Unlicensed Airfield - responsibilities of owner?
What you're saying is that it's ok to land without PPR and then refuse the landing fee because you don't like how much it is?!!
Hmm... A few thoughts from someone with no legal training...
If you go into a cafe and they charge you £1000 for a cup of coffee, you don't have to pay unless the price was agreed in advance. If they charge you £4 it may still be an expensive cup of coffee, but you have to pay. Likewise, if you impound an aircraft because the owner failed to pay a £75 landing fee, that may be OK, but if you do so because they failed to pay a £3000 landing fee I think you'd be on dodgy ground.
If you have an unmarked well on your land, and a trespasser falls down it, you can be held responsible and potentially even charged with manslaughter. Likewise, if you have something that looks like an airstrip from the air but that is not safely maintained, I can imagine there may be potential liability issues. This could particularly be the case if there are any other strips nearby that might legitimately be confused with it.
Obviously in an ideal world, everyone would phone for prior permission, but perhaps there's an old family friend somewhere who doesn't realise the previous tenants have moved and drops in unannounced. That minor error shouldn't be a death sentence.
Anyway, I would suggest to the OP, who clearly wants to do the right thing, that they simply make certain the old landing strip doesn't look like one from the air. Ploughing or planting with the right sort of crops would work. A fence along the middle wouldn't. I would worry that an old grass strip may be visible for a little while, as its texture may differ from the surrounding grass for some time.
If you go into a cafe and they charge you £1000 for a cup of coffee, you don't have to pay unless the price was agreed in advance. If they charge you £4 it may still be an expensive cup of coffee, but you have to pay. Likewise, if you impound an aircraft because the owner failed to pay a £75 landing fee, that may be OK, but if you do so because they failed to pay a £3000 landing fee I think you'd be on dodgy ground.
If you have an unmarked well on your land, and a trespasser falls down it, you can be held responsible and potentially even charged with manslaughter. Likewise, if you have something that looks like an airstrip from the air but that is not safely maintained, I can imagine there may be potential liability issues. This could particularly be the case if there are any other strips nearby that might legitimately be confused with it.
Obviously in an ideal world, everyone would phone for prior permission, but perhaps there's an old family friend somewhere who doesn't realise the previous tenants have moved and drops in unannounced. That minor error shouldn't be a death sentence.
Anyway, I would suggest to the OP, who clearly wants to do the right thing, that they simply make certain the old landing strip doesn't look like one from the air. Ploughing or planting with the right sort of crops would work. A fence along the middle wouldn't. I would worry that an old grass strip may be visible for a little while, as its texture may differ from the surrounding grass for some time.
Last edited by abgd; 4th Jun 2012 at 01:52.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing without permission (unless in an emergency) is blatantly rude in the flying world and if it happens, and you aren't happy about it, you have every right to be annoyed.
To be perfectly honest, if someone lands without being invited, the landowner CAN, if he wishes to stop aircraft landing, charge what he likes
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 4th Jun 2012 at 08:13.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply painting at each end (in the grass) with white lines (as per a sports pitch) "X X" should deter most pilots - that is if the owner does not want to go to the trouble of ploughing the strip up.
I agree with most posts on this thread - we do NOT have the right to land at a private strip without permission, except of course in an emergency. If it's pre-planned then good airmanship dictates getting permission and finding out a local briefing prior to visiting (for example are then any areas to avoid over flight to save upsetting neighbours)
I agree with most posts on this thread - we do NOT have the right to land at a private strip without permission, except of course in an emergency. If it's pre-planned then good airmanship dictates getting permission and finding out a local briefing prior to visiting (for example are then any areas to avoid over flight to save upsetting neighbours)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are private owners who write the words P R I V A T E in BIG all over the runway. It can't stop people making low approaches as the airspace belongs to the public. But they can be busted if they violated low flying regulations.
Again annother "no legal knowledge" response.
Regardless of what machine (or not) is used to enter someone elses land.
If you do enter, the law(s) which apply would surely be that of trespass?
If I understand it correctly that means the landowner can only recover the costs for any damage caused.
It is this which makes the trespass laws regarded as weak by landowners as walkers (for example) will cause no real damage on a grass field or by sticking to the hedgerow, they can only tell them to leave.
Of course using a vehicle or aircraft might be likely to cause a little more damage.
When a glider or balloonist offers a bottle or flight what they are actually doing is compensating for any potential damage, if there is none the landowner might feel they done OK from the deal.
I'm not convinced there is any "right" to levy any charge or to hold prisoners pending payment
The legal right would surely be to charge only for any actual damage and if disputed settle this through a civil court.
Preventing an owners enjoyment of thier property (aircraft) for an extended period plus any additional costs resulting to the owner during that time might well outweigh any "damage" to a grass strip?
If this is a case of a new landowner not wanting a previous grass strip to continue in use then painting the white crosses would seem the most effective way.
PS: did manage to find this
"Note that s76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 provides that no action shall lie in nuisance or trespass by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which is reasonable. However, s76(2) confers a statutory right of action in respect of physical damage caused by aircraft, actionable without proof of negligence."
Regardless of what machine (or not) is used to enter someone elses land.
If you do enter, the law(s) which apply would surely be that of trespass?
If I understand it correctly that means the landowner can only recover the costs for any damage caused.
It is this which makes the trespass laws regarded as weak by landowners as walkers (for example) will cause no real damage on a grass field or by sticking to the hedgerow, they can only tell them to leave.
Of course using a vehicle or aircraft might be likely to cause a little more damage.
When a glider or balloonist offers a bottle or flight what they are actually doing is compensating for any potential damage, if there is none the landowner might feel they done OK from the deal.
I'm not convinced there is any "right" to levy any charge or to hold prisoners pending payment
The legal right would surely be to charge only for any actual damage and if disputed settle this through a civil court.
Preventing an owners enjoyment of thier property (aircraft) for an extended period plus any additional costs resulting to the owner during that time might well outweigh any "damage" to a grass strip?
If this is a case of a new landowner not wanting a previous grass strip to continue in use then painting the white crosses would seem the most effective way.
PS: did manage to find this
"Note that s76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 provides that no action shall lie in nuisance or trespass by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which is reasonable. However, s76(2) confers a statutory right of action in respect of physical damage caused by aircraft, actionable without proof of negligence."
Last edited by 42psi; 4th Jun 2012 at 09:09.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is an offence to land at or take off from an aerodrome without the permission of the person in charge.
The Rules of the Air provide:
40 An aircraft shall not taxi on the apron or the manoeuvring area of an aerodrome without the permission of either:
(a) the person in charge of the aerodrome; or
(b) the air traffic control unit or aerodrome flight information service unit notified as being on watch at the aerodrome.
Article 255 of the ANO defines Aerodrome as:
'Aerodrome':
(a) means any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft; and
(b) includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically; but
(c) does not include any area the use of which for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft has been abandoned and has not been resumed;
The definition is very wide and would appear to include a private strip if it is land "set apart ... for the landing and departure of aircraft". A farmer's field or a disused airfield would not appear to be within the definition but then there are issues of trespass.
The Rules of the Air provide:
40 An aircraft shall not taxi on the apron or the manoeuvring area of an aerodrome without the permission of either:
(a) the person in charge of the aerodrome; or
(b) the air traffic control unit or aerodrome flight information service unit notified as being on watch at the aerodrome.
Article 255 of the ANO defines Aerodrome as:
'Aerodrome':
(a) means any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft; and
(b) includes any area or space, whether on the ground, on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically; but
(c) does not include any area the use of which for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft has been abandoned and has not been resumed;
The definition is very wide and would appear to include a private strip if it is land "set apart ... for the landing and departure of aircraft". A farmer's field or a disused airfield would not appear to be within the definition but then there are issues of trespass.
It is an offence to land at or take off from an aerodrome without the permission of the person in charge.
But there is still no "right" of the landowner to levy a charge or impound?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you go into a cafe and they charge you £1000 for a cup of coffee, you don't have to pay unless the price was agreed in advance. If they charge you £4 it may still be an expensive cup of coffee, but you have to pay. Likewise, if you impound an aircraft because the owner failed to pay a £75 landing fee, that may be OK, but if you do so because they failed to pay a £3000 landing fee I think you'd be on dodgy ground.
If you want to charge someone money for something you can but you need to advertise a clearly displayed scheme of charges.
As far as someone landing on your property as much as you can do is report them to the CAA and perhaps prevent them from departing again by obstructing the aircraft, should you so want to, if it was me I'd tell them what would happen if they did it again. I'm fairly sure you can't charge them money without displaying some kind of scheme of charges but that would also require a change of use of the land and that makes it more complicated.
Basically, if you don't want to use the strip plough it, if you do don't and I wouldn't worry about people just using it randomly, it's a very unusual thing to happen
Chill out guys.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This topic raises some interesting legal issues.
If the land is an aerodrome then the landowner is entitled to levy a charge for the use of the facility. It is custom and practice for aircraft/pilots to pay landing fees and therefore by using an aerodrome a pilot should expect to pay a fee for so doing. There may be some argument as to what level of fee could be expected and whether it is reasonable but equally it could be argued that as the pilot could foresee the requirement to pay a fee he should have ascertained what it was before visiting.
On the question of impounding an aircraft, an aerodrome owner could refuse an aircraft permission to taxi and take off and could take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of a crime.
Whilst some have opined that the answer would then be to remove the aircraft by road, that too could have some practical difficulties because Rule 41 provides:
41 (1) Unless there is a public right of way over it, a person or vehicle shall:
(a) not go onto any part of an aerodrome without the permission of the person in charge of that part of the aerodrome; and
(b) comply with any conditions subject to which that permission may be granted.
(2) A person or vehicle shall:
(a) not go onto or move on the manoeuvring area of an aerodrome which has an air traffic control unit or an aerodrome flight information service unit without the permission of that unit; and
(b) comply with any conditions subject to which that permission may be granted.
(3) Any permission granted for the purposes of this rule may be granted in respect of persons or vehicles generally, or in respect of any particular person or vehicle or any class of person or vehicle.
It would appear that if the land fits the definition of aerodrome the owner or person in charge could place severe restrictions on the recovery of the aircraft. The visiting pilot would then have to take legal action against the person for the return of the aircraft.
If landing in a field or disused airfield the landowner would not be entitled per se to a landing fee nor would you be committing an offence by removing the aircraft but the landowner would have a remedy in damages for trespass.
If the land is an aerodrome then the landowner is entitled to levy a charge for the use of the facility. It is custom and practice for aircraft/pilots to pay landing fees and therefore by using an aerodrome a pilot should expect to pay a fee for so doing. There may be some argument as to what level of fee could be expected and whether it is reasonable but equally it could be argued that as the pilot could foresee the requirement to pay a fee he should have ascertained what it was before visiting.
On the question of impounding an aircraft, an aerodrome owner could refuse an aircraft permission to taxi and take off and could take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of a crime.
Whilst some have opined that the answer would then be to remove the aircraft by road, that too could have some practical difficulties because Rule 41 provides:
41 (1) Unless there is a public right of way over it, a person or vehicle shall:
(a) not go onto any part of an aerodrome without the permission of the person in charge of that part of the aerodrome; and
(b) comply with any conditions subject to which that permission may be granted.
(2) A person or vehicle shall:
(a) not go onto or move on the manoeuvring area of an aerodrome which has an air traffic control unit or an aerodrome flight information service unit without the permission of that unit; and
(b) comply with any conditions subject to which that permission may be granted.
(3) Any permission granted for the purposes of this rule may be granted in respect of persons or vehicles generally, or in respect of any particular person or vehicle or any class of person or vehicle.
It would appear that if the land fits the definition of aerodrome the owner or person in charge could place severe restrictions on the recovery of the aircraft. The visiting pilot would then have to take legal action against the person for the return of the aircraft.
If landing in a field or disused airfield the landowner would not be entitled per se to a landing fee nor would you be committing an offence by removing the aircraft but the landowner would have a remedy in damages for trespass.
I'm fairly sure you can't charge them money without displaying some kind of scheme of charges but that would also require a change of use of the land and that makes it more complicated.
You don't necessarily need a change of use if the land is used for a different purpose for less than 28 days a year.
In some circumstances you must have a price list on display (i.e. in a pub or a bakers) where this is required by statute, but if a trespasser with an aeroplane wants to take off after arriving without permission you are free to offer him permission for a fee that you make-up on the spot and impose any other conditions - such as at his own risk - as you think fit. The trespasser is equally free to reject yout offer and not take off. It would be wise to give a recipt with the conditions written on it - and keep a copy.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dusseldorf, Germany via Brisbane & Adelaide Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi willbank,
As others have said, it's your property to do with as you see fit(1). You could always go the opposite direction; encourage more visitors. The Bath area is very pleasant, and having another airstrip to visit is always nice; put up a shed with a kettle and some bikkies, charge a tenner and you'll be very popular
If entertaining is your thing (and your property can support it) then a fly-in B&B might also work, however beware, as someone mentioned, aviation is addictive 
Yes, a big stretch from plough over to inviting strangers to visit, but generally us pilot types are very nice (despite what you might see on PPRuNe)
kib.
(1) As an aside; I wonder if it is possible that an existing leasehold agreement could force the airstrip to always exist? I'm not familiar with UK real estate law, so I'm probably talking c*ck.
As others have said, it's your property to do with as you see fit(1). You could always go the opposite direction; encourage more visitors. The Bath area is very pleasant, and having another airstrip to visit is always nice; put up a shed with a kettle and some bikkies, charge a tenner and you'll be very popular
If entertaining is your thing (and your property can support it) then a fly-in B&B might also work, however beware, as someone mentioned, aviation is addictive Yes, a big stretch from plough over to inviting strangers to visit, but generally us pilot types are very nice (despite what you might see on PPRuNe)
kib.
(1) As an aside; I wonder if it is possible that an existing leasehold agreement could force the airstrip to always exist? I'm not familiar with UK real estate law, so I'm probably talking c*ck.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to charge someone money for something you can but you need to advertise a clearly displayed scheme of charges.
Ciao,
Dg800
Guest
Posts: n/a
The main issue for me is someone buying an established airstrip, no matter how little used, and seeking advice about how to 'close' it.
There are precious few opportunities for people like us to get a chance like this so it's a pity that a rare commodity could be lost.
And yes I accept the right of landowners to do with it as they wish. Could a lease be arranged? It would be similar to farmers strips used by third parties, shirley?
SGC
There are precious few opportunities for people like us to get a chance like this so it's a pity that a rare commodity could be lost.
And yes I accept the right of landowners to do with it as they wish. Could a lease be arranged? It would be similar to farmers strips used by third parties, shirley?
SGC
Originally Posted by Sir George Cayley
The main issue for me is someone buying an established airstrip, no matter how little used, and seeking advice about how to 'close' it.
His OP reads more like asking for advice on how to protect himself if he keeps it open.