MONETORY FINES IMPOSED BY CAA

[vernon11]

the big problem with flying under 500ft is that the law states "no flight shall be flown under 500 ft agl unless for taking off or landing or unless such a flight can be done without nuisance to persons on the ground" (something like that)

This is the part that is a bit confusing. I have mentioned before. Over the coast line or sea. You are not going to be nuisance. So what happens. I suppose back to interpretation.
Vernon.

[Bundy]

John, i lost a good friend many years ago due to low flying If poeple (purposefully spelt wrong) want to be that low at speed...........then sell the bloody aeroplane and buy one of those "Big-foot" jobbies from the states.
Just my 2c worth.
Jean.

I have no argument with that JT, but i do not think anyone here is really "fighting for the right to fly low". The overwhelming majority of our members have a big issue with the interpretation of the LAW in this regard. The problem is that cases of low flying are being judged from the ground!

If this is the way forward for us as pilots (and remember this affects ALL pilots, heli's, fixed wing, you name it) we will be inundated with complaints from Jo public and others...It is especially discomforting to know that the authority dishing out punishment seems to be doing so without discussions with the Sectors and associations to whom the PIC in question belongs too, and it would appear that very weak evidence is taken as fact?

Go take a look through your DVD collection...I have many "exhibits" of low flying on video? Will these people in the vid's be called to explain themselves too now? Ah but you see in these videos the pilots were obviously not a "nuisance"? Lucky for them

Bottom line, low flying IS dangerous but it can be done safely. Think of those low sweeps over a deserted coastline... a nice cruise 100ft over a desert pan.... the list is endless. There needs to be a clear and present DANGER to either the public on the ground or the aircraft itself to justify severe penalties for pilots who elect to fly low occasionally.... and my point is that a person who lays a complaint needs to PROVE that beyond any reasonable doubt. This is why we need far more clarity on this specific regulation...

[John Boucher]

Okay gents.... let's shed some light on this. I have obtained permission from pilot in question to post on the forum

Where do you fit in with relation to these photos? Out with the Jury....

[Jean Crous]

Yes Bundy, i know where you are comming from.........that interpretation bit is a wide open gate for unfounded accusations
And i must add , i also like a nice 100ft asl flight along the coast-line, there where there are no obstacles
Jean

[Jean Crous]

John as for the above photos........i think that anyone complaining about this pilot is just being downright malicious.........the waves breaking and the wind make more noise than that trike
Jean.

[John Boucher]

Ok... to further this.... the tracks of the flight path!

[Bugwar]

My opinion is that there is a clear difference between the issue about the fair penalty for low flying and whether the plane in this picture was below 500ft.

I made some measurements as a starting point for discussion:
The distance of of the plane from the observer, according to the picture, is between the distance of the people closest on the picture and those furthest away.
1mm = 0.21m - people close to observer
1mm = 0.67m - plane
1mm = 0.85m - people far from observer

The people further down the beach measure about 2mm. If we assume that they average at 1.7m, the ratio will be 0.85m to 1 mm. The top of the picture measures 122mm and is thus approx 103.7m or 345ft high. Assuming that no matter the direction, the plane is no further away from the observer than the people on the far end it can be reasoned that the plane is below 345ft.

If it can be successfully reasoned that the plane is further away, my calculations will be wrong and the plane can then be above 500ft.

Having played devil's advocate let's hear the other interpretations of the picture.

[Big-D]

Bugwar, brilliant - Good thing you dont work for CAA

D

[John Boucher]

Photo was taken around midday.... the shadow of the trike can also be seen directly below on the beach....

[Bundy]

Thanks for posting these John, and thank you to the pilot in question for giving his permission.

You asked for opinion, so I will give you mine at the risk of sounding like a rat....

The return leg photo I do not have a problem with as the flight path is towards the open section of the beach and the trike is clearly (to me at least) higher than the outbound leg. I see no danger posed to the pilot or to persons on the beach even in the event of an engine failure.

I cannot say the same for the outbound leg, here the pilot is traveling towards the people (and then out over the waves) at what looks like a lower height. Would he be able to do an emergency landing and not hit anyone on the beach? Here I do see a safety risk.
A little careless by the PIC in my opinion but I certainly dont think it deserves a R10K fine... No Sir.

[Splinter]

If I was on that beach i would be really really angry and pissed! If you fly that low over me when I have to be on the ground I can guarantee you I will be waiting at the airport on your return...............for a flip...... and then I will give you a Bells!

Dangerous: Yes, maybe
Lawful: No.
Nuisance: Not in a million years. Flew out, flew back by the looks of things.
Beautiful: 100 times YES
Does the fine fit the "transgression"? No, think its a bit stiff, maybe a slap in the wrist or a much smaller fine as i assume it is the pilots first transgression!

I don't condone low flying over people or animals as the law says we are not allowed to but where it is safe to do so there is no better feeling in the world!

[Jean Crous]

Well said my man Cool banannas

[Thatchman]

The first question is really does the 500ft issue apply?

1000ft above a built up area or a gathering or people. So what constitutes a gathering - subjective. If a few perple on the beach is a gathering and he flew directly over them then it is a problem.

If a few people on the beach is not a gathering then the only issue is whether he was a nuisance or not - subjective.
He did not orbit overhead 10 times to make a nuisance but flew out and came back and finished so this cannot be a nuisance.

I do have a question here though. What if every 10 minutes another aircraft comes over/past low level but each only makes one pass. Are they then a combined nuisance so if one gets his reg reported is he in the kak?

[John Boucher]

Dialogue is great.... tossing ideas around is great.... analysing one's own modus operandi when flying is awesome.... identifying one's own transgressions and inadequacies paramount! Yes SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY..... but at no time was this reported in the interest of SAFETY as we so keenly wish to advocate...

Being vindictive, misuse of position, influence & standing in the aviation community to achieve one's own agenda and revenge is DESPICABLE to say the least!

Lets look at the whole law as specified....

Minimum heights
91.06.32 (1) Except when necessary for taking off or landing, or except with
prior written approval of the Commissioner, no aircraft –
(a) shall be flown over built-up areas or over an open-air assembly of persons
at a height less than 1 000 feet above the highest obstacle, within a
radius of 2 000 feet from the aircraft;
(b) when flown elsewhere than specified in paragraph (a), shall be flown at
a height less than 500 feet above the ground or water, unless the flight
can be made without hazard or nuisance to persons or property on the
ground or water; and
(c) shall circle over or do repeated overflights over an open-air assembly
of persons at a height less than 3 000 feet above the surface

a. not applicable in this case....
b. The law being enforced here.... however, the second part of this law is being questioned!
c. not applicable in this case....

Let me play devil's advocate.... why not just get rid of the "unless the flight can be made without hazard or nuisance to persons or property on the ground or water" and specify the 500ft?

We will then be faced once again, how to you determine accurately when someone is busting heights?

[SOUT (RIP)]

So once again the persons at power feel that only part of the law is applicable !!!!!!!!!!
If I am not mistaken there are more to the sub part than just the 500Ft minima I am sure it includes, that if the flight can be conducted below 500Ft, it should not be an annoyance and now>>>>>>> that is to difficult for them to fathom ? >>>>>>>>>>>>so it is tossed out !!!!!!!!!!!!!.

NO WONDER EVERYONE LAUGHS AT THEM. What happened to the real representatives

In my mind it stays bullsh-t
where is the real evidence to nail the okes, not someone that feels that this is wrong and then pass a R10K fine on part of the law

HOW THE HELL CAN WE STAND FOR THIS?