Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By T6Harvard
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1875961
It's a perfectly valid question.

So in UK (EASA rules differ, NB for exams!), no closer than 500' to said items. You could hoon along over wild moorland below 500' if there were no structures. Make it 520' feet if only fences and gates....

We did a low level circuit the other week. There are houses in the vicinity so min height 560' :mrgreen:

PS, I've seen some almost incriminating photos of a FF member crossing The Channel pretty low, pretty close to a container ship (ah, those were the days, when we could anticipate containers of goods arriving in time for Christmas, with or without Tortillas).
StratoTramp, Rob P liked this
User avatar
By TheFarmer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1875962
you are more likely to have an issue with a farmer leaning on it, rather than any complaint from the gate itself. And unless he is @thefarmer, then I suspect he’s not going to know what 500ft would look like.


500 feet is easy to guess. It’s when the writing on the motorway or dual carriageway road signs becomes blurry. As soon as it does, you’re too high.

By the way, we don’t lean on gates. It’s a myth. We lean on pub bars, AGA’s, and the edge of the stage at Spearmint Rhinos. :viking:
StratoTramp, Milty, Sooty25 and 6 others liked this
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1875981
I believe that in the past the CAA have taken the view that 'a structure' must have appreciable volume (and, yes I know that a TV Mast might fail this test) such that roads, fences, gates, telegraph wires etc are not structures for the purposes of what was Rule 5.

At the end of the day it's about hazard and to some extent common sense (and, yes I know that common sense seems to play a depressingly small part in the logic underpining much of the regulation under which we labour). The rule (specifying as it does a 'person, vehicle, vessel or structure') is designed to prevent a pilot causing a danger to others by flying too close to something (implicitly, something that might have a human being in or on it). If you want to split hairs and seek finer definition then good luck to you. But I doubt that you'll get much better clarification than this from the CAA and, if you did, you might not like it.
T6Harvard, russp, StratoTramp and 1 others liked this
#1875985
You could take pedantics to a whole new level with this.
Any amount of drystone walls over moorland.
Someone nails a bird nesting box to a tree.
An ancient Roman road, long since buried but man made.
Throw common sense to the wind and the world is your lobster. :D
lobstaboy liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1875990
StratoTramp wrote:Does anyone know if it written down anywhere?


Many things in law are deliberately not defined, and are subsequently tested in court, with the court rulings becoming precedent.

Human Factor wrote:Grey is good.


<Nods>

David Wood wrote:If you want to split hairs and seek finer definition then good luck to you. But I doubt that you'll get much better clarification than this from the CAA and, if you did, you might not like it.


<Nods>

I think that it's already been clarified that if the fence is inside a hedge that you can be excused as you have no way of telling that it's there.

Ibra wrote:I can guarantee you you won't get reported by a bird in England trees or a fish in Scottish loches but humans inside some structure can see your registration


Quite. If you flew over a road or a fence at less than 500ft and there was no one there to see it, did it actually happen? :D Of course there are so many people around these days that finding somewhere without them is quite rare!

skydriller wrote:Of course the real answer is : dont fly low/close enough to anyone with a mobile phone that can video you and put it on YouTube. :wink:


<Nods>

T6Harvard wrote:PS, I've seen some almost incriminating photos of a FF member crossing The Channel pretty low, pretty close to a container ship


We were at around 30-50ft. We "replotted" the course when the container ship came into view (using WWII techniques - we were recreating the Amiens prison raid) to fly 501ft behind the ship. It worked out exactly as planned. We were two aircraft, a twin masquerading as a Mosquito bomber and a single masquerading as a Typhoon escort fighter.

We climbed to over 500ft over France as those are the rules there, they don't have the same rules, as mentioned earlier.

Forum thread here. Unfortunately it's not showing the photos any more.

https://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=88318

TheFarmer wrote:By the way, we don’t lean on gates. It’s a myth.


You'll be telling me next that you don't spend all day chewing bits of straw....?!
Last edited by Paul_Sengupta on Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
T6Harvard, MikeB liked this
User avatar
By russp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1875996
StratoTramp wrote:No just understanding and trying to find the bit that the "dummies" Skyway Code refers to in the proper docs. It has a 'ref 1' OSR4 which I clicked through for interest - but it doesn't go to the specific part. I don't want to go through all 1500 docs.


It's ORS4 /1496 .. it's a 5 page document that does not define the word 'structure'. Interestingly there is also no reference to "RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THIRD PARTIES'

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4%20No.1496.pdf
T6Harvard, StratoTramp liked this
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1875997
Ok thanks everybody I think I have enough of an idea from the wisdom of the crowds. Grey is good. Ultimately it's about protecting people & self as well as more expensive property. It was kind of as expected. Good to callibrating what it thought to mean by other pilots. I just want to learn more even if I've chosen an esoteric topic this time.

I suppose a lot of the management guidance at my company is a bit vague like this to permit a bit of discretion for a wide variety of situations. If it was more prescriptive it would reduce the latitude of potential actions.

EDIT: Also, Thanks Russ P, good job I didn't start from number 1. :lol: