Flypast or 'Display'
Flypast or 'Display'
A question.
If a privately owned aeroplane does a 'flypast' of an event, by which I mean it flies past/overhead the event at a legal height, in a straight line or doing a gentle turn, without then returning to the vicinity of that event, would that be considered a legal operation - a 'flyby' or 'flypast' ?
(Presuming no-one involved has any 'display' authorisation of any sort.)
It seemed to me that would be legal, even if not necessarily well advised - assuming all the relevant care was taken with regard to numbers of people at the event and suitability of forced landing areas.
Now - suppose that three aeroplanes in a loose gaggle did the exact same thing, would that be legal or would that be pushing the boundaries of acceptable practice? That seems to me to be more dubious. Any thoughts anyone. please?
If a privately owned aeroplane does a 'flypast' of an event, by which I mean it flies past/overhead the event at a legal height, in a straight line or doing a gentle turn, without then returning to the vicinity of that event, would that be considered a legal operation - a 'flyby' or 'flypast' ?
(Presuming no-one involved has any 'display' authorisation of any sort.)
It seemed to me that would be legal, even if not necessarily well advised - assuming all the relevant care was taken with regard to numbers of people at the event and suitability of forced landing areas.
Now - suppose that three aeroplanes in a loose gaggle did the exact same thing, would that be legal or would that be pushing the boundaries of acceptable practice? That seems to me to be more dubious. Any thoughts anyone. please?
Was anyone on the ground expecting these aircraft to overfly? Isn't there a minimum altitude for overflying an aerodrome while not intending to enter the traffic pattern? (assuming that the "event" is at an aerodrome). Otherwise other minimum altitudes would govern.
I expect that a "low pass" could draw interest beyond a basic flypast at an event.
I expect that a "low pass" could draw interest beyond a basic flypast at an event.
Very true, however as I understand it if the 'event' happened to have more than 1000 people present then 1000ft AGL is the minimum allowed height in the UK, unless a display authorisation or dispensation exists.
This event will not be at an aerodrome.
To me, one worry is that even if this is something which looks like a 'fly-over' as patowalker says, the use of zoom in video cameras could still make it look close and apparently illegal.
This event will not be at an aerodrome.
To me, one worry is that even if this is something which looks like a 'fly-over' as patowalker says, the use of zoom in video cameras could still make it look close and apparently illegal.
I don't think it is simply about the low flying rules, which in any case refer to aeroplanes not connected with the event overflying a gathering of people - which implies that aeroplanes connected with the event come under other rules.
IANAL but I'd think that if the flight was in anyway expected by the event eg advertised as going to happen, then display or flypast rules would apply. And as always I'd worry most about insurance validity.
IANAL but I'd think that if the flight was in anyway expected by the event eg advertised as going to happen, then display or flypast rules would apply. And as always I'd worry most about insurance validity.
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: 57 North
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say that many of us have done fly-pasts but when doing things with an aircraft that may later be questioned the thing I'd worry most about, presuming of course that the thing is performed with a healthy sense of one's own mortality, is the ubiquity of video recording devices.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true, however as I understand it if the 'event' happened to have more than 1000 people present then 1000ft AGL is the minimum allowed height in the UK, unless a display authorisation or dispensation exists.
This event will not be at an aerodrome.
To me, one worry is that even if this is something which looks like a 'fly-over' as patowalker says, the use of zoom in video cameras could still make it look close and apparently illegal.
This event will not be at an aerodrome.
To me, one worry is that even if this is something which looks like a 'fly-over' as patowalker says, the use of zoom in video cameras could still make it look close and apparently illegal.
dont overfil - Please provide a reference for that!
(My understanding is different and always keen to learn...)
(My understanding is different and always keen to learn...)
Last edited by Cough; 6th May 2017 at 17:12.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(e) Flying over open air assemblies
Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not fly over an organised
open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons below the higher of the following
heights—
(i) 1,000 feet; or
(ii) such height as would permit the aircraft to land clear of the assembly in the event of
a power unit failure.
(f) Landing and taking off near open air assemblies
An aircraft shall not land or take-off within 1,000 metres of an organised, open-air
assembly of more than 1,000 persons excep
See CAP403. That has all the rules for Displays. There will undoubtedly be airspace around the Display (NOTAM/RA(T)) you will not be permitted into without permission and that is unlikely to be forthcoming.
Thanks 'daysleeper' : that part of the ANO makes my concern clear. And that does make it a 'display' ! Aargh.
I should also say here thank you to all who have responded and commented. The overall impression I have got here get backs up my original concern; that in these litigious and 'watch your back' times this sort of apparently simple almost 'ad-hoc' flying behaviour is likely to get challenged by someone.
In more aviation oriented countries perhaps, but not here. Once upon a time I'd have happily been involved in something like this, with proper care and planning, but not now. Wrong environment, mes amis.
'Crash One' : I liked your ISS comment! Umm - On the subject of long lenses, I did many moons ago have to explain at some length to some Special Branch officers that flying over one of Her Majesty's residences at over 3,000ft was legal, when she was 'in residence'. Just because they were able to read my registration using binoculars did not mean I was flying illegally! They finally got the point, but plainly felt I must be guilty of something. Eventually one of their colleagues who also flew explained the rules to their satisfaction. (Whew)
Last edited by biscuit74; 6th May 2017 at 21:17.
