A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 24th 09, 01:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tuno
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 640
Default Legal eagles - what's your take on this airspace issue?

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  
Old February 24th 09, 02:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default Legal eagles - what's your take on this airspace issue?


"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  
Old February 24th 09, 02:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 995
Default Legal eagles - what's your take on this airspace issue?

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  
Old February 24th 09, 11:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
TonyV[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default Legal eagles - what's your take on this airspace issue? (USAairspace)

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  
Old February 25th 09, 12:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tech Support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default Legal eagles - what's your take on this airspace issue?

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  
Old February 25th 09, 03:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Micki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Legal eagles - what's your take on this airspace issue?

(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  
Old February 25th 09, 03:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Micki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Legal eagles - what's your take on this airspace issue?

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.