Blocked Runway
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Hartlepool
Age: 51
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps not my place to say it. But, lighting the touch paper and standing back........correct me if I'm wrong....
An exception from the 500ft rule includes any aircraft landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice. ie landing with ppr on a private field.
Then, there's ANO Articles 73 & 74 saying "a person must not, recklessly or negligently, either act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or anyone in it, or cause or permit an aircraft to endanger anyone or any property e.g a person deliberately damaging an aeroplane or a pilot flying excessively low, carrying inadequate fuel, etc, would be in contravention of this Article."
Letting Fido take a leak, or galloping around on Dobbin in the middle of a strip (rather than the edge of the field) seems to me to be placing themselves and a landing aircraft (carring out its normal aviation practice) in danger, recklessly if deliberately done, or negligently if unknowingly so. A low level circuit to look at the fields' condition, or joining from the overhead, and going around because the strip is found to be unsuitable/ occupied IS normal aviation practice, right? And thus you're exempt from the 500ft rule.
Spot the man who's just re-reading his aviation law book - purely by co-incidence!
An exception from the 500ft rule includes any aircraft landing or taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice. ie landing with ppr on a private field.
Then, there's ANO Articles 73 & 74 saying "a person must not, recklessly or negligently, either act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or anyone in it, or cause or permit an aircraft to endanger anyone or any property e.g a person deliberately damaging an aeroplane or a pilot flying excessively low, carrying inadequate fuel, etc, would be in contravention of this Article."
Letting Fido take a leak, or galloping around on Dobbin in the middle of a strip (rather than the edge of the field) seems to me to be placing themselves and a landing aircraft (carring out its normal aviation practice) in danger, recklessly if deliberately done, or negligently if unknowingly so. A low level circuit to look at the fields' condition, or joining from the overhead, and going around because the strip is found to be unsuitable/ occupied IS normal aviation practice, right? And thus you're exempt from the 500ft rule.
Spot the man who's just re-reading his aviation law book - purely by co-incidence!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you may find that you are not exempt unless it is a licenced field.
If it is an unlicenced strip you have to crash,you are not allowed to overshoot.
If it is an unlicenced strip you have to crash,you are not allowed to overshoot.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Niort
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As neatly demonstrated by a successful CAA prosecution quite a few years ago at IIRC Nayland?
The subsequent 'CAA guidance' was quite explicit - 'low passes' at unlicensed strip mean you breach the 500' rule.
The subsequent 'CAA guidance' was quite explicit - 'low passes' at unlicensed strip mean you breach the 500' rule.
