airplanes & helicopters!!

hoofinitnorth · #61 08/09/07, 11:54 PM

**!!BOREN!!** That is NOT true!!! Fiddlefart NEVER said she would take any action to try to kill pilots or take anything into her own hands. In fact, she said she probably wouldn't even file a complaint! How can you accuse her of such things?! Try reading for content. And all I said was that I feel her pain. GoodNESS!

boren · #62 08/10/07, 05:41 AM

Oops, my apologizes to both hoofinitnorth and fiddlefart, you're right she never said that. I confused what she said with last weeks thread.

palani · #63 08/10/07, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boren

In the US that's simply not true. To quote the SCOTUS: once ownership "extended to the periphery of the universe . . . But that doctrine has no place in the modern world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

Wikipedia has a very concise and short summary

Wikipedia is not a really good source except as an opinion.

Quote:

and the case that set this in motion was US vs Causby, and a summary is available here:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/13646/Uni...-v-Causby.html
While Causby actually won the case, the interpretation has been very strict. In years since 1946 the act that was passed into law states (wikipedia):

Good link. Thanks. As you have noted Causby won his case, that use of his airspace caused him damage and he was compensated, quite rightly. You did forgot to add the following quote from the SCOTUS decision "If an aircraft generates excessive noise or flies over the landowner's airspace in an improper manner--say, strafing a farmer's barn--thenthe landowner certainly has legal recourse. Such violations of airspace rights constitute trespassing.". Sounds like rights to me.

Quote:

As you can see by the links provided the FAA interprets that as 500 feet. You may disagree, but that doesn't really matter.

The FAA's interpretation does not matter as they were not a party to the contractual agreement between the United States of America and the holder of the land patent. The FAA is nothing more than a 3rd party interloper when considered in this respect. You are correct that my opinion doesn't matter. Only the law matters and the contract makes the law. The contract says you own the airspace.

As to "The Federal Aviation Act", read it carefully. You might find the following definition in chapter 401 of 49 USC:

Quote:

“United States” means the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States, including the territorial sea and the overlying airspace.

The States of the United States does not include Wisconsin, Illinois, .... or 48 other similar entities. Now look at 49 USC 40103: "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States." Apply the definition just given.

Congress, if permitted to stand on the ground to tell the truth, would prefer to climb a tree to tell a fib.

You have to know your rights before you can assert them. The feds and the state can seize anything you own anytime but then must compensate you for the property and any damage incurred. You do own the airspace if you understand this. If you live in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Iraq (all States of the United States) you do not own the airspace above your land.

boren · #64 08/10/07, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palani

Good link. Thanks. As you have noted Causby won his case, that use of his airspace caused him damage and he was compensated, quite rightly. You did forgot to add the following quote from the SCOTUS decision "If an aircraft generates excessive noise or flies over the landowner's airspace in an improper manner--say, strafing a farmer's barn--thenthe landowner certainly has legal recourse. Such violations of airspace rights constitute trespassing.". Sounds like rights to me.

I didn't go into it since "In subsequent cases, the Court would limit that definition to the near total loss of property and not the mere reduction of property value." As such, it was a victory for Causby, but the war was lost. He won since 150 chickens were killed before he shut down his poultry farm, but overflight is allowed outside of the airspace you can reasonably use.

In any case we're arguing about so much overflight as to decrease the value of the property. The law kicks in at the near total loss, this is not the case here.

Quote:

The States of the United States does not include Wisconsin, Illinois, .... or 48 other similar entities. Now look at 49 USC 40103: "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States." Apply the definition just given.

Huh? The United States of America doesn't include the states?

palani · #65 08/10/07, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boren

Huh? The United States of America doesn't include the states?

The 'United States' does not include the de jure 50 states. Please don't modify what I wrote (you added 'of America').

The 13 independent countries (called by Great Britain 'The Colonies') created a 14th entity called 'The United States of America'. 'The United States' (sans 'of America') is a municipal corporation created for the District of Columbia in 1871. This entity has territories and possessions of its' own and it calls them States.

An example of this is shown in the IRS regulations concerning Alaska and Hawaii. Before these entities became actual 'states' they were called 'States' by the IRS code. After becoming states they were found to be deleted from the IRS code dealing with 'States'.

Confusing, isn't it? When you read US Code be aware of the difference.

hoofinitnorth · #66 08/10/07, 09:47 AM

Boren - thank you for apologizing and correcting your mistake. I'm sorry if I over-reacted but I know what it's like to be in fiddlefart's shoes and be accused of saying something I didn't! :O

boren · #67 08/10/07, 09:47 AM

Can you post any links showing this as a modern interpretation under US law, and how it relates to the FAA?

Pouncer · #68 08/10/07, 12:01 PM

hmmm, I read this thread with some interest, having spent some time in a small plane over the years.

I think the issue might lie here: What is the designated airspace overhead? Is it controlled, or not? I won't get into the various types of controlled airspace, but just offer this: If it is uncontrolled, then it is VFR (Visual Flight Rules). VFR means, 1500 foot agl, unless on approach. VFR applies to those planes not equipped with the necessary avionics and piloted by IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) licensed pilots.

You can start by calling the local airport, and asking who is the local contact for the FAA. If you can note the tail numbers of these planes, so much the better. Start a log of day, time, weather conditions, duration, tail number(s). If you need to, you can always use a video camera also-proof positive. Trust me, their insurance company will want to know!

People who fly this way are playing Russian Roulette because one good burble of air over that wing and they are going to stall out at very low altitude. It is hazardous and downright reckless, and YES the FAA comes down pretty hard on pilots who bust the regulations.

If they weren't circling, I would say never mind the minimum altitude requirements and blow it off....but it's very very dangerous-circling like that is stupid, someone is going to get killed and I would hope its the idiot at the controls, not anyone on the ground! There is much less lift on the underside of the wing.....which is why you often see planes loosing altitude when doing so.

palani · #69 08/10/07, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boren

Can you post any links showing this as a modern interpretation under US law, and how it relates to the FAA?

Here 'ya go. Start with this. When finished PM me and I will have more.
http://usa-the-republic.com/jurispru...%20Nations.htm

coup · #70 08/10/07, 06:09 PM

maybe someone has told people you have a nudist colony.

ForestCoCabin · #71 09/12/07, 09:13 PM

Why Don't You Just Ask Them?

Call the local air field and inquire about flying lessons or aerial photos of your place or whatever. Tell them youv'e got fifteen kids and you want to pay for all their flying lessons. That'll get their attention....and after a few minutes, just pop the question. With luck you might just get the mechanic, flight instructor, rental agent or maybe even the perpetrator on the phone. Have some fun with it. It's what Jim Rockford would do?

p.s. Try not to get beat up in the process. Use a payphone and an alias - you know the drill. Good Luck

hoofinitnorth · #72 09/13/07, 11:50 AM

Who would fiddlefart ask if she doesn't know who is buzzing her property?

I was on the phone last night with another HT member and she noted the military flight activity. I concurred that we've had a lot of low-flyers lately, probably due to the very low, thick cloud cover that came with a typical Alaskan September rain streak.

Aside from the miliatary activity, last month we had WONDERFUL weather and a LOT of what fiddlefart was describing. I did photograph a LOT of planes that appeared to be piloted by very reckless and inconsiderate folks. Some did NOT have ANY tail numbers. Go figure. My husband is about to drive to all the private airstrips in a 5-mile radius and find the jerk that was flying so low he could have hit the treetops south of us and was BELOW our 2nd-story window for four hours a day at the start of the hunting season! We wonder if he wasn't illegally radioing to poachers on the ground hunting moose. Would love to catch those losers - my huaband could even write the ticket!

watcher · #73 09/13/07, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernie

The low-flying planes are a nuisance, but lately it's the motorcycles. Every weekend when the sun is shining all the Harley folks from the city come cruising down our little country lanes for some rest and "relaxation". It's a constant noise and some of them are so loud they rattle my windows, and I'm a quarter mile from the road.

I like motorcycles as much as the next guy, but enough is enough. I'm the last person you'll ever hear say, "there ought to be a law" but there certainly ought to be some semblance of respect. I don't take my roosters into town for a 5am wake-up call. They ought not bring their muffler-on-wheels out to rev the engine in front of my house.

There usually is a law. Almost every area (city, county, state) has a law limiting the amount of noise a vehicle can make. What you need to do is contact your local law enforcement and ask them to place an officer in your driveway one sunny Saturday and have him write a few noise tickets. A warm sunny weekend day after the first cold snap of the fall usually brings bikers out in droves.

If they don't want to help and you really want to get nasty here's what you can do. Get yourself a video camera and a sound level meter (Radio Shack sells one for about 50 bucks if you can't borrow one), pack a lunch and sit next to the road the next sunny weekend. When you hear a bike coming turn on the camera and hold up the sound meter so it can be read. Track the sound level and as the bike passes zoom in on his license plate. Take the tape to a couple of lawyers and tell them you'll give them all the Harleys (or all the Harleys left after you pick out one for yourself) he manages to get in civil suits against the owners if they take your cases. If you can't find anyone to take your case then you can always file the suits yourself. You might just wind up in the used Harley business or making a lot of grown men cry when you set them on fire one at a time.