Congested Areas?
Thread Starter
Congested Areas?
Is it conceivable that a single engined helicopter would get approval to fly over a congested area, with the intention of landing at a confined helipad within the area?
It's just that we've had two landings in the said area recently, one of which I subsequently was told was a single, and of course the local bobbies ring us to see if any offence has been commited. My immediate answer was "No, as long as he had the landowner's permission". However, with the single, I'm now not so sure.
Could someone clarify for me please?
It's just that we've had two landings in the said area recently, one of which I subsequently was told was a single, and of course the local bobbies ring us to see if any offence has been commited. My immediate answer was "No, as long as he had the landowner's permission". However, with the single, I'm now not so sure.
Could someone clarify for me please?
Hi MightyGem
Both the single and the twin would require a 5(1)(c) permission from the CAA, I would think it extremely unlikely that a permission would be given for the single unless they could fly a route to and from the site which would allow a safe landing, at all times, in the event of an engine failure.
Over the years I have seen a few Jetrangers in sites that we probably would not get approval to operate HEMS!
Regards
TeeS
Both the single and the twin would require a 5(1)(c) permission from the CAA, I would think it extremely unlikely that a permission would be given for the single unless they could fly a route to and from the site which would allow a safe landing, at all times, in the event of an engine failure.
Over the years I have seen a few Jetrangers in sites that we probably would not get approval to operate HEMS!
Regards
TeeS
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think that the usual rules prevail - i.e. Min Height Rule - not below 500 ft unless landing or taking off. However, for just how long you can be considered as "landing" or "taking off" is another matter. Prior to the eventual final approach a helicopter should be flown in such a manner as to enable it to alight safely with no harm to third parties.
Not knowing the actual congested area you are referring to I can't comment on the suitability of the flight paths in or out.
Another point to consider is the longer term exposure to persons living under the flight path into the confined landing site. If single-engine helis are frequent visitors to this site, the authorities might be keen to review the situation.
Not knowing the actual congested area you are referring to I can't comment on the suitability of the flight paths in or out.
Another point to consider is the longer term exposure to persons living under the flight path into the confined landing site. If single-engine helis are frequent visitors to this site, the authorities might be keen to review the situation.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Q:Is it conceivable that a single engined helicopter would get approval to fly over a congested area, with the intention of landing at a confined helipad within the area?
IMHO no chance that he would get approval for a CAT flight. Many Privateers think that the ANO doesn't apply to them, though, and do what they can get away with.
I think the CAA have trouble enforcing rules in court and may shy away from it after they lost the case against the Clacton Pier Cowboy a couple of years ago.
IMHO no chance that he would get approval for a CAT flight. Many Privateers think that the ANO doesn't apply to them, though, and do what they can get away with.
I think the CAA have trouble enforcing rules in court and may shy away from it after they lost the case against the Clacton Pier Cowboy a couple of years ago.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look - I don't want to upset anyone - but isn't the process in this (possible) incident just the sort of process we all hate ?
Bloke lands heli - somebody calls the police to complain - police consult their aviators - aviators blurt out before consulting the books - then aviators go onto a Forum to ask opinion.
Presumably, whatever the aviators learn will get passed back up the food chain and eventually the CAA will knock on a door.
Leaving to one side that it's all a bit scary if the police see themselves as the eyes of the CAA, there's just too much to go wrong with the evidence.
Were these Private or Public Transport flights ? There's an enormous difference. Was there green space available for the approach and departure ? Doesn't matter if you've got 1 engine or 3 - "alight without dangers to persons or property on the surface".
Who ever said that singles cannot overfly congested areas ? Read the rules.
(They'll be in that fat dusty tome that's been holding up the corner of the photocopier for the past few years.)
Bloke lands heli - somebody calls the police to complain - police consult their aviators - aviators blurt out before consulting the books - then aviators go onto a Forum to ask opinion.
Presumably, whatever the aviators learn will get passed back up the food chain and eventually the CAA will knock on a door.
Leaving to one side that it's all a bit scary if the police see themselves as the eyes of the CAA, there's just too much to go wrong with the evidence.
Were these Private or Public Transport flights ? There's an enormous difference. Was there green space available for the approach and departure ? Doesn't matter if you've got 1 engine or 3 - "alight without dangers to persons or property on the surface".
Who ever said that singles cannot overfly congested areas ? Read the rules.
(They'll be in that fat dusty tome that's been holding up the corner of the photocopier for the past few years.)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said anything about prosecuting anybody? Hopefully, anybody reading this forum and identifying themselves with the situation should be all the wiser for the experience.
I would certainly not wish for anything in this forum to be used against anybody.
I would certainly not wish for anything in this forum to be used against anybody.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flyer43
Who said anything about prosecuting anybody?
In the originating post, MightyGem, who's a police ASU pilot, said: "the local bobbies ring us to see if any offence has been commited."
I suppose it's possible the local bobbies just wanted to know out of idle curiosity. Possible, but extremely unlikely.
Who said anything about prosecuting anybody?
In the originating post, MightyGem, who's a police ASU pilot, said: "the local bobbies ring us to see if any offence has been commited."
I suppose it's possible the local bobbies just wanted to know out of idle curiosity. Possible, but extremely unlikely.
Thread Starter
The reason I posted was to improve my understanding of rule 5. Having only ever flown Military or Police, it's not something that's really concerned me before.
So, is this saying that the legalities of flying a single over a congested area depends on whether it's flying public or private?
There are a few green spaces, probably not within auto distance, public parks, football fields, school fields, but all well within the congested area. It's also my understanding(right/wrong?) that these don't count for the purposes of being able to "alight without danger to persons etc, etc".
Were these Private or Public Transport flights ? There's an enormous difference.Who ever said that singles cannot overfly congested areas ?
Was there green space available for the approach and departure
First of all, this is my understanding, not a defence of the way the rules are created, enforced, interpreted or indeed disregarded.
My interpretation is:- if it's congested [and I know that's the cause of enough disagreement in itself] you will need a Rule 5 permission. Part of the process of getting that permission will involve the aircraft performance category assessed against the nature of the site; if you can't demonstrate a safe route in [and maybe a different one out if the wind is that much of a factor] in the event of an engine failure then you won't get the permission.
As regards cops out on patrol contacting their local ASU for advice, to whom else do they turn when Mr Angry is complaining about a landing upsetting his day? It can often be very difficult to give accurate advice without seeing the scene and contrary to popular opinion we really aren't about hounding owners and operators out of our airspace. Let me give you a couple of examples:-
A businessman operates a private single out of a car park at his warehouse. It's between fields and a motorway; the likelihood of an engine failure stuffing the aircraft into a coachload of nuns and schoolchildren is really quite small, and on the face of it there's nothing questionable about the setup. However he has a wide choice of approach directions but is in the habit off approaching and departing very low over the motorway [because it's a few seconds quicker?] with predictably skittish reactions from motorists as the aircraft appears overhead. Motorway cop rings the ASU and is unimpressed to be told that it's technically legal but very poor airmanship. Now when is a hard-nosed businessman going to take advice from a cop about his airmanship?
On another occasion, a complaint comes to us about microlights using a council playing field, described as "In town". A check of the map shows that it's clearly out of town and so isn't any business of Rule 5, but it turns out that they're using a council footie field - with kids wandering about - without permission or security. Against the ANO? Well, probably Article 64 endangerment, but surely the best approach is to tell them to f*** off and find a friendly farmer and stop being so silly.
My personal view is:-
Not every member of the public is as pro aviation as those of us on Prune, and that's their prerogative
Not every operator interprets the rules correctly or operates thoughtfully, for a variety of reasons
Not every rule is sensible but they still carry the weight of the law
Generally speaking, police ASUs aren't remotely ar$ed about what other operators do as long as they're not outrageously irresponsible and give us room to get on with the job in hand.
My interpretation is:- if it's congested [and I know that's the cause of enough disagreement in itself] you will need a Rule 5 permission. Part of the process of getting that permission will involve the aircraft performance category assessed against the nature of the site; if you can't demonstrate a safe route in [and maybe a different one out if the wind is that much of a factor] in the event of an engine failure then you won't get the permission.
As regards cops out on patrol contacting their local ASU for advice, to whom else do they turn when Mr Angry is complaining about a landing upsetting his day? It can often be very difficult to give accurate advice without seeing the scene and contrary to popular opinion we really aren't about hounding owners and operators out of our airspace. Let me give you a couple of examples:-
A businessman operates a private single out of a car park at his warehouse. It's between fields and a motorway; the likelihood of an engine failure stuffing the aircraft into a coachload of nuns and schoolchildren is really quite small, and on the face of it there's nothing questionable about the setup. However he has a wide choice of approach directions but is in the habit off approaching and departing very low over the motorway [because it's a few seconds quicker?] with predictably skittish reactions from motorists as the aircraft appears overhead. Motorway cop rings the ASU and is unimpressed to be told that it's technically legal but very poor airmanship. Now when is a hard-nosed businessman going to take advice from a cop about his airmanship?
On another occasion, a complaint comes to us about microlights using a council playing field, described as "In town". A check of the map shows that it's clearly out of town and so isn't any business of Rule 5, but it turns out that they're using a council footie field - with kids wandering about - without permission or security. Against the ANO? Well, probably Article 64 endangerment, but surely the best approach is to tell them to f*** off and find a friendly farmer and stop being so silly.
My personal view is:-
Not every member of the public is as pro aviation as those of us on Prune, and that's their prerogative
Not every operator interprets the rules correctly or operates thoughtfully, for a variety of reasons
Not every rule is sensible but they still carry the weight of the law
Generally speaking, police ASUs aren't remotely ar$ed about what other operators do as long as they're not outrageously irresponsible and give us room to get on with the job in hand.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mighty Gem
I'm probably over-sensitive because I know just how keen the CAA Enforcement & Investigation Branch is to prosecute pilots when they think they have sufficient evidence to get a conviction.
Droopy says "..... to whom else do they (the local police) turn when Mr Angry is complaining about a landing upsetting his day?" Fair point. So, supposing (just for example) that, as a result of a discussion on this thread, you concluded that a pilot landing at a particular private site in your area was breaking a provision in Rule 5, you might feel (because of your job) that you'd have to say so if asked by the local police. That might lead to a prosecution by the CAA.
Of course, the police might ask the CAA anyway, but at least in those circumstances we wouldn't have done anything which helped get a pilot into trouble.
The root of the problem lies in the prosecution culture at the CAA which inevitably creates an adversarial 'us and them' divide.
I believe very strongly that it would do far more to enhance flight safety if, instead of their 'investigate and prosecute' approach, the CAA adopted an 'investigate and educate' approach in which all those involved could speak freely and, where appropriate, learn. That can't happen when the people whose actions are being investigated know they are at risk of being prosecuted if they admit doing anything which amounts to an offence.
MBJ
The final paragraph of your post is just plain wrong. That case was at the end of 2000 and the CAA has prosecuted many people since.
(It's always dangerous to make a judgment based on newspaper reports. The pilot was accused of endangering. The jury heard the evidence, including evidence from people who saw the helicopter land and depart, and didn't think he endangered anybody so found him not guilty. )
Tudor Owen
I'm probably over-sensitive because I know just how keen the CAA Enforcement & Investigation Branch is to prosecute pilots when they think they have sufficient evidence to get a conviction.
Droopy says "..... to whom else do they (the local police) turn when Mr Angry is complaining about a landing upsetting his day?" Fair point. So, supposing (just for example) that, as a result of a discussion on this thread, you concluded that a pilot landing at a particular private site in your area was breaking a provision in Rule 5, you might feel (because of your job) that you'd have to say so if asked by the local police. That might lead to a prosecution by the CAA.
Of course, the police might ask the CAA anyway, but at least in those circumstances we wouldn't have done anything which helped get a pilot into trouble.
The root of the problem lies in the prosecution culture at the CAA which inevitably creates an adversarial 'us and them' divide.
I believe very strongly that it would do far more to enhance flight safety if, instead of their 'investigate and prosecute' approach, the CAA adopted an 'investigate and educate' approach in which all those involved could speak freely and, where appropriate, learn. That can't happen when the people whose actions are being investigated know they are at risk of being prosecuted if they admit doing anything which amounts to an offence.
MBJ
The final paragraph of your post is just plain wrong. That case was at the end of 2000 and the CAA has prosecuted many people since.
(It's always dangerous to make a judgment based on newspaper reports. The pilot was accused of endangering. The jury heard the evidence, including evidence from people who saw the helicopter land and depart, and didn't think he endangered anybody so found him not guilty. )
Tudor Owen
FL
To answer your question, I'd have to give one of my most frequent replies - it depends. My personal feeling is that advice should always be the first [and second, even third] option, and if a cop rings our ASU I would always try and steer the discussion in that direction. Coming down heavy on an oversight or an error of judgement isn't the way people learn.
If someone is deliberately doing something absolutely outrageous, or persisting in something less serious but where they've ignored repeated advice, then perhaps more formal action is justified. The problem with the CAA approach is as you say pursuing the easy targets rather than those wilfully cutting too many corners. Hopefully my replies so far show that I prefer the educating route, but what do you do with those who simply won't listen?
I know that for many a commercial operator it can be tempting to say "..well if you interpret it this way...." because it is after all a living. As has been said on similar threads, although we should - and usually do - stand by each other as aviators, every now and then there crops up a case where things have gone far enough beyond the pale to do something about it. I don't think it being a fellow pilot should come into it.
Just out of interest, I've only once in fifteen years of police work been involved as a witness in a CAA prosection. The other guy was accused of charging without an AOC, recklessness, negligence.
I'm no legal expert but to me the CAA case was very poorly prepared and in court I wasn't asked anything of proper relevance. Consequently the guy was acquitted of four out of five charges and I was left feeling pretty frustrated, though not as aggrieved as his passengers who'd paid good money to end up with a wide and interesting variety of injuries on a foggy hillside.
To answer your question, I'd have to give one of my most frequent replies - it depends. My personal feeling is that advice should always be the first [and second, even third] option, and if a cop rings our ASU I would always try and steer the discussion in that direction. Coming down heavy on an oversight or an error of judgement isn't the way people learn.
If someone is deliberately doing something absolutely outrageous, or persisting in something less serious but where they've ignored repeated advice, then perhaps more formal action is justified. The problem with the CAA approach is as you say pursuing the easy targets rather than those wilfully cutting too many corners. Hopefully my replies so far show that I prefer the educating route, but what do you do with those who simply won't listen?
I know that for many a commercial operator it can be tempting to say "..well if you interpret it this way...." because it is after all a living. As has been said on similar threads, although we should - and usually do - stand by each other as aviators, every now and then there crops up a case where things have gone far enough beyond the pale to do something about it. I don't think it being a fellow pilot should come into it.
Just out of interest, I've only once in fifteen years of police work been involved as a witness in a CAA prosection. The other guy was accused of charging without an AOC, recklessness, negligence.
I'm no legal expert but to me the CAA case was very poorly prepared and in court I wasn't asked anything of proper relevance. Consequently the guy was acquitted of four out of five charges and I was left feeling pretty frustrated, though not as aggrieved as his passengers who'd paid good money to end up with a wide and interesting variety of injuries on a foggy hillside.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,052
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I was on duty in that area, on that day. It was initially reported to the police as a helicopter has 'come down' in the city. I checked with ATC as to the HLS and there was a discrepancy of about 1/2 a mile. That is why we responded and flew to the potential 'crash' site. The site was really tight (liverpool city centre) and the only way in did not have any clear areas to autorotate into. The reason MG asked the question was not to get anyone into trouble, we wanted to ask a genuine question as to whether this was allowed. We didnt tell the bobbies it was illegal and although an opinion was passed, they were directed to the proper authorities.
Headsethair talks about someone complaining and us blurting out answers. You mean like you making assumptions that there was a complaint and blurting out your opinion?? Its not nice being criticised for something you didn't do, is it??
It was a private flight and no, we are not the eyes of the CAA, we thought a fellow aviator had crashed and we rushed to help.
Headsethair talks about someone complaining and us blurting out answers. You mean like you making assumptions that there was a complaint and blurting out your opinion?? Its not nice being criticised for something you didn't do, is it??
It was a private flight and no, we are not the eyes of the CAA, we thought a fellow aviator had crashed and we rushed to help.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It was a private flight and no, we are not the eyes of the CAA, we thought a fellow aviator had crashed and we rushed to help."
Fair enough, JTT. But that's not what Mighty Gem posted originally - he was having second thoughts about the advice he had given about the legaility of a landing.
The answer, as ever, is in the ANO. As he admitted - he's come through the Military and Police route. Although I assume that if he is a CPL or ATPL, he would have been taught the civilian rules ? Is he a civilian police pilot or some other type ?
Fair enough, JTT. But that's not what Mighty Gem posted originally - he was having second thoughts about the advice he had given about the legaility of a landing.
The answer, as ever, is in the ANO. As he admitted - he's come through the Military and Police route. Although I assume that if he is a CPL or ATPL, he would have been taught the civilian rules ? Is he a civilian police pilot or some other type ?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Droopy
Thanks for responding, and your answer - "It depends" - is perfect.
I didn't think MG asked the question to get anyone into trouble. My only concern was that if the discussion revealed the pilot was clearly in breach of Rule 5, MG and/or other pilots at the same ASU might be placed in a difficult position if the local police asked the same question again - either in relation to the same landing site or another similar one. (It was this aspect which led me to say I agreed with Headsethair's approach - not what appear to be his views about police pilots in general.)
Re CAA prosecutions:
Either your experience was an exception, or they've improved since. I have many criticisms of the CAA's prosecution policy and, particularly, the way they conduct prosecutions, but I've always found them to be well prepared. They do have two weaknesses which can be seen in virtually every case they prosecute - but I'm not going to go into those for obvious reasons.
jayteeto
"We didn't tell the bobbies it was illegal and although an opinion was passed, they were directed to the proper authorities." I won't jump to any conclusions about what 'opinion was passed' or who is meant by 'the proper authorities.'
I have great respect for police pilots, not least because I know only pilots with years of experience flying in varying and challenging conditions are recruited. Most stress that they are civilian pilots employed by the police, not policemen - although, just occasionally, some posts in this forum over the years give the impression that one or two might have 'gone native.'
Strong views tend to be expressed in each direction whenever the issue of to what extent (if at all) ASUs do or should 'police' aviators has been discussed here, but the consensus usually seems to be 'only in extreme circumstances'.
Headsethair
Your last para is a little harsh. There's a big difference (for most people) between learning a mass of rules to pass the air law exam and remembering the details years later. We tend to remember the rules which relate to the type of flying we do.
eg Pilots whose flying has mainly been under Mil rules and then as police pilots (exempt from some parts of Rule 5) might well not remember the precise rules which relate to normal commercial ops or private flights. Similarly, a professional pilot who flies only public transport may know the public transport rules very well, but not remember if the rules for private flights are less strict because he doesn't need to.
You say the answer is 'as ever' in the ANO. Only up to a point. Looking at the ANO Article 129 will give you a (not very helpful) definition of a congested area, but it won't answer MG's original question. For that, you need to read the Rules of the Air Regs, in particular Rule 5 which, even by the standards of (notoriously badly drafted UK aviation legislation), is a good example of how a law should not be drafted.
If such a flight would be unlawful under Rule 5, an exemption would be required and we have no way of knowing if one was granted.
Thanks for responding, and your answer - "It depends" - is perfect.
I didn't think MG asked the question to get anyone into trouble. My only concern was that if the discussion revealed the pilot was clearly in breach of Rule 5, MG and/or other pilots at the same ASU might be placed in a difficult position if the local police asked the same question again - either in relation to the same landing site or another similar one. (It was this aspect which led me to say I agreed with Headsethair's approach - not what appear to be his views about police pilots in general.)
Re CAA prosecutions:
Either your experience was an exception, or they've improved since. I have many criticisms of the CAA's prosecution policy and, particularly, the way they conduct prosecutions, but I've always found them to be well prepared. They do have two weaknesses which can be seen in virtually every case they prosecute - but I'm not going to go into those for obvious reasons.
jayteeto
"We didn't tell the bobbies it was illegal and although an opinion was passed, they were directed to the proper authorities." I won't jump to any conclusions about what 'opinion was passed' or who is meant by 'the proper authorities.'
I have great respect for police pilots, not least because I know only pilots with years of experience flying in varying and challenging conditions are recruited. Most stress that they are civilian pilots employed by the police, not policemen - although, just occasionally, some posts in this forum over the years give the impression that one or two might have 'gone native.'
Strong views tend to be expressed in each direction whenever the issue of to what extent (if at all) ASUs do or should 'police' aviators has been discussed here, but the consensus usually seems to be 'only in extreme circumstances'.
Headsethair
Your last para is a little harsh. There's a big difference (for most people) between learning a mass of rules to pass the air law exam and remembering the details years later. We tend to remember the rules which relate to the type of flying we do.
eg Pilots whose flying has mainly been under Mil rules and then as police pilots (exempt from some parts of Rule 5) might well not remember the precise rules which relate to normal commercial ops or private flights. Similarly, a professional pilot who flies only public transport may know the public transport rules very well, but not remember if the rules for private flights are less strict because he doesn't need to.
You say the answer is 'as ever' in the ANO. Only up to a point. Looking at the ANO Article 129 will give you a (not very helpful) definition of a congested area, but it won't answer MG's original question. For that, you need to read the Rules of the Air Regs, in particular Rule 5 which, even by the standards of (notoriously badly drafted UK aviation legislation), is a good example of how a law should not be drafted.
If such a flight would be unlawful under Rule 5, an exemption would be required and we have no way of knowing if one was granted.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 11th Mar 2005 at 11:22.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many people who have written on this threadhave applied for a rule 5 exemption from the CAA ?
The reason that I ask this is that it is not a blanket exemption from rule 5 , you have to apply for exemption from the specific parts of the rule . And the exemption you receive is specifically for what you asked, and you must still comply with all the other rules.
I have to say as a pplh I have sought and obtained many different rule 5 exemptions from the CAA, and they have always been very , very helpfull and efficient. I think you do need to demonstrate you know what you are doing through your paperwork and applications.
Without wishing to join this debate, I would very much doubt that they had an exemption, because part of the process and paperwork is that you must have contacted the relevant authorities in the area (fire, police etc) Although it is very annoying when you have spent days contacting the authorities etc only to turn up with all the permissions, for the local bobby on his bike (london city area) all very happy and pleasant but saying that they hadnt been told by there ops room!
The reason that I ask this is that it is not a blanket exemption from rule 5 , you have to apply for exemption from the specific parts of the rule . And the exemption you receive is specifically for what you asked, and you must still comply with all the other rules.
I have to say as a pplh I have sought and obtained many different rule 5 exemptions from the CAA, and they have always been very , very helpfull and efficient. I think you do need to demonstrate you know what you are doing through your paperwork and applications.
Without wishing to join this debate, I would very much doubt that they had an exemption, because part of the process and paperwork is that you must have contacted the relevant authorities in the area (fire, police etc) Although it is very annoying when you have spent days contacting the authorities etc only to turn up with all the permissions, for the local bobby on his bike (london city area) all very happy and pleasant but saying that they hadnt been told by there ops room!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA equivalent of our Rule 5 is much simpler, and also contains a sensible provision for helicopters.
The CAA eventually conceded that the present Rule 5 is far too compicated and issued a 'consultation' paper inviting comments and suggestions to make it more comprehensible. That was in the Autumn of 2002. I'm told the new version is likely to be brought into force this Spring.
The new rule is a great improvement, but it still falls far short of the FAA and ICAO versions.
Tudor Owen
FAR 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.
(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.
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.
(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.
The new rule is a great improvement, but it still falls far short of the FAA and ICAO versions.
Tudor Owen
Thread Starter
Is he a civilian police pilot or some other type ?
Secondary question: How do you cope with the "not below 1500'" over a congested area when the cloudbase is, say 1300' agl?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Secondary question: How do you cope with the "not below 1500'" over a congested area when the cloudbase is, say 1300' agl?"
You find the edge of the congested area and traverse using the 500 ft rule. (We've been waiting for more than a year for the new 1000 ft rule.....see above.)
You find the edge of the congested area and traverse using the 500 ft rule. (We've been waiting for more than a year for the new 1000 ft rule.....see above.)
