Proposed Changes to Low Flying Rules

Dave Hall · Post by **Dave Hall** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:30 pm

We've raised various anomalies in CAA laws and regulations previously, but I'm puzzled by aspects raised in the article in the latest LAA Magazine.

It deals with approaches over congested areas, and while the change proposed concerns removing a relaxation introduced for training at unlicensed airfields, it raises questions on the other low flying rules.

I understand we are exempt from the 500 feet rule if landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice - that's general, and doesn't specify a particular class of airfield.
However if that means flying over a congested area and the airfield is unlicensed, we have to be more than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 600metres radius. If that's not possible, we are not allowed to fly that approach.

Have I got this right?

The implication is that it is dangerous to fly too close to lots of houses etc, but not if the airfield has a licence. Hmm...

The airspace above my house is Class G up to 1500 feet AMSL, and Bristol CTA class D above that, so light aircraft often fly over the village between 500 feet and 1000 feet AGL - it doesn't seem a problem apart from having to dash inside to get the binocs to see who it is!

Does that rule (c in the article) take precedence over the glide-clear rule (d)? Would the glide-clear rule suffice, or is (c) just a mechanism to prove an offence?

Where's the logic in all this?

The desirablilty of flying training over lots of people on the ground is more likely to be a problem in terms of noise nuisance than danger to people and property on the ground, and most airfields have some sort of noise reduction approach and departure routes.

Bill Scott · Post by **Bill Scott** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:32 pm

Dave, That all read very nicely until your question about the logic.
I don't actually think there is any ! If there was, empires would crumble.

Seriously though, I'm glad I'm not the only one befuddled by that news.

Maybe it will make more sense when I've shook off this cold bug

John Brady · Post by **John Brady** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:02 pm

Dave,

You asked if it was correct that when flying over a congested area and the airfield is unlicensed, we have to be more than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 600metres radius. If that's not possible, we are not allowed to fly that approach. Yes that is correct.

You also asked which low flying rule takes priority and the answer must be that they all apply and if you do not comply you are in breach of the law. That is nothing to do with logic or good sense of course so we must not muddle them up!

Nick Allen · Post by **Nick Allen** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:25 pm

Could I ask further about Dave's question/John's reply?

You asked if it was correct that when flying over a congested area and the airfield is unlicensed, we have to be more than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 600metres radius. If that's not possible, we are not allowed to fly that approach. Yes that is correct.

I'm assuming we don't have to go out with theodolites etc. to measure the heights of "obstacles" in said congested area...so does this just equate, in practice, to 1000ft over the area? (Of course, if there is a mast, etc., marked on the chart, then that's a different matter!)

Chris B · Post by **Chris B** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:41 pm

John,

Like Dave, I'm having some difficulty in getting to grips with this and giving you a considered response.

For example, what is the issue with Seething? It is unlicensed and looking at the 1:500,000 and Pooleys it has no congested area. Surely not the 70' silo?

To add to the confusion, some licensed aerodromes claim that they are unlicensed outside of published operational hours. Is this a misnomer?

Please could you provide further details or a link to the CAA proposals?

In possibility 2 you mention "the licensed status of the runway" - did you mean aerodrome or have I missed something?

All the best,

Chris

Nick Allen · Post by **Nick Allen** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:03 pm

Not wishing to pre-empt John's almost certainly better informed reply, but if there is no congested area, then the current problem/discussion about landing is not applicable. So you are OK at Seething! And you can, I believe, have an unlicensed runway at a "licensed" airfield.

Bill Scott · Post by **Bill Scott** » Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:29 pm

Has some of this confusion arisen from the removal of the prohibition on permit types overflying congested areas?

The 500' rule exemption concerning approach and departure from a licensed aerodrome still stands and is a different matter all together, agree?

So, in some cases, de-licensing could cause a problem where there is a app/dep path over a congested area.
Was that overlooked when de-licensing became an option?

Obviously time to read the aarticle.