![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 he http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/...ont_189411.txt http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/...ont_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_20...4cfr93.319.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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/2...ini_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 he http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/...ont_189411.txt http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/...ont_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_20...4cfr93.319.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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Following covers GCNP AZ. Nowhere did I read Native American.
http://regulations.vlex.com/vid/traf...anyon-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 he http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/...ont_189411.txt http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/...ont_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_20...4cfr93.319.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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(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!) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is this even legal?? | Darkwing | Piloting | 46 | December 21st 07 01:09 AM |
Is your IFR GPS still legal for use? | john smith[_2_] | Piloting | 36 | May 29th 07 09:23 PM |
Wichita Airspace Question and overlapping airspace | Owen[_4_] | Piloting | 1 | February 14th 07 09:35 PM |
Legal or not? | Jim Macklin | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 06 12:02 AM |
Two airspace classes for one airspace? (KOQU) | John R | Piloting | 8 | June 30th 04 04:46 AM |