Low flying over built up areas

[Martin Evans]

Can anyone tell me what the limits are for flying over built up areas
in the UK (not associated with a licenced airfield)

I can't see anything obvious on the CAA site.


--

[ShawnD2112]

The general rule, known as Rule 5 of the Air Navigation Order, requires 500
feet above any person, building, or structure, and 1500 feet above built up
areas. There are other limits that apply to crowds (like football games)
and tall structures, but those are the basics.

Shawn
"Martin Evans" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone tell me what the limits are for flying over built up areas
> in the UK (not associated with a licenced airfield)
>
> I can't see anything obvious on the CAA site.
>
>
> --

[Martin Evans]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote:

>The general rule, known as Rule 5 of the Air Navigation Order, requires 500
>feet above any person, building, or structure, and 1500 feet above built up
>areas. There are other limits that apply to crowds (like football games)
>and tall structures, but those are the basics.

Thanks Shawn,

So when I witnessed a DC3 banking at about the level of a 200ft high
chimney located adjacent to a 10 storey building then this act was a
"bit" illegal then? ;-)

(Sunday 16:35 hours, the building being a major hospital located in a
town in the north of England)

The nearest airfields (hard surfaced) are some 10-15 miles away, but
many years ago we had a local grass field and the base leg was more or
less above our house and I maybe saw a hundred approaches over a
weekend in summer by 172's etc so I guess that would be around
1000-1500ft.

Coincidentally a police helicopter passed over an hour or so after the
DC3 at what I guess to be about 1000ft (I could read the Police
registration clearly, white on black characters helped) OK so I'm
guessing on the chimney height but it would be 300ft max based on
others that used to be in the area that I did know the exact height
of.

Personally I thought it was a suicide mission, having never seen a
manoeuvre that close to the ground by such a large aircraft even at an
air display. Then, just when I thought it was all over he came back
and did it all over again and then headed south never to be seen
again.


--

[ShawnD2112]

It depends. Was the DC-3 in the act of landing or practicing a forced
landing? If so, then it's legel to break Rule 5. Also, airplanes,
especially bigger ones, often appear to be a lot lower than they actually
are and the human eyeball is actually a pretty poor judge of distance
without comparisons. Could you read the registration number? If not, then
chances are he was at least 300+ feet as the size of UK registration
markings are designed to be read from a minimum of 300 feet.

It also depends on the clearances. As long as he was laterally 500 feet
away from the building/chimney, and not over any other manmade objects, then
he was OK. As I understand it, if you could find a path across the country
with no people or buildings in it, you can fly as low as you want as long as
you're more than 500 feet away from everything. Not that I've actually
tried it, and it's an extreme interpretation open to argument, but you get
the idea.

And finally I don't want to condone behavior by a fellow aviator which could
be construed as dangerous, foolish, or un-neighborly, if he was in fact any
of the above.

Shawn
"newsman" > wrote in message
news:1251490.POZPDN3Knx@loopback...
> On Monday 15 September 2003 13:45 Martin Evans wrote:
>
> > "ShawnD2112" > wrote:
> >
> >>The general rule, known as Rule 5 of the Air Navigation Order, requires
500
> >>feet above any person, building, or structure, and 1500 feet above built
up
> >>areas. There are other limits that apply to crowds (like football
games)
> >>and tall structures, but those are the basics.
> >
> > Thanks Shawn,
> >
> > So when I witnessed a DC3 banking at about the level of a 200ft high
> > chimney located adjacent to a 10 storey building then this act was a
> > "bit" illegal then? ;-)
>
> There's an exception for DC3s. They may do whatever they wish.
>
>
> >
> > (Sunday 16:35 hours, the building being a major hospital located in a
> > town in the north of England)
> >
> > The nearest airfields (hard surfaced) are some 10-15 miles away, but
> > many years ago we had a local grass field and the base leg was more or
> > less above our house and I maybe saw a hundred approaches over a
> > weekend in summer by 172's etc so I guess that would be around
> > 1000-1500ft.
> >
> > Coincidentally a police helicopter passed over an hour or so after the
> > DC3 at what I guess to be about 1000ft (I could read the Police
> > registration clearly, white on black characters helped) OK so I'm
> > guessing on the chimney height but it would be 300ft max based on
> > others that used to be in the area that I did know the exact height
> > of.
> >
> > Personally I thought it was a suicide mission, having never seen a
> > manoeuvre that close to the ground by such a large aircraft even at an
> > air display. Then, just when I thought it was all over he came back
> > and did it all over again and then headed south never to be seen
> > again.
> >
> >
> > --
>

[Martin Evans]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote:

>It depends. Was the DC-3 in the act of landing or practicing a forced
>landing?

No, the nearest place he could have done a force landing without
hitting buildings would be a golf course about a mile away with
continuous low level housing all the way, flight was controlled, both
engines sounded ok, he flew away out of sight behind the building,
then came back for a second pass which is the one I saw in detail (the
first pass I only saw the tail end of),

The plane then flew away until I lost sight maybe 2 or 3 mins later,
he didn't gain height much but there were no reported crashes either
;-)

>If so, then it's legel to break Rule 5. Also, airplanes,
>especially bigger ones, often appear to be a lot lower than they actually
>are and the human eyeball is actually a pretty poor judge of distance
>without comparisons. Could you read the registration number? If not, then
>chances are he was at least 300+ feet as the size of UK registration
>markings are designed to be read from a minimum of 300 feet.

I was displaced laterally about 500ft from the nearest point to where
the pilot banked, the cloud cover was almost complete at high level
but the sky was relatively bright looking from my direction (WSW at
16:35 BST 14th Sept 2003) and so the plane effectively turned into a
dark object against the bright sky, someone 180 degrees to me would
have clear sight of any markings on the starboard side of the
aircraft. The patients in the hospital could have counted the rivets
;-)

The building I do know to be 10 floors high (12-15ft ceilings) with a
roof structure incorporating lift motor rooms / ventilation plant, the
chimney adjacent to is the equivalent of about 4 or 5 floors above the
main building and having lived next to it for 20 years and visiting
occasionally back to see family I have a good feel of its height. next
chance I get i'll make a few enquiries to the actual height.

>It also depends on the clearances. As long as he was laterally 500 feet
>away from the building/chimney, and not over any other manmade objects, then
>he was OK. As I understand it, if you could find a path across the country
>with no people or buildings in it, you can fly as low as you want as long as
>you're more than 500 feet away from everything. Not that I've actually
>tried it, and it's an extreme interpretation open to argument, but you get
>the idea.

As the land rises slightly to the north or his track he would have
been even closer to the buildings located there!

>And finally I don't want to condone behavior by a fellow aviator which could
>be construed as dangerous, foolish, or un-neighborly, if he was in fact any
>of the above.

No, neither do I but I'm convinced he was breaking the law on this
occasion. Maybe he will get away with it. I couldn't be bothered
reporting to the CAA it as I was on holiday a day or so later and
without a reg number there is not a lot that can be done except trawl
through radar recordings perhaps.


--

[Robert Moore]

Martin Evans wrote
>
> No, neither do I but I'm convinced he was breaking the law on
> this occasion. Maybe he will get away with it. I couldn't be
> bothered reporting to the CAA it as I was on holiday a day or so
> later and without a reg number there is not a lot that can be
> done except trawl through radar recordings perhaps.

Do you report every speeding motorist that you observe to the
authorities?

[Martin Evans]

Robert Moore > wrote:

>Martin Evans wrote
>>
>> No, neither do I but I'm convinced he was breaking the law on
>> this occasion. Maybe he will get away with it. I couldn't be
>> bothered reporting to the CAA it as I was on holiday a day or so
>> later and without a reg number there is not a lot that can be
>> done except trawl through radar recordings perhaps.
>
>Do you report every speeding motorist that you observe to the
>authorities?

No, but when I see a plane fly that low - not just a knee jerk
reaction to "hey that plane looks like it's flying low lets report him
and get him grounded", then bank around a hospital complex with a say
a thousand people inside, fly low over a built up area and then have
the audacity to come back a few minutes later and do it all over again
it does sort of provoke one to question the sanity and motives of the
pilot. Over open country I wouldn't have had a problem with it at all
but we are looking at an old aircraft (albeit twin engined) and next
to zero open ground to recover to if it goes wrong. He got away with
it this time, next time he may not be so lucky. Are we supposed to
just ignore events like this and hope they go away?

Was it a B52? that some jerk stuffed into the ground at an airshow the
other year in the US after his fellow pilots had been pleading for
years with his senior officers to ground him for low and dangerous
flying? I'm not anti-flying by any stretch of the imagination by the
way if that's what you are thinking but If this DC3 had fallen out of
the sky then the minimum casualties on the ground could easily be in
the 10-100 range for no justifiable reason. In my book that's not an
accident, and is totally preventable by the thing not been there in
the first place.


--

[vincent p. norris]

>Do you report every speeding motorist that you observe to the
>authorities?

No, Bob, but when someone a Harley comes around the corner and
accelerates past my house at about a thousand decibels, I'm sorely
temped to see how wellI can hit a moving target with my .44 magnum.

vince norris

[Mike O'Malley]

Martin Evans > wrote in message >...
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote:
>
>
> No, neither do I but I'm convinced he was breaking the law on this
> occasion. Maybe he will get away with it. I couldn't be bothered
> reporting to the CAA it as I was on holiday a day or so later and
> without a reg number there is not a lot that can be done except trawl
> through radar recordings perhaps.
>
>

Let me make sure I understand what you think happened- you (from the
surface) saw an airplane disappear behind a tall building, and want to
know if he broke the law. Remember your trig though- just because he
disappeared behind a 200' building DOESN'T mean he was below 200'

How far were you from the building, in your best estimate? You claim
the airplane was around 500' laterally from you, am I correct?
Depending on how close you were to the building, the plane could have
been as high as 1000' or more and still disappeared behind it.

As others have said, it is incredibly difficult to judge altitude from
the ground with nothing to compare against, and even then, it's also
difficult to judge where the plane was directly above, unless it
passes directly over you.

Just a few pointers.

Mike O'Malley

[Sylvain]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message > It also depends on the clearances. As long as he was laterally 500 feet
> away from the building/chimney, and not over any other manmade objects, then
> he was OK. As I understand it, if you could find a path across the country
> with no people or buildings in it, you can fly as low as you want as long as
> you're more than 500 feet away from everything. Not that I've actually
> tried it, and it's an extreme interpretation open to argument, but you get
> the idea.


the lowest I have flown legally nowhere near an airfield twas nearly 200
feet *below* sea level (in a C310) twas not in UK though, but along
Death Valley in Nevada :-) -- the most fun I had with my clothes on in
quite a while... :-)

--Sylvain