Legal eagles - what's your take on this airspace issue?

[Tuno]

I'm rather surprised my original post on this topic didn't generate
any discussion, so I'm going to try again with what I learned since my
last. (Thank you CH!)

The first two press reports on the incident, where a powered
pagaglider pilot was arrested by Hualapai tribal police even though he
never set foot on their reservation, are available here:

http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/01/22/news/20090122_front_189411.txt
http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/02/18/news/20090218_front_191094.txt

I was curious about the tribe's lawyer's statement in the more recent
report that "[t]he Hualapai have Federal Aviation Administration-
issued permission to regulate air traffic flying over their lands." I
received no replies from inquiries faxed to the tribal council or the
lawyer, but the reporter replied to my e-mail that the lawyer was
referring to CFR paragraph 93.319(f), which governs commercial air
tour limitations over the Grand Canyon:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/pdf/14cfr93.319.pdf
http://grandcanyonairspace.iat.gov/index1.html

Now, I'm no lawyer, but my reading of the CFR is that permission is
required from the Hualapai tribe for *commercial* flights that are
*in* the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) Special Flight Rules Area
(SFRA). The boundaries of this SFRA are specified in subpart U and in
the National Flight Database, and the arrested pilot had carefully
avoided avoid this airspace.

I really feel bad for the PPG pilot. By all appearances he was careful
to follow the rules, but his flying and camera equipment are still
being held by the Hualapai, who are currently demanding an apology
after first demanding $25,000.

What say you pilots with legal type ratings?

~ted/2NO

[vaughn]

"Tuno" > wrote in message
...
> What say you pilots

The tribe's position is ludicrous on its face. For one thing, it is hard to
believe that tribal police have any jurisdiction outside of tribal lands, so
their taking the pilot's property as "evidence" appears to be an act of
thievery.

Because the tribes have Sovereign immunity, it can be tricky to reach them
using the US court system. My first take is that using US criminal law to
go after the individuals who stole the pilot's property might be an
interesting way to get the tribe's attention.

Vaughn

[BT]

As I understood the articles..
the hapless pilot never entered the Grand Canyon Special Flight Rules area
The tribal police drove off tribal lands to where he had his RV and trailer
parked to confiscate his personal property.

And AZ daily Sun states that the Tribe does not have FAA authority to
control airspace.


http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/02/20/news/opinion/20090220_opini_191224.txt


"Tuno" > wrote in message
...
> I'm rather surprised my original post on this topic didn't generate
> any discussion, so I'm going to try again with what I learned since my
> last. (Thank you CH!)
>
> The first two press reports on the incident, where a powered
> pagaglider pilot was arrested by Hualapai tribal police even though he
> never set foot on their reservation, are available here:
>
> http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/01/22/news/20090122_front_189411.txt
> http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/02/18/news/20090218_front_191094.txt
>
> I was curious about the tribe's lawyer's statement in the more recent
> report that "[t]he Hualapai have Federal Aviation Administration-
> issued permission to regulate air traffic flying over their lands." I
> received no replies from inquiries faxed to the tribal council or the
> lawyer, but the reporter replied to my e-mail that the lawyer was
> referring to CFR paragraph 93.319(f), which governs commercial air
> tour limitations over the Grand Canyon:
>
> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/pdf/14cfr93.319.pdf
> http://grandcanyonairspace.iat.gov/index1.html
>
> Now, I'm no lawyer, but my reading of the CFR is that permission is
> required from the Hualapai tribe for *commercial* flights that are
> *in* the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) Special Flight Rules Area
> (SFRA). The boundaries of this SFRA are specified in subpart U and in
> the National Flight Database, and the arrested pilot had carefully
> avoided avoid this airspace.
>
> I really feel bad for the PPG pilot. By all appearances he was careful
> to follow the rules, but his flying and camera equipment are still
> being held by the Hualapai, who are currently demanding an apology
> after first demanding $25,000.
>
> What say you pilots with legal type ratings?
>
> ~ted/2NO

[TonyV[_2_]]

Tuno wrote:
> I'm rather surprised my original post on this topic didn't generate
> any discussion,


I didn't think that there was much to say. The FAA and the courts have
vigorously and consistently ruled that local authorities have no
jurisdiction over US airspace. The fact that we're talking about a
native American (God, I hate political correctness) tribe here makes no
difference, I would think.

Tony "not a lawyer" V.

[Tech Support]

Following covers GCNP AZ. Nowhere did I read Native American.

http://regulations.vlex.com/vid/traffic-operating-flight-grand-canyon-23268780

Big John

************************************************** *********
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:47:50 -0800 (PST), Tuno >
wrote:

>I'm rather surprised my original post on this topic didn't generate
>any discussion, so I'm going to try again with what I learned since my
>last. (Thank you CH!)
>
>The first two press reports on the incident, where a powered
>pagaglider pilot was arrested by Hualapai tribal police even though he
>never set foot on their reservation, are available here:
>
>http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/01/22/news/20090122_front_189411.txt
>http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/02/18/news/20090218_front_191094.txt
>
>I was curious about the tribe's lawyer's statement in the more recent
>report that "[t]he Hualapai have Federal Aviation Administration-
>issued permission to regulate air traffic flying over their lands." I
>received no replies from inquiries faxed to the tribal council or the
>lawyer, but the reporter replied to my e-mail that the lawyer was
>referring to CFR paragraph 93.319(f), which governs commercial air
>tour limitations over the Grand Canyon:
>
>http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/pdf/14cfr93.319.pdf
>http://grandcanyonairspace.iat.gov/index1.html
>
>Now, I'm no lawyer, but my reading of the CFR is that permission is
>required from the Hualapai tribe for *commercial* flights that are
>*in* the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) Special Flight Rules Area
>(SFRA). The boundaries of this SFRA are specified in subpart U and in
>the National Flight Database, and the arrested pilot had carefully
>avoided avoid this airspace.
>
>I really feel bad for the PPG pilot. By all appearances he was careful
>to follow the rules, but his flying and camera equipment are still
>being held by the Hualapai, who are currently demanding an apology
>after first demanding $25,000.
>
>What say you pilots with legal type ratings?
>
>~ted/2NO

[Micki]

(a) In general Each agency shall, to the extent permitted in law,
develop an effective process to permit elected officers of State,
local, and tribal governments (or their designated employees with
authority to act on their behalf) to provide meaningful and timely
input in the development of regulatory proposals containing
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates.

Think that pretty much says it all. They can provide "input" not
enforcement.

Micki (not a lawyer, but can read like one!)

[Micki]

forgot to quote the source:
2 USC 1534 - Sec. 1534. State, local, and tribal government input
2 USC - U.S. Code - Title 2: The Congress (January 2004)