What is the definition of airborne?

[huffhuff]

Again, forgive me ignorance....

I am right in amongst busy busy airspace (Luton CTA - I can almost see the runway from my garden. I am under the 'U' of RUSHMORE), my question is this;

I work 2 minutes away from home on top of the highest hill around for as far as the eye can see. The place where I work has 200 acres of beautiful land, some of which is like a valley. One field either side of the small valley... surrounded at the top by very very tall trees so I would be flying below the tree line. Could I pass from one side to the other keeping low to the deck or would that be illegal?

Cheers,

Ben

[Guest]

It would be comforting if you could answer your own question. The airmap will show you what class of airspace you are in and whether it starts at the surface (the ground - at the bottom end of the trees) or at some height above that. The air navigation order will tell you whether you can fly in that airspace and under what conditions.

All pilots and would be pilots need to look carefully at these documents as "they said it was OK on the forum" has not, to my knowledge, ever been accepted as a legitimatre defence in law.

If flying is a spiritual experience then the air map and the ANO are the Bible; old and new testament. I will pray for you brother Ben.

[huffhuff]

Hmmmmmm, now you sounded a tad sarcastic there Brother Francis!

I know the rules and at what height I can or can't fly in my area. My question was more basic, as in, what defines 'flying'. As in, if I walked into the field at the back of my house and did some ground handling and a big old gusty wind came and took me into the air, for say 50m and at around 5ft from the ground...am I flying and therefore breaking the air law?

[Guest]

yes.

[huffhuff]

Thank you

[outkast]

Hmmmmmm, now you sounded a tad sarcastic there Brother Francis!

I know the rules and at what height I can or can't fly in my area. My question was more basic, as in, what defines 'flying'. As in, if I walked into the field at the back of my house and did some ground handling and a big old gusty wind came and took me into the air, for say 50m and at around 5ft from the ground...am I flying and therefore breaking the air law?

you would only be breaking the law if you entered controled airspace, at 5 feet high I doubt you would encounter any commercial air traffic.

the again after seeing this I am not so sure

[Guest]

The law in the UK is divided into "satute" and "case" law. The ANO does not define "flight" but applies the word over 200 times in the first 14 pages. there are 438 pages. The legislators have risked leaving it to judges who determine case law to arrive at a definition of "flight".

It would be for the defendent to persuade the judge that the activity they were engaged in at the time of the alleged incident was not actual "flying", but , say, ground handling or skimming or inadvertent airborness. Should the Judge not be persuaded but, as is likely rely on a dictionary, the next course would be to pply for leave to appeal and have that definition re-examined by a higher court. Eventually it could reach the Lords and three resplendent gentlemen of the bar would deliberate uppppon the defence's argument and arrive at a conclusion.

I suspect that throughout this process the answer would be the same; "Prisoner at the bar, you stand condemned of commiting the heinous crime of aviation by virtue of applying yoursel to an aerofoil section with malice aforethgought. By this act alone your intent was clearly to fly but nevertheless you proceeded to face the wind and lay out the tool of your dastardly trade in a fashion, notorious in the wicked society you keep, specifically designed to generate lift. By so doing you abandonned your duty of care to remain upon the ground and recklessly positioned yourself in such manner as to render flight, if not inevitable, then alarmingly likely. Your claim that it was by a chance gust of wind that were raised aloft is spurious in the extreme and we find you GUILTY of flight.

We therefore condemn you to the most severe letting off the law will permit. You will, henceforth, be known as a PARAMOTORIST.

[gasp!!!!!!!!]

.....now dont do it again you scamp.

[outkast]

[huffhuff]

At first I thought you did a copy and paste from a strange google result - but in fact, you actually wrote that yourself! You have more time on your hands than me!

Thank you Francis. If the ANO and airmap are the new and old testament, then surely you are this 'Paramotorist Bible' personified - maybe even the PPG God?!?

Thanks

[Phil_P]

Certainly one of the true prophets.

You should also look up the law regarding the flying of kites in the vicinity of airports (oh yes, they exist), as they may actually be pertinent when it comes to ground handling.

[Guest]

A prophet is without honour in his own country.

My appolgies the ANO does indeed have a definition of flight, buried deep in article 155 "Iterpretation" (section 1 part 14 page 14 of CAP393)

Paragraph (1) states:

Interpretation

155 (1) In this Order:

blah blah

.

'Flight' and 'to fly' have the meanings respectively assigned to them by paragraph (2);

.

blah

and paragraph (2) states;

(2) An aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight:

(a) in the case of a piloted flying machine, from the moment when, after the

embarkation of its crew for the purpose of taking off, it first moves under its own

power until the moment when it next comes to rest after landing;

(b) in the case of a pilotless flying machine, or a glider, from the moment when it

first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment when it next comes

to rest after landing;

The only room for a defence that I can see is in the "intent" of the pilot as I posted earlier.

[Phil_P]

As you say, intent looks to be a sound defence, as when ground handling and getting blown into the air, there would have been no purpose of flight intended.

So if you fall off a cliff, you can't claim it as your first solo

[pete_b]

As you say, intent looks to be a sound defence, as when ground handling and getting blown into the air, there would have been no purpose of flight intended.

So if you fall off a cliff, you can't claim it as your first solo

[Guest]

As you say, intent looks to be a sound defence, as when ground handling and getting blown into the air, there would have been no purpose of flight intended.

So if you fall off a cliff, you can't claim it as your first solo

I never said it was "sound"!

Just that you might be able to argue for it to be admissable as a defence. My feeling is you would have more luck pleading insanity, which I think is what Pete was saying!