Circuit practice at Unlicensed aerodromes?

[Capt. Manuvar]

I was wiping the dust of my trevor thoms and decided to glance through to see what i might have forgotten. I found this in Trevor thoms APM book 2(air law) page 24:
"Note that the '1500 feet' prohibition specified above does apply to flight after take off or before landing at unlicensed aerodromes, i.e no circuit practice is permitted at unlicensed aerodromes"
I believe this is taken directly from CAP 393.
I'm aware that it's common practice for people to fly circuits at licensed airfields after normal operating hours. Is this illegal? I'm asking cos I've landed a few minutes after an airfield has officially closed on a few occasions.
Capt. M

[ToryBoy]

Without wishing to sound dismissive Captain, I wouldn't get too stewed up in details such as these with your flying.

[FlyingForFun]

I don't have a copy of Trevor Thom, nor the relevant CAPs or legislation, to hand - so this is all from memory. Apologies if it is not correct.

The 500' rule says that you can't fly less than 500' from any person, vessel, structure, etc etc etc. However, there is an exemption from this clause - it doesn't apply when you are taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation activity.

The 1500' rule says that, if you are flying over a built up area, you can't fly less than 1500' above the nearest structure within 1000m. There is also an exemption from this clause - the clause doesn't apply when taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation activity at a licensed or government aerodrome. It does apply at an unlicensed airfield.

What this means is that you can't put your unlicensed airfield closer than 1000m from a built up area - if you were to do so, you would have to be at least 1500' over your airfield, which would make it very difficult to use! (Actually, you'd need a little more than 1000m, depending on the orientation of the runway compared to the direction of the built up area, and also depending how tight a circuit you are happy to fly in your aircraft.)

The rule does not distinguish between circuit practice, and landing or taking off for a cross-country flight. In either case, if the airfield or circuit is within 1000m of a built up area, you can't use it.

At least, that's the way I understand it.

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

[ThePirateKing]

I have a vague recollection of something about PPL training at unlicenced airfields being forbidden. I think training for additional ratings (IMC, Night, IR, etc.) is OK.

[Flyin'Dutch']

No training at unlicenced fields and not allowed to descend below 500ft other than for the purpose of take-off and landing.

Now you can debate for days whether T&Gs are take-offs and landings or summit different.

It probably won't matter unless you have a neighbour to the field who is already pi$$es off with the aeroplanes and has now a stick to beat you with.

FD

[FNG]

Pretty good going from memory, FFF, but it's 600 metres, measured from the crate, not 1000 (being a lawyer by trade, I don't remember this or, indeed any other law, but it's easy for me to look it up using lawyer online blah sites that my Chambers has forked out for).

The Captain was asking, if I understand correctly, not about training, but about landing at, for example, a usually licensed field outside its licensed hours, with specific reference to the 1500 foot rule. Depends, as FFF observes, on where the field is relative to the houses.

Some cautious lawyers might advise taking the Fifth on the subject of landing on, ahem, certain runways at, ahem, a certain airfield, when it's not licensed

(speaking for myself I have often pondered trying to stuff it into the allotments whilst experiencing crippling terror on the approach).

[Flyin'Dutch']

Landing at any field is permitted provided you have the owner's permission.

FD

[FNG]

Alas, Dutch, that's not correct if the field is next to a village, and approaching the field puts you in breach of the 1500 foot rule.

Here are the relevant bits of Rule 5 [edits/comments in square brackets]

(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3):

(a) an aircraft other than a helicopter shall not fly over any congested area of a city, town or settlement below:

(i) [alight clear rule: omitted for this discussion]

(ii) a height of 1500 feet above the highest fixed object within 600 metres of the aircraft:

(b) to (d) [omitted]

(e) an aircraft shall not fly closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

(2) (a) to (c) [omitted]

(d) Paragraph (1)(e) shall not apply to:

(i) any aircraft while it is landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice;

[ie disapplies 500 foot rule if landing/taking off]

(3) Nothing in this rule shall prohibit an aircraft from flying in such a manner as is necessary for the purpose of saving life

[phew!]


(4) (a) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), nothing in this rule shall prohibit any aircraft from 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 aerodrome, an aerodrome owned or managed by the Authority or a licensed aerodrome in the United Kingdom or at any aerodrome in any other country.

(b) The practising of approaches to landing shall be confined to the airspace customarily used by aircraft when landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice at the aerodrome concerned.

[In other words, OK to land, or touch and go at licensed field, even if by doing so you bust the 1500 foot rule]

[Nothing here about field owner's consent making OK what would otherwise be not OK. It's not him you have to worry about: it's angry bloke in Ye Olde Undershoote Cottage]

*******

The first reply to this thread was the best one. The everyday, practical answer is: don't worry about this stuff. These discussions are usually academic. As Dutch has pointed out, there is only going to be a problem if somebody complains, and it is ordinarily possible to fly in such a way that complaints are unlikely. Farmstrips, for example, tend to be sufficiently far from villages to make it easy to comply with the 1500 foot rule, but if invited by a field owner to land in his huge great flat field right next to a built up area, with the wind blowing across the field and onto the pretty houses, you might be wise to decline, unless you are feeling rocky tough about landing cross or down wind.

PS: Think I'll go back and edit my previous post just in case any nimbies are reading this.

[Capt. Manuvar]

Thanks for the replies. I wouldn't want to get worked up about this but the CAA have a reputation for prosecutingfor the smallest possible reason. It's not a big deal but if i get involved in an incident/accident i would like to know i'm totally legal. If the CAA take me to court, i can't even afford to hire Flying Lawyers dog to represent me:} .
My local arpt is surrounded by built up area and is only licensed from 0900-1800, which means that circuits outside these times will be in breach of the 1500ft rule.
capt. manuvar

[englishal]

"Well your honour, this big flock of geese appeared right in front of me, and as I was worried about the safety of the flight, I had not other safe option other than to land in the field."

;)

[FlyingForFun]

Can't see any problems with that argument, Englishal ;)

However, you might have trouble taking off again. I can't think of any good safety-of-flight reason why you absolutely must take off from a field which is within 600m (thanks FNG!) of a built up area. Maybe someone else's imagination is better than mine, though - come on, let's hear your ideas :D

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

[FNG]

Pilot : "Your Honour, I had to take off immediately in order to escape the mob of outraged nimbies that were threatening to beat me and my passengers to death with the bodies of their pet geese."

Judge: "You poor thing. Case Dismissed. I order that you be awarded tea and medals. However, to ensure the future safety of geese and public, I further order that all airfields be closed immediately, and sentence the nimbies to have a 24/7 Waste Compactor built on every field with 600 metres of the village".

Omnes: Fiat Justicia Ruat Coelum!

[Genghis the Engineer]

an aircraft other than a helicopter shall not fly over any congested area of a city, town or settlement below

It's worthy of mention that the precise meaning of this phrase has never been tested in court, and that the CAA has never published formal guidance on it.

The 1500 ft rule also applies only to overflight of the congested area, it is not an absolute prohibition on flying below 1500ft above anything within 600m - it is an absolute prohibition on flying below 1500ft above anything within 600m whilst at the same time flying over a congested area.

The distinction I think is quite important.


Mind you as I said, it's never been successfully prosecuted, which means that the exact definition of "congested area" has never been established firmly in law. Whether it is better to be vague, or we should have such a definition is a moot point.

G

[Mark 1]

Genghis,

There was a prosecution I recall for flying single engine over London.

The defence was that he was in glide range of the Thames and could "alight clear".

The court however ruled that the river Thames in London was a congested area so this defence was invalid.

It still seems rather subjective though.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I suspect it's an argument that only really holds water if flying a seaplane or amphibian! Also, using the middle of London as your definition probably isn't all that helpful in defining the cuttoff point of "congested area" since it's hardly a borderline case.

As you say, very subjective.

G

[FNG]

Genghis is correct to highlight this point.

Re a definition for "congested area": Better, in my opinion, to leave the wording as it is. A congested area is like an elephant, difficult to describe, but you know one when you see one. Trying to define it by reference, for example, to building density per square km or mile, or to population (when? at the last Census, at that particular moment? last Thursday?) or by some such formula, would require the setting of somewhat arbitrary limits and would tend to invite technicality rather than common sense (which, contrary to received opinion, Courts quite often possess).

If it is the case that no one has been convicted of infringing the 1500 foot rule, this tends to reinforce the point that it's not something to lose too much sleep over. It's something of a myth that the CAA is determined to prosecute pilots for the slightest infringement of the rules. It does sometimes makes bad prosecution decisions, just like any prosecuting authority, but is in many cases pragmatic and sensible about low flying complaints, accidental airspace busts etc. I'm not suggesting that we all zip about like Lord Flasheart on acid, but at the other extreme, flying as though you had an invisible Judge looking over your shoulder mucks up your weight and balance.

The prosecution referred to above appears to have been based, not on the 1500 foot rule, but on the “alight clear rule”, which requires you to fly over a congested area at “such height as would enable the aircraft to alight clear of the [congested] area and without danger to persons or property on the surface.” Even if, which is doubtful, the Thames is clear of the congested area, and assuming for this purpose that an aircraft without floats is “alighting” when it ditches into water, the Thames is an active waterway with many boats, barges, pontoons etc on its surface, and the aircraft cannot be certain of alighting on the river surface without danger to persons or property on that surface, so it sounds as though the pilot in that case was bang to rights.

[bookworm]

I recall a case quite a while back (10-15 years) in which a conviction in the magistrates court was overturned in the Crown Court (is that the way it works?). The prosecution was over a PFL in Essex, where the aircraft was alleged to have broken the 1500 ft rule over East Hanningfield. It was thrown out on the basis that not only had the prosecution not established that the aircraft had flown over East Hanningfield, but also that they had not established that East Hanningfield was a congested area.

Anyone recall the details better?

[LowNSlow]

Circuits are positively encouraged at Rush Green International. We may be unlicensed but we have plannng permission. The more activitywe have the better as ammunition against proposals to build 5,000 houses under our current circuit. F:mad:g Two Jags and his schemes... there'll be no disputing the congestion there then. :yuk:

[englishal]

I thought congested area was defined as:-

"An area that is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes WITHIN a city, town or settlement"

"So you see your honor, after the geese had cleared, and as the field was not in a congested area by definition, I decided to reposition my aircraft back to a licenced aerodrome. No rules of the air were broken, as I wasn't flying OVER a congested area, so I did not need to comply with the 1500' rule".


EA

[FNG]

The ANO definition, which applies for the purposes of Rule 5 is:-

'Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes

This rules out landing on the Thames. Rules out landing on Hampstead Heath, Hyde Park etc as well, geese or no geese.

East Hanningfield doesn't count, on the grounds that no one in their right mind would live there, work there, or seek recreation there (does this apply to the whole of Essex?)

[FlyingForFun]

Ah, but since we're getting into a protracted, pedantic, verging-on-comical argument just for the sake of it, consider the following:

If I were to fly over London (which I think is a congested area by any definition), but keeping well clear of Essex to avoid any confusion arising from FNG's very valid last post, am I not required to be able to not only land clear of the congested area (for which purpose either Essex or the Thames would suffice), but also to be able to do so without causing danger to persons or property on the surface? In which case, the Thames does not count - because when landing on the Thames I will likely put people in danger, even though these people are themselves not in a congested area. (The same may not apply to Essex, though.)

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

[FNG]

Hey, don't knock pedantry, it's just those obsessed with minute detail types that cause all the trouble. You can't land on the Thames because people's grannies and the accounts department office party are taking those mindless river cruises for recreation, so it's congested. You are going to have to crash into Essex, but this will be OK, as scattered debris and body parts will just look like Basildon High Street on a normal Friday night.

[bingoboy]

After landing at said field due to geese or whatever a take-off is probably mandatory as the CAA would do you for endangering an aircraft if you left in on an unlicenced airfield !!