Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

User avatar
By Stephen Morley
#371484
The latest gASCO mag has a bit about this.

Essentially they say that a PFL is of little value unless you go down to a height where it is clear that the aircraft can be sucessfully landed so they sought clarification from Robb Metcalfe, HFO (GA) Inspetorate who said

Provided
1 A PFL is undertaken in good faith (not an excuse for a beat up)
2 there is no intent to breach the 500ft rule
3 reasonable care is taken prior to commencement to check area is clear
4 Where you become aware of a previouslu unseen person (courting couple behind the hedge) vehicle or structure you immediately initiate a go around

you will not be prosecuted by the CAA.


So, even if you are doing your PFL at a disused airfield (which I really cant see the point of - we all know how to land at an airfield) and whether it is a structure is still ambiguous, you must initiate a go around if you see someone, a vehicle or a structure.

The person who was prosecuted would have been seen and reported by someone, perhaps a dog walker, unless they grassed themselves up so perhaps they didnt follow these guidelines.

Phew. That was a bit serious for me, innit?
By Crash one
#371632
[quote="Stephen Morley"]The latest gASCO mag has a bit about this.

Essentially they say that a PFL is of little value unless you go down to a height where it is clear that the aircraft can be sucessfully landed so they sought clarification from Robb Metcalfe, HFO (GA) Inspetorate who said

Provided
1 A PFL is undertaken in good faith (not an excuse for a beat up)
2 there is no intent to breach the 500ft rule
3 reasonable care is taken prior to commencement to check area is clear
4 Where you become aware of a previouslu unseen person (courting couple behind the hedge) vehicle or structure you immediately initiate a go around

you will not be prosecuted by the CAA.


Which seems pretty fair to me.
All our PFLs & in fact most movements here are under Leuchars military RIS or RAS, so they would expect to be advised & "will call on climbout" As most "conflicting traffic" at those levels are grey pointy things usually in pairs, it's not a bad system.
User avatar
By KNT754G
#371672
Over the very flat land of the Fylde area NE of EGNH there are many areas where one can conduct PFLs down to below 100' for training value, it does need a good look at the ground before commencing, but I have built up a good knowledge of which fields are usually clear enough for this.

Low level over moors or sea? I regularly fly over the sand of Morecambe bay (with the tide well out and at least half a mile off shore) at extremely low heights. Good for showing trial lesson studes how fast the aeroplane is going or for getting PPL studes who are having difficulty judging height above runway to visualise 5-10 feet off the ground more accurately.
(I don't do it over water, far too hard to judge the height)
By smally
#376641
If anyone has any more details on the chap who got prosecuted on the disused airfield I`d be very interested in researching the case.

I cannot find any reference on the usual sites :(

Thanks

Andy
By Ad Eves
#1832220
flyguy wrote:I have had detailed conversations with the CAA on this issue, primarily because we view PFLs abandoned at 500' agl as inadequate training.

The response has been clear. For the purposes of Rule 5, a 'structure' must have 'vertical extent and volume', meaning that telegraph poles, fences, hedges (and runways) are not 'structures'.

This still leaves the question, of course, as to when 'volume' actually becomes 'volume'.


Digging-up an old thread but I'm interested - is there any formal CAA wording on this interpretation?

Cheers

Ad
User avatar
By TLRippon
#1833126
I know an instructor who allegedly had a letter from the CAA after a student PFL at a recently permanently closed to air traffic airfield. The security guard assessed he had descended below the limit and reported the aircraft.
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1834132
Like so many things in life, it's all about the context, in my view. If you are genuinely doing or teaching PFLs and are genuinely trying to do so with due regard to everyone else then I think that you have little to fear. On the other hand, if you are simply taking the mickey and trying to bend the rules to suit what you're up to then you really can't complain if you have your collar felt.
User avatar
By Kemble Pitts
#1834143
TLRippon wrote:I know an instructor who allegedly had a letter from the CAA after a student PFL at a recently permanently closed to air traffic airfield. The security guard assessed he had descended below the limit and reported the aircraft.


Ahem... :)
User avatar
By TLRippon
#1834145
Kemble Pitts wrote:
TLRippon wrote:I know an instructor who allegedly had a letter from the CAA after a student PFL at a recently permanently closed to air traffic airfield. The security guard assessed he had descended below the limit and reported the aircraft.


Ahem... :)


That was a direct quote.
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1834149
Ad Eves wrote:
flyguy wrote:I have had detailed conversations with the CAA on this issue, primarily because we view PFLs abandoned at 500' agl as inadequate training.

The response has been clear. For the purposes of Rule 5, a 'structure' must have 'vertical extent and volume', meaning that telegraph poles, fences, hedges (and runways) are not 'structures'.

This still leaves the question, of course, as to when 'volume' actually becomes 'volume'.


Digging-up an old thread but I'm interested - is there any formal CAA wording on this interpretation?

Cheers

Ad


As a rule of thumb I consider something to be a structure if its big enough to have a person inside it. Seems to work.