"Structure" is used in legislation introduced by ICAO authorities all over the world but, as far as I know, no country's aviation legislation defines it. I can't remember if there's an appellate court decision in an aviation case in the UK which defines it, and I haven't got access to reference material to look it up at time of writing.
As VP959 says, Rule 5 cases are heard in the magistrates courts (almost always by lay JPs not lawyers) and decisions by magistrates courts do not, as he rightly says, create legal precedent.
Although aviators who take an interest in CAA prosecutions may regard the CAA as vexatious litigators, that isn't in any way a factor in court decisions. There are very few CAA prosecutions relative to the number of cases heard by mags nationally so the chances of JPs ever hearing a CAA case are remote, even if they sit at a court near a major airport.
A structure, as Legalapproach says, must be something constructed. (Latin
structura, from
struere ‘to build’).
I'm confident it doesn't have to be something that might reasonably be occupied by a person (as suggested by Greeners), and amazed if it's correct (as VP959 reported) that a Scottish court decided that a conifer plantation was a structure. If that's correct, it must have been the Scottish equivalent of a magistrates court.
Even though a runway is 'constructed', it seems nonsensical (if as reported by DD) that the CAA regards a runway as a structure for the purpose of Rule 5. Does that mean we are committing an offence if we fly across a deserted road way out in the wilds below 500'?
If a court looked at the meaning of the word in the context of the legislation - prohibiting aircraft from flying closer than 500' to a "person, vessel, vehicle or structure" - I find it difficult to see how it could sensibly be interpreted to include something which lies flat on the ground.
Bar Shaker's sea wall.
It's a structure in the dictionary meaning of the word, and might reasonably come within Rule 5 but, even if it does, I hope no-one would think it necessary to prosecute a pilot for flying closer than 500' to a wall in a deserted area.
What sort of wall is it?
Sea walls are often enormous wide 'structures' with roads on top for use by official vehicles.
UV
"I am sure that Flying Lawyer (and the CAA) would say that a check from (above 500 ft) cannot possibly ensure clearance from people etc."
Err, no, I certainly wouldn't say that. Nor IMHO is it correct.
I don't regard flying very low above a sea wall as necessarily "hooliganism." I might, depending upon location, but I don't understand how you got from Bar Shaker's sea wall "next to vast reaches of open fields and devoid from walkers" to Southend Pier.
I assume by "safety of persons on the ground" you mean an endangering offence under the ANO. Where did 'persons' on the ground come into it? Bar Shaker described a wall between the sea and "vast reaches of open fields and devoid from walkers."
He's obviously taking a risk he might might fail to spot a lone rambler who reports him and, if a court was satisfied the rambler was endangered, he'd be convicted.
Our views are poles apart in this context.
You think BS is committing "several breaches" and disapprove of what he does.
I think he's probably breaching Rule 5 and hope he doesn't get caught in case someone decides to prosecute him.
"no doubt you obtained permission from the land owner to land on his sea wall" Isn't that scraping the barrel just a touch?