City controlled airspace?

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...

In much the same way that flying VFR over a layer of clouds is VFR on top,
no matter how much the pack howls.


From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

VFR-ON-TOP - ATC authorization for an IFR aircraft to operate in VFR
conditions at any appropriate VFR altitude (as specified in 14 CFR and as
restricted by ATC). A pilot receiving this authorization must comply with
the VFR visibility, distance from cloud criteria, and the minimum IFR
altitudes specified in 14 CFR Part 91. The use of this term does not relieve
controllers of their responsibility to separate aircraft in Class B and
Class C airspace or TRSAs as required by FAAO 7110.65.


From FAR Part 1:

1.1 General definitions.

IFR over-the-top, with respect to the operation of aircraft, means the
operation of an aircraft over-the-top on an IFR flight plan when cleared by
air traffic control to maintain "VFR conditions" or "VFR conditions on top".

VFR over-the-top, with respect to the operation of aircraft, means the
operation of an aircraft over-the-top under VFR when it is not being
operated on an IFR flight plan.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:08:18 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote in
200704181408187826-christophercampbell@hotmailcom:

Now that the government issues the certificate and reserves the right
to take it away, it represents a license. It is the same thing, no
matter how much the pack howls.

The government doesn't licence Constitutional rights.

The FAA certifies that the airmans certificate holder has met
proficiency and knowledge standards.

"ZikZak" wrote in message
oups.com...

You have a student pilot certificate, don't you? There's no such thing
as a "licensed pilot," but a solo student pilot is properly
certificated to fly an airplane.


Is an airman certificate not formal permission from a governmental
authority to do something?

On 2007-04-18 13:07:36 -0700, "Steven P. McNicoll"
said:


"ZikZak" wrote in message
oups.com...

You have a student pilot certificate, don't you? There's no such thing
as a "licensed pilot," but a solo student pilot is properly
certificated to fly an airplane.


Is an airman certificate not formal permission from a governmental
authority to do something?

Of course it is. Some of these guys try to define 'license' so narrowly
that it loses all meaning. They are wrong, the certificate represents a
license to fly, and all the howling in the world will not change the
fact.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Apr 18, 2:10 pm, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2007-04-18 13:07:36 -0700, "Steven P. McNicoll"
said:



"ZikZak" wrote in message
roups.com...

You have a student pilot certificate, don't you? There's no such thing
as a "licensed pilot," but a solo student pilot is properly
certificated to fly an airplane.

Is an airman certificate not formal permission from a governmental
authority to do something?

Of course it is. Some of these guys try to define 'license' so narrowly
that it loses all meaning. They are wrong, the certificate represents a
license to fly, and all the howling in the world will not change the
fact.

Um, dude. I call it a certificate because that's what it's called on
the ticket and in the regs. Are the regs wrong then?

"ZikZak" wrote in message
oups.com...

Um, dude. I call it a certificate because that's what it's called on
the ticket and in the regs. Are the regs wrong then?


A certificate cannot be a license?

"Dallas" wrote in message
...

I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.

Here's a good one. As a student, I guess I need to call my instructor
every time I need to start the engine:

SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.
No person shall start or run aircraft engine other than a licensed pilot
or
a competent mechanic in the cockpit attending the controls. (Ord. Nos.
8213; 14384)

The middle rings of the DFW class B airspace begin at 2500 and 3000 feet.
This one makes it pretty tough to squeeze in the

SEC. 5-36. FLYING AT LOW ALTITUDE; PERMITS FOR LANDING PLACES.
No person shall fly any aircraft over the city at a lower altitude than
2500 feet from the surface of the earth

Here's a useless one:

SEC. 5-18. TAKE-OFF AND LANDING DIRECTION.
All aircraft take-offs and landings by pilots shall be in the direction
indicated by the airport wind direction indicator unless otherwise
authorized by the airport control tower. (Ord. Nos. 8213; 14384)

I guess you have to trust the force between the hours of 12:00 midnight
and
6:00 a.m:

SEC. 5-25. MAINTENANCE RUN-UPS.
No person shall start and run up an aircraft except in a place designated
for such purposes by the director of aviation or one of the director's
assistants, and such activity shall not be conducted at Dallas Love Field
or Dallas Executive Airport between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00
a.m.


Title 49 US Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, section
401.3 states:

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation
or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the
accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.-

(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety
of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify
or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for-

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.

On Apr 18, 8:34 am, Dallas wrote:
I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.


Not unusual. Some cities have even tried to enforce their own
aviation related ordinances. Several years ago, the city of Mesa, AZ
enacted an ordinace prohibiting flight over the city below 1,000 ft.
(except for takeoff and landing). They went so far as to have their
police helicopters chase down suspects and issue tickets on the ramp.
Many complained, but the FAA didn't show any interest in getting
involved. Eventually, local pressure ended the enforcement (i.e.
don't airborne cops have anything better to do than waste fuel chasing
errant Cessnas?), but the ordinance is still on the books.

Also, several years ago, the city of Las Cruces, NM enacted an
ordinance that required pilots to make radio calls in the pattern at
the (untowered) municipal airport. Again, the FAA showed no interest
in getting involved. The ordinance was the brainchild of the local
(former pilot) airport manager who thought the local pilots needed
some incentive to do things "the right way" (i.e. his way). This
one was eventually repealed when a high profile local citizen and
pilot appeared before the city council and convinced them that the
ordinance made them look like idiots to the aviation community.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

John Galban writes:

Not unusual. Some cities have even tried to enforce their own
aviation related ordinances. Several years ago, the city of Mesa, AZ
enacted an ordinace prohibiting flight over the city below 1,000 ft.
(except for takeoff and landing).

That is already prohibited by the FARs for the most part. Who was flying over
the city below 1000 feet?

They went so far as to have their
police helicopters chase down suspects and issue tickets on the ramp.
Many complained, but the FAA didn't show any interest in getting
involved. Eventually, local pressure ended the enforcement (i.e.
don't airborne cops have anything better to do than waste fuel chasing
errant Cessnas?), but the ordinance is still on the books.

Were the suspects in question convicted, and did they have to pay fines?

It's also illegal to wear jeans in Mesa, but that isn't enforced much, either.

Rarely-enforced and stupid laws enable the development of a police state.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Dallas" wrote in message
...


I stumbled upon the Aircraft and Airports section of the Dallas City Codes
and found a whole new layer of regulations I never knew about.

Here's a good one. As a student, I guess I need to call my instructor
every time I need to start the engine:

Unless you are like me.
I'm a "competent mechanic" - I've been fixing cars since I was 15...


SEC. 5-24. ONLY PILOT OR COMPETENT MECHANIC TO RUN ENGINE.
No person shall start or run aircraft engine other than a licensed pilot
or
a competent mechanic in the cockpit attending the controls. (Ord. Nos.
8213; 14384)
...
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.