ICAO Rule (Annex D) takes up just less than half a page.
(iv) FAR 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes is only slightly longer than the ICAO rule, but is a model of simplicity. Three specific paragraphs cover flying aircraft: (a) Anywhere, (b) Over congested areas and (c) Over other than congested areas. The fourth paragraph (d) provides Helicopters exemptions. Not only is the rule easy to understand and apply, but it is a reasonable rule.
(d) Why does the UK rule have to be so long and complicated? In fairness to the draftsman of the revised rule, he has been given a difficult task. It is difficult to draft, in readily understandable language, a rule which provides for aeroplanes, helicopters, gliders and becalmed balloons where the restrictions and exemptions applicable to each depend not only upon the type of aircraft but upon which of numerous specified activities it is carrying out at the time.
(e) In relation to the FAR version, I note from a discussion in the 'Rotorheads' forum of the Professional Pilots Rumour Network ( www.pprune.org ) that one pilot who responded advocating that the UK should adopt the FAR version received a reply stating "FAR 01.119 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." Of course America has areas of wide open space, but it also has numerous densely populated areas to which the same simple rule applies. The simple rule nonetheless works well and achieves flight safety.
(f) FAR 91.119 is a simple rule which (as in the UK) is subject to an over-riding legal requirement not to cause danger and, if a pilot causes danger, he is (as in the UK) liable to prosecution. In relation to helicopters, the FAA appears to treat qualified pilots as responsible adults who have been trained to a standard which enables them to make proper decisions regarding what is safe in particular circumstances. In effect, the FAA rules say: "Comply with the prescribed minimums and don't cause a danger. If you breach the minimums or cause a danger you are liable to prosecution." That approach, in my opinion, places the emphasis where it should be. ie On the pilot to fly safely and not endanger anyone. FAR 91.119 (d) gives the pilot a discretion, but again puts a clear emphasis upon his responsibility to ensure safety: "Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in (b) and (c) if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface." I favour adopting the format of FAR 91.119 and, with one exception (referred to above), it's terms. That would not only achieve the objective of simplicity, but result in a more reasonable rule.
(a) Of the three limited options which the Authority has put forward for comment, I favour Option 3:
(i) reducing the minimum height over congested areas and organised assemblies to 1000 feet as per ICAO;
(ii) retaining the existing UK 500 feet linear separation rule.
(b) Given a free choice rather than choosing between the limited options offered, I would strongly favour the adoption of FAR 91.119 amended only to substitute a 500 feet linear separation requirement.
(c) In any event, the new UK rule should adopt the exemption for helicopters contained in FAR 91.119 (d). The revision is an ideal opportunity to reflect the fact that helicopters are more flexible than other aircraft and that it is illogical to subject them to the same restrictions.
2. Proposed Rule 5 (1)(a)
I favour the ICAO rule. ie 1000 feet.
(a) There is no justification for the existing 1500 feet requirement.
(b) The safety aspects are adequately covered by the provisions of sub-paragraphs (b) and (c)
(c) In weather conditions which often prevail in the UK, a reduction to 1000 feet might well make the difference between an aircraft being obliged to fly along a cloud base and being able to fly legally just below it.
3. Proposed Rule 5 (2)
(a) The existing UK rule, ie 500 feet linear separation, keeps aircraft an acceptable distance away from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures and is more conducive to flight safety than the ICAO (and indeed FAR) 500 feet minimum height requirements.
(b) There is nothing inherently dangerous in flying over a sparsely populated area below 500 feet.
(c) Pilots caught in poor weather conditions, under pressure of complying with a minimum height might be tempted to enter cloud when that is may not be the safest option.
(d) The value of practising EFATO and Forced Landings Without Power in fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters would be greatly reduced if aircraft had to recover by 500 feet. The last few hundred feet are the most critical, and the only true means of discovering whether the aircraft would have reached the selected field. The Authority has already made it very clear that it does not regard training students to cope with EFATO and FLWP as falling within 'normal aviation practice' for the purpose of Rule 5. Strange, but true.
(e) Helicopters pilots would be unable to practise confined area operations off airfield, and Instructors would be unable to teach this part of the syllabus off airfield.
(f) The existing UK rule allows display pilots to fly down to sensible and safe heights near their home base in order to practise and remain current. Given that a 500 feet minimum height would be simply too high for the majority of display pilots, where would they practise? Very few airfields could accommodate them, and increased activity at those few which could would be bound to lead to an increase in noise complaints and environmental problems. There is a real risk that difficulty in finding suitable practice airfields together with the additional cost of transits to the limited number of airfields available would inevitably lead to display pilots operating at public displays with the minimum legal amount of currency. That is not conducive to safety.
Similar considerations apply to aerobatic pilots who fly at Unlimited level in competition who have a lower limit of 300 feet.
(g) I appreciate that some of these problems could be resolved by the introduction of yet further exemptions. However, the volume of applications for exemptions from each of the categories would make the process unnecessarily complicated, generate unnecessary additional work for both the Authority and the applicants and, inevitably lead to extra cost.
(h) Helicopters can land almost anywhere if necessary, and
should not be subject to the same restrictions as fixed-wing aircraft. The distinction is reflected in the exemption which FAR 91.119 (d) provides. In my view, the revised UK rule should include the same exemption.
(i) I note that the Authority is concerned about a rising trend in the number of accidents involving small helicopters, the inference being that the accidents are related to pilots continuing en route in conditions of low cloud and poor visibility. Of all aircraft, helicopters should cause the least concern in bad weather conditions because they can slow down and they can land virtually anywhere.
(j) In my submission, if there is a problem, the remedy does not lie in adopting the ICAO 500 feet minimum height rule but in re-emphasising to inexperienced and/or bold pilots the importance of landing safely long before an accident becomes a real risk.
(k) Imposing a minimum height of 500 feet is not only unnecessary but, given the weather conditions which often prevail in the UK, would frequently prevent perfectly safe flights from being completed. eg Where the cloud base is such that a pilot can neither fly legally over a congested area in a valley nor fly perfectly safely through a 450' gap over the adjacent sparsely populated ridge. If I may borrow a slogan much used in a different context, I argue that "Education, education, education" is preferable to yet more restrictions.
4. Proposed Rule 5 (3)
Whilst I can at least understand the social and environmental arguments for prohibiting aircraft from over-flying such a gathering, I fail to see the safety aspects of prohibiting aircraft (without the written permission of the CAA) from taking off or landing a kilometre away from such an assembly. And in particular, but not only, where the site is routinely used by aircraft.
5. General Comments
(a) Legislation, both primary and secondary, inevitably remains unchanged for long periods. That, in my view, is all the more reason why the Authority should take this opportunity to reconsider Rule 5 entirely, not merely tinker with some elements.
(b) Given that one of the primary objectives was to formulate a simpler, shorter rule, the proposed amendments is only a limited success. Even in it's revised form, the rule is still unnecessarily complicated and remains potentially difficult to understand.
(c) Comparison with ICAO Rules of the Air and FAR 91.119
(i) The existing UK Rule 5 (as set out in Annex C) takes up three pages of A4.
(ii) The proposed amendment (Annex A) takes up just under two pages. Some improvement but due, to a significant extent, to the removal of the Specified Area rules rather than to a simplification of the primary rule.
(iii) The equivalent ICAO Rule (Annex D) takes up just less than half a page.
(iv) FAR 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes is only slightly longer than the ICAO rule, but is a model of simplicity. Three specific paragraphs cover flying aircraft: (a) Anywhere, (b) Over congested areas and (c) Over other than congested areas. The fourth paragraph (d) provides Helicopters exemptions. Not only is the rule easy to understand and apply, but it is a reasonable rule.
(d) Why does the UK rule have to be so long and complicated? In fairness to the draftsman of the revised rule, he has been given a difficult task. It is difficult to draft, in readily understandable language, a rule which provides for aeroplanes, helicopters, gliders and becalmed balloons where the restrictions and exemptions applicable to each depend not only upon the type of aircraft but upon which of numerous specified activities it is carrying out at the time.
(e) In relation to the FAR version, I note from a discussion in the 'Rotorheads' forum of the Professional Pilots Rumour Network ( www.pprune.org ) that one pilot who responded advocating that the UK should adopt the FAR version received a reply stating "FAR 01.119 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." Of course America has areas of wide open space, but it also has numerous densely populated areas to which the same simple rule applies. The simple rule nonetheless works well and achieves flight safety.
(f) FAR 91.119 is a simple rule which (as in the UK) is subject to an over-riding legal requirement not to cause danger and, if a pilot causes danger, he is (as in the UK) liable to prosecution. In relation to helicopters, the FAA appears to treat qualified pilots as responsible adults who have been trained to a standard which enables them to make proper decisions regarding what is safe in particular circumstances. In effect, the FAA rules say: "Comply with the prescribed minimums and don't cause a danger. If you breach the minimums or cause a danger you are liable to prosecution." That approach, in my opinion, places the emphasis where it should be. ie On the pilot to fly safely and not endanger anyone. FAR 91.119 (d) gives the pilot a discretion, but again puts a clear emphasis upon his responsibility to ensure safety: "Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in (b) and (c) if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface." I favour adopting the format of FAR 91.119 and, with one exception (referred to above), it's terms. That would not only achieve the objective of simplicity, but result in a more reasonable rule.
Reply from Mr McGregor
(After ackowledgement) .............. "I'm not too sure about FAR 91.119 (d), that is the rule that allows single engine helicopters to fly across downtown Dallas at 300 ft, safely they say! I will put it all into the mill and we shall see what comes out."
(After ackowledgement) .............. "I'm not too sure about FAR 91.119 (d), that is the rule that allows single engine helicopters to fly across downtown Dallas at 300 ft, safely they say! I will put it all into the mill and we shall see what comes out."
Response to Mr McGregor
Thank you for your reply.
You say "FAR 91.119 (d) .......... is the rule that allows single engine helicopters to fly across downtown Dallas at 300 ft, safely they say!"
That's not really a fair comment upon the rule.
(1) The exemption in section (d) has a corresponding proviso which must be satisfied before a pilot may take advantage of the exemption, ie "............ if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface."
(2) Helicopters are not exempt from the over-riding rule in section (a) "Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."
(3) FAR 91.13 'Careless or reckless operation' provides that "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."
(4) Is there any evidence that the rule leads to helicopter accidents in downtown Dallas, or any other American city? (You'll find the answer is 'No'.)
(5) Notwithstanding my preference for the FAR low flying rule, I do not oppose the retention of the Specified Area restrictions, if only out of an abundance of caution.
Thank you for your reply.
You say "FAR 91.119 (d) .......... is the rule that allows single engine helicopters to fly across downtown Dallas at 300 ft, safely they say!"
That's not really a fair comment upon the rule.
(1) The exemption in section (d) has a corresponding proviso which must be satisfied before a pilot may take advantage of the exemption, ie "............ if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface."
(2) Helicopters are not exempt from the over-riding rule in section (a) "Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."
(3) FAR 91.13 'Careless or reckless operation' provides that "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."
(4) Is there any evidence that the rule leads to helicopter accidents in downtown Dallas, or any other American city? (You'll find the answer is 'No'.)
(5) Notwithstanding my preference for the FAR low flying rule, I do not oppose the retention of the Specified Area restrictions, if only out of an abundance of caution.
Still, I tried.
Tudor Owen
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 21st January 2003 at 15:15.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 1
From: UK
Rotorhead B to the CAA
I am the holder of a CPL(H) and PPL(A).
I feel the current 500ft from person, vessel, vehicle or structure wording should be retained - I think that having a minimum height of 500 feet would reduce the flexibility in helicopter operations enormously; having a 500ft 'bubble' around things is just as safe and a lot more flexible. In the same air of flexibility, the reduction of the fifteen hundred foot rule to one thousand feet (the ICAO version) seems to be a good idea.
I do however think there's a possibility of confusion with the various paragraphs:
5 (1) is about congested areas and gatherings of more than a 1000 people;
sub-para (b) seems to allow me to fly at (say) 250ft over the upwind edge of them, particularly as 5 (2) starts with "Elsewhere", so it only applies in places other than a congested area and gatherings of more than 1000 people.
Then 5 (3) chips in and says that an aircraft can't take-off or land within 1000 metres of the congested area or gathering.
In sum, this implies that if there's 1001 people standing around, I can fly as close as I like to them, as long as I can alight clear if the donkey conks, but I can't take-off or land within a kilometre of them, even if I'm heading in entirely a different direction. But if there's only 1 person standing in the middle of a field, no matter what I'm doing I can't fly nearer than 500 feet to him.
To get the spirit of the regulation, with 5 (1) and (2) in force, I think (3) is not required. I.e. it shouldn't matter whether I'm taking-off, landing, flying straight and level or hover-taxying, the only important provision is that I must be able to safely alight clear of any gathering/congested area/person vessel vehicle or structure, if the power unit fails.
I am the holder of a CPL(H) and PPL(A).
I feel the current 500ft from person, vessel, vehicle or structure wording should be retained - I think that having a minimum height of 500 feet would reduce the flexibility in helicopter operations enormously; having a 500ft 'bubble' around things is just as safe and a lot more flexible. In the same air of flexibility, the reduction of the fifteen hundred foot rule to one thousand feet (the ICAO version) seems to be a good idea.
I do however think there's a possibility of confusion with the various paragraphs:
5 (1) is about congested areas and gatherings of more than a 1000 people;
sub-para (b) seems to allow me to fly at (say) 250ft over the upwind edge of them, particularly as 5 (2) starts with "Elsewhere", so it only applies in places other than a congested area and gatherings of more than 1000 people.
Then 5 (3) chips in and says that an aircraft can't take-off or land within 1000 metres of the congested area or gathering.
In sum, this implies that if there's 1001 people standing around, I can fly as close as I like to them, as long as I can alight clear if the donkey conks, but I can't take-off or land within a kilometre of them, even if I'm heading in entirely a different direction. But if there's only 1 person standing in the middle of a field, no matter what I'm doing I can't fly nearer than 500 feet to him.
To get the spirit of the regulation, with 5 (1) and (2) in force, I think (3) is not required. I.e. it shouldn't matter whether I'm taking-off, landing, flying straight and level or hover-taxying, the only important provision is that I must be able to safely alight clear of any gathering/congested area/person vessel vehicle or structure, if the power unit fails.
Response from Mr McGregor
Thank you for your comments on the discussion paper on Rule 5, and I have noted your views on the 500 ft and 1500 ft aspects of the rule.
You have made some perceptive remarks and if it were a simple world the rule would be just as you say. I want to protect people and property in congested areas, and in line with the ICAO rule, gatherings of 1000 persons as well, hence the minimum height of 1,000/1,500 ft and the glide clear/ alight safely aspects. Elsewhere, in the open countryside only the 500 ft rule will be applicable. However, the existing Rule 5 (1)(d),which is very complex, has the effect of prohibiting aircraft from landing in the car park at an> agricultural show, unless there are adequate safety measures in place; hence my para (3). You can't fly as close as you like to a crowd, because you have to comply with the 500 ft rule. Unless, that is, you are landing or taking-off - hence the para (3) to protect the gathering from aircraft landing and taking-off at the event, except when there are adequate procedures in place.
Thank you for your comments on the discussion paper on Rule 5, and I have noted your views on the 500 ft and 1500 ft aspects of the rule.
You have made some perceptive remarks and if it were a simple world the rule would be just as you say. I want to protect people and property in congested areas, and in line with the ICAO rule, gatherings of 1000 persons as well, hence the minimum height of 1,000/1,500 ft and the glide clear/ alight safely aspects. Elsewhere, in the open countryside only the 500 ft rule will be applicable. However, the existing Rule 5 (1)(d),which is very complex, has the effect of prohibiting aircraft from landing in the car park at an> agricultural show, unless there are adequate safety measures in place; hence my para (3). You can't fly as close as you like to a crowd, because you have to comply with the 500 ft rule. Unless, that is, you are landing or taking-off - hence the para (3) to protect the gathering from aircraft landing and taking-off at the event, except when there are adequate procedures in place.
I still think that the 'elsewhere' can and will be interpreted to mean "if you're not over a crowd, the 500 foot rule applies, if you are then it doesn't", though Flying Lawyer would have a more accurate opinion on that bit.
And I don't like the idea of the additional bit about the take-off/landing within 1km of a crowd. For example, a farmer deciding to hold some sortofshow in his field will effectively cause his neighbour to not be able to use his strip/helipad, even if the flight path is directly away from the event. (I reckon any 500'/1000' above a fixed object rule should preclude theneighbour from flying near the crowd, without the imposition of this extra bit.)
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 1
From: UK
Rotorhead C to the CAA:
Sir
I wish to register my opposition to the proposed changes. I know large numbers of more detailed submissions have been made by both the fixed wing and rotary wing groups / individuals. I will not be adding anything new to the arguments other than to say that I am a helicopter pilot and can see so many difficulties arising. Private / Unlicenced landing sites. Mountain flying and training. Etc, etc etc. The very nature and attributes of a helicopter appear to be totally at odds with this proposal.
Regulation and legislation should be used as a line of last resort. If there are COMPELLING SAFETY ISSUES here, then you have not put them across to the industry as a whole. Opinions might be changed in the aviation world if you could produce facts and figures. In this day and age and the extraordinary levels of spin, we have all become very cynical of bureaucrats, so in some respects I have sympathy for you in the SRG, but that does not let you off the hook. This Country is beset by jobs-worths producing regulations which appear to be for regulation
sake, (not just in Aviation) and if you are to overcome our cynicism, you need to be out plugging your proposals in the same way that Mr Cockburn goes out to spread the message of GA safety. (He does it well)
If proposals can stand that acid test then you ARE doing something for aviation. Otherwise, I believe that you are merely perpetuating the 'them & us' scenario that David works so hard to dispel.
I therefore respectfully urge you to consign this nonsense to the
bin........where it should have gone in the first place!
Sir
I wish to register my opposition to the proposed changes. I know large numbers of more detailed submissions have been made by both the fixed wing and rotary wing groups / individuals. I will not be adding anything new to the arguments other than to say that I am a helicopter pilot and can see so many difficulties arising. Private / Unlicenced landing sites. Mountain flying and training. Etc, etc etc. The very nature and attributes of a helicopter appear to be totally at odds with this proposal.
Regulation and legislation should be used as a line of last resort. If there are COMPELLING SAFETY ISSUES here, then you have not put them across to the industry as a whole. Opinions might be changed in the aviation world if you could produce facts and figures. In this day and age and the extraordinary levels of spin, we have all become very cynical of bureaucrats, so in some respects I have sympathy for you in the SRG, but that does not let you off the hook. This Country is beset by jobs-worths producing regulations which appear to be for regulation
sake, (not just in Aviation) and if you are to overcome our cynicism, you need to be out plugging your proposals in the same way that Mr Cockburn goes out to spread the message of GA safety. (He does it well)
If proposals can stand that acid test then you ARE doing something for aviation. Otherwise, I believe that you are merely perpetuating the 'them & us' scenario that David works so hard to dispel.
I therefore respectfully urge you to consign this nonsense to the
bin........where it should have gone in the first place!
Reply from the CAA
Thank you for your comments on the discussion paper. I take it that you wish the UK low flying rule to remain unchanged. At this time the consultation concerns a discussion paper which lays out the options for change, one of which is to do nothing.
At the present time the CAA was mainly seeking opinions from the aviation community with regard to the major parameters
which might be changed. Annex A contains a revision of the text of the rule which attempted to reduce the length, repetition and extensive cross referencing necessary in the existing rule, but the basic provisions remain largely unchanged.
What exactly do you want to be allowed to do with your helicopter that would not pose a hazard to other members of society, which is not prohibited by the current rule 5 , but would be prohibited by the revised form at Annex A?
P.S. David Cockburn sends his regards
Thank you for your comments on the discussion paper. I take it that you wish the UK low flying rule to remain unchanged. At this time the consultation concerns a discussion paper which lays out the options for change, one of which is to do nothing.
At the present time the CAA was mainly seeking opinions from the aviation community with regard to the major parameters
which might be changed. Annex A contains a revision of the text of the rule which attempted to reduce the length, repetition and extensive cross referencing necessary in the existing rule, but the basic provisions remain largely unchanged.
What exactly do you want to be allowed to do with your helicopter that would not pose a hazard to other members of society, which is not prohibited by the current rule 5 , but would be prohibited by the revised form at Annex A?
P.S. David Cockburn sends his regards
Response by Rotorhead C
Thank you for your most prompt (and not really expected reply).
I have just learned that you are a pilot (H) which is perhaps an
assistance when I expand to say that while there may be merit in
ensuring the clarity of the rule 5 message, I certainly do not wish to see any change to the concept of 500ft from....as opposed to 500ft above....
I agree that a 'plain English' version of all aspects of the rules (and not just Aviation) should and I think would be welcomed by all. But my inbuilt cynicism of intentions comes to the forefront when there appears to be no good reason for change of the rules themselves.
Thank you again for taking the trouble to respond.
Thank you for your most prompt (and not really expected reply).
I have just learned that you are a pilot (H) which is perhaps an
assistance when I expand to say that while there may be merit in
ensuring the clarity of the rule 5 message, I certainly do not wish to see any change to the concept of 500ft from....as opposed to 500ft above....
I agree that a 'plain English' version of all aspects of the rules (and not just Aviation) should and I think would be welcomed by all. But my inbuilt cynicism of intentions comes to the forefront when there appears to be no good reason for change of the rules themselves.
Thank you again for taking the trouble to respond.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,018
Likes: 73
From: Pewsey, UK
I was speaking with an examiner some weeks ago and the impression I got from him was that his impression, if you know what I mean, that the rule was to be changed to "500' from the ground".
Bad news, if you ask me - I prefer 500' from things, and let common sense prevail. and if people haven't got common sense THEN get the heavies involved.
Bad news, if you ask me - I prefer 500' from things, and let common sense prevail. and if people haven't got common sense THEN get the heavies involved.
