The 500ft rule
 

Those of you who have spent a large amount of time establishing the exact meaning of UK Rule 5 will be pleased to hear that the proposed European rule (which supersedes the UK rule in 2012) will revert to the exact ICAO Annex 2 text:
Consultation documents can be found at:

EUROCONTROL - SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY MANDATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDISED EUROPEAN RULES OF THE AIR (SERA)

Jim

Jim

This was mentioned by Jeremy James at the BHA pre season brief last week, if anyone disagrees with it and I am sure there are those of us that do, they must comment on the Eurocontrol website individually
.

Don't copy the words of others there is a duplicate submission removal tool, and don't expect that big organisations have big voices.

Gary

So what is the change for helicopter pilots ?

500ft agl as opposed to 500ft separation distance

nigel

maybe its this bit as well

b) elsewhere than as specified in 4.6 a), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water

I would vote to keep UK 500 ft rule, much better than Euro rubbish

It is not clear that individuals have a voice in this; the registration and comment document appears to require the declaration of an organisation.

This is not the only proposal, there is a prohibition for flight at night with a cloud base below 1500ft (even for offshore). Night IFR below 3000ft in the 'UK' sense is also not possible as the proposal appears to introduce the spectre of Night VFR (quite unusual in Europe).

It is quite brutal in its approach appearing to remove the ability even to fly the declared IFR levels in such as the North Sea (when there is the chance of icing).

EASA is not to blame this time - Eurocontrol who did it on their own without seeking guidance; clearly it has not been recognised that ICAO Annex 2 was the fore-runner of Annex 6 and, for that reason, has a large number of Operational Rules contained within its covers (not just rules of the air). For the USA, most of the Annex 2 rules can be found in FAR 91.

Jim

from an instructional point of view, if the rule prohibits aircraft from operating below 500' (unless taking off or landing, or under prior permission) it would certainly be restrictive in terms of teaching for example confined area operations and pfls.

:ugh:

and we never go above 3000' IFR!!!

You sure this is correct Jim and if so, when does it actually come into force? I cant see it happening in the uk anytime soon. Not as if CHC will be worried though as they won't be around much longer in the UK at this rate!:eek:

Jim

Substitute 'individual organisations' into my earlier ramblings , I think the premise still stands one organisation one voice, regardless of size.

Anyone at EuroControl care to confirm this is the case for us ? Not to comment on the consultation just the process.

Gary

I attended the HCGB meeting where this was discussed and, if I'm correct, it's part of a proposed standardisation of European flight rules.

It did highlight the value of HCGB in identifying and representing our interests in such matters. Apparently there are c.500 UK members of HCGB - more than all the other European clubs put together - so, presumably, they can't have much clout when it comes to defending their interests.

JimL wrote:
This must be enroute, right? Well, even if it is enroute, it doesn´t make any sense.
There are several IFR procedures that takes you safely below 1500ft offshore at night. Enroute Descent Offshore, NDB Cloud Break Procedure and ARA, have all their respective minima well below 1500ft.

Hmm, "open-air assembly of persons "
That could be three or four yobs on the Street corner...?
Kev

I have posted the link to the proposed new rules - you should go and read them rather than speculate on whether they will apply (they will from 2012).

With regard to CAT:

Clearly the imposition of the cloud base limitation of 1,500ft at night affects a number of existing operations. The reason I mentioned that Eurocontrol did not consult operational experts is because it should have been clear that appropriate rules and mitigation exist in JAR-OPS 3 (3.465 and, for HEMS, the appropriate Appendix). This also applies to the 500ft rule.

Hence, both rules could have had an appropriate derogation to "or as prescribed in the applicable air operations legislation" put into Paragraphs 4.3 d) and 4.6.

With regard to GA:

Defence of the UK rules might be appropriate but they are rather out-on-a-limb in Europe - can the UK hold its position in a debate where they are in a minority of one. (Interestingly, the UK 500ft rule is similar to that provided for the US, Canada - not sure about other States.)

Helimutt,

Don't confuse the issue - it is the requirement to fly to the levels explicitly stated in the Appendix to the Proposal that is the issue; not that IFR cannot be flown. That might preclude all 'special' level structures that have been provided for opposing traffic in specific areas.

Rotordude,

Yes, it will have an effect both on night en-route let-down and night (and day) inter-rig shuttling - all of which have appropriate safeguards built in to 3.365 and 3.465. Not too much effect on the offshore en-route let down except that it will raise the forecast night cloud ceiling from 1,200ft to 1,500ft (based upon the fact that en-route let down will have to be followed by a VFR section).

Jim

I though that you couldn't do that anyway, because there is no intention to land? (Just recalling my instructor getting twitchy because there was a tractor in the next field when I was doing an auto during my 206 requal many years agao.)

I know we should all jump up and down and shout about this but i am afraid the suits have well and truly taken over . There are so many daft rules that most of us dont even know exist . If you are flying AOC i quite understand how this could effect but quite frankly for most private flyers they wont notice any difference !!! I have flown for over 30 yrs never really being sure what hight i am allowed at ( one mimute its 1500 over built up areas then 1,000 ) Just let them get on with it and do your own thing if flying private :ok: The commercial boys have only themselves to blame for allowing the likes of the CAA to squeeze them to death and impose daft rules ....someone should have told them where to get off years ago but it is too late now . Just have your reg as small as possible and paint it mil colours and noone will report you :ok:

Look at the number of prosecutions for low flying each year. Close to zilch.

CAA Prosecutions | About the CAA | CAA

How the hell does joe public know how high you are anyway?

Unless they have some sort of measuring device (unlikely).

I guess they could get the radar trace, but they would only do that if you either crashed/caused a crash/flew over some sort of gathering/Head of CAA's house at 50 feet.

I agree with Nigel, just carry on regardless!

You can change your mind anytime whilst landing or attempting to land.:)
For example, you are flying along at 200 feet and someone complains. In your defense you could say you were attempting to land and then changed your mind, the fact that it may have taken you a long time is not against the ANO.

4.6 Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:
These are the same rules as Australia follows and should not hurt anyone who is flying in the spirit of the regs. It would be hard to ping anyone for flying 500ft AGL vs Above obstacles vs separation as hard to prove you flew exactly over a 200ft mast or building. Unless you are blatting along at 100ft over a town, they have no hope of prosecuting you. It would be very hard to ping you on the 600m radius thing as well (Sir, in my opinion I was more than 600m from the built up area).

The 1500ft thing for IFR is, in Australia anyway, based on the fact the lowest LSALT is 1500ft, even over the sea, and IFR aircraft cannot transit below LSALT. The descents to rigs etc would surely be authorised by the CAA under approval of the companies Ops Manual, so when they sign off on the OM, they sign off on the IFR let down.

IMHO anyway, nothing here to get upset about. :ok:

In UK, radar returns are recorded. It is possible for a recording to be brought in evidence.

Presumably these new rules for IFR affect operations to and from off-airport sites, which would be an issue to some of us involved with the onshore helicopter industry. The requirement to submit a flight plan for any IFR / night flight would effectively limit or even curtail them when there is no practical way for pilots to submit a flight plan from a field location. Many helicopter operators do not man an ops cell.

It seems to me that the authorities now wish to be made aware of all flights for the purpose of imposing charges. They are now finally going to tax the use of the air in the open FIR as if they own it.