Definition of a structure?

[bar shaker]

I have wondered for a while, as to what exactly constitutes a structure, for the purposes of Rule 5.

Whilst it may sound obvious, consider the following potential candidates...

A timber shed

A Poly Tunnel (plastic hangar/greenhouse)

An earth bank sea wall

A fence


Over to you, my peers.

[TCAS FAN]

A runway, if you are not intending to land on it!

[Timothy]

If it came to it, I imagine that the magistrates would have to decide in a particular case. If the argument was about a low pass over a runway, all runways have something near them which could be deemed a structure even if the runway itself isn't (eg ILS aerials, fences, PAPIs, disused pillboxes etc).

A quick glance at legal definitions of structures includes:

"Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground including, but not limited to, buildings, walls, fences, swimming pools, radio towers, and porches, but not including driveways, paths, or other facilities, the sole purpose of which is to provide customary access to any structure."

"That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts jointed together in some definite manner, excluding fences in rear/side setback areas of a single family residence. Flood walls are considered to be structures."

"Any physical item built by a man or woman, from a shed to a high-rise or a bridge."

Notice that one includes fences, another specifically excludes them.

Personally I consider the 500' rule to apply to any land, but allow myself to fly as low as I like over the sea, being sure to avoid vessels by 500' (normally horizontally).

[greeners]

For the purposes of rule 5, I would suggest a structure is something that might reasonably be occupied by a person. Sheds and conservatories count, fences and runways do not.

[bar shaker]

Timothy, thanks for your thoughts. You have perfectly portrayed my fears in that we could be prosecuted for flying near anything that someone had erected and the meaning is definitely not "a building".

Greeners, that was also my interpretation, but as Timothy pointed out, dictionaries do not agree. Is the law defined by dictionary or intended meaning?

The main reason for asking the question is that I often fly very low along a sea wall. The purpose is to keep the wall below the aircraft, whilst maintaining an exact altitude (OK, within +/- about 10 feet).

I cannot, no matter how much I drink on a rainy Sunday, see a runway classed as a structure.

[AerBabe]

Any physical item built by a man or woman, from a shed to a high-rise or a bridge

But if a child built it, it doesn't count? Mind you, the structures most children build wouldn't last long enough to be a problem.

I wonder if we could train some chimps to work in the building industry ...

No further comment necessary!

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've probably got dangerously close to the odd sand castle in my time.

G

[greeners]

Interpretation is likely to be what the CAA think it is at the time of prosecution. I have had a few 'off the record' chats with CAA staff who would strongly agree with my suggestion above, but that's no guarantee of consistency.

[Legalapproach]

One defintion from the concise Oxford disctionary is

" A thing constructed"

Following on from what Timothy says it would appear to be anything man made. Whether the CAA would prosecute for a fence, wall or earth bank would probably depend upon the circumstances and how they were feeling on the day but such would appear to fall within the definition.

[charliegolf]

Isn't virtually all arable farmland 'constructed' from the landscape so as to be made fit for purpose?

Charlie (devil's advocate) golf

[DFC]

If one flies low over a fence (or sea wall) in the middle of nowhere well away from everyone and anoying no person or livestock - who is there to report you for low flying?

Regards,

DFC

[Maude Charlee]

DFC

Exactly! :D

[ozplane]

I've always wondered about those haystacks on final to 23 at Old Buckenham. They've been there so long they are almost fixtures but I guess as you're landing when you pass over them Rule 5 doen't apply. Heaven forbid that anybody should hit them but it would give the lawyers some fun.

[bar shaker]

DFC said:
who is there to report you for low flying?

I am sure Flying Lawyer can give you a list ;)

[DFC]

Bar Shaker,

I know what you are getting at. However, provided you make a check from overhead at a reasonable height that there are no walkers, people on horses, tractors or whatever close to where you intend to operate low level then;

a) You reduce the chances of anyone catching you out; and

b) Could have Flying Lawyer use the fact that you did your best to check the area was clear and exercised good judgement as your mitigating circumstances.

:)

Regards,

DFC

[Lowtimer]

I can think of quite a few structures that one does not normally expect people to inhabit, and I can't imagine the CAA not counting them for the purpose of Rule 5. Electricity pylons, TV / radio broadcast towers, and wind turbines, for instance.

[N5528P]

@ AerBabe

I wonder if we could train some chimps to work in the building industry ...

I am not quite sure that this has not already happened :\

Regards, Bernhard

[bar shaker]

I do agree DFC. One of my reasons for asking the question is that one of my favorite things to do is to repeat something that I did in my training.

Having learnt 30deg turns, 60deg turns, climbing turns, descending turns etc my instructor asked me to fly above a sea wall at 200ft and keep the wall below me, with a +/- limit on altitude of 20ft. After 5 miles, we turned around and did it again at 100ft.

That being OK, we did it again at 50ft.

He did the final run, touching the wheels on the straight bits and lifting up a bit occasionally, to clean the fences and gates that sat across the wall.

I've repeated this many times myself. Its a wonderful rush and at the location in question, is safe being next to vast reaches of open fields and devoid from walkers. Its excellent practice for getting into a small airfield in challenging gusty cross wind conditions as you learn to put in considerable turns with perfect altitude control.

My concern recently was that a sea wall could be construed a structure.

I always do a flypast to check for walkers or animals and am now happy to continue doing this on the definition that people cannot inhabit a sea wall.

[VP959]

A case in Scotland with which I was peripherally involved determined that for the purpose of Rule 5 a Forestry Commission conifer plantation was "a structure". Apparently the court accepted the view that the forest was man-made (well, planted and managed), therefore it was by that definition a man-made structure.

I have a suspicion that this is entirely up to the court to determine, if it ever got that far, and doubt that it could be defined generally as a rule or guideline. The circumstances of the incident will almost certainly bear heavily on the interpretation.

Perhaps one of the legal bods on here might tell us more about this?

[bar shaker]

Very interesting VP. Was the pilot professionally represented?

The CAA must have been very keen to prosecute the pilot.

[Pierre Argh]

Barshaker... your description of "barn-storming" antics along the sea wall shocked me... because I would personally consider a wall a structure (and the manouevre not a little bit "risky")... but I got to thinking what if you did the same thing on a footpath rather than a wall?

I concluded, yes its complicated; but I'm not sure that MSD regulations are really meant to either permit or prevent such manoueuvres... I have several stories of fatal accidents where people simply "popped up" unexpectedly in deserted/issolated locations.

Anyone want to comment on this?

[Dan Dare]

About 10 years ago the CAA , for clarification(?), proclaimed that a runway IS a structure for the purposes of Rule 5! Unfortunately I can no longer find reference to this, and I can't remember the exceptions, but they were quite pointedly saying that you can not fly low over a runway!

For those of you worrying about take-off and landing, that is specifically exepmted in rule 5 and I think that intentional low approaches are permitted at licenced aerodromes, but if you were to fly low over Popham's uninhabitted, unlicenced grass strip or do a low run & break after hours at your home aerodrome, then you could be prossecuted under Rule 5.

As for sea walls, well they are clearly structures and that blatant abuse of the rules would get you instantly drawn over hot coals if the CAA ever found out. It sounds marvelous fun when you get away with it though!!

[Send Clowns]

I also cannot remember the reference, but I understand that case law has determined that certain structures that cannot be expected to contain people, certainly including fences and probably sea walls, though I am not sure about pylons are not deemed structures for the purpose of rule 5.

[bar shaker]

Dan Dare

We are indeed fortunate that judges decide the law in the UK, not the CAA.

Would they take a pilot to court for overflying a grass strip, I would hope that the judges would give then the justice they deserved.

[UV]

Deliberate low flying along sea walls legal? Whatever next..??

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. and, therefore, several breaches immediately come to mind e.g...low flying ...safety of persons on the ground.. etc.

Would you also fly low along the sea wall at Dover Harbour....and bounce off it (having checked its clear)?
Fly low over Southend Pier (uninhabited after being breached?)?
Fly low over Clacton Pier (inhabited)?
Fly low over an Oil Rig..some very near the land in Lancs...
Fly low over the top of the Dartford Crossing...

Well, would you.... I hope not.

Like a sea wall, they are all clearly structures (whether inhabited or not) and these rules are, presumably, made to protect the innocent public from such hooliganism.

Best give it a miss eh...?

UV

[Whirlybird]

Ah well. Spoilsports, aren't they? :)

It's much more fun in the USA. If helicopter pilots want to fly through Los Angeles International's airspace along the coast, they request the "shoreline transition" and are cleared to fly NOT ABOVE 150 FEET! It's great fun, you get down to about 100 ft, 50 yds or so out from the beach, then keep an eye open for birds, kites, and the like, and wave at people on Santa Monica pier as you pass very close to the end of it at about the same level.

I'm not quite sure why, but I seemed to find that I just HAD to fly that route almost every day. ;)

[Pierre Argh]

Digressing from the thread slightly, the above post reminds me of an interesting tale I heard of a large CTR about 100nms south of Sydney Intl that was controlled by the RAN at NOWRA... through the zone ran a low level VFR route, along the largely deserted coastline. The story goes, one day an aircarft checks in (registration only), and the busy controller assuming its a light aircraft issues a clearance on the VFR route not above 500ft. A while later that callsign calls changing to Sydney Approach... job done? A few hours later the NOWRA controller get a phone call from the pilot... who had been flying a 747 on a cargo or positioning flight, thanking the controller for the best clearances he had ever received!!!

I don't have first-hand experience of this, but it comes from a reliable source... and as they say "never let the truth stand in the way of a good story"... anyway back to the MSD debate.

[FlyingForFun]

:D @ Pierre!

Not all that long ago, my boss was flying from Blackpool to somewhere south of Blackpool in a Cessna Citation. I don't know the details of the flight, but I was on a frequency as he was leaving Blackpool. He cancelled his IFR flight plan because it was a nice sunny day, and then asked the controller if he could arange a handover to Machester Approach after departure for a zone crossing. Controller says to standby, he'll call Mancehster and ask them. A moment, the controller comes back and tells him that Manchester have said they can't do the handover for a VFR flight. What's more, they'll expect him to route down the low-level route. They may be able to provide FIS if he free-calls them.

I never got a chance to find out what actually happened, but I bet my boss enjoyed the flight down the LLR, if that's what he ended up doing!

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

[foxmoth]

Interpretation is likely to be what the CAA think it is at the time of prosecution.

IMHO Not quite correct, this would be for the CAA to take it to court, final interpretation is for the court not the CAA.

[bar shaker]

Oh dear UV.

I am really sad to read that you cannot differentiate between an earth bank (over a mile from the nearest house, barn or road) and Southend Pier.

I would have a battle of wits with you...

[UV]

bar shaker


He did the final run, touching the wheels on the straight bits and lifting up a bit occasionally, to clean the fences and gates that sat across the wall.
I've repeated this many times myself.


Obviously, being an extremely concientous pilot, no doubt you obtained permission from the land owner to land on his sea wall....

That OK then...I rest my case.

UV

[VP959]

Bar shaker,

The pilot in question got a reprimand for breaching Rule 5, but no other penalty. 2 years later he was permanently grounded for a similar offence, this time he flew under an 11kV power cable whilst beating up his house.........................

The whole issue of low flying is frought with interpretation which does not get set into legal precedent, usually because the cases are not often heard in a high enough court.

Add in the fact that the CAA are often seen as vexatious litigants and you have have a right dogs dinner with regard to interpretation of the law in this area.

[Flying Lawyer]

"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.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/SaldanhaBeachweb.jpg

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?

[DFC]

In the recent review and changes to the low flying rules, one option of restricting all flights to a minimum of 500ft above the surface as per the ICAO standard was considered.

Most objections to that idea were based on the requirment for regular practice of forced landing procedures and the CAA agreed that it was benificial to safety that flight below 500ft asfc should be permitted.

The CAA has also in general guidelines to instructors following certain high profile cases insisted that it expects instructors to be able to plan and execute training which involves descent to heights less than 500ft above the surface on a regular basis without any question of endangerment.

That is why I said that before operating at low level, one must ensure that the proposed operating area or route is clear of people and livestock and especially people sitting atop livestock!

Ask the guys at Odiham about hedge hopping and getting a bit close to someone sitting astride livestock!

Regards,

DFC

[Send Clowns]

UV

I think you might have misinterpreted what a sea wall is. It is no harder to check clear of people than many areas of terrain, in fact it has the advantage of being basically clear of vegetation.

[Heliport]

The CAA has also in general guidelines to instructors following certain high profile cases insisted that it expects instructors to be able to plan and execute training which involves descent to heights less than 500ft above the surface on a regular basis without any question of endangerment.

Has the CAA ever managed to get a conviction against an instructor for Endangering or breaking Rule 5 when teaching PFLs or EFATOs?