Touch and Gos at unlicenced aerodrome?

[Baboon Boy]

Remember reading somewhere during PPL theory study something to the effect that: "Practice landings/ approaches can only be carried out at a licence areodrome."

Does this mean that touch and gos/circuits are not allowed at farmstrips/ unlicenced aerodromes?
What exactly is the difference between a licenced and an unlicecned aerodrome anyway?

Cheers, Baboon.

[Pitts2112]

Remember reading somewhere during PPL theory study something to the effect that: "Practice landings/ approaches can only be carried out at a licence areodrome."

Does this mean that touch and gos/circuits are not allowed at farmstrips/ unlicenced aerodromes?
What exactly is the difference between a licenced and an unlicecned aerodrome anyway?

Cheers, Baboon.

Only applies, I believe, to basic PPL training. Once you have your license, provided you have permission, you can practice Ts and Gs anywhere.

There is a technical definition of a "licensed" aerodrome, but basically it's one that has a defined minimum of fire cover on the airfleld, and probably some other stuff I'm not aware of. Once you get your license, the issue of "licensed" becomes pretty inconsequential. At least it has in my experience.

Cheers,
Pitts2112

[Baboon Boy]

So basically you cant operate an FTO at an un licenced aerodrome, or if you did you would have to do student circuit training elsewhere?

Why should it make any difference if you are doing PPL training or not, as the instructor is PIC of the ac?
The instructor is PIC

[Pitts2112]

So basically you cant operate an FTO at an un licenced aerodrome, or if you did you would have to do student circuit training elsewhere?
Why should it make any difference if you are doing PPL training or not, as the instructor is PIC of the ac?
The instructor is PIC
Don' t know but it does. This is a CAA regulation (no such requirement for fire cover at local US airports, for instance). It doesn't have to make sense. The CAA have never let modern thinking or common sense sully their rule making and policy.
Pitts2112

[twelveoclockhigh]

I think that the need for a licensed aerodrome came in in the 1960's. Perhaps the CAA work on the basis that PPL training is public transport so need some minimums in terms of fire cover etc.

You can be an FTO based at an unlicensed strip - Enstone and Monewden spring to mind but the lesson can't start technically until you've done a touch and go at a licensed aerodrome.

Alternatively you can join an RAF flying club and do your PPL from an unlicensed strip - I think they probably have pretty good fire cover 24/7 though!

Or you can do your UK PPL in the USA where the CAA are perfectly happy for people to train at unlicensed strips.

The CAA are looking into allowing training at unlicensed strips - after all it works perfectly well for microlights and gliders - but there will naturally be a reaction from licensed airfields who won't want have wasted their investment.

None of it makes any sense.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

and probably some other stuff I'm not aware of.
I actually tried looking this up once, it is in fact quite complicated. There's stuff in it like if it's a licenced runway there won't be any trees higher than such-and-such within such-and-such a distance of the threshold as approached from so-many degrees to either side and stuff like that, all of which costs money to survey, and costs money to keep surveying (trees like grow, you know).

An unlicenced runway might well be perfectly safe to land on for someone who knows what they're doing (or even someone who doesn't, I've landed on more than one and not broken the aeroplane:) ), but there's no guarantee that you don't have to approach a little more steeply than the standard, or maybe a few degrees off to one side, or maybe you're better off making up your own unmarked displaced threshold, or something - no standard, all bets are off.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I actually tried looking this up once, it is in fact quite complicated. There's stuff in it like if it's a licenced runway there won't be any trees higher than such-and-such within such-and-such a distance of the threshold as approached from so-many degrees to either side and stuff like that, all of which costs money to survey, and costs money to keep surveying (trees like grow, you know).
An unlicenced runway might well be perfectly safe to land on for someone who knows what they're doing (or even someone who doesn't, I've landed on more than one and not broken the aeroplane:) ), but there's no guarantee that you don't have to approach a little more steeply than the standard, or maybe a few degrees off to one side, or maybe you're better off making up your own unmarked displaced threshold, or something - no standard, all bets are off.

This is exactly where I think that the absurdity lies.

A microlight instructor is trusted by the CAA, to decide whether a particular airfield is safe and suitable for any particular exercise (such as circuits). Clearly, if anything goes wrong they have to justify that decision, but it's still their decision. Bar a few renegades (one based in Norfolk is currently in disgrace for not being sensible about this I believe) the evidence is that microlight instructors take this responsibility seriously.

Gliding instructors - pretty much the same, although admittedly they are more constrained by being on a BGA site where they've got a winch/tow, etc.


Then we have a light aeroplane instructor - who has been through essentially the same instructors course as the microlight instructor (I don't know about gliding, but I assume that the gliding course isn't more rigorous), as well as having had to do a CPL as well. So, at minimum standard, he should be at least as competent as the least able microlight or gliding instructor, probably better.

Yet this instructor is not allowed to make this decision for him/herself, and instead is bound by CAA licencing rules - which may prevent him for example switching to an unlicensed airfield - with a longer runway and better approaches, and adequate safety cover - a few miles from his base.

Sorry, I can see no sense in it at-all.

G

[englishal]

Or you can do your UK PPL in the USA where the CAA are perfectly happy for people to train at unlicensed strips.
That is an interesting point. All the aerodromes I visited on the PPL were infact unlicensed by the CAA:confused:

[Legalapproach]

The issue over unlicensed aerodromes may come from the low flying rules


(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.

Therefore a practice approach at an unlicensed aerodrome that breaches the 500' rule (or the 1000 ' rule) would be illegal

[englishal]

You could still do a stop and go or touch and go.....

[Andy_RR]

The irony of not allowing training at non-licensed fields is that, according to an ATSB report at least, the accident rate from 0-50hrs TT is way below anything from 50hrs through to several thousand hours TT (from memory). Therefore a touch-and-go turning into a disaster at an unlicensed field during instruction (illegal) is statistically much less likely than a qualified PPL etc. who is brushing up on his skills with no supervision (legal)

Them's the rules though... :ugh:

[Genghis the Engineer]

You could still do a stop and go or touch and go.....

No, that would still not be permitted for initial flying training.

G

[Darth_Bovine]

(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.


Ok, now I'm confused :ugh:

From point (ii) above I'm getting the message that the pilot is absolved from Rule 5 as long as they are in the process of landing or taking off. It doesn't make any reference to Licensed or unlicensed.

Slightly off topic: wasn't there somebody prosocuted recently for low flying coz he tried to land on a beach or something? How could he be caught on this rule if he was in the process of landing. I could be way off here and I'd appreciate any input or clarification.

Cheers,
DB

[foxmoth]

If he was landing at the beach you are correct that he is not liable under rule 5 though he would have needed permision from the "landowner" which might be hard to get and could have left him open to prosecution from that rather than rule 5.

twelveoclockhigh said"Alternatively you can join an RAF flying club and do your PPL from an unlicensed strip ", this is not quite correct, they get away with using non licenced because they are flying from a Government airfield which is also allowed under the regulations, technically any school could do the same, you do not need to be a services one - and the services school still cannot use an unlicenced strip such as a farmers field for non PPLs!

[Sir George Cayley]

Have a look at the Air Navigation Order, it's on the CAA website

It's all in there as to why you need a licensed airport to train from.

Helps if you're a lawyer - it's v difficult to follow.



Sir george Cayley

[Legalapproach]

Darth Bovine

Note the additional words "in accordance with normal aviation practice"

Further, landing or taking off from an unlicensed aerodrome is fine but a go around or practice approach would not be. Subject of course to the fact that you can depart from the rules of the air for the purpose of saving life/ensuring the safety of the aircraft but if you do so you must inform the CAA in as soon as it is practicable.