Cuban8 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 I've just phoned a friend of mine who is a pilot and owns a 1943 Taylorcraft and among a few other bits of general chit-chat he was happy that the 500' rule as I understood it is correct. His only proviso being that in most parts of the SE (and more than likely elsewhere on our crowded island) finding a totally barren landscape devoid of persons, vessels, vehicles or structures is becoming increasing difficult. A 'structure' is a very open description - would flying within 500' of a deserted broken down shed or garage or abandoned car in the middle of nowhere be a no-no? I'd hope common sense would apply, but I'd not bet on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Thanks Steve, I was beginning to wonder if I'd remembered it correctly. For the benefit of others interested, this is the relevant exemption from EASA regs. a) The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) permits, under SERA.3105 and SERA.5005(f), subject to the condition set out in subparagraph (b), an aircraft to fly elsewhere than as specified in SERA.5005(f)(1) at a height of: i) less than 150 metres (500 feet) above the ground or water; or ii) less than 150 metres (500) above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 metres (500 feet) from the aircraft. b) The aircraft must not be flown closer than 150 metres (500 feet) to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure except with the permission of the CAA. So, my amateur interpretation is that over clear ground or water, there is no minimum height but as soon as a person, vessel, vehicle or structure is encountered, there is a 500 foot distance and height "bubble" in which the aircraft is not allowed to fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingcoax Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 As a long time model flier and sometime full size, Can i say that during my training i was able to practice touch and goes in Morecombe bay( while the tide was out) I queried the rule on 500ft and was told as Martin says we were OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Clark 2 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Posted by Martin Harris on 15/05/2020 10:42:08: I'd hesitate to argue with those credentials but I think Cuban is right. I always understood that the 500' rule was distance from a person, vessel, vehicle or structure, not necessarily altitude - although maintaining 500' AGL would more or less guarantee compliance except in the case of unusually high buildings or structures. Of course, things may have changed since my day - especially with the advent of EASA. Edited By Martin Harris on 15/05/2020 10:59:06 Quite. I could look it up and check but I simply can't be bothered, not with SERA this and SERA that and the 'exemptions' a poster mentioned. Because in practice you could spend weeks checking on all this 'official' bumf. TO NO USEFUL PURPOSE as 99% of 'real' flyers just replace the endless official waffle with commonsense, a fair degree of competence, obey ATC in controlled airspace and read only NOTAMs. In flying since 1976 and often 'practicing' forced landing and stuff I've never fallen foul of the air laws or even put a scratch on myself or any plane, never caused another pilot to take evading action, AND THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS. And for our toy planes it matters even less. We've got people here quoting 'full size' air laws with which they will never come in contact. Why bother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Clark 2 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Posted by Steve J on 15/05/2020 14:09:15: Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 15/05/2020 13:38:01: And for our toy planes it matters even less. We've got people here quoting 'full size' air laws with which they will never come in contact. Why bother? Good question. Why did you bring up the 500ft rule at 12:13 yesterday? It is of no relevance to small unmanned aircraft. Edited By Steve J on 15/05/2020 14:09:58 I see you deliberately did not quote what I posted yesterday, where the connection is obvious. So you are only seeking to 'find fault'. That's the only answer you are going to get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph C Posted May 19, 2020 Author Share Posted May 19, 2020 Hello again, I've read all the replies. Not entirely sure how useful the comments about full size aircraft were but interesting nevertheless! I will continue on my pursuit to find a friendly farmer to allow me to fly over his land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 good luck Ralph...hope you read all the rules and regs regarding flying a drone..as some people have created a massive problem for the drone flyers in respect of flying the things wherever they want without any regard for the same rules.. ken anderson...ne..1..drone dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph C Posted May 19, 2020 Author Share Posted May 19, 2020 Posted by ken anderson. on 19/05/2020 16:03:07: good luck Ralph...hope you read all the rules and regs regarding flying a drone..as some people have created a massive problem for the drone flyers in respect of flying the things wherever they want without any regard for the same rules.. ken anderson...ne..1..drone dept. Yes, I've done all the tests and know all the rules about where not to fly. I'm mainly in this for aerobatics to be honest. It is a shame that errant drone flyers have tainted the very respectable and well established UK RC flying community as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Clark 2 Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 Posted by Ralph C on 19/05/2020 22:05:52: Yes, I've done all the tests and know all the rules about where not to fly. I'm mainly in this for aerobatics to be honest. It is a shame that errant drone flyers have tainted the very respectable and well established UK RC flying community as a whole. Exactly. It's an utter nonsense. A test and a £9 annual tax just to fly a toy plane, including free-flight ones that can't be 'controlled' at all, not even by someone of evil intent. And I suspect the take up of these licences is extremely low. I'm a BMFA 'country' member and only took the test/paid the tax because I sometime fly at a site open to the public and it's run by 'committee' (not a club) and they insist on it. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. I would lay good odds that few 'drone' flyers buy a licence and anyway someone of evil intent is certainly not going to put an operator number on their 'drone'. And these 'drones' DO give us a bad name - see how the 'ordinary model plane flyer'. living near Gatwick was reported to the police by his neighbours and therefore investigated, But drones seem to be fading away, just like Rubik cubea did. But you can be sure the £9 tax will remain, and probably be gradually increased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.