Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Low Approach - SERA 3105/5005 - Germany

We all know, that according to SERA a low approach (i.e. descending under the minimum altitude w/o the intention of landing) is not allowed (except you are e.g. an FI with a general permission to go below the safe altitude for training reasons). We also know that the EASA has already stated that they did not intend to ban low approaches at airports at al – but it doesn’t help that the very agency which wrote a bad law no states that they do not like what they have put in the law themselves. SERA is clear!

What has been new (at least for me) is that authorities in Germany are actually enforcing this rule. In German pilot forums a credible case is discussed where a pilot was charged 55EUR fine for doing a low approach at EDDF. Despite all the challenges with training, etc. there is one more general question that came to my mind and actually worries me as an IFR pilot:

To a large extend I always thought that IFR flying is quite simple: If you get a clearance you can fly this clearance. Obviously you need to still take care of safety in many situation (terrain clearance, weather, traffic in some airspaces, …) what you do not need to take care of is the legal side. When I got a clearance, up until now I have just been so naive that I thought I am also allowed to fly that route.
I have to admit, that in flight preparation for IFR flights I do not even check for ED-Rs, etc. as I always assumed I can trust the clearance. And even worse: I also have to admit I do not even know, for which type of airspaces (ED-R, MIL, etc.) ATC would have the actual authority to clear me through an active airspace and for which ATC does not have the authority. I was just assuming ATC knows and acts accordingly.

If now pilots are fined for following an ATC clearance (you can’t do a low approach in EDDF w/o clearance) because they should have known that ATC is not allowed to give them this clearance, things get much more difficult.
How do you handle this?

Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

How do you handle this?

You are allowed to deviate from the rules when there is a safety case, you just need to find one, if you don’t you pay 55Eur it’s cheap !
In SEP in IMC, I always took ATC vectors while IFR over west London with zero hesitation, I do the same when flying west of Paris
In VMC, I tend to comply with UK single engine glide clear rule out of built up areas or French minimum altitudes near bug cities

I have been cleared by ATC in Prohibited Areas, I just took those clearances as it is (I asked to clarify 1st time but I don’t bother now as happy to make a safety case out of it)

Last Edited by Ibra at 01 Jun 08:38
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

, if you don’t you pay 55Eur it’s cheap

I suppose that it is only that cheap, because it is an issue not well-known among pilots and there is not really a safety issue involved. It is a “warning sign”, not more.

If you’d fly below minimum safe altitude, which is below 500 ft AGL above open land or 1000 ft AGL above congested area, and this would get punished, it may be up to 30k€, according to the regulation.

Funny thing is, that indeed you get clearance from ATC to perform the low approach.

Same applies for any photo flight, e.g. within the boundary of CTR. In the same example, Frankfurt/Main, you have high towers where you have to maintain your lateral distance. You can only fly there if you have a permission from the local authority, but ATC does not know if you have such a permission. So they will clear you to go there, if traffic allows for it, and nobody will ask if you have your permission from authorities to go there. Those are two different things.

Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

In German pilot forums a credible case is discussed where a pilot was charged 55EUR fine for doing a low approach at EDDF.

This happens all the time. There must be something else that caused this pilot to be singled out.

If now pilots are fined for following an ATC clearance (you can’t do a low approach in EDDF w/o clearance) because they should have known that ATC is not allowed to give them this clearance, things get much more difficult.
How do you handle this?

It has always been the case that following an ATC clearance is not necessary legal. E.g. a clearance for a VFR flight might imply violation of minimum altitudes. (And I have myself been given such clearances at several occasions.) ATC can’t know the exact operating conditions for your flight and they are anyway not police.

IFR flights are to a large extent shielded from this because of regulations on what kind of clearances ATC can issue, but your example shows that that doesn’t help in all cases. Another example is clearances that would violate glide clear/glide to shore rules for single-engine aircraft.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

UdoR wrote:

Funny thing is, that indeed you get clearance from ATC to perform the low approach

How did they prove he did not touchdown for landing? an TnG puts a cap on the price of the low approach fine, you will have to pay the handling & landing fee though, last time I did a low pass (legal in UK) at Gatwick & Norwich, I was told if touching down it will be full handling service by Signature & SaxonAir, ground effect flying is charged at 36£/550£

I think something fishy in this story? maybe we need more details, I doubt he was on IFR flight plans? the pilot was probably bimble around VFR asked for ILS and got caught with low flying rules? in IMC no one can see you or what height you are flying, not even the radars…

How does it work in Germany to do IFR cloud-break on nearby ILS with big city 1000ft AGL limits before going SVFR/VFR to some grass strip? you can’t cancel IFR and fly SVFR/VFR without landing? you have to make a full stop IFR landing and fresh VFR takeoff to be exempt from SERA 3105/5005?

PS: I learned to call it “going around” on RT, I got lectured on the topic of low VFR pass once by the airfield manager at my uncontrolled grass strip ;)

Last Edited by Ibra at 01 Jun 09:59
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

EASA really needs to fix SERA.5005(f). As it stands, performing a planned aborted landing to an aerodrome is probably illegal. At the same time that maneuver is required when for training for every VFR certificate, and is considered healthy, sensible and having very good training value generally.

Norway has produced a piece of regulation that makes low VFR approaches legal, on certain (sensible) conditions. Denmark has not (a random difference, I think – or probably because the Danish “CAA” has much less resources than the Norwegian CAA). The training and requirements are basically the same in all countries.

I see absolutely no reason why EASA should not clear up this mess immediately.

Last Edited by huv at 01 Jun 10:28
huv
EKRK, Denmark

huv wrote:

EASA really needs to fix SERA.5005(f).

There is both an AMC and a GM to SERA.5005(f). Reading those, I am left with the impression that SERA.5005(f) was never intended to prohibit low VFR approaches to a runway. It looks like the actual worthing of the rule is some kind of slip from the rulemakers.

SERA.5005(f) Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent
authority, a VFR flight shall not be flown: [lower than…]

AMC1 SERA.5005(f) Visual flight rules
VFR MINIMUM HEIGHTS — PERMISSION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
The competent authority should specify the conditions under which the permission is or may be granted, including the minimum heights above the terrain, water or the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 m (500 ft) from an aircraft practising forced landings, a balloon or an aircraft executing ridge or hill soaring.

GM1 SERA.5005(f) Visual flight rules
Subject to an appropriate safety assessment, permission from the competent authority may also be
granted for cases like:
(a) aircraft operating in accordance with the procedure promulgated for the notified route being flown;
(b) helicopters operating at a height that will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface;
(c) aircraft picking up or dropping tow ropes, banners or similar articles at an aerodrome;
(d) any other flights not specified above, where specific exemption is required to accomplish a specific task

huv
EKRK, Denmark

huv wrote:

I am left with the impression that SERA.5005(f) was never intended to prohibit low VFR approaches to a runway.

Might well be – but unfortunately the rule is so crystal clear (one of the few) that there is no way to read it differently by means of “interpretation”. EASA just made a damn bad job but can not fix it without changing SERA.

Ibra wrote:

How did they prove he did not touchdown for landing?

In that case would be a bad idea – touch in EDDF would cost you much more than 55 EUR…

Ibra wrote:

last time I did a low pass (legal in UK)

How can this be legal in the UK? Does SERA no longer apply there?

Ibra wrote:

maybe we need more details, I doubt he was on IFR flight plans?

No, he wasn’t. He was on a normal VFR flight and asked Frankfurt Tower (most probably via FIS) if he could cross Frankfurt CTR and do a low approach. This has become quite common in times where TWR in large airports did not have much to do with their time. In Cologne, e.g. the Tower some times actively asked if you want to do it when you have been nearby and on their frequency…
All of the sudden this spring (unclear, who that is) someone at least in Frankfurt started to report these cases to the competent authority that (as SERA is crystal clear) has no other option than to prosecute – hence the really small fine of 55EUR …

Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

How can this be legal in the UK? Does SERA no longer apply there?

NAA can’t override SERA low flying rules to be more restrictive unless they create P/R airspace (so far the only mechanism to enforce low glide clear rules is reckless flying clause in ANO), but NAA can be more permissive with general exemptions & blanket permissions, away from London congested areas & crowds the UK has a very relaxed approach to low flying…

here

and here

Malibuflyer wrote:

No, he wasn’t. He was on a normal VFR flight and asked Frankfurt Tower (most probably via FIS) if he could cross Frankfurt CTR and do a low approach. This has become quite common in times where TWR in large airports did not have much to do with their time. In Cologne, e.g. the Tower some times actively asked if you want to do it when you have been nearby and on their frequency…
All of the sudden this spring (unclear, who that is) someone at least in Frankfurt started to report these cases to the competent authority that (as SERA is crystal clear) has no other option than to prosecute – hence the really small fine of 55EUR …

So my point, no one give a toss on SERA low flying rules when you are on IFR clearance with ATC vectors or IFR published flight paths even without landing but you get reminded actively on these by ATS (or pilot forums) when you are on VFR bimbles !

I once asked ATC if 3kft initial level is fine for IFR between Toussus to Pontoise, the reply was I can get you 5kft but you have to wait 20min and climb steep or you can shut up and depart now, a similar flight VFR was in the press 3 years ago

PS: if you want 180kts low pass with ATC while VFR very close to ground & tower, I suggest requesting “gear down check” or “gear up check” (instead of “I want to fly ILS in VMC while VFR”), it works every time and no one will crucify you for it, unless you are flying fixed gear ;)

PDFs:
20141204ROTA2007Retentions_pdf
20200609SERAABC_ANO_PermissionsExemptions_ROTA2015Consolidation_pdf

[ links cleaned up – please use clickable links for the weird huge URLs ]

Last Edited by Ibra at 01 Jun 12:12
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

So how do you train or remain current wrt IFR approaches in Germany? In FAA-land we fly these approaches all the time to stay current and all you need is a safety pilot (not a CFI) in the right seat. It’s a VFR maneuver and the Approach ATC phraseology is ‘cleared for the practice ILS (or whatever) approach, remain visual, no separation provided’; the App controller may or may not ask how you would like to terminate the approach (land, t&g, low or missed), but often you only tell the tower controller.

57 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top