Common examples of where flight well below 500 ft AGL may be “necessary for landing” are to clear birds or animals from an unattended runway, and/or to check low-level wind conditions and the suitability of the landing surface to inform a decision as to whether to land at that time and place – as taught for the European mountain rating.
Airborne_Again wrote:
SERA actually says
Regarding SERA it’s actually more important to look at all the national deviations (wherever they are printed for each country). Regarding this “necessary for take off and landing”, the Norwegian deviation (for GA, there are 5 in total), is that it is also allowed for training as long as it’s not done over densely populated areas or over gatherings of people.
In the US, there is an FAA general counsel opinion that indicates flight in the pattern qualifies as necessary for takeoff or landing.
No, please don’t make yet another post… you are already at 50% of the total post count!
Which one of two of them? 
I cannot decipher the above proposition. No, please don’t make yet another post… you are already at 50% of the total post count!
You can surely opt for another extreme interpretation: you can descend bellow “500ft from X” for landing only when under 2nm short final with stable approach and threshold positively identified and clear runway as N#1 and after you have ensured that you have the required legal visibility to land on that runway to be able to go bellow the runway gate
Otherwise, it’s not necessary to descend to acheive a landing…
Ibra wrote:
Cloud-break into a hole under VFR at X then flying under clouds VFR to land at Y is called necessary , it is allowed by SERA (how far X & Y is up to interpretation and personal views, it can be 2nm or 30nm)
That depends on what you mean by “necessary”. I interpret the SERA provision to mean “necessary to achieve a landing”, while your interpretation is “necessary to reach the particular airport in the particular weather situation.” Those interpretations are not the same…
SERA actually says when necessary for take-off and landing. We could probably debate endlessly when exactly it is necessary, but certainly not 25 NM out
What about those published departure procedures that stretch for 25nm (or 30nm) and keeps you under arriving traffic? on what legal basis they can allow flying under min cruise altitudes?
Cloud-break into a hole under VFR at X then flying under clouds VFR to land at Y is called necessary , it is allowed by SERA (how far X & Y is up to interpretation and personal views, it can be 2nm or 30nm)
Ibra wrote:
you are allowed to go to go under 500ft for the purpose of landing?
SERA actually says when necessary for take-off and landing. We could probably debate endlessly when exactly it is necessary, but certainly not 25 NM out.
Reference please
It’s my personal opinion “25nm radius around ARP”, I think the other extreme is “2nm final” (or ATZ), AFAIK, no one has a legal definition when cruise stops and landing starts? including in UK…
Can you get busted for it? Probably not, not least because they can’t prove the date+time.
What if they were on VFR clearance inside controlled airspace (radio audio) while in IMC?
The rest can’t be policed, especially OCAS
