This is becoming a circular discussion. Returning to the exam question.
The Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are conducting a survey to validate the list of various unlicensed airfields and aerial sporting activity locations published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) and depicted on CAA VFR charts. The reason for this survey is to establish whether existing published sites in the AIP are still current, operating, accurately reflected in AIS products, and to identify a principal point of contact for each site.
I reckon the CAA keep some ad hoc database of farm strips. They also have the Lockyears book which lists some % of farm strips – in many cases against the owner’s wishes. Everybody doing moving map apps (EVFR, SD) will be doing the same thing themselves.
The CAA has some criteria for displaying them e.g. there are (according to Sussex Police) 82 farm strips in Sussex, but the charts shows only a handful. And it cannot be based on the owner not wanting visitors because there are plenty of “absolutely strictly PPR” strips on the 500k chart already; in fact most farm strips are already in that category.
An "entry in the AIP’ is commonly understood to be a chapter in the section AD, not a circle on the map.
That chart is part of the AIP. How do you think they get the details where to put the little blue circles?
A bit of a difference between shown on a chart, and having a comprehensive entry in the AIP.
It’s just a housekeeping exercise, undertaken every 10 years or so. I would say long overdue looking at some of the strips still marked on the 1:500000 VFR chart.
Peter wrote:
I thought that unlicensed airfields are already not in the AIP.
Shocker. At least 3 unlicensed aerodromes on this one AIP plate! 
Peter wrote:
a free LPV approach to every farm strip in the UK
Well, there’s already a free LPV to every licensed airfield if you have Garmin GTN
I reckon there is a plan to provide a free LPV approach to every farm strip in the UK, funded by the EU just before the UK leaves 
Precisely. The exclusion in Section 9 (f) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 is limited to motorised vehicles or vessels (other than vehicles or vessels constructed or adapted for use by disabled persons while being so used).
We might argue that an aircraft is a vehicle in the widest sense of the word, i.e. “a thing used for transporting people or goods”. However the phrase “vehicle or vessel” implies that the former should be construed in the usual, somewhat narrower sense, of “a thing used for transporting people or goods on land, such as a car, lorry, or cart”.
Where British legislators mean “vehicle, vessel or aircraft”, they always write precisely that, as for instance in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, the Air Navigation Order, the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010… to name but three of dozens or hundreds of examples.
We could also argue that failure of aircrew to obtain prior permission might be a breach of their Section 2 duty to exercise land access rights responsibly, but that duty is balanced by the landowner’s reciprocal obligations in Section 3.
In such a sparsely populated country whose inhabitants are more than usually disposed to tolerate eccentricity, the above is unlikely ever to be tested in Court. However, there’s no doubt in my mind that Scottish land access rights and responsibilities do extend to aircraft, whether motorised or not.
I’m surprised to hear that. I thought “Right to Roam” only applied to humans on foot, maybe with dog, horse or pedal cycle, but not motor vehicles.
