Low level circuit / visual manoeuvring - minimum height above aerodrome?

Peter wrote:

enroute flight – the “500ft from man made objects etc” rule

I believe this is UK only, and that SERA has 500ft AGL

except when necessary for take-off or landing

- covers everything. When instructing at ENVA, the circuits is at 1000’ (runway at 50 something). The highest obstacle at downwind (circuits to the south) is 663’. For circuits to the north it’s sometimes 771’ if you get a “continue downwind”. Other places the obstacles are above 1000’ for a “normal” circuit

I guess the word necessary is a key word here.

SERA.5005

And UK Derogation is in

I agree with Noe and disagree on the downwind leg not being part of an approach to land.

If you’re flying a downwind leg then you’ve either just taken off or are about to land. Thus you’re obviously exempt from the low flying rules, in my simple view of the world. One cannot arrive and depart without flying low at some point, however briefly.

Also not keen at stooging about at low level unnecessarily, but I wouldn’t worry about the legality of anything in the normal course of things. I was taught bad weather circuits at 600ft AAL, but also taught that one could go as low as necessary. What are you going to do when you arrive home under a 500ft cloudbase, not land?

Graham wrote:

disagree on the downwind leg not being part of an approach to land

Agree. The regs say “except when necessary for take-off or landing”. It doesn’t say “when on final”, or when turning base, or when turning left after take off or whatever. It doesn’t say “at” take of or landing either, it says “when necessary for”. In other words, from the moment you have stopped doing whatever it is you are doing up in the air, and want to land, then you are exempt the rule regarding minimum alt. Obviously in the circuit, no such minimum alt exists. But from there to do circuits at 200’ above the runway is way out IMO.

Ok, say there is a runway with some hangars and an apron / club buildings etc to the side of it. You are all saying it would be ok to fly a downwind leg over all that at less than 500ft?

I’m not saying it would be a particularly good idea (assuming it wasn’t necessary) but I don’t believe it would be illegal. They have students fly bad weather circuits at 600ft AAL at Waltham on runway 25 where the juxtaposition of the buildings to the runways is much as you describe. That’s only 100ft away from what you describe.

Agree with LeSving and I think the phrasing is done that way deliberately so as to leave a pilot absolute discretion in the matter. I’m approaching to land if I say I am, not because of criteria regarding my position and height.

If someone metaphorically ran their landing gear along the roof of the hangar then I think any subsequent prosecution would be on the basis of recklessness and endangering an aircraft rather than an absolute offence of being below a particular altitude.

Balliol wrote:

You are all saying it would be ok to fly a downwind leg over all that at less than 500ft?

No it would NOT be OK as it is hardly necessary, what reason could you have with a straight face for being at less than 500ft on initial downwind in a circuit? Given that the reason would have to be related to the actual purpose of landing? I think the same applies to base and final BTW.

Ted wrote:

what reason could you have with a straight face for being at less than 500ft on initial downwind in a circuit

Low cloud base.

Of course when arriving from a cross country flight, that either has to be very local cloud or weather rapidly going down, otherwise the enroute flight was definitely too low. Also, with cloud that low, I would certainly consider landing with a tailwind on the closest runway (assuming it is long enough), rather than risking flying a low level circuit.

As said above, the most likely reason for flying a bad weather circuit is a take-off and finding the cloud base a lot lower than expected.