Airborne_Again wrote:
The point is of course that a pilot should expect general rules to be no more restrictive than SERA, while a restricted area is clearly marked on charts as such.
Thank you for that explanation!
LeSving wrote:
An airport is not densely populated area
You have written that twice, but that’s certainly not obvious as “densely populated area” is, AFAIK, not defined in the EASA regs.
I have seen somewhere (although I don’t have a reference handy) that the Swedish Authority defines “densely populated area” according to planning regulations in which case a runway could certainly be in a densely populated area. The question, in your case, is how Luftfartstilsynet interprets the term.
Airborne_Again wrote:
but that’s certainly not obvious as “densely populated area” is, AFAIK, not defined in the EASA regs.
It’s not defined in the Norwegian addition either, but I think everybody understands what is meant. It is called “tettbebyggelse”. I only translated it to densely populated area, because I don’t know how otherwise to describe it. A city center/town and a field of housing estates obviously is “tettbebyggelse”, while pastures, agricultural fields, forest, sea, lakes etc. isn’t.
I have always taken it for granted that an (official) airfield can be used for training, since for an official airfield to be official (unrestricted movements), this has been discussed and decided at the county administration and by the CAA. It’s common sense. You make an airfield for aircraft to take off and land, and for training. There has never been any doubts in my mind about what an airfield shall be used for, irrelevant of the surroundings. Exactly like roads. You don’t build roads exclusively for driving and not for teaching people how to drive, or “training”, regardless of where they go, be it the wilderness or “densely populated area”.
What the extra addition say, is (in my mind) that you also can do this even though it is not an airfield. But not above “densely populated areas” or above a crowd of people.
Within a licenced airfield Air Traffic Zone, I’d think their ATC was the competent authority to give permission.
Thread drift. Glenforsa Fly-in, almost 30 years ago. Starduster2 was doing aerobatics with low cloud. I was left in charge of a video camera on a tripod, on the edge of the runway. Video cameras weren’t common then.
Two police officers spotted me, and approached, smiling. The Starduster pilot had also noticed me, and did a very low pass towards me, from behind the police, whom I assume he didn’t see.
The policewoman dived full length in the wet muddy grass.
Maoraigh wrote:
competent authority
Competent Authority is EASA-Speak for national aviation authority.
Ibra wrote:
The only way is to have restricted/prohibited area over every big city, a pilot is of course is exempt if he keeps a shallow fast climb after takeoff
A really stubborn CAA can also publish a “whole FIR/country” restricted area saying “inside this area, forbidden to overfly any city below 5500ft”. Not in the spirit of having common rules of the air… I’ve heard that the French CAA seriously considered it.
Ibra wrote:
This is highly relevant in France where there is a law from 1957 for overflying cities except for takeoff & landing,(…) depending on the congested area colour on the official IGN chart (which one rarely use)
Incidentally the rule depends on the size (diameter) of the village/town/city. Note also that SERA contains a rule that can be interpreted that one has to fly high enough not to endanger people on the ground on an engine failure:
SERA.3105 Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
The “old” 1957 decree can, in this context, be interpreted as being a concrete definition of “without undue hazard”, assuming a city doesn’t have any landing area other than gliding clear of the city.
Airborne_Again wrote:
This is not just wordplay because a country is not allowed to prescribe higher minimum altitudes — that would indeed be a difference from SERA.
Consider:
GM1 SERA.3105 In cases where it is considered that the minimum heights specified in SERA.5005and SERA.5015are not sufficient, the competent authority may (…) define specific conditions through national arrangements.
Again, the 1957 decree might be seen as such a “national arrangement”.
lionel wrote:
Incidentally the rule depends on the size (diameter) of the village/town/city. Note also that SERA contains a rule that can be interpreted that one has to fly high enough not to endanger people on the ground on an engine failure:
Yes it depends on the size (diameter) of the village/town/city but also hospitals, industrial plants
It’s more restrictive to multi-engines & turbines, the main concern is not engine failure more NIMBY and after few high profile cases 
https://moranesaulnier.org/2019/09/11/un-rallye-ms-880-sous-larc-de-triomphe/
Your intention is to land. Your airspeed was too high so unstable and go around. It’s that simple.
Shanwick wrote:
Your intention is to land. Your airspeed was too high so unstable and go around. It’s that simple.
Absolutely! If you have an intention to land, there is no problem at all even if for whatever reason you decide that you have to do a go around.
The discussion here, however, is on flights where you have no intention to land.
lionel wrote:
Again, the 1957 decree might be seen as such a “national arrangement”.
With a restricted area, yes. Without it, certainly not…
