Proposed Rule 5 changes: Includes replies from the CAA

[cyclic_fondler]

Proposed Rule 5 changes

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/srg_gad_rule5-letter.pdf

and the discussion paper itself
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/224/srg_ga...on%20paper.pdf

The bit about flying over central London looks like it's the end for single engine heli ops.

[Heliport]

I've made this topic a 'sticky' because Rule 5 affects all UK helicopter pilots, professional and private.
Your guess is as good as mine whether the CAA will take the slightest notice of what pilots/operators say, but it's got to be worth trying.
This is an opportunity to try to make the Rule more sensible, realistic and workable.

Bear in mind:
More pilots are prosecuted for alleged low flying than for any other single 'offence'.
Most CAA bods have little or no experience of the industry, flying in the civvy world.

Can anyone of our American contributors help by giving us the FAA regs re Low Flying?
As I remember, the FAA regs are simpler, more intelligible and much more sensible.

[RobertWittmann]

Heliport wrote:

>Bear in mind:
>More pilots are prosecuted for alleged low flying than for any >other single 'offence'.
>Most CAA bods have little or no experience of the industry, flying i>n the civvy world.


Of course we all know what is low & fast.
BUT (me being no expert in aviation law in the UK): What are the terms _by_law_ of beeing _too_low in the UK?

TIA!

Robert

[Nick Lappos]

FAR is very specific, and pretty reasonable:

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 in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section 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.


Y

[MightyGem]

Anthing that makes Rule 5 easier to understand has to be an improvement. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see it having any effect on the London Heli routes. All they have done is transfer the details of the Secified Area out of Rule 5 and into the Restriction of Flying Regs. The wording is still the same, and you can still fly between the high water marks.

[Flying Lawyer]

Thanks Nick.
As you can see below, our rules are just as easy for UK pilots to understand and apply.

Rule 5: Low flying
(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3):
(a) an aircraft other than a helicopter shall not fly over any congested area of a city, town or settlement below:
(i) such height as would enable the aircraft to alight clear of the area and without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit and if such an aircraft is towing a banner such height shall be calculated on the basis that the banner shall not be dropped within the congested area; or
(ii) a height of 1500 feet above the highest fixed object within 600 metres of the aircraft:
whichever is the higher;

(b) a helicopter shall not fly below such height as would enable it to alight without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit;

(c) except with the permission in writing of the Authority and in accordance with any conditions therein specified a helicopter shall not fly:
(i) over a congested area of a city, town or settlement below a height of 1500 feet above the highest fixed object within 600 metres of the helicopter; or
(ii) over the area hereinafter specified, below such height as would enable it to alight clear of the area in the event of failure of a power unit, that is to say the area bounded by straight lines joining successively the following points:
Kew Bridge (N5129.18 W00017.17);
The Eastern extremity of Brent Reservoir (N5134.30 W00014.02);
Gospel Oak Station (N5133.27 W00008.97);
The South East corner of Springfield Park (N5134.12 W00003.20);
Bromley-by-Bow Station (N5131.47 W00000.65);
The South West corner of Hither Green (N5126.72 W00000.63);
Herne Hill Station (N5127.18 W00006.07);
Wimbledon Station (N5125.23 W00012.27);
The North West corner of Castelnau Reservoir (N5128.87 W00014.03);
Kew Bridge (N5129.18 W00017.17):
excluding so much of the bed of the River Thames as lies within that area between the ordinary high water marks on each of its banks;
(d)
(i) subject to paragraph (ii) an aircraft shall not fly:
(aa) over, or within 1000 metres of, any assembly in the open air of more than 1000 persons assembled for the purpose of witnessing or participating in any organised event, except with the permission in writing of the Authority and in accordance with any conditions therein specified and with the consent in writing of the organisers of the event; or
(bb) below such height as would enable it to alight clear of the assembly in the event of the failure of a power unit and if such an aircraft is towing a banner such height shall be calculated on the basis that the banner shall not be dropped within 1000 metres of the assembly;
(ii) where a person is charged with an offence under the Order by reason of a contravention of sub-paragraph (d)(i), it shall be a good defence to prove that the flight of the aircraft over, or within 1000 metres of, the assembly was made at a reasonable height and for a reason not connected with the assembly or with the event which was the occasion for the assembly;

(e) an aircraft shall not fly closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

(2)
(a) The provisions of paragraphs (1)(a)(ii) and (1)(c)(i) shall not apply to an aircraft flying:
(i) on a route notified for the purposes of this rule; or
(ii) on a special VFR flight;
unless the aircraft is landing or taking off.
(b) Paragraphs (1)(a)(ii), (1)(c), (1)(d) and (1)(e) shall not apply to an aircraft flying under and in accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate.
(c) Paragraphs (1)(d)(i)(aa) and (1)(e) shall not apply to the flight of an aircraft over or within 1000 metres of an assembly of persons gathered for the purposes of witnessing or participating in an event which consists:
(i) wholly or partly of an aircraft race or contest if the aircraft is taking part in such race or contest or is engaged on a flight arranged by, or made with the consent in writing of, the organisers of the event;
(ii) wholly or partly of an exhibition of flying for which a permission under article 61 of the Order is required, if the aircraft is taking part in such exhibition or is engaged on a flight arranged by or made with the consent of the organisers of the event and the flight is made:
(aa) in accordance with the terms of a permission granted to the organiser of the exhibition of flying under article 61 of the Order; and
(bb) in accordance with the conditions of a display authorisation granted to the pilot under article 61 of the Order; or
(iii) wholly or principally of an exhibition of flying for which a permission under article 61 of the Order is not required, if the aircraft is taking part in such exhibition or is engaged on a flight arranged by or made with the consent of the organisers of the event.

(d) Paragraph (1)(e) shall not apply to:
(i) any aircraft while it is landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice;
(ii) any glider while it is hill-soaring;
(iii) any aircraft while it is flying in accordance with article 48(3)(f) of the Order;
(iv) any aircraft while it is flying under and in accordance with the terms of an aerial application certificate granted to the operator thereof under article 50 of the Order; or
(v) any aircraft while it is flying for the purpose of picking up or dropping tow ropes, banners or similar articles at an aerodrome.

(3) Nothing in this rule shall prohibit an aircraft from flying in such a manner as is necessary for the purpose of saving life.

(4)
(a) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), nothing in this rule shall prohibit any aircraft from flying in accordance with normal aviation practice, for the purpose of taking off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at, or checking navigational aids or procedures at, a Government aerodrome, an aerodrome owned or managed by the Authority or a licensed aerodrome in the United Kingdom or at any aerodrome in any other country.
(b) The practising of approaches to landing shall be confined to the airspace customarily used by aircraft when landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice at the aerodrome concerned.

(5) Nothing in this rule shall apply to any captive balloon or kite.

[Thomas coupling]

This is an attempt by the CAA to fall into line with the JAA.

Currently the ANO takes 1060 words to explain Rule 5, compared to 160 words in its European equivalent

Christ, even the bible is winning the 'plain english' awards for its latest updates.

Mind you perhaps the CAA think they are above all that

[misterbonkers]

It looks like an ok adjustment, it certainly reads better.

I see the bit affecting london - it says in the event of a power unit failure must be able to fly clear, thus a single wouldn't. But can we can still route Lee Valley lakes to isle of dogs? (north south)

Also, the 500ft bit, can we still go down to surface as long as were 500ft away from things?

[Thomas coupling]

Rule 1 (e) 500' rule: Persons - Vessels - Vehicles - Structures. In other words: the desert

[Grainger]

I think it's important to realise that's the part they are thinking of changing.

There are three choices on offer:

A: ICAO rule "Not less than 500ft above the surface"

B: Mixture "Not less than 500ft above the surface nor closer than 500ft to any person, vehicle, vessel or structure."

C: Existing rule "Not closer than 500ft to any person, vehicle, vessel or structure"

So A allows you to hover 500ft above the ground right next to a mast or tower, but B doesn't.

The real problem is that, as far as I can tell A and B do not allow you to practice a confined area, or pinnacle approach - even if it's in the middle of nowhere. Unless there's an exemption somewhere else, you will also have to abort PFLs at 500ft agl.

It's unclear to me whether 5(b) [exempt when taking off or landing ... ] applies only to licenced airfields - otherwise A or B would prevent you using a private landing site !!!!

It's open for discussion so if you have a strong opinion on A vs. B vs. C, then you should write to the CAA.

[Q max]

Absurdities created by all options...

... just a matter of finding the least unintended 'fallout'.

There are some excellent and uniquely British points of logic and simplicity contained within the existing UK Rule5:

C is best since: Clearly it is the Person Vessel Vehicle and Structure which should not be offended against.
fallout: Hovering in your garden or even an airfield is illegal if whithin 500ft of structures (a nail in a post) Ignored in an 'unwritten' way.

Ones actual height above the surface is and should be immaterial - where no offence or danger is caused - which is covered elswhere anyhow! - 'Endangerment'

What is a structure and built up area? these definitions are vague and leave absurd interpretation open: eg. the 50 acres of football pitches (not in use) when 'attached' to a built up area is considered part of the built up area ( so subject to 1500ft PART) even if it is open country leading up to them.

'Landing and T/O in accordance with normal aviation practice' - is a great phrase - no it obviously does not have not be a 'licensed or govt airfield' - quite right too! Yes they should be 1500ft exempt.

The 'in the event of the failure of a power unit' only sounds sensible - but it's just a cheap jibe against the single engined - particularly in those cases where the chance of that engine failing is not relevant. Where really what counts is your chance of being forced to land in general.


The greatest rules on which so much depends are the:
Unwritten 'parts' of rule 5:

U5i: Try despatately hard not to annoy people. For this is still possible within the rules.

U5ii: Fly a reasonable distance from Chequers 1500ft ish.

U5iii: Any sensible interpretation of 'congested area' and 'structure' are ok provide you are not in breach of rule U5i.

So a re-draft of the existing rule (in fact all the rules) into English would be fine!

FARs are legible so US pilots know them.
In the UK you just had to know 75% of some of the really obscure ones once - 20 yrs ago. And obey Rule U5i (otherwise there is always a catchall rule under which you can be 'got'.)

(I despair.... end rant)

[rotorspeed]

Amongst the various issues to be considered, a key point is the implications of the proposed (largely) blanket minimum height of 500ft, rather than the existing UK 500ft from person, vehicle, vessel, structure, rule.

In a helicopter in sparsely populated, rural areas it is often possible to fly safely and legally at say 300ft - 400ft, to keep beneath a say, 500ft cloudbase, usually by reducing airspeed and picking the route carefully ahead. Such flights would be illegal if our 500ft 'away' rule was superceded. The reality is that for VFR heli ops in poor weather it is impossible to know what the minimum cloudbase will be along the entire route. With a minimum 500ft height rule, many more VFR flights will not go ahead if the new rules are to complied with.

Will there be increasing pressure to keep that minimum 500ft height in poor weather with increasing risk of ending up in IMC? Probably.

Two other points. Is there not a strong case for helicopters to be treated differently to aeroplanes, which do not have the ability to slow right down and manoeuvre, to comply with the existing 500ft 'away' rule? The thought of a PA28 flying as above is very alarming, yet the rules do not differentiate.

Secondly with regard to ICAO integration, the unique circumstances of the UK should surely be considered. We tend to have poorer weather than much of Europe, being exposed to more Atlantic frontal systems, whilst we also have large areas of the country which are sparsely populated.

Seems this forum is an ideal debating platform for just these sort of issues.

[Figure Of Merit]

Thanks for posting this - It is REALLY important that we don't end up with something we don't want by not reading the document and proposal thoroughly. We could be stuck with a new rule for YEARS.

The CAA have given us the opportunity to influence the environment we fly in so let's not waste it.

As I see it--

1. The 1500 foot rule is to be made less restrictive and allows us to use our judgement more. This should be supported.

2. The 500 foot rule is in danger of being amended to a blanket 500 foot restriction (as others have pointed out) rather than a "500 feet away from persons, vehicles...". I think we should be focussing NOT on whether this will stop us flying in low ceilings - as (debateably, I admit) flying in less than 500 foot cloudbase could be regarded as unsafe. We ought to be emphasizing that a blanket 500 foot rule will stop us practising confined areas, pinnacles and PFL's even into areas where there is no risk to persons or property on the ground. Such a restriction will have negative effects on flight safety by impairing the ability safely to train pilots and will result in no added safety benefit to those on the ground.

Let's get mailing and get the rules we need!

FoM

[soggyboxers]

The FAR Rules show just how legislation should be - simple, clear, easy to understand (and, therefore, to be complied with) and logical. The section referring specifically to helicopters is also safe, logical and clear. All of these are obvious reasons why the CAA will never adopt them

[SASless]

Nick,

Your input was factual....and accurately posted, however one must remember to add Part 135 rules into the equation as well in that "air taxi" operators have additional restrictions placed upon them beyond FAR Part 91 rules. Also, we have airspace and altitude restrictions that are placed into effect by NOTAM and via special use airspace rules such as that being proposed by the FAA dealing with National Parks, Monuments, and Tribal Lands.

Also, when reading FAA rules.....please be very aware of the wording...."aircraft" applies to everyone, "airplane" does not include helicopters.....and "rotorcraft" means helicopters and gyroplanes.

The FAA rules are not as simple as everyone thinks.....but compared to the CAA gibberish that lead to this thread....seem like childs play. I can see Flying Lawyer thumbing through the new car ads now.....looking for Bentley's or some other nice ride....certainly going to be good for the UK lawyers this change!

[Heliport]

SAS
The UK also has other restrictions on top of the gibberish in our Rule 5.
It's the basic Low Flying rules which are under review.

[Hoverman]

I don't think we could do any better than the FAA version posted by Nick. It's simple, and covers everything necessary.
Sadly, I can't see the CAA adopting (d). It's far too sensible.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

Enough to give a CAA type a heart attack!

[Whirlybird]

We discussed this at the Helicopter Safety Seminar in Farnborough yesterday. I mentioned the problem with confined area approach practice, and also pinnacle approaches and a lot of mountain flying, if the rule was changed to 500 ft above agl. Being f/w pilots, they seemed to have a hard time following me, and said wouldn't it be covered by exemptions for takeoffs and landings. I tried to explain that you're not allowed to land in the Snowdonia National Park, but you can do approaches and recover to a hover. They said to write in and explain. I think we all need to, in words of one syllable for people who have f/w blinkers on. The good news is they had a straw poll of attendees, and the vote was almost unanimous for no change to Rule 5.

[Helinut]

Whirly is absolutely right. We need to bury the CAA in objections based upon the issue she raises.

It is particularly relevant for instructors carrying out training. During training, you are only supposed to land at a licensed airfield. This means that during training you should not land at a confined area off airfield. If away from a licensed airfield, the "500 ft minimum height" version of Rule 5 would mean you had to break off your confined area training at 500 ft agl - hardly very realistic or useful training?

[headsethair]

London routes

So - answer me this. The British Airways Millenium Eye tops out at 135m (440 ft).
I'm batting down the river on H4 past it (but not over it - difficult I know, but possible). My height is (say) 750ft agl.

Am I legal :

(a) now
(b) post rule 5 rewrite