Jump to content

Is it all right to take off near a main road?


kjirathun
 Share

Recommended Posts

I presume the 500 ft rule would apply and also liability issues if there is a car crash caused by your presence drawing drivers attention.

I would imagine there are concerns if you were close enough to have an engine our at low altitude whereby you might be forced to land on the road ??

Just my immediate thoughts having worked all night and a bit bleary eyed and bleary brained....... for what its worth ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is very true simon BUT this is IMO Not a good idea. Low flying over a main road will cause people to rubber neck and possibly cause an crash.

If you have to take of in this field turn before you get to the road get some height then cross it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out the take off and landing at Membury!!

Sometimes the guys landing the planes have to wait for a gap in the lorries!!! lol

I think as long as there is no 'popping out from behind a hedge' all should be good.

You have as much chance of causing an accident being up at 500ft above a main road with people looking while driving I recon.

At the end of the day, if your behind the wheel of your car. (drive the fker!!) lol You can not be held responsable for the actions of someone driving with undue care and attention.

All of that said, if it can be avoided... avoid it. :-)

SW :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon, hate to disagree, but yes you can be held liable for distracting drivers and causing an accident. The recent smoke over the motorway carriageway case highlights this. I know it was dropped at the very last minute but the case hinged not on the smoke going over the road, but on the distraction the bonfire event caused road users coupled with the smoke.

There is the Use, Cause, Permit clause in the Road Traffic Act that would cause you problems...

A collision between two cars because the drivers were looking at a naked person on the side of the road is 'caused' by that person and that person would be dealt with as such... Just because you're not a driver doesn't mean you're not at fault...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the same sense...

Just because your a pilot taking off, your not at fault.

I can think of LOADS of airfields where planes take off over roads VERY low...

SW :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would like to add an example to the above

Bristol Airports runway starts about 50' from the main Bristol Trunk road, you couldn't get much closer if you tried, the big planes come in so low over the roof tops of local houses that Roof tiles get lifted by the vortex.

On a side issue if you ever wondered how far behind a big commercial jet the turbulence stretches and how powerful it is you should take a trip to the airport, it's a good minute after the plane goes over before the vortex hits and it's really quite powerful.

:explode:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to road traffic act " use cause permit" this doesn't apply here, that is a section to deal with the driver being caused or permitted to DRIVE the vehicle, the use section is obvious but also covers a none drivers use such as getting a lift.

There is another offence of causing something to be on or over a road herby causing danger, I believe the smoke case hinged around this.

This is the offence that could come into play " OVER THE ROAD".

However you would have to low and breeching other flight rules ir 500ft rule before you fall foul.

Ultimately the responsibility rests with the driver to pay attention, however being sued civilly is a different matter.

With all this said I would use the field apply some common sense and do what us practicable to minimise risk and everything should be ok.

Cheers Lee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't really want to get into a legal argument, but the airport comparison does not hold water. Very often airport runways are signposted and there are usually signs of flying in the area, i.e. an airport and terminal buildings.

A small brightly coloured noisy flying machine popping over a hedgerow at low altitude in an area normally quiet and not used by such airtraffic may just cause slightly more surprise to a motorist than a heavy flying over a regular flightpath.

Anyway, what do I know, I don't even fly !!! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if a Dear jumped out of the same hedge row?

It could go on for an age...

I believe that assuming you have not broken the air law that applies to take off and landing, (and that you are climbing out to 500ft and going for a fly, in clear airspace, with landowners permission, and adequate engine out on take off, (safe land out options) that you may be considered an arse but will not be breaking a law, as you are 'going about your normal business' in accordance with the law.

Thats my take, I am not a lawyer, nor am I a police officer or trained in any way about this.

I am basing this on imagining a sensible conversation being had in a court in the UK.

SW :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely not illegal, as long as you are taking off and landing 'in accordance with normal aviation practice'

I think in any event you are only likely to be successfully prosecuted if:

An road collision incident is caused and;

There's proof that the driver was distracted by your flying machine and;

You were shown to have deliberately flown low over the road when you had another option, were aware the road was there and that you could have reasonably foreseen distraction of drivers taking place.

Sent from Dorset on my iPad probably whilst drinking wine, lying in the sofa using PMC Forum mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to put my few pennies in this conversation .

First 500 ft rule was set to prevent accidents with other people ,and disturbing peace by any of Us and our machines,and few other restriction. But we cannot be responsible for behaviour other people on the road.

every one driver is responsible for his vehicle and must pay attention on the road... NOT on naked blonde :shock: to make accident ,and then later explain to the police... :lol:

"I watch everything just not the road,but I'm not guilty just she is" ,any situation like this is stupid,we cannot be responsible for lack of attention on the road by other drivers.

By the way ,what's going to happen if we all day train, take off and land?? Full legally -paradox if in this time somebody crash in the hedge -we are without fault :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Ask a court of law I recon mate. :-)

I can almost 100% assure you that this will not be a written 'eventuality'

I would say people hiding in bushes are up to no good myself. lolol

SW :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

As Simon pointed out, the 500ft rule has a specific exemption for take-off and landing, so someone hiding behind the hedge doesn't change the legal position.

In any event, whatever the letter of the law, it is the responsibility of each pilot to ensure that reasonable precautions are taken so as to avoid disturbance to the public. This is how we avoid negative press and remain largely self-regulating.

While flying from this year's PMC fly-in, I noticed traffic slowing on the A149 to watch, although I and the other pilots near the road were at 1000 to 1500ft. The same happens around the military bases scattered around Norfolk. There are some drivers who will gawp at anything and we can't be expected to fly only in remote areas to prevent them from doing so.

I have considered launching from Old Buckenham common (i.e. my doorstep). The main reason why I haven't done so is that the B1077 trunk road passes along one side of the green and I would consider the potential for distracting drivers to be unacceptable.

In these situations, I try to imagine how an incident would be reported by the gutter press:

"Beardy Bin Laden lookalike attempts genocide using paramotor to disrupt traffic"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

This assumes you have permission to fly from that field then you have a right to be there and 500ft rule applies.

What if you were say guerrilla flying from a bit of green, your not sure who's, you understand it to be common land but not 100% etc.. Then does the 500ft rule overrule the fact you shouldn't have been there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...