Does this apply to SE aircraft all over Europe?
Are twins subject to it when flying with one engine INOP?
Hello!
No such rule in Germany. And twins are supposed to be able to produce "positive rate of climb", as minimal as it may be, at maximum takeoff mass with one engine out, otherwise they wouldn't be certified.
On the other hand every pilot is supposed to observe the rules of his country of registration and those of the country overflown, whichever is more restrictive.
On the other hand every pilot is supposed to observe the rules of his country of registration and those of the country overflown, whichever is more restrictive.
How does one do that? Does an IR teach you all these things? I doubt it. And if someone was overrflying 3 different European countries en-route somewhere it would be hard to 1: download and read all of the different rules (maybe there are language / translation issues there) 2: note or memorise the salient ones.
Does an IR teach you all these things? I doubt it.
That should be covered within PPL air law already. Basis is the ICAO "Chicago Convention" (Convention on International Civil Aviation - DOC 7300), especially Article 12 (see below).
And if someone was overrflying 3 different European countries en-route somewhere it would be hard to 1: download and read all of the different rules...
It would be hard indeed. Yet it is required, because despite ICAO's efforts to standardise the rules of the air across it's member states, a lot of national differences still exist. To save you the greatest part of that effort, flying giudes like Jeppesen list the national differences to the ICAO standard in it's introductory part. Without a flying guide, it would be necessary to consult the foreign AIPs. There one should be able to find that "glide clear" rule which seems to be one of those UK-only rules but which applies to every single engine aeroplane in UK airspace even if it is nonexistent in it's country of registration. They really didn't teach you those things? Sure?
(maybe there are language / translation issues there)...
There can be no language/translation issues as every ICAO member state is required to publish it's national rules of the air in one of the ICAO languages (at least one of which every pilot must be proficient in).
2: note or memorise the salient ones.
Exactly.
Happy landings, Max
This is ICAO DO7300 Article 12 verbatim:
Article 12
Rules of the air
Each contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to insure that every aircraft flying over or maneuvering within its territory and that every aircraft carrying its nationality mark, wherever such aircraft may be, shall comply with the rules and regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force. Each contracting State undertakes to keep its own regulations in these respects uniform, to the greatest possible extent, with those established from time to time under this Convention. Over the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention. Each contracting State undertakes to insure the prosecution of all persons violating the regulations applicable.
Is it still glide clear?
In Ireland it's sufficient altitude to allow a safe landing to be made in the event of an engine failure.
If that safe landing can be made inside the congested area then there is no need to glide clear.
With EASA changing the rules, I'd assumed that the UK had become similar to this, but could be wrong.
Is it still glide clear?
Yes. At least our Jeppesen guide lists it under UK national differences from ICAO. And it is updated weekly.
Soon we will have SERA one set of European Rules.
SERA state that
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.
So when this comes in, it will be universal across all Europe, with the slight tweak that you can now argue landing in Hyde Park is acceptable although it is within the congested area, while previously in the UK it was within the congested area and did not count.
I believe the last possible SERA implementation date is December 2013.
I wonder which bunch of rocket scientists came up with that one? :-)
If you look at the number of non-participant ground injuries caused by SE aircraft in the Los Angeles valley over the last five years, which I can only imagine you could count on one hand, and compare that with utility of SE aircraft in the same area (thousands of useful urban transport operations per day) I think its impossible to imagine any rational person proposing this rule in Europe.
I'd always assumed that the legacy UK rule came from the time when aircraft engines were not reliable, pre-1930, but stuck due to the over active imagination of a naive non-technical governing class. How a similar rule would be perpetuated today Europe-wide is hard to understand. Maybe the present day EASA regulators intend that urban motorways are fair game for a landing spot, which would be rational based on how it is done elsewhere in the world, minus the need for a rule.
As with much of Euro aircraft regulation its rules as a costly theatre, not rules imposed only when made necessary by a demonstrated reality - anyway I see no legitimate value in any such rule. Maybe a rule requiring a little more bravery among urban dwellers would serve society better overall, and allow certified aircraft to be used for their intended purpose?
The only engine failure related ground fatality I'm aware of in my urban area, similarly overflown by thousands of SE aircraft every day, was when an F/A-18 twin engine jet lost its second engine when attempting to return to base with one shut down. The aircraft was unable to land safely on a road like a SE light aircraft would, so the pilot punched out and the twin engine jet killed a family. The military paid the father and husband (who was at work at the time of the accident) many millions. I still think about the guy occasionally and hope he is doing OK after government unintentionally killed his family. Nothing like that occurs with SE aircraft serving the area.
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.
If you look at the number of non-participant ground injuries caused by SE aircraft in the Los Angeles valley over the last five years, which I can only imagine you could count on one hand, and compare that with utility of SE aircraft in the same area (thousands of useful urban transport operations per day) I think its impossible to imagine any rational person proposing this rule in Europe.
Could it be that it's safe in the LA valley because you have an equivalent rule which is more broadly applicable? ;)
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
