Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By chrisbl
#1095675
Would you class a fence as a structure as in the 500' rule.
User avatar
By Timothy
#1095731
chrisbl wrote:Would you class a fence as a structure as in the 500' rule.

Yes, but under SERA it no longer matters.
User avatar
By Talkdownman
#1095783
Bepy pilot wrote:b) elsewhere than as specified in 4.6 a), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above
the ground or water

It is changing from a 'distance' to a 'height'.
Such Spoilsports.
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1095796
Talkdownman wrote:
Bepy pilot wrote:b) elsewhere than as specified in 4.6 a), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above
the ground or water

It is changing from a 'distance' to a 'height'.
Such Spoilsports.


When?
By Gordon Field
#1095937
If a fence is an obstacle and not a structure then it would appear that the only place we can fly below 500ft is over the water or a beach providing there is nobody or no definable obstacle above the surface. I presume that I can also make multiple PFLs.
User avatar
By Timothy
#1095955
Gordon Field wrote:If a fence is an obstacle and not a structure then it would appear that the only place we can fly below 500ft is over the water or a beach providing there is nobody or no definable obstacle above the surface.

Not under SERA you can't.
User avatar
By Talkdownman
#1095958
flybymike wrote:And what about PFLs?

Looks like not below 500agl for all (including FIEs...) rather than a 167 yard bubble...
By bookworm
#1096085
chrisbl wrote:Would you class a fence as a structure as in the 500' rule.


Timothy wrote:Yes, but under SERA it no longer matters.


At the workshop and in the CRD it was generally accepted that the bold bit gave the CAA authority to operate the existing 500 ft MSD rule.

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:

a) over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons at a height less than 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 600 m from the aircraft;

b) elsewhere than as specified in 4.6 a), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water, or 150 m (500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m (500 ft) from the aircraft


Here's the response in the CRD:

2.2.12.4.5
Paragraph 4.6 VFR minimum flight altitudes and 4.7 VFR flights in level cruising flight

Comment
A number of comments have been provided regarding the minimum flight altitude which may be allowed for any kind of VFR flight. This raised particular concern among the general aviation users.

Response
With regards paragraph 4.6, it is important to note that permission for all the necessary cases can be given by the competent authority. This reflects the situation currently existing under ICAO Annex 2. This notion is kept in the regulation with the intention to cater for special needs such as training flights and ridge soaring. It is agreed that pilots should avoid flying close to e.g. obstructions.

Action
An amendment is proposed to 4.6 b) as follows: “… the ground or water, or 150 m (500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m (500 ft) from the aircraft.


I mention this because I would expect it to come up in the UK implementation.
User avatar
By Timothy
#1096093
bookworm wrote:Response
With regards paragraph 4.6, it is important to note that permission for all the necessary cases can be given by the competent authority. This reflects the situation currently existing under ICAO Annex 2. This notion is kept in the regulation with the intention to cater for special needs such as training flights and ridge soaring. It is agreed that pilots should avoid flying close to e.g. obstructions
.

Do you think that each person who want to fly low over the water (off shore on the south coast of the IoW is a favourite) would need permission in advance, or will there be a blanket permission in the form of "Person, Vehicle, Vessel or Structure"?

Although that would be great, it does seem to undermine the point of SERA!
User avatar
By Timothy
#1096242
AndyR wrote:Not being allowed below 500' agl certainly undermines the value of PFLs.

My guess is that Bookie's point is that the law allows for a blanket permission for PFLs.

I am wondering if that will be extended to all low flying where there are no people, vehicles, vessels or structures.

I am hoping to be working with the CAA on OCAS SERA, so I can express a view on that working party.