Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:25 pm
#1895150
I have just stumbled across a notification on Friday that a pilot appears to have been fined for flying below 500ft amsl despite the exemption in ORS4 1496 (issued June 28th 2021). Various news outlets and official websites have covered the story (including Havant Borough Council) of Mr Florin Olteanu who "was prosecuted for flying at a height less than 500 feet above the ground and water in contravention of SERA.5005(f)(2), and Article 256(6) of the Air Navigation Order 2016" which resulted in a fine of £1,500, court costs of £1,500 court costs and a victim surcharge of £150.
Reading SERA5005(f)(2) alone would seem to suggest that such a flight would be illegal:
However, looking at ORS4 1496 would seem to grant an exemption:
The reference in the Havant Borough Council report to ANO Article 256(6) is even more confusing:
The flights reportedly took place along the beach and seashore, hence it is quite possible that the flight was also in breach of the ORS4 1496 exemption, however this is not clear, and the report specifically states "less that 500 feet above the ground and water" rather than "less than 500 feet from people". The CAA statement suggests this may be the case:
Or was the actual offence a paperwork one under Article 256(6) and the SERA 5005(f)(2) reference is merely poor reporting of what people wished had happened? If ORS4 1496 really doesn't apply, this could have obviously implications for PFLs - I'm already aware of one instructor who now routinely calls for the go-around on "base leg" for a PFL at 700ft agl, which (IMO) massively reduces the value of the exercise.
Does anyone know any more detail?
Reading SERA5005(f)(2) alone would seem to suggest that such a flight would be illegal:
SERA5005 wrote:(f) Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown:
...
(2) elsewhere than as specified in (1), at a height less than 150 m (500 ft) above the ground or water, or 150 m (500 ft) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m (500 ft) from the aircraft.
However, looking at ORS4 1496 would seem to grant an exemption:
ORS4 1496 wrote:Permissions and Authorisations
5) General (SERA.5005(f)(2)) – Day VFR Flights
a) Except when being flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, or in a Flying Display, Private Flying Display, aircraft race or contest, The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) permits, under SERA.5005(f), an aircraft conducting day VFR flight, to be flown at a height of:
i) less than 500 ft above the ground or water; or
ii) less than 500 ft above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m from the aircraft,
subject to the condition in subparagraph (b).
b) The aircraft must not be flown closer than 500 ft to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure except with the permission of the CAA.
The reference in the Havant Borough Council report to ANO Article 256(6) is even more confusing:
ANO 2016 Article 256(6) wrote:(6) A person must not knowingly make in a load sheet any entry which is incorrect in any material particular, or any material omission from such a load sheet.
The flights reportedly took place along the beach and seashore, hence it is quite possible that the flight was also in breach of the ORS4 1496 exemption, however this is not clear, and the report specifically states "less that 500 feet above the ground and water" rather than "less than 500 feet from people". The CAA statement suggests this may be the case:
CAA spokesperson wrote:"Mr Olteanu refused to heed warnings from Havant Borough Council and flew his paramotor low along the beach and seashore, close to people and buildings, repeatedly."
Or was the actual offence a paperwork one under Article 256(6) and the SERA 5005(f)(2) reference is merely poor reporting of what people wished had happened? If ORS4 1496 really doesn't apply, this could have obviously implications for PFLs - I'm already aware of one instructor who now routinely calls for the go-around on "base leg" for a PFL at 700ft agl, which (IMO) massively reduces the value of the exercise.
Does anyone know any more detail?