Landing at Farm Strips legally

[athonite]

My understanding of rule 5 of the ANO, is that you are only exempt form the 500 ft rule if approaching licenced or government airfield with the intention of landing.

My questions are:

(a) What is the legal position in relation to landing at a farm strip and breaking the 500 ft rule.

(b) What is the legal position if you do not intend to land but overfly at say 100ft to check the landing strip.

[OpenCirrus619]

I think the relevant bit is rule 6. (a) (ii):
(ii) Any aircraft shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule when landing and taking-off in accordance with normal aviation practice or air-taxiing.
My opinion is that a low pass to inspect the runway prior to landing is OK. Making a low pass with no intention of landing is probably not.

For those that have missed it the Rules of the Air have been re-numbered in the latest version of the ANO. Rule 5 is now "Low flying prohibitions" and Rule 6 is "Exemptions from the low flying prohibitions".

OC619

P.S. If you want the latest copy of the ANO it's here: CAP393 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF)

[A and C]

I agree ! inspecting a field with a pass at 100 feet would be seen as in accordance with normal aviation practice when landing at a falm strip.

The problems start when you don't like what you see and don't land, some might see this as low flying in as prohibited in rule 5 as it is not part of a landing.

I would be very suprized if the CAA took action in this case as they have burnt their fingers a number of times in court, I think that if they did look like taking action just a hint that the "flying lawyer" was going to defend you would be enough to make them think twice.

[athonite]

Thanks opencirrus. My gut feeling would be that to overfly a strip is good aviation practice, in order to check the landing area. Having re-read rule 5 & 6, makes me wonder if a PFL exempt under rule 6.

However the term, 'normal aviation practice' strikes me as a bit of a catch all term, similar to driving without due care an attention. My perception of 'normal aviation practice' might be different to the next instructor!

Taking this one step further, access to some farm strips requires landing under wires, would the CAA consider this 'normal aviation practice'.

[maxdrypower]

So without delving into the ano , whats the script with practising pfls's whereby you would descend belowe 500 but not into anywhere in particular just a well chosen field ? Is there an exemption for this sort of thing ?:}

[Kaptain Kremen]

You can go below 500' quite legally, provided that there are no persons, vehicles, vessels or structures within 500'. So a PFL below 500' is ok provided it is in the middle of nowhere.

[athonite]

The problem with the PFL, you can't be 100% sure if a person is within 500 ft, for example someone sunbathing in long grass!

[athonite]

And in relation to the overflying the strip and subsequently not landing because of an obstruction (say an electric fence) surely the decision not to land is good aviation practice.

[OpenCirrus619]

Having re-read rule 5 & 6, makes me wonder if a PFL exempt under rule 6.

The last I can find on it is in Training Standards Communication 2/2004 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/2_2004.PDF). It states:
Misunderstanding of how Rule 5 (Rules of the Air Regulations 1996) applies to practising engine failure after take-off (EFATO) in single engine aeroplanes continues to cause problems for some FIs. EFATO is not considered to be part of “taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice” and so there is no exemption to Rule 5(1)(e). The Rule requires that you are separated by 500 feet clear of other people, vessels, vehicles or structures; it does not mean you cannot fly lower than 500 feet above the ground. The same Rule applies to PFLs. With careful planning and your knowledge of the local area, it is entirely possible to teach PFL and EFATO skills realistically and without infringing Rule 5.

It's quite possible that this is not the current view - I'm sure somone will correct me if so.


As for making a low pass and deciding not to land I believe this is OK - as you were intending to land when you made the low pass. The problem is making a low pass with no intention of landing.

OC619

P.S. To paraphrase Richard Bach "Everything above may be wrong"

[2close]

The term hammered home on my FI course was 500' Minimum Separation Distance, i.e. 500' from any vehicle, vessel, structure or person, and we regularly went down to well below 500' on the course and I have many times since.

The definition of structure is the only one that seems to conjure up argument, e.g. does it include hedgerows, etc.?

As for people hidden in the grass, I really think we need to apply the rule of common sense and reasonable behaviour. If someone is hiding in the long grass (for whatever reason - reminds me of a romantic interlude with a German lass in a field outside Minden with some pervy git circling low level above us!) then you can't really be expected to know that. What I would suggest is that, when training, if the grass/crop is long enough to conceal someone maybe you shouldn't be using that as your aiming point in any case (it could be concealing lots of things) and secondly you don't go down so low that, if someone pops up unexpectedly you don't cut them a new centre parting. In the real thing, your main concern is going to be getting yourself, your passengers and your aircraft down in one bit!

[foxmoth]

Direct from the CAA's Trainingcomm 2004:-
RULE 5 & EFATO
Misunderstanding of how Rule 5 (Rules of the Air Regulations 1996) applies to practising engine failure after take-off (EFATO) in single engine aeroplanes continues to cause problems for some FIs. EFATO is not considered to be part of “taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice” and so there is no exemption to Rule 5(1)(e). The Rule requires that you are separated by 500 feet clear of other people, vessels, vehicles or structures; it does not mean you cannot fly lower than 500 feet above the ground. The same Rule applies to PFLs. With careful planning and your knowledge of the local area, it is entirely possible to teach PFL and EFATO skills realistically and without infringing Rule 5.
For landing at Farm strips the CAA also publish this guide http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_06webSSL12a.pdf
Though it does not actually talk about a low pass to assess. IMHO I would say this is OK if you do intend to land but certainly not if you do not have this intention to start with.

[maxdrypower]

And in this modern age of dogging , cottaging , voyuerism , terrorism and all other manners of ism's and ing's it is quite likely there will be somebody in a bush .
The police service regularly put rubber heel officers in strange places to attempt to entrap officers doing bizarre things , perhaps the CAA may start putting operatives in bushes near to areas of low flying complaints and have them report back , anything is possible

[foxmoth]

I cannot find it at present but IIRC the CAA did actually state that if there was someone in the bushes they would not take action as long as reasonable care had been taken.

[maxdrypower]

That is something you could only laugh about at parties isnt it

[2close]

Don't say this too loud in case someone at the CAA comes up with a 'Catch Low Flyers Bonus Scheme' and we'll have CAA Inspectors cammed up, disguised as bushes, popping out on you at the last moment on your PFL and blinding you with the flash of the camera! :eek:

[maxdrypower]

In this modern age would it surprise you? you can see it now on sky telly
Do you live near an airfield ? are you sick of low flying aircraft ?
Then call Buttmunch,Asswipe and Turd solicitors we go the extra mile to ensure we prosecute those responsible for ruining your sunday afternoon with their incessant low decibel humming . We get you the compensation you deserve , no win no fee call now on 0800-BOLLOCKS
It'll come you watch

[Say again s l o w l y]

There was a missive from the ministry a while back that stated as long as you were conducting a PFL, then they would be highly unlikely to prosecute for an infringement of rule 5.

Basically as it is so difficult to guarantee not to when do PFL practise and let's face it breaking off at 500 ft is a waste of time, the very sensible decision was reached not to prosecute if you were practising.

[2close]

MDP,

Good to see you have the same low opinion of ambulance chasers.

Madonna tried to buy Compton Abbas didn't she, so she could close it, because she was fed up of the little planes buzzing around her house. Prat!

Kemble has been served with a notice to close by the end of 2008 by the local authority. I wonder how much local NIMBYs have to do with that?

Wellesbourne had several complaints the other week whilst a well publicised aerobatics competition was taking place.

I bet someone somewhere is just loving this!!

[maxdrypower]

Yeh bet their initials are W.A.N.K.E.R

[flexy]

I sometimes reckon we dont do much positive PR for ourselves here. We might do the odd aerobatics competition amoungst ourselves which might cheese people off but how many small airfields have local community days where a number of pilots take as many local people up as possible in a day. Yep it costs money, yes it wont completely cure the problem, but it will help. If staged regularly people begin to talk about it and look forward to it. We do it at our field and people love going over their houses and talk about it for weeks - we have converted a number of the nimbies and complaints are running at 0....wouldnt stop doing it for anything - its the best investment you can make for the future of GA.

[DFC]

Making an approach to land at a farm strip would be exempt from the 500ft rule.

Making a missed approach for reasons of safety would also be justified. Note missed approach is an approach to a point where a transition to a climb is made i.e. there is very little if any level flight!

Making a low pass over a farm strip to "check it out" would not be justified in general because as we all know farm strips are PPR and require the permission of the landowner to operate there. Having obtained permission and information regarding the strip conditions, there would be little justification in making a pass to check for an electric fence as the owner would have told you about it by phone when making the PPR call.

As for PFLs, the CAA issued recent guidance to instructors that provided a carefull check was made before commencing the exercise, should a person or vehicle suddenly appear late in the procedure lass than 500ft from the aircraft, the CAA would not take further action provided that the exercise was terminated immediately the person or vehicle was seen and the aircraft climbed away.

Regards,

DFC

[Whopity]

I agree with DFC.

Some years ago there was a meeting to discuss the conduct of EFATO and the CAA lawyers deemed that by virtue of closing the throttle on a SE aeroplane, it was no longer covered by the take off exemption as it was now incapable of continuing the take off profile, and as their was no intention to land it was not covered by the landing exemption.

In the same way landing or taking off at a strip or any unlicensed aerodrome, is covered by the rule 5 exemption, a low flypast is neither Landing nor Taking off so is not exempt. The exemption is for landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice, not flying past in accordance with normal aviation practice.

[S-Works]

Leicester have an open day, we ferry the locals round show them a good time. None of the aeros flyers take part. About 20 minutes after they leave they get airborne and head straight over and show start the usual showing off pissing off the people we have just calmed down.

What is it with people who fly aeros, an inane need to show off? There is loads of clear space that would not upset anyone around.