Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

User avatar
By Moli
#371383
Worry worry worry... How does the man who drives the snow plough get to work in the morning?

Moli :wink:
By Crash one
#371387
He gets an 18hr TAF for his local depot & drives the snowplough home the night before if required. :twisted: :twisted:
User avatar
By Johnno
#371390
Crash one wrote:Seriously I would think a structure would be a building designed to house people. A single wall on an open moor is hardly that.


Exactly the kind of answer we were after - thanks.
User avatar
By Moli
#371392
jwforeman wrote:
Crash one wrote:Seriously I would think a structure would be a building designed to house people. A single wall on an open moor is hardly that.


Exactly the kind of answer we were after - thanks.


I would say Crash one has it.

Moli
By Crash one
#371396
Thank you.
PFLs tomorrow wx permitting, must watch out for structures.

Trevor
User avatar
By AndyR
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#371398
Moli wrote:
jwforeman wrote:
Crash one wrote:Seriously I would think a structure would be a building designed to house people. A single wall on an open moor is hardly that.


Exactly the kind of answer we were after - thanks.


I would say Crash one has it.

Moli


Ah, but what about a building to house animals, e.g. on a farm?

And surely a hedge is a man made structure? Not a product of nature is it? Though I believe they (hedges) don't count!!



Working (and bored) too Moli :twisted:
By Bill Haddow
#371409
When legislation does not specifically define a term, then that term has the meaning in common use / the usual dictionary definition. My Chambers's defines "structure" as a building, esp of great size, which would seem to exclude low walls. The Building Regulations are quite strong on structural design compliance standards for allsorts of structures, but low walls are outside their ambit. Can't see how Rule 5 can apply to field walls or fences.

Bill H
User avatar
By KNT754G
#371420
A runway at a disused aerodrome is considered to be a structure, CAA ruled on that one some time back when an unlucky pilot was prosecuted for doing PFLs to ground level plus a foot or two to a disused runway.

Until tested in a court of law (and I believe it then has to be upheld on appeal) the case of a wall is undefined.

Anyone care to volunteer for the test case?

p.s. IF a wall is a structure, what about a hedge?
By bookworm
#371436
jwforeman wrote:I suppose it all depends upon what the CAA classes as a "structure".


No it doesn't. It depends on what the court classes as a structure. The CAA doesn't make law, and its interpretation, though relevant to whether a prosecution is considered, is just an opinion.
User avatar
By lesser weevil
#371437
jwforeman wrote:
Crash one wrote:Seriously I would think a structure would be a building designed to house people. A single wall on an open moor is hardly that.


Exactly the kind of answer we were after - thanks.


So, you admit you were wrong? :twisted:
User avatar
By AlexL
#371444
Bill Haddow wrote:When legislation does not specifically define a term, then that term has the meaning in common use / the usual dictionary definition.


Sorry to disagree old chap, but the term will have the meaning that a court decides it to have once the case is tested in a court.
Untill a case is tested, then its guess work on everybodys part.

FWIW my opinion would be that it depends what you are doing - if you are practicing a PFL then i think its unlikely that a drystone wall or some such is likely to be counted - a large brick wall however I think probably would be.
If however you are hooliganning along at 100ft beating up the sheep then perhaps a small dry stone wall would count, just to make a point.

Anyway, bookworm has the only correct answer - the courts make the law. And new 'vague' legislation is only defined once its tested in court.
By DRJADewar
#371451
I agree with LW and Crash One, and take note of AlexL's point - that there is no definitive answer until a court has deliberated on the meaning.

However, the sense of the Rule 5 statement seems clearly to indicate that a structure in this context is such that it does or could house people or livestock. Thus, close flying is to be avoided. A clearly empty structure, or a non-enclosing structure, devoid of occupation, seems to be outside the context.
User avatar
By flyguy
#371454
I have had detailed conversations with the CAA on this issue, primarily because we view PFLs abandoned at 500' agl as inadequate training.

The response has been clear. For the purposes of Rule 5, a 'structure' must have 'vertical extent and volume', meaning that telegraph poles, fences, hedges (and runways) are not 'structures'.

This still leaves the question, of course, as to when 'volume' actually becomes 'volume'.
User avatar
By Johnno
#371471
Thanks guys, exactly the sort of sensible replies we were looking for!

LW - I will happily admit I was wrong! Live and learn.
User avatar
By Ashley
#371476
KNT754G wrote:A runway at a disused aerodrome is considered to be a structure, CAA ruled on that one some time back when an unlucky pilot was prosecuted for doing PFLs to ground level plus a foot or two to a disused runway.


I really hope this is not what the CAA spend their time doing......what is wrong with doing a PFL onto a disused runway?

Out of interest, how many pilots cross water or moorland lower than 500 feet anyway ?

Ashley