Private Sites and Rule 5
 

There was some confusion on another thread between two different parts of Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air: the "1500' Rule" and the "500' Rule".
The confusion is not surprising because Rule 5 is far too complicated, and there many exceptions. To make matters worse:
*Some exceptions apply to all of Rule 5, but only in specific circumstances.
*Some exceptions apply only to parts of Rule 5, and only in specific circumstances.
Those of you bored already should go straight to 'Summary' at the end! :)

Rule 5(1)(c), "the 1500' Rule":
"Except with the permission in writing of the (CAA).......... a helicopter shall not fly 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 (the London specified area)." The ANO defines a congested area of a city, town or settlement as "any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational use."
Rule 5(1)(e), "the 500' Rule":
"An aircraft shall not fly closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure."

Exceptions
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list. It deals with landing and taking off at private sites.
Exceptions to all of Rule 5, but only in specific circumstances.
Rule 5 does not apply to aircraft "flying in accordance with normal aviation practice (whatever that means), for the purpose of taking off from, landing at, or practising approaches to landing at" .......... a Government/CAA/Licensed aerodrome. Practice approaches are confined to the airspace customarily used by aircraft when landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice at the aerodrome concerned. [Rule 5(4)] (e.g. If you buzz a friend's house near the airfield but nowhere near the normal circuit, you might have difficulty saying you were flying a wide circuit. Or, if you buzz a friend's house five miles away from an airfield, your explanation that you were on long finals might not be believed. :) )
Exceptions only to parts of Rule 5, and only in specific circumstances.
The 500' Rule [Rule 5(1)(e)] does not apply to "any aircraft while it is landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice." [Rule 5(2)(d)(i)]

Summary
(1) The "1500' Rule" applies, even when taking off and landing, at a private site. (Unless you have a CAA exemption.)
(2) The "1500' Rule" applies only to "congested areas". Remember "1500'/600 metres" when over-flying your proposed landing site if it is on the edge of a congested area of a village. (Good airmanship may easily conflict with the strict application of the Rule.)
(3) Except for some AOC operators, you cannot give yourself an exemption to the "1500' Rule, nor can your friendly neighbour. Strictly interpreted, if you live on the edge of the congested area of a village, you may technically breach the "1500' Rule" if your lawn/field is less than 600 metres from your house, or your friendly neighbour's house – even if your approach is over open land.
(4) The "500' rule" does not apply to landing or taking off. It makes no difference whether the site is private/licensed.
(5) Police aircraft are exempt from certain parts of Rule 5.
(6) Rule 5 does not apply to flying in a manner necessary for the purpose of saving life.

I've tried to simplify rules which are far too complicated. If it's still difficult to understand, don't blame me - I didn't draft the Rules of the Air nor, I suspect, did any other pilot!

In my experience, the CAA usually takes a reasonable approach to Rule 5, and does not prosecute minor breaches, provided (a) your flying was safe and responsible, and (b) no-one complains.
However, and this is becoming a serious problem which should not be under-estimated: if there is a complaint (e.g. from a jealous neighbour, or the anti-helicopter brigade) the CAA will investigate. If there is any evidence that you breached Rule 5, even technically and without any risk/danger to anyone, the CAA are very quick to prosecute (IMHO far too quick) on the allegations of the complainers.

Note to Fixed-Wing pilots: Helicopters and aeroplanes are subject to different provisions under Rule 5.
http://www.royalaviation.com/flash/chase1.gif


[This message has been edited by Flying Lawyer (edited 03 May 2001).]

Boy FL, you blokes have it bad .... That was quite a mess to read. :)

I like our rules;

CFR part 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.


Sounds terrible right? Now the fun part for us rotorheads:

(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.

Doesn't make us any safer, but I sure appreciate the latitude given me when I aviate compared to my plank brethern and you guys overseas.


------------------
Marc

FL , I have jumped from the other thread , if you would be kind enough to help, it seems that I have misread or misunderstood the Rule 5 for the landing of a Helio, looking at it now, would I be right in thinking that to land within 1500 feet of any man made structure, vessel or human would put me in breech of this rule?

Flying Lawyer
Superb post. Thanks for taking the trouble. Much appreciated.
(Great graphic too!)

RW-1
Your post is a good illustration of the difference between the attitude of our CAA compared with the healthy 'can do' approach of the FAA.

Vfrpilotpb
No. You would not "be right in thinking that ........."
Read Flying Lawyer's post again. You are still confusing the two rules.

Thanks Flying Lawyer. I thought I'd got that straight after learning it for the CPL exams, and it's all pretty much as I thought. But what are the different provisions for helicopters and aeroplanes? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

Flying Lawyer - the rules state that you shall not fly "OVER a congested area etc etc"
If your landing site is on the edge of a congested area, (and you fly over open land to get there), then technically you are committing no offence as you are at no point flying OVER the congested area, are you?

About time it was clarified.

Just one small point - the 1500 ft rule includes a golf course or similar

cheers

Phil

Stevie
Even if you don't fly over the congested area but land within 600m of what is considered to be the congested area you breach the rule.
Paco I think your right, because a golf course is a recreation area ( therefore in the eyes of the CAA could be classed as congested),even if there was no one there??
Flying Lawyer, you say that the CAA take a reasonable approach to rule 5 unless they get a complaint.
I know of one pilot who was asked from a yachting club to film this significant flotilla off the West Coast of Scotland a number of years ago.He took the cameraman up and flew around filming the yachts from various heights.
One yacht owner worked in the aviation industry and complained that the 500' rule had been breached.CAA prosecuted and the local judge fined the pilot £1.00.
The yachtsman was thrown out of the club!
Were the CAA reasonable?

Arm The Floats : Was the filming heli flying less than 500' from the yachts? If so, then yes the CAA were reasonable in prosecuting. I presume this was a twin, being over water?

Arm the floats

yes, the operative phrase is "substantially used for ..... recreational use". It hasn't been tested in court yet, as far as I know. You could always introduce an argument as to what substantial means!

The other phrase is "fly over", so you can land inside 600m - the only bit where they can get you for landing next to such an area is if you do it "within 500 feet", where there is no horizontal or vertical specification.

cheers

Phil

StevieTerrier
If your site is on the edge of the congested area (F/L's example), it is still part of the area. They look at the area as a whole, so the 1500'/600m rule still applies. You'd still be in breach because you're flying till you land, and you can't fly lower than 1500' above the highest fixed object within 600 metres.

How on earth how can you say you think "the CAA were reasonable in prosecuting" the pilot 'Arm the Floats' mentions without knowing more about what happened?
Or do you think it's "reasonable" to prosecute every alleged breach of Rule 5? The Court which heard all the facts obviously thought it was a trivial incident given as they fined the guy a £1!

Paco
I agree with you about the golf course if it is on the edge of (ie part of) a congested area of a city, town or settlement - but no problem if it is out in the countryside and not part of any settlement.

But yhy do you say "you can land inside 600m - the only bit where they can get you for landing next to such an area is if you do it 'within 500 feet', where there is no horizontal or vertical specification."?
I think it's the other way around:
You can't land inside a congested area because until you land you're still flying so they can get you for breaking the 1500''600m rule.
You say they can get you for breaching the 500 feet rule.
How?
It doesn't apply to landing and taking off?

Hoverman - read my posting again. Correct, I don't know all the facts, but ATF asked for a reply based on what he had told us. What we were told is that said heli was on a filming sortie. What I said was that if it was flying closer than 500' to the vessels during this filming (thereby committing an offence, and laying the pilot open to prosecution)it was reasonable of the CAA to prosecute.

Can't see how you can have a problem with that, surely?

StevieTerrier
I've read your post again and can't see what I'm supposed to have missed/misunderstood. I do understand what you are saying, I just find it breathtaking.

On the facts available from ATF, we know
1. A yachtsman complained.
2. The CAA prosecuted.
3. The Court (who heard the fact) fined the pilot a £1.
4. The Club threw the yachtsman who complained out of the club. :)

Doesn't fact 3 (and even fact 4) suggest that it was an extremely trivial and minor breach?
I think it is entirely unreasonable of the CAA to prosecute minor breaches which should either be ignored, or the subject of a warning letter.
Surely just because someone leaves themselves open to prosecution by breaching the law doesn't make it reasonable to prosecute them. (75 mph at 5 o'clock in the morning on a deserted motorway in perfect conditions?)
Or do you support 'Zero tolerance' of all offences regardless of the circumstances?

Hoverman, I hear what you are saying, and no I don't support zero tolerance regardless of circumstances. If the pilot in our little story had inadvertantly been less than 500' from the ships, say whilst taking off on a completely unrelated sortie, then fine. If he was filming them and deliberately broke the rules - to get a better picture or whatever - then book him. If you want to fly closer than 500' get an exemption - that's what they are there for.

Regards the CAA, I know they annoy us all with some of the things they do, but do you really think they would waste their time and our money on prosecuting someone for a slight indiscretion - your "75 mph on a deserted motorway" scenario? Question is where do you draw the line? If 75 is Ok, why not 76? If 76 is OK, why not 77? etc etc

So for our heroic filming pilot - is 490' OK? If so, why not 480' or 450' over a deserted ocean at 5 in the morning? It's not a fuzzy line. If it says 500' , then 500' it is. Live with it or pay the price.

We are probably never going to agree on this one, but for me any DELIBERATE breaking of the rules that compromise the safety of the helicopter, occupants or people on the ground (or water in this case) should be treated seriously.

I am not for one minute saying that I haven't been in similar positions to Pilot "X", because I have. However, I did it knowing that I shouldn't have, and if I had been caught I would have expected to have had my ass in a sling.

In a nutshell - accidental incursion, CAA should take a view. Deliberate intent, take your medicine like a man.

Hoverman - you're quite right, too much of a hurry to read the posts - you can't be within 600m of a congested area

<fx>idiot mode off

StevieTerrier asks Yes. And they do.
With regard to the example mentioned by 'Arm the Floats', I've never known a Court impose a fine of £1 for any offence of any description in my 26 years at the Bar.
I think Hoverman is right when he suggests it shows the Court took a dim view of the matter being dealt with by a prosecution instead of a warning.
Sledgehammers and nuts come to mind. :rolleyes:

[This message has been edited by Heliport (edited 08 May 2001).]

Heliport - Why did you have to edit Flying Lawyers post? It is in danger of becoming a habit!

"keeping an ear to the ground"

Earpiece
It was done at my instigation because for some reason the system wouldn't allow me to edit my post.
FL

Earpiece
I know you misunderstood on this occasion, but you do seem a bit keen to knock Heliport. I thought everyone agreed he was right (and wise) to delete that exchange of personal posts.
As others have said before, I think Heliport's doing a great job. I tend to read mainly because I'm an airline pilot, only fly helis as a hobby so don't have much to contribute, but I think Rotorheads has picked up a lot since he became a Moderator.
Let's appreciate his efforts instead of knocking.

Mmmmm. Seems I am in danger of becoming outnumbered here!

Flying Lawyer - the gentlemen of the CAA enforcement branch always tell us that they only prosecute when it's necessary. You seem to think otherwise - are you talking from experience, and if so would you like to give us some "for instances"? Should make interesting reading!

Do you have any idea what sort of a success rate they have on their prosecutions?