FFF
I think you nay have hit a nerve!:=
God forbid that a person holding a pilots licence may get it wrong (not that we know anything wrong has been done). We should all jump up and down to defend anyone who may possibly enjoy flying who may (or may not) in the eyes of the CAA have committed a misdemeanor!
I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in ages. Shame there may be a victim(or not) involved.:E

Flying Lawyer - falls into the category of "unprosecuted by concession". Something that is required to make law work in practice.

The first bit (Rule 5) required no research as I learned the rules to get my license. The rest took no research - off the top of my head, due to my day job (I am a PPL and owner, not a commercial pilot)

Whether or not anyone has (or ever will) be prosecuted for flying too close to a fence does not change the legal definition.

Flying Lawyer

This has nothing to do with mil or civ, ppl or atpl, etc etc. It is MY view that some who have posted give ME the impression of, "rules are for the guidance of the wise and obedience of fools", and of course we are all very, very wise :hmm:. The gentleman in question may or may not be guilty of anything, this is of no relevance as I am giving MY views as to the impression I have of some posters on this thread as well as others, not just ppl's. In fact, I know some very professional PPL holders and some questionable ATPL holders.
In any case how nice the chap is should have no baring on action taken against an individual accused of a misdemeanour. I am sure there are some very nice chaps in Parkhurst. And no, I would not like to see him join them, before you ask.

JP
 

Can any of you tell me what Rule 5(3)(a)(ii) is? I'm having trouble finding it.

Is this the real 'Jonathan Penny', or is someone taking the p*ss?!

British Team

The relevant CAP393 paragraph numbers for Rule 5 have been re-written... ;)

The latest version (2010) is downloadable as a .pdf file from the CAA website.

JP
 

What is real?

'As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.'

But in this case, yes, hello it's me and I still can't find Rule 5(3)(a)(ii).

CAP 393: Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations | Publications | CAA

page 330 in the pdf

Ref: ShyTorque and hands_on123

Thank you.

hands_on123 John R81 The Low Flying section of the Rules of the Air Regulations was changed almost 4 years ago.
It has been amended since and is likely to be amended again in the near future - http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2072/20101...nsultation.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


John R81 Your attempts to state the law place me in an invidious position: I would like to correct your various errors - in order to avoid anyone being misled - but unfortunately (in this context) I'm now very limited in what I'm permitted to say about legal matters.

Just one example, taken from your posts -
In response to Parabellum saying: you asserted: You are wrong.
The law can be an ass at times, but it's not in this instance.

ANO 2009
NB: The above is not a comment re the pending prosecution, about which I know nothing and, even if I did, would make no comment.


FL

True, maybe it's somewhere here

The Air Navigation Order 2005

The Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 1110) - Statute Law Database

No wonder people break these rules if they are so hard to find and understand.

Flying Lawer, You say

Are you at liberty to describe any broad-brush criteria and the process involved for the CAA to initiate such a course of action?

FL - I stand corrected regarding departure from ANO where it is necessary to avoid immediate danger.

The late news: Helicopter pilot with clean record fined £1,250 + £360 costs for breach of Rule 5 (500ft Rule). He pleaded guilty at Maidenhead Magistrates Court to flying closer than 500ft to a steam train carrying 300 pax, while undertaking aerial filming sortie. Max. fine which could be imposed was £2,500. End.

A permission to do this sort of job within the law should have been applied for (paperwork plus £108 to CAA).

I can't, for the life of me, understand why some pilots risk being taken to court and fined heavily for this sort of thing. Another example is making a landing in a congested area without gaining a permission.

Cows getting bigger - I suspect any offence concerning drugs wouldn't go down well with the CAA, trafficking especially. FL will have a longer list.

ShyT
Perhaps because some of us have to pay our own CAA fees. Would the flight be any safer if a fee was paid I wonder?

Safer? Possibly. The CAA always impose conditions as part of the permission.

You saying you break the law because you don't like paying?

If they impose a condition that was not already in place by the operator, then yes I agree. But when you pay a fee, and the typical conditions are for example, a named pilot, a specific reg, door off, life jackets must be worn, survival suits etc etc and you were already doing all that, then it becomes just a permission for money, the flight would already have been planned to be as safe as possible.

No, I'm saying I can see why some of us might want to and clearly some of us do.

I rest my case.