Rule 5 in application to Unlicensed Aerodromes

[italianjon]

Hi all,

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I have searched and not found anything on it.

Obviously and aircraft is exempt from rule 5 when taking off or landing at a licensed aerodrome, however I wish to get clarification on unlicenced. Checking the ANO it states, in the exemptions for Rule 5: -

(3) Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions

(a) Landing and taking off

(i) Any aircraft shall be exempt from any low flying prohibition in so far as it is
flying in accordance with normal aviation practice for the purpose of taking
off from, landing at or practising approaches to landing at or checking
navigational aids or procedures at a Government or licensed aerodrome.

(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and takingoff in accordance with normal aviation practice.

Paragraph (3).(a).(i) states quite clearly a Government or licensed aerodrome - therefore taking off from, landing at, practising approaches to landing or checking navigational aids or procedures at an unlicensed aerodrome is not exempt from rule 5.

Sorted!... Or...

Paragraph (3).(b).(ii) Seems, in my interpretation to allow the aircraft to be exempt from Rule 5 when taking off or landing at an unlicensed aerodrome, as this is normal aviation practice.

Not being a legal person myself, I am interested in how you other bods interpret these paragraphs.

Regards

Jon

[flybymike]

The first paragraph refers to "practising approaches" whilst the second makes no such reference. I seem to recall some controversy some time ago that whilst practice approaches, touch and goes etc were legal at licensed aerodromes , this was not necessarily the case at unlicensed fields, even to the extent that low overflying of the field in order to check for livestock and obstructions was technically illegal since the low flying was not for the purpose of a landing. However, I would personally have thought that " normal aviation practice" included a check that the runway was unobstructed! As the yanks would say...Go figure...And then of course there is the whole business of practice forced landings.....,

[Human Factor]

IMHO, 3a(ii) covers you as normal (sensible) practice can be considered to be a couple of low passes to check the approach and the field condition and the actual landing/take-off itself.

[FlyingForFun]

Also worth noting that it is only the 500' rule from which you are exempt at unlicensed airfields. In other words, the 1000' rule (1500' rule as was) and the glide clear rule do still apply. This effectively prevents using unlicensed airfields in, or very near to, built up areas.

FFF
-----------------

[flybymike]

But presumably so far as an unlicensed field near to a built up area is concerned one could argue the intention to use the unlicensed field itself in the event of engine failure,( assuming one would not have had to carry out a long low approach over a built up area to reach the field in the first place!)

[Whopity]

I would personally have thought that " normal aviation practice" included a check that the runway was unobstructed!

But the ANO says:when landing and takingoff in accordance with normal aviation practice.

You can't sepearate the "landing and takingoff" from the "normal aviation practice". A flypast is neither a landing nor a takeoff!

If you are exempt the 500ft rule you must be exempt the 1000 ft part of the rule!

If you approach an unlicensed field and go arround for safety reasons, that would not be unreasonable however if you have no intention of landing and spend all day doing low approaches you could be considered in breach of rule 5. If you land after each approach and then take off again you are exempt. A landing is a landing whether or not it follows a practice approach.