Built-up area?

[navajo]

Does someone know what's a built-up area? Does a little shack in the middle of the wood is considered a built-up area? Do I have to fly at least 1000 feet above it?

[SuperchargedRS]

Well that all depends on how big your reg numbers are

[Tango01]

Use your common sense. A shack in the middle of nowhere by itself is def not a built-up area. So use the 500' rule as its a "structure"

[square]

An area where stuff is built up! Jeez. Can we leave some wiggle room here please?

[navajo]

A shack might not be the right word, I mean a cabin. I think the 500' apply here, but a friend of mine received shit about that and his boss consider the cabin as a built-up area. I know everyone will have his own opinion, but is there an actual definition of a built-up area?

[square]

Found a policy letter,

There is a significant body of jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of what constitutes "built-up", most of which is in the context of low flying violations. In general, "built-up" means a group of structures that are erected or built by man and includes private dwelling residences, schools, elevators, service stations and so forth. A departmental legal opinion indicates that a dock could be considered such a structure, particularly if it can be shown that there is a risk of damage to property or injury to persons. In situations where there is some doubt, it is better to err on the side of caution and issue an authorization.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/comme ... /PL145.htm


So.. I guess as long as the shack has no school and elevator it is okay, but a dock is not.

[wxguy]

Apparently "Built up area" is undefined in CARS, leaving it open to interpretation to both you, and the TC guy that is writing you a fine...

[iflyforpie]

602.14(2)

Except where conducting a take-off, approach or landing or where permitted under section 602.15, no person shall operate an aircraft

(a) over a built-up area or over an open-air assembly of persons unless the aircraft is operated at an altitude from which, in the event of an emergency necessitating an immediate landing, it would be possible to land the aircraft without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface, and, in any case, at an altitude that is not lower than

(i) for aeroplanes, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 2,000 feet from the aeroplane,

(ii) for balloons, 500 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the balloon, or

(iii) for an aircraft other than an aeroplane or a balloon, 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of 500 feet from the aircraft; and

(b) in circumstances other than those referred to in paragraph (a), at a distance less than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

If your only option for a forced landing is the baseball diamond off Main and 41st, you are too low...

[GoinNowhereFast]

What about being vectored around the GTA where the options are main st. or the lake.

[hairdo]

Well in the CFS, in the legend for the VFR terminal procedures chart and the aerodrome sketches, there is actually a symbol to represent a built-up area (page A49). Unfortunately, these charts only cover a small area, but what I noticed, is that there is generally a group of homes/ buildings before they would put in the symbol in (ie, a subdivision). I would just stay away from any towns and groups of buildings. If you can't be sure that you aren't going to put someone in danger, then do go there. If you don't need to be at less than 1000ft, then don't go down. If you need to (pipeline patrol, diversion, other jobs that require you to fly low), okay, but watch out for stuff like that and avoid them.

Remember, airspeed is life, altitude is insurance. That's my POV anyway.

[Osiris]

Well that all depends on how big your reg numbers are

Or what's written on your aircraft. I spoke with a guy not long ago who said he stopped getting complaints about low flying after having the words "PATROL" painted on the aircraft.

[Hedley]

By Tribunal predecent, six people is an "open air assembly"
of persons, which is equivalent to a built-up area.

[Dagwood]

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/regse ... alinfo.htm

Undefined Aviation-Related Words and Phrases

These are the most difficult words and phrases to interpret, in that it requires reference to dictionaries and sometimes jurisprudence (case law) to obtain a definition. The definition once obtained must be applied to the particular facts or circumstances of your situation.

Example: Section 602.12

In this example, while the phrase "built-up area" is crucial to understanding the low flying prohibitions and qualifications set out in the section, the term is not defined in the CARs. Judicial consideration of the term can assist in determining the meaning of a "built-up area."

The best part is that they give directions to be your very own CARs interpreter:

Steps In Interpreting Words and Phrases

To summarize, if the meaning of a particular term seems uncertain to you, the following steps should be taken in order to give it a meaning which is legally most appropriate.

1. Consult the interpretation provisions of the section, division or subpart in which the provision of interest is located or in the applicable standard to see whether the term in question has been explicitly defined.
2. If no definition is found in the section, division, etc. containing the provision, then consult the definitions in Subpart 101 of the CARs to determine whether a definition of the term is located there.
3. If no definition is found in Subpart 101 of the CARs, then consult the definitions set out in section 3 of the Aeronautics Act.
4. If no definition can be located by following steps 1 through 3, look to a general dictionary for the plain meaning of the term. If the term is of a technical nature, then it may be appropriate to consult dictionaries that specialize in aeronautical or legal terms.
5. If the plain meaning of a term, as discerned from a dictionary, appears to be ambiguous or to result in an absurd or anomalous result when applied to the provision of interest, then CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE TRANSPORT CANADA PERSONNEL.

WHERE THE MEANING OF LEGISLATION REMAINS UNCERTAIN OR AMBIGUOUS, DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL FOR HELP. TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY IN INTERPRETATION, TCA ENCOURAGES YOU TO CALL FOR ASSISTANCE. INITIAL ENQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE NEAREST REGIONAL OR DISTRICT OFFICE. WHERE DEBATE ARISES IN A REGIONAL OFFICE AS TO THE MEANING OF A PROVISION, HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL (INCLUDING DOJ) SHOULD BE CONTACTED.

As heretofore described herein, no Pilot or Air Traffic Controller shall be in doubt or confusion as to the meaning or intention of the Regulations and Acts. Gotta love Transport.

[Bushav8er]

There is a significant body of jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of what constitutes "built-up", most of which is in the context of low flying violations. In general, "built-up" means a group of structures that are erected or built by man and includes private dwelling residences, schools, elevators, service stations and so forth. A departmental legal opinion indicates that a dock could be considered such a structure, particularly if it can be shown that there is a risk of damage to property or injury to persons. In situations where there is some doubt, it is better to err on the side of caution and issue an authorization.

A (single) dock would not 'qualify' as it is not a group of docks and "departmental legal" means "Transports legal" opinion.

The catch all reg here is our old fav...
Reckless or Negligent Operation of Aircraft

602.01 No person shall operate an aircraft in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger the life or property of any person.

Keep in mind that the forest you are flying over is either private or Crown and if its a potential logging area, the timber assets can be considered 'property'.

If they can't get you on 602.12 or 602.13 - they will on 602.01

[square]

WHERE THE MEANING OF LEGISLATION REMAINS UNCERTAIN OR AMBIGUOUS, DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL FOR HELP.

Hehe, sure call TC. You'll probably get a different answer from lots of inspectors cause the regs get so convoluted no one knows what's what. On our last audit the guy found some little mistakes in the COM that went through the TC comb no problems, guy told us they didn't always have time to read it all and stuff'll slip through the cracks, but any mistake are our fault for following the COM.

[ruddersup?]

Unreal dagwood !!!!!!!!!

[ruddersup?]

I guess after all, if it is "considered" not dangerous then for the purpose of take-off or landing no Reg. exists?