[Lockhaven]

lobstaboy wrote:
> (the parallel I'm conscious of in the UK of course is doing practice forced
> landings below 500 feet agl - illegal if you get within 500 feet of
> anything)

The easiest thing to do would be for all instructors to unite and refuse to do practice forced landing training until there is full clarification from the UK CAA what is legal/acceptable to do.

However applying the 500ft rule in the UK does mean you can descend to 1ft vertically above the surface provided there are no persons, objects, buildings or vessels within 500ft horizontally, persons buildings or vessels is straight forward but what dictates an object, animals, gateposts, trees ?

[Rob L]

Lockhaven wrote:
> ..objects, buildings ..
Those are not specified in law. The term is "structures".

[kanga]

.. (since they are now beginning to appear in UK) ... beaver dams ?

[low&slow]

Ibra wrote:
>
> I guess we can still practice PFL as low as 1ft in private strips without landing
> even when plane spotters are lined up around the threshold? assuming they can land on
> runway with owner permission...
>
> We can also make low pass on private strips at 50ft without landing . . .

Technically, we can't. The exemption to the 500' rule when flying practice approaches only applies at government or licensed aerodromes, or at a training aerodrome when being trained or tested, although I doubt the CAA would ever prosecute someone who did a genuine go-around after a failed approach.

[Ibra]

Thanks for the clarifications

[Andrew Sinclair]

Someone's listening, UK CAA just reissued Safety Sense 12

https://www.caa.co.uk/media/cwjom2ph/sa ... flying.pdf

[Lockhaven]

Add an additional 1.33 for takeoff and 1.43 for landing on top of all the other factors, that's just overkill

[TopCat]

Lockhaven wrote:
> Add an additional 1.33 for takeoff and 1.43 for landing on top of all the
> other factors, that's just overkill

Given that they also say that many strips are less than 500m, you wonder how many of the people that need a SSL to get into one have an aircraft and/or the ability to land in 350m or less (= 500/1.43).

[Edward Bellamy]

low&slow wrote:
> Technically, we can't. The exemption to the 500' rule when flying practice approaches
> only applies at government or licensed aerodromes, or at a training aerodrome when
> being trained or tested, although I doubt the CAA would ever prosecute someone who
> did a genuine go-around after a failed approach.

That has not been the case for a long time, ORS4 1496 sets out the circumstances in which an aircraft may descend below the minimum heights specified in SERA.5005. Para 8 addresses this issue - it does not state that such practice approaches must be made to a licensed or Government aerodrome, it just says 'an aerodrome'.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalappli ... l&id=10504

[low&slow]

I obviously can't keep up anymore. I was just reading from a saved version of the CAA's consolidated SERA.

[Edward Bellamy]

One day we will hopefully be back to a single Rules of the Air regulation without needing to cross reference…

[TopCat]

Edward Bellamy wrote:

> One day we will hopefully be back to a single Rules of the Air regulation
> without needing to cross reference…

What, you mean before all airfields have closed, and the whole of the UK is class D?

[TopCat]

Not a strip as such, but quite short - I went to Netherthorpe yesterday.

Watched something aerobatic with a lot of horses take off, roll inverted, and then climb out crosswind flying 4 points of an 8 point roll.

Nice airfield. Grass short, runway smooth.

A tenner to land, and £5.65 for a diet coke, a coffee (instant) and a bacon butty. Good view of the field from the outside seating area.

Recommended.

[GrahamB]

Watched something aerobatic with a lot of horses take off, roll inverted, and then climb out crosswind flying 4 points of an 8 point roll.

Ah, yes, that's called keeping a good look out for other traffic in the vicinity of an aerodrome.

[TopCat]

Watched something aerobatic with a lot of horses take off, roll inverted, and then climb out crosswind flying 4 points of an 8 point roll.

Ah, yes, that's called keeping a good look out for other traffic in the vicinity of an aerodrome.

To be fair, it was very crisply done. I got the impression he (or she, of course, not to be sexist!) was well within his limitations.