CAR 602.13- Take-offs, Landings in Built-up Areas

[Panama Jack]

I thought I would put this one out for thought to all of the AvCanada armchair aviation lawyers.

According to CAR 602.13,"no person shall conduct a take-off, approach or landing in an aircraft within a built-up area of a city or town, unless that take-off, approach or landing is conducted at an airport, heliport or a military aerodrome."

I was wondering if anybody could provide a legal definition of what constitutes a "built-up" area. Foot-launched powered-parachutes (which fall under the Basic Ultra-Light Aeroplane Category in Canada) are able to take-off and land in very small areas and operating at an airport which doesn't have sufficient grass surfaces can be damaging to the chutes.

I am wondering whether a launch or landing from a golf course, large field, or other such clear area at the edge of a town or city would be considered by Transport Canada to have taken place within the "built-up" area of the city? I am not envisioning launching from somewhere like David Lam Park in Vancouver or Coronation Park in Toronto, but a much more remote type of scenario far from tall buildings.

[Shady McSly]

"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 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.

The word "within" in this context has been interpreted to mean substantially surrounded by the built-up area. In practical terms this would mean that a landing site would have to be surrounded on all four sides or at least to the point that a landing aircraft would overfly a structure at some point, or fly close enough to create a hazard. As an example, a landing site on the edge of a town or on a shoreline would not require an authorization if the landing could be accomplished without overflying a structure or creating a hazard to any property."

From https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 5-2123.htm

[Panama Jack]

Awesome, Shady.

First comment within minutes of posting and it is something of real value and substance.

You restore my hope in AvCanada!

Have a great day!

[photofly]

There's a tribunal decision online that points out that within 2000' horizontal distance of a built up area is considered to be "over" the built up area.

[Panama Jack]

Would appreciate, photofly, if you could provide a link to this tribunal decision.

[photofly]

It's going to take me a while to trawl through the TATC website to find the case I'm thinking of. Meanwhile, here's some other useful background info.

http://www.tatc.gc.ca/decision/decision ... 7&lang=eng
Paras 222 and onwards.

[photofly]

Would appreciate, photofly, if you could provide a link to this tribunal decision.

Can't find it - I may have mis-remembered a case centred on 602.14 (which includes the 1000' above the nearest obstacle within 2000' rule).

In answer to your original question about what consitutes a "built-up" area - there are dozens of TATC decisions which affirm the fact that there is no definition and it's up to the tribunal member to make that determination based on the facts in each case.

Also note the distinction between 602.13 where the built-up area in question has to be "of a city or town" and 602.14 where it doesn't - so if the built-up area in which you want to take off can be shown to be not "of a city or town", you're ok. See the case I cited earlier for a discussion on whose definition of city or town holds. BTW I really hope you don't ever have to hang your well-being (or licence) on that kind of angels-on-a-pinhead argument - it's fun in theory on an internet forum but I imagine very unpleasant in front of a panel.

[PilotDAR]

For my experience with this, and I have some (RCMP and the local police at the time), the built up area is defined as the "incorporated" boundaries of the town/city. These are defined in the registered land use records. Based upon my having four very stern officers explain it to me, I suggest not operating an aircraft within incorporated town boundaries - that was my lesson that day!

[photofly]

The case I cited earlier was a pilot being "done" for landing, under the instruction of the RCMP detachment, inside a built up area in an Indian reserve.The member decided that regardless of political boundaries it was a town or city if it contained all the amenities required to live there:

"I agree with the Minister's position that, together with considerations of size, amenities are what distinguish a town from other types of small settlements. It seems to me that an important aspect of a town is that its amenities meet all the immediate needs of its residents. While Little Grand Rapids Indian Reserve may not have a hospital, a nursing station provides immediate medical assistance. It has places for community activities and a two or three small convenience-type stores; it has a school but one that does not provide for a complete secondary education. While there may be many towns in similar situations, one would normally expect that there would be a complete secondary school within normal commuting distance (I note that where the population of a community does not support the establishment of a secondary school, it might be an indication that a community is "smaller than a town"). Finally, the only commercial establishment providing food and lodging is off the reserve.

[260] Most importantly, however, the Reserve community lacks two amenities that seem to me essential for a town: a post office and a store that can be relied upon to provide necessities. Both of these are located off the Reserve and cannot be considered part of its amenities...
...
Given that there is a division of essential amenities that identify a town over two distinct political and legal units, and that two of the most important of these amenities are outside of the Reserve boundaries, I find that the Minister has not shown, on a balance of probabilities, that Little Grand Rapids Indian Reserve is a town within the meaning of subsection 602.13(1) of the CARs."



So, PJ, as long as there's no post office or decent store in the built-up area from which you wish to take off, you're ok!

[TeePeeCreeper]

So what's the deal with all the floaters when on the downwind for the Westbound at AM9? That leg is flown at 500AGL if I remember correctly...

[flyingswine77]

The phrase “built-up area” is not officially defined by Canadian aviation legislation. Transport Canada Inspectors rely on judgment, precedence and opinion when assessing an area as “built-up.”

Multiple ‘Yes’ answers to the following questions indicate a probable built-up area:
• Is there a pattern of several urban streets?
• Is there a group of man made structures?
• Does the area have a largely residential population?
• Is the area incorporated as a town or city?
• Are the lots similar in size to city lots?
• Is the area show as built up or developed on maps or publications?
• Would a pilot easily see the structures and recognize the area as populated from the air?
• Is there a lack of safe landing sites available in event of a forced landing?

Recent guidance published in 2014 provides a more restrictive interpretation:

"Built-up areas are considered areas with groups of buildings or dwellings including anything from small hamlets to major cities. Anything larger than a farmstead should be considered a built up area."

Please reference paragraph (26) NOTE:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/o ... -2136.html

Also,

There's a tribunal decision online that points out that within 2000' horizontal distance of a built up area is considered to be "over" the built up area.

Please note that Canadian Aviation Regulation 602.12 Overflight of Built-up Areas or Open-air Assemblies of Persons during Take-offs, Approaches and Landings
proscribes the horizontal distance limits for consideration as "overflight," not the TATC.

Also, please reference:

Decision Tree2.pdf

(174.75 KiB) Downloaded 100 times

[Prodriver]

What is the point of having a helicopter if you can't land in a safe area and pick a part or a person up? Especially in the North. That court case above is nuts, just a another Jealous Johnny!

[NunavutPA-12]

Our "municipal boundary" covers an area of 500 square km, 99-percent of which is un-inhabited. So that definition would be ridiculous.

I remember a bush-pilot friend, who flies a Helio Courier, used to land on a municipal road so that he could taxi to the hotel and plug in for the night. Approach and take-off was not over any buildings. Seemed reasonable to everyone at the time (1970's). The RCMP had a different view and told him to cease and desist. He was pissed, I recall, since he then had to park at the airport without power (at the time).

But Aero Arctic still continued to land their S55 on the grass in front of the RCMP detachment whenever it was convenient for the police.

[Scuderia]

So what's the deal with all the floaters when on the downwind for the Westbound at AM9? That leg is flown at 500AGL if I remember correctly...

CAM9 is classified as an airport so that approach is A-OK as far as the CAR goes

[blue thunder]

After reading this, it has come to my attention that I am gonna be in sh*t one day. Helicopter guy here, Calgary area. I don't land in areas that are obvious violations, but I do land in fields by small towns and take in lunches where I can. I've landed at Canada Olympic Park, golf courses in the City, and school yards outside the city (not on school days). Getting proper permission would take a month of Sundays. I do make sure I arrive and depart over open areas, I always have a spot to put it down should I have a problem. The controllers never ask why or suggest if I should or should not land in these areas. I always say it is easier to beg for forgiveness than ask permission , but again, I don't try to do anything that has unnecessary risk.

Now, on the other side of the coin, when I ask for a 'down town tour' (which I do often, and anyone who flies downtown Calgary will know what I'm talking about here), they sometimes want me <4500' and West of McLeod Trail at all times. I can damn near see women put on make up in the Bow Tower (maybe a slight exaggeration) but in all honesty, I break every rule in the book here regularly, as do others, all at the request of the controllers (and I'm not picking on controllers here, just saying that sane people can do things 'outside the box').

Longview Alberta probably has one of the finest Steakhouses on the planet. On a 'non school day' a few years back, I landed in a the school yard across the road. As I cooled down the helicopter, a squad car pulled up. When I walked out, I greeted him with my name and asked if there was a problem. He replied that he didn't really know if there was a problem, and joined me for lunch. At the end of it all, he didn't find anything wrong with what I did, but if he dug deep enough, maybe I didn't abide by the 'letter of the law'.

Bottom line is that there will always be someone out there doing something really stupid that will ruin it for all of us. I feel I put more of a scare in people doing something legal like landing at the downtown Calgary heliport (please, don't ever close this one down) with a 407 and blasting over the Peace Bridge before touchdown, than what we could possibly do by landing in an open area of a City or town. \

Anyhow, just my rant, but people without pilot licenses will always find reasons why people with pilot licenses shouldn't do certain things. I know most on here may be fixed wing licensed, but in the end, let's try and fix some of the stupid out there by doing things safely and responsibly (this from the guy who probably bends the law a little bit..........but I'm a private guy, so if they suspend me, so be it....)........always been a bit of a rebel

[photofly]

I feel your discomfort. Just remember that ATC staff work for NavCanada and don't have any interest in whether you land somewhere you're not supposed to, or whether following their instructions takes you outside the CARs. "The controller made me do it" or "the controller said it was ok" aren't going to save your ass from the blue meanies at Transport if someone makes a complaint about something you did. Harsh, but true.

[blue thunder]

I feel your discomfort. Just remember that ATC staff work for NavCanada and don't have any interest in whether you land somewhere you're not supposed to, or whether following their instructions takes you outside the CARs. "The controller made me do it" or "the controller said it was ok" aren't going to save your ass from the blue meanies at Transport if someone makes a complaint about something you did. Harsh, but true.

I totally agree with that statement, and hope I was clear on that subject. Great point for all though!