russp wrote:The most interesting thing about this whole thread is the continued reference to 'glide clear' when there is no requirement in the ANO or SERA that requires a pilot to be able to glide clear of a built up area. While it may be a good rule of thumb it's simply not a legal requirement. The legal requirement is as pointed out earlier "such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface".
Thanks for pointing that, yes “land clear” does not yet have any legal basis but both ANO/SERA have “reckless & undue hazard” clauses, which could means anything and mostly refer to flight execution
Here is a better rule: “don’t crash or hurt 3rd party”
As far as legality of flight planning
is concerned, SERA lists out legal minimal altitudes to fly while AirOps Part-NCO does not have legal provisions that require PIC to account for engines failures in the flight path or performance calculations during planning
, so an “average private flyer” is legally entitled to plan his flight assuming his single engine never fails (talking legality not what is wise or safe)
This is unlike operations under Part-CAT (read Public Transport in ANO or some commercial operations), for these engine failures has to be accounted during planning of takeoff, cruise, landing…commercial single engine operations will get add to “NSF list” or other long lists of “SE operation ban or maybe?” ($$$ using SE in IMC, Night, London, AoC in SEP)