JohnShe

SP, your bogus claim used to be 400 feet. Are you losing it? Anyway, if it flies the FAA has the responsibility and authority to regulate it. That includes all forms of UAS even model airplanes. This responsibility is mandated by congress along with the authority and funding to carry it out.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

For all those that the think/Believe the FAA can't do something / anything. The FAA can and will do anything it wants it's like the IRS U are guilty until proven innocent. All they have to do to make or change any FAR is publish it in the congressional record and it LAW. Wright Wrong or Indifferent it's still the LAW of the land. Much like Executive orders. Of course they will most times ask for comments by publishing a NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making), but an NPRM is not mandatory.

Sport_Pilot

Don't be a JA we all should know that the 400 foot number gives a 100 foot buffer to navigable airspace.
Only in navigable airspace. Yes, I know the FAA says it ain't so, but I believe it will be so after a few court cases.

Sport_Pilot

Heck the IRS got away with a slap on the wrist for denying tax exempt status to tea party groups. All they had to do was grant the tax exempt status.

JohnShe

Since all airspace is navigable, or can be defined navigable by the FAA, you finally got it right. And since the FAA is the Congressionally mandated authority, they will win all court cases.

bradpaul

So the airspace above the picnic table but below 400' in my backyard is "navigable" and the FAA controls the air we breathe? ............... somehow I think not. I really, really hate to agree with SP, but as the FAA has consistently established 500' as minimum altitude for full scale and by such established a 100' buffer for other for non FAA controlled activities by recommending 400' (AC 91-75) the slam dunk in court (not withstanding Chevron) may not be that clear cut.

But rather then opinion how about the law and USSC decisions?

The USSC in case Causby 328 U.S.256 (1946) decided that:

From the court's decision, authored by Justice William O. Douglas, "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run" . . . Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface.".

The majority opinion cited the law (49 U.S.C. (180) where Congress defined the "navigable airspace" in the public domain, as that above the "minimum safe altitude" which varies from 500 to 1000 feet depending on time of day, aircraft, and type of terrain.

And to get facts straight:

49 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 49 - TRANSPORTATION
SUBTITLE VII - AVIATION PROGRAMS
PART A - AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY
subpart i - general
CHAPTER 401 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 40102 - Definitions
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

(32) “navigable airspace” means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part, including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft.

JohnShe

Ah,SP it is all Reductio ad absurdum all the time with you isn't it? The FAA doesn't own the air. They control anything that flies in the air. Bet you would appreciate local law enforcement or FAA action if someone flew a drone over your picnic table while you were there? Sort of melt the pickle on your burger, wouldn't it?

bradpaul

Ahh the credability of someone who does not even reply to the correct poster! John, John please try to comprehend Causby.

JohnShe

It's a game people play called "Ah Ha Gotcha!" Just pick out a trivial error and claim victory over the real argument. I was chatting with SP and wasn't paying attention when you jumped in. My argument still stands.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Brad,

The problem isn't that SP has got the wrong definition of navigable airspace. It's that it doesn't follow from this fact that the FAA can't make regulations affecting other parts of the airspace, which is what SP seems to think. Of course it can, as the very statute that talks about navigable airspace says, which is one reason why a lot of controlled airspace goes all the way to the ground. Even down to your picnic table, if your house is in that kind of airspace, which it could be. (And not just in "bubbles" around low-flying planes. Good grief!) And many FAA regulations apply in all the airspace, not just controlled airspace and not just "navigable" airspace. SP concedes that from time to time, but then he backs off and says they can't adopt regulations unless they affect safety or efficiency, which of course is true, but irrelevant. They always say that about their regulations. If they were to adopt some regulation that plainly had nothing to do with safety or efficiency, that would be a different matter, but why would they?

Causby doesn't change any of this. It was about whether the government has to pay a landowner when the government's aviation-related activities make the land no longer useful. It does, but that doesn't keep the government from doing whatever it wants to. In that case itself, the government got to do what it always wanted to do. It just had to pay the landowner whose property was made useless. If they decide that jets have to fly 100 feet over your picnic table to land, they can do that. But they'd have to pay you for making your house uninhabitable.

I'm fairly sure, despite SP's insistence (though without examples) that there are lots of cases invalidating FAA regulations, that no appellate court has ever held an FAA regulation about air safety invalid. I could be wrong, but nobody seems to have found one yet. That doesn't mean they couldn't, but the odds are poor.

Sport_Pilot

No I did not say that, in fact Part 77 affects non navigable airspace, but it is for the protection of navigable airspace from obstructions. They can and will do all to protect full scale aircraft from obstructions, which is what I believe models and drones flying in non-navigable airspace should be classified as.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

OK, how about this. Suppose you own a big, flat chunk of land out in the boondocks. So you buy a full-scale plane (not an ultralight), and, without any of that annoying government paperwork, you fly it around below 400 feet whenever you feel the urge. You never get near other planes. Are you seriously saying that you can do this legally? If so, I doubt that anyone else believes this. If not, what's the point of all your talk about "navigable airspace"? (And please, no more "bubbles.")

As for regulating drones and models, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 plainly gives the FAA all the power to regulate them it could possibly want, except for models covered by section 336.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Sec 91.119 (c) is your answer.

me > Aviation Regulations > Parts Index > Part 91 > Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General. [h=2]Sec. 91.119 — Minimum safe altitudes: General.[/h] Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

I have a question about full scale planes and the altitudes they must maintain according to :
sub paragraph (c) it says " or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft."

The question is does Or when would, an RC flying field constitute or Become "an open air assembly of persons"

Aviation Regulations > Parts Index > Part 91 > Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General. [h=2]Sec. 91.119 — Minimum safe altitudes: General.[/h] Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

HoundDog,

I know about those regulations. The point is that SP seems to think the FAA didn't have the legal authority to make those regulations, because the activities I described weren't in "navigable airspace" and weren't endangering anything going on in navigable airspace. So, apparently, SP thinks it's legal to do all those things because the regulations aren't valid. (So we're supposed to get more of those numerous though imaginary court decisions invalidating them, I guess.) At least that's what he seems to be saying today : I'm trying to pin him down. The issue isn't what the regulations are, it's about whether the FAA had the legal authority to adopt them. I don't for a minute think they didn't, but some people seem to disagree.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

I get that but going against the FAA is like arguing with the IRS or a cop U ain't gona win.

On the other had, about my other question:
The question is Does Or when would, an RC flying field constitute or Become "an open air assembly of persons"
i.e. keeping full scale air craft at least 1000' AGL over R/C Fields.

Hossfly

Hey, Man, you should have been at the Jetero RC Club (NE of Houston) War Bird event Fri. and Sat. (10-23-24-14). There were 65 registered pilots and estimated 300 visitors and modelers not flying, ( like me, Flight-Line Boss ) Big Birds were running the skies in a pattern all the time. 6 planes allowed in the sky at one time and did they ever keep it full !!

With a full parking lot and people everywhere, I certainly believe JETERO fielded "an open air assembly of persons". -----The largest assembly I think since we opened that field in March, 1996

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Well, it's even worse than that. I've won a lot of arguments with the IRS, which loses a fair number of the cases that go to court. But in this case, the FAA is right. And even if they weren't right, good luck finding a court that will invalidate an FAA safety regulation. Not at all likely to happen.

As for the definition of "open air assembly of persons," there isn't one. The practical answer is, don't fly lower than 1000 feet except for things like crop dusting, where no people at all are down there.

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

ill fly where ever i want to the hell with the goverment

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

And here are the pictures......... ?????

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

There has to be definition for "Open air assembly of persons" It's part of Part 91 > Sec. 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General. Sec. 91.119 — Minimum safe altitudes: General. (b)

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

I think I'll give the PHX FSDO a call tomorrow. See What they consider an "Open Air Assembly of Persons" as per 91.119 (b).

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Why would that mean there has to be a definition? Law is chock full of terms that have no definition. Personal injury law, for instance, usually turns on the question of whether one or more persons' conduct was "reasonable," which is left up to the jury to decide, based on their own judgment about what's "reasonable." But let us know how your phone conversation goes. I'm pretty sure there is no official (i.e. published) definition, but perhaps the FAA has some sort of unofficial guideline, and if they do, maybe someone will tell you what it is. Or not.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

According to the gentleman I spoke with today 10/28/14 at the Phoenix Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO)
When I asked him what's the FAA definition of an "open air assembly of persons" as in FAR 91.119 (b)
He stated, It could be a family picnic or any group or gathering there for some purpose. I then asked if there was any particular number of people that constituted an "open air assembly of persons". His answer was NO. I left it there.

phlpsfrnk

Persons being the plural form I would define it to mean two or more.


Frank

Hossfly

"Open Air Assembly of Persons" was a civil restriction against overflight way back when I first got a civil pilot's license. As a military pilot I did not need that, but I did it when the window of future changes started opening up.
The restriction is nothing new. I recall that was about 1963 when I got my first civil pilot license.