A quick addition to my earlier post now I have my notes:
Rule 5(1)(e) - The 500ft rule
does not preclude flight closer than 500 feet to animals, but you could be in breach of
Article 56 of the ANO, which refers to recklessly or negligently endangering property. The
could be is one of the many grey areas of Rule 5. Flying Lawyer could probably tell a story or two here.
This is (unsurprisingly) further complicated by the fact that a pilot
may be trespassing when he flies over someone's property, but Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act precludes action for trespass or nuisance if the flight is made at a
reasonable height and in accordance with aviation legislation. Argue what reasonable means in court. Under 500 feet probably doesn't count.
A & C: This bit seems unclear. You could be correct, but equally Rule 5(3) relaxes Rule 5 when the flight is for the purposes of saving life. It might be argues that teaching EFATO's is covered by Rule 5(3), but that otherwise Rule 5 applies.
(edit)Just to add a possibly useless definition, "a Structure is a thing that has been a contstructed". A tree doesn't count. A fencepost - maybe? The courts decide.
Guess who is studying Air Law...
HTH
[ 05 September 2001: Message edited by: Evo7 ]