Inter-tidal zone ownership
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fareham
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strictly speaking, I think you will find that anything below the line of mean high water spring tides is owned by the crown.
I have landed several times in helicopters (as a passenger) on beaches above the high water mark while waiting for yachts to conduct aerial photography. As I remember it, the pilot always 'checked the oil' or something similar. We never heard a peep from anyone about it.
The 500 foot rule does of course apply. The CAA have prosecuted in several instances.....
I have landed several times in helicopters (as a passenger) on beaches above the high water mark while waiting for yachts to conduct aerial photography. As I remember it, the pilot always 'checked the oil' or something similar. We never heard a peep from anyone about it.
The 500 foot rule does of course apply. The CAA have prosecuted in several instances.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. I was at Saunton Sands today. The Christie Estates, which I presume owns the beach above the high tide mark, has a sign up prohibiting land yachts, dune buggies etc and threatening a £2,000 fine and future bans on vehicular access to the beach for miscreants.
Of course, a land yacht does not fly and has to be conveyed across the upper beach to the intertidal zone, where it then races up and down. If it was dropped miraculously from the sky below the high tide mark, I guess there wouldn't be much they could do about it.
This might explain how the RAF manages to land Hercules on Saunton Sands.
Does the Crown, in practice, care if you land on one of its beaches? Can it prohibit it? We don't seek permission from the Crown every time we go for a stroll along a beach, after all.
Where's Flying Lawyer when you need him?
QDM
Of course, a land yacht does not fly and has to be conveyed across the upper beach to the intertidal zone, where it then races up and down. If it was dropped miraculously from the sky below the high tide mark, I guess there wouldn't be much they could do about it.
This might explain how the RAF manages to land Hercules on Saunton Sands.
Does the Crown, in practice, care if you land on one of its beaches? Can it prohibit it? We don't seek permission from the Crown every time we go for a stroll along a beach, after all.
Where's Flying Lawyer when you need him?
QDM
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the foreshore - between low and high tides - is owned by the Crown.
The Christie Estates, which I presume owns the beach above the high tide mark, has a sign up prohibiting land yachts, dune buggies etc and threatening a £2,000 fine and future bans on vehicular access to the beach for miscreants.
Regards, SD..
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fareham
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gcolyer......
As my 13-year old would say, "It's obvious stupid". You sit on your yacht and point the camera at every passing helicopter.
Or am I missing something?
(Please ensure irony sensor is switched on before reading this post).
As my 13-year old would say, "It's obvious stupid". You sit on your yacht and point the camera at every passing helicopter.
Or am I missing something?
(Please ensure irony sensor is switched on before reading this post).
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
landing on the beach
QDM, I think the answer is - it depends who is looking!
Choice of the right deserted stretch and timing would also be key.
BTW, if you took your doggie along they would then have 2 things to complain about!!
SB
Choice of the right deserted stretch and timing would also be key.
BTW, if you took your doggie along they would then have 2 things to complain about!!
SB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QDM, I think the answer is - it depends who is looking!
Choice of the right deserted stretch and timing would also be key.
BTW, if you took your doggie along they would then have 2 things to complain about!!
Choice of the right deserted stretch and timing would also be key.
BTW, if you took your doggie along they would then have 2 things to complain about!!
I think that's it really. An early morning landing and photo opportunity when no-one is about is hardly likely to excite much interest. Anyway, there's always that loose, flapping cowling. It's really annoying and sometimes you have to land to relatch it.
Nice beaches down Perranporth and Hayle way too.
QDM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirly, I think the 500 ft rule applies only to licenced aerodromes. I think they can even nail you on the 500 foot rule for approaches to farm strips if they want to.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being curious, I took out my air law book.
"In order that an aircraft can legally get airborne, and land again, the 500 ft rule does not apply to aircraft taking-off and landing 'in accordance with normal aviation practice'".
"None of the Rule 5 provisions apply to an aircraft taking off, landing, or practicing approaches to land at a Government (military) aerodrome or a licensed aerodrome (again in accordance with 'normal aviation practice')"
"Practice approaches at an unlicensed airfield are subject to Rule 5 and so, for practical purposes, are prohibited." [...] "However, the CAA has in the past stated that an approach to an unlicensed airfield need not end in a landing if the approach is made to assess turbulence or crosswind, to inspect the surface condition, or to check for obstructions and slope." "However the 1000 ft provision should be considered as applying to aircraft taking off and landing at an unlicensed aerodrome."
So the way I see it: at a licensed aerodrome none of the low-flying rules apply as long as you apply "normal aviation practice". At an unlicensed aerodrome (or, I presume, a beach???) all the low-flying rules apply, except the 500 ft rule, provided that you are landing, taking off, or performing an approach to assess the conditions of the landing area.
You still need to have permission of the owner of the beach though.
"In order that an aircraft can legally get airborne, and land again, the 500 ft rule does not apply to aircraft taking-off and landing 'in accordance with normal aviation practice'".
"None of the Rule 5 provisions apply to an aircraft taking off, landing, or practicing approaches to land at a Government (military) aerodrome or a licensed aerodrome (again in accordance with 'normal aviation practice')"
"Practice approaches at an unlicensed airfield are subject to Rule 5 and so, for practical purposes, are prohibited." [...] "However, the CAA has in the past stated that an approach to an unlicensed airfield need not end in a landing if the approach is made to assess turbulence or crosswind, to inspect the surface condition, or to check for obstructions and slope." "However the 1000 ft provision should be considered as applying to aircraft taking off and landing at an unlicensed aerodrome."
So the way I see it: at a licensed aerodrome none of the low-flying rules apply as long as you apply "normal aviation practice". At an unlicensed aerodrome (or, I presume, a beach???) all the low-flying rules apply, except the 500 ft rule, provided that you are landing, taking off, or performing an approach to assess the conditions of the landing area.
You still need to have permission of the owner of the beach though.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life is not a beach
The title to the foreshore, that is from high water to low water mark, and the seabed to the limit of territorial waters, is in general vested in the Crown and is managed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. About half the foreshore in the United Kingdom remains vested in the Crown.
It would be a trespass to use the foreshore as a landing strip. However the ownership of the Crown is subject to the general public right of access for navigation and fishing. By analogy with the right of navigation it would be permissible to land on a beach in an emergency and to remain there for a reasonable time. It could also be argued that it would be reasonable to land when not in an emergency, but that is less likely to be recognised by the courts as a reasonable incident of the public right.
Members of the public may have right of access to the foreshore for the purpose of fishing or recreation, but the foreshore is not a public right of way.
The foreshore is managed by the Marine Estates Division of the Crown Agents, but is very likely to refuse any permission sought for fear of creating a precedent.
So the upshot for anyone proposing to land on a beach without the permission of the owner, the landing may be a trespass. Rule 5 applies but if it is a genuine approach with a view to landing then there will be no breach by coming within 500 feet of a person vessel or structure. Other persons may have a right to be on the foreshore and any approach or landing may place them in jeopardy and thus render the pilot liable to prosecution for reckless endangerment, as happened on one occasion last year.
It would be a trespass to use the foreshore as a landing strip. However the ownership of the Crown is subject to the general public right of access for navigation and fishing. By analogy with the right of navigation it would be permissible to land on a beach in an emergency and to remain there for a reasonable time. It could also be argued that it would be reasonable to land when not in an emergency, but that is less likely to be recognised by the courts as a reasonable incident of the public right.
Members of the public may have right of access to the foreshore for the purpose of fishing or recreation, but the foreshore is not a public right of way.
The foreshore is managed by the Marine Estates Division of the Crown Agents, but is very likely to refuse any permission sought for fear of creating a precedent.
So the upshot for anyone proposing to land on a beach without the permission of the owner, the landing may be a trespass. Rule 5 applies but if it is a genuine approach with a view to landing then there will be no breach by coming within 500 feet of a person vessel or structure. Other persons may have a right to be on the foreshore and any approach or landing may place them in jeopardy and thus render the pilot liable to prosecution for reckless endangerment, as happened on one occasion last year.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could also be argued that it would be reasonable to land when not in an emergency, but that is less likely to be recognised by the courts as a reasonable incident of the public right.
Anyway, there are generally few people around on a beach at 6am, over two miles from the nearest road access. There are greater sins, although you never know what might happen to you in Britain today.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<quote>
Quote:
It could also be argued that it would be reasonable to land when not in an emergency, but that is less likely to be recognised by the courts as a reasonable incident of the public right.
Why do you think that is less likely?</quote>
Because one of the defences to an action for trespass is that of necessity for the purposes of saving life, preventing injury and (possibly) preserving property. As a gliding lawyer who is an occasional visitor to fields with my aircraft, I felt the need to check this out. In theory (never tested in court) this might mean that there is no obligation to pay for damage caused by an emergency landing, though I suspect this is overridden by the strict liability provisions of the ANO. In practice, of course I pay for any crop damage (and offer the farmer a flight) because it would be rude and churlish not to do so.
Where there is a public right of way, that permits the public to "pass and repass" along it, but not e.g. to stand still and demonstrate on it. Landing an aircraft has not, so far as I know, been exmined by the courts in relation to rights of way, but it doesn't feel like passing and repassing.
Even if landing in an emergency were a trespass, this is the last thing I'd worry about. Land if possible, crash as safely as you can if not, and then leave the insurance company to deal with any claims by the landowner.
Quote:
It could also be argued that it would be reasonable to land when not in an emergency, but that is less likely to be recognised by the courts as a reasonable incident of the public right.
Why do you think that is less likely?</quote>
Because one of the defences to an action for trespass is that of necessity for the purposes of saving life, preventing injury and (possibly) preserving property. As a gliding lawyer who is an occasional visitor to fields with my aircraft, I felt the need to check this out. In theory (never tested in court) this might mean that there is no obligation to pay for damage caused by an emergency landing, though I suspect this is overridden by the strict liability provisions of the ANO. In practice, of course I pay for any crop damage (and offer the farmer a flight) because it would be rude and churlish not to do so.
Where there is a public right of way, that permits the public to "pass and repass" along it, but not e.g. to stand still and demonstrate on it. Landing an aircraft has not, so far as I know, been exmined by the courts in relation to rights of way, but it doesn't feel like passing and repassing.
Even if landing in an emergency were a trespass, this is the last thing I'd worry about. Land if possible, crash as safely as you can if not, and then leave the insurance company to deal with any claims by the landowner.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However the ownership of the Crown is subject to the general public right of access for navigation and fishing. By analogy with the right of navigation it would be permissible to land on a beach in an emergency and to remain there for a reasonable time. It could also be argued that it would be reasonable to land when not in an emergency, but that is less likely to be recognised by the courts as a reasonable incident of the public right.
I ask merely for information.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: England
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life is not a beach
The answer to QDM's question is that the law in this area is based solely on custom derived from ancient usage. The right of navigation is different from any right of access enjoyed by a section of the public. The right of navigation extends only to ships. Any customary right of access for fishermen or a section of the public, for example to dry nets or take cockles, will be a right of access on foot only, not in vehicles. There could be no customary right to drive a dune buggy, or land an aircraft, on a beach. So I probably overstated the position in saying that it was arguable that there could be a right to land, other than in an emergency.
The best legal advice is that you should never place yourself in a position where you need your legal advice to be right.
The best legal advice is that you should never place yourself in a position where you need your legal advice to be right.