Definition of a structure?
 

I have wondered for a while, as to what exactly constitutes a structure, for the purposes of Rule 5.

Whilst it may sound obvious, consider the following potential candidates...

A timber shed

A Poly Tunnel (plastic hangar/greenhouse)

An earth bank sea wall

A fence


Over to you, my peers.

A runway, if you are not intending to land on it!

If it came to it, I imagine that the magistrates would have to decide in a particular case. If the argument was about a low pass over a runway, all runways have something near them which could be deemed a structure even if the runway itself isn't (eg ILS aerials, fences, PAPIs, disused pillboxes etc).

A quick glance at legal definitions of structures includes:

"Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground including, but not limited to, buildings, walls, fences, swimming pools, radio towers, and porches, but not including driveways, paths, or other facilities, the sole purpose of which is to provide customary access to any structure."

"That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts jointed together in some definite manner, excluding fences in rear/side setback areas of a single family residence. Flood walls are considered to be structures."

"Any physical item built by a man or woman, from a shed to a high-rise or a bridge."

Notice that one includes fences, another specifically excludes them.

Personally I consider the 500' rule to apply to any land, but allow myself to fly as low as I like over the sea, being sure to avoid vessels by 500' (normally horizontally).

For the purposes of rule 5, I would suggest a structure is something that might reasonably be occupied by a person. Sheds and conservatories count, fences and runways do not.

Timothy, thanks for your thoughts. You have perfectly portrayed my fears in that we could be prosecuted for flying near anything that someone had erected and the meaning is definitely not "a building".

Greeners, that was also my interpretation, but as Timothy pointed out, dictionaries do not agree. Is the law defined by dictionary or intended meaning?

The main reason for asking the question is that I often fly very low along a sea wall. The purpose is to keep the wall below the aircraft, whilst maintaining an exact altitude (OK, within +/- about 10 feet).

I cannot, no matter how much I drink on a rainy Sunday, see a runway classed as a structure.

But if a child built it, it doesn't count? Mind you, the structures most children build wouldn't last long enough to be a problem.

I wonder if we could train some chimps to work in the building industry ...

No further comment necessary!

I've probably got dangerously close to the odd sand castle in my time.

G

Interpretation is likely to be what the CAA think it is at the time of prosecution. I have had a few 'off the record' chats with CAA staff who would strongly agree with my suggestion above, but that's no guarantee of consistency.

One defintion from the concise Oxford disctionary is

" A thing constructed"

Following on from what Timothy says it would appear to be anything man made. Whether the CAA would prosecute for a fence, wall or earth bank would probably depend upon the circumstances and how they were feeling on the day but such would appear to fall within the definition.

Isn't virtually all arable farmland 'constructed' from the landscape so as to be made fit for purpose?

Charlie (devil's advocate) golf

If one flies low over a fence (or sea wall) in the middle of nowhere well away from everyone and anoying no person or livestock - who is there to report you for low flying?

Regards,

DFC

DFC

Exactly! :D

I've always wondered about those haystacks on final to 23 at Old Buckenham. They've been there so long they are almost fixtures but I guess as you're landing when you pass over them Rule 5 doen't apply. Heaven forbid that anybody should hit them but it would give the lawyers some fun.

DFC said:
I am sure Flying Lawyer can give you a list ;)

Bar Shaker,

I know what you are getting at. However, provided you make a check from overhead at a reasonable height that there are no walkers, people on horses, tractors or whatever close to where you intend to operate low level then;

a) You reduce the chances of anyone catching you out; and

b) Could have Flying Lawyer use the fact that you did your best to check the area was clear and exercised good judgement as your mitigating circumstances.

:)

Regards,

DFC

I can think of quite a few structures that one does not normally expect people to inhabit, and I can't imagine the CAA not counting them for the purpose of Rule 5. Electricity pylons, TV / radio broadcast towers, and wind turbines, for instance.

@ AerBabe

I am not quite sure that this has not already happened :\

Regards, Bernhard

I do agree DFC. One of my reasons for asking the question is that one of my favorite things to do is to repeat something that I did in my training.

Having learnt 30deg turns, 60deg turns, climbing turns, descending turns etc my instructor asked me to fly above a sea wall at 200ft and keep the wall below me, with a +/- limit on altitude of 20ft. After 5 miles, we turned around and did it again at 100ft.

That being OK, we did it again at 50ft.

He did the final run, touching the wheels on the straight bits and lifting up a bit occasionally, to clean the fences and gates that sat across the wall.

I've repeated this many times myself. Its a wonderful rush and at the location in question, is safe being next to vast reaches of open fields and devoid from walkers. Its excellent practice for getting into a small airfield in challenging gusty cross wind conditions as you learn to put in considerable turns with perfect altitude control.

My concern recently was that a sea wall could be construed a structure.

I always do a flypast to check for walkers or animals and am now happy to continue doing this on the definition that people cannot inhabit a sea wall.

A case in Scotland with which I was peripherally involved determined that for the purpose of Rule 5 a Forestry Commission conifer plantation was "a structure". Apparently the court accepted the view that the forest was man-made (well, planted and managed), therefore it was by that definition a man-made structure.

I have a suspicion that this is entirely up to the court to determine, if it ever got that far, and doubt that it could be defined generally as a rule or guideline. The circumstances of the incident will almost certainly bear heavily on the interpretation.

Perhaps one of the legal bods on here might tell us more about this?

Very interesting VP. Was the pilot professionally represented?

The CAA must have been very keen to prosecute the pilot.