Rule 5 and Helis

[Oxo147]

Two sets of rules apply. If it's an AOC flight (public transport) then site dimensions, in and out routes, etc apply. Criteria for this is specific to the the type of aircraft used. If it's a private flight, then it's whatever the commander considers safe and suitable. As already said, the 500f rule goes out the window once you are committed to landing. If the site is deemed to be within a congested area a CAA permission is required regardless of the flight classification.

Mona
(Happy New Year!)

Presumably HEMS are excluded from all rules?

[muffin]

Presumably HEMS are excluded from all rules?

Yes, as are military flights. Which is why Chinooks regularly fly over my landing site at around 200 feet.

Re the "landowners permission" question, I was told a while back by a well respected aviation lawyer that he can find no legal basis for it. I therefore assume that it is just custom and practice established over a long period. I think it has exactly the same basis as the law regarding trespass (or PPR for that matter).

How does one judge what would constitute a "normal / safe" approach path for a helicopter? Whilst heli's are capable of VTOL, it is not common practice for them to hover over a landing site at say 500 ft and descend vertically to land - or to climb vertically to 500 ft before transitioning to forward flight. I understand that such vertical descents / climbs are only done when absolutely no other option is available.

For all helicopters there exists a Height/Velocity diagram which shows the minimum conditions for which a safe engine off landing has been demonstrated (normally known as the "avoid curve"). ie if you are very close to the ground you cannot make a safe auto rotational landing unles you have enough forward speed to flare and convert the energy in the forward motion into blade rotational energy. It is not forbidden to operate inside this curve but you had better be aware of the fact and its implications. Operating into a confined area such as you describe normally means a double angle approach path in preference to a vertical one which carries the highest risk in the event of a power failure.

[Miscellaneous]

Mona's post makes sense, however if I am understanding it correctly a hotel owner with zero aviation knowledge can, by giving permission, effectively create an official landing area which as such is not subject to Rule 5 and responsibility for saftey becomes the pilot's, who may never have visited the site previously?

So, providing the landowner has given permission and in the pilot's sole opinion it is safe, then it is deemed legal?


Misc.

[wessex boy]

One of the other Dads at school has a Robbo 44 and we went for a little Bimble, he decided he wanted a cup of tea so we went and buzzed a couple of mate's houses until one popped out of his kitchen and pointed at a corner of his garden....which is where we landed ... I suppose that constituted landonwer's permission!

(as Crewman I obviously did a quick 5 'S's briefing during the circuit & approach)

[muffin]

Yes in essence you are correct AIUI. This is no different to flying to a friend's house who has a large garden or adjoining field. As long as it is not is a "congested area" which is specifically defined in the rules and hence requires CAA permission to land there and it not a public transport flight, it is the absolute responsibility of the PIC to decide whether it is safe to land there. The fact that it may be a hotel is irrelevant. You should always do a trial recce anyway before committing to land just as in a fixed wing precautionary landing.

However personally I always visit the site on foot first to check for myself unless I trust the owners judgement or that of somebody who has landed there before completely. In pracice most hotels that permit helicopters to land there have their details published in a number of appropriate guides anyway.

[Gertie]

Mona's post makes sense, however if I am understanding it correctly a hotel owner with zero aviation knowledge can, by giving permission, effectively create an official landing area which as such is not subject to Rule 5 and responsibility for saftey becomes the pilot's, who may never have visited the site previously?

Yep. Once Upon A Time a bunch of us chartered a chopper to take us to a company piss-up, the idea being to upstage the boss' new car. We won.

[Miscellaneous]

Thanks muffin, I'm surprised at how 'loose' the rules are, even the definition of congested area is subjective.

Misc.

[Rotorboater]

I have landed at a few hotels & friends houses where it can get interesting! One mans idea of a big garden or paddock is not always the same!

It's always nice if you can get a clear run in over open fields with no wires and into wind but it's not always possible but then that's what helicopters are for

[RisePilot]

I'm surprised at how 'loose' the rules are, even the definition of congested area is subjective.

"built up" areas are shaded yellow on CAA & Jeppesen maps; quite easy to tell the difference. So long as not attempting to land in these areas, a helicopter pilot needs only landowner permission.

[eltonioni]

Landowners permission is just about trespass so far as I'm aware. PPR is so that you either do or don't have permission, but I don't think that the CAA would ever be interested would they?

Red lamp = Gerrof moi laaand.

[Miscellaneous]

It wasn't so much the permission to land on any given property that I was curious about as what surrounded the property and how accessible said property is to the public. I am surprised that leaving the safety of the public to the landowner and pilot is permitted.

Misc.

[eltonioni]

Not sure what you're getting at there. Rule 5 applies during flight but it doesn't apply when landing or taking off, which leaves permission / trespass / PPR, but no public safety issue aside from due care. If you take somebody's head off through your negligence (PPR or no PPR) there's no part of the ANO that's going to save your behind from the CAA or something stronger.

[Pete L]

Landowners permission is all that's required, Pilot judges whether its safe or not. Rule 5 does not apply to take offs and landings 'in accordance with normal aviation practice'?

There's nothing remotely normal about a helicopter - are they even permitted to take off or land?

[Miscellaneous]

eltonioni, my understanding is that for a landing to be compliant it is necessary to have a 'legal' landing site, otherwise it would not be 'normal aviation practice' and would therefore be subject to Rule 5?

My question related to how any specific site is deemed as 'legal'. This has been answered and I am pleasantly surprised at the answer.

Shame I can't afford to take advantage of the flexibility.

Misc.

[mona44]

Mona's post makes sense, however if I am understanding it correctly a hotel owner with zero aviation knowledge can, by giving permission, effectively create an official landing area which as such is not subject to Rule 5 and responsibility for saftey becomes the pilot's, who may never have visited the site previously?

So, providing the landowner has given permission and in the pilot's sole opinion it is safe, then it is deemed legal?


Misc.

Only the pilots actions have to be legal. The whole point is it's at the pilots discretion. No one can tell him/her that it's officially a landing site (airfields/heliports aside). We often go places where we have been told by the land owner 'you can land here, we've had helicopters land before', and we arrive to find a completely unsuitable site and end up landing elsewhere. Joe Public has no concept of what is suitable and as such you have to take anything with a pinch of salt. Google Earth is useful for a recce, but often the images are old and they don't show land relief.

BTW, there's no law of trespass in the UK!