City controlled airspace?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:48:03 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
. net:

Let's agree that anything that has the properties of a license, such
as an airman certificate, is a license.

Does the federal government license Constitutional rights?

Sometimes it does. Other times it just "regulates" the prerequisites needed
to exercise those rights.

Want to exercise your "free speech" rights by sending radio messages to
your friends? Well, you'll need a radio license first. Want to exercise
your "free speech" rights by going to talk with your friends across
country? Well, you'll need a driver's license first to drive over the
government-owned right-of-ways. The vehicle you use will need to be
licensed too.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:34:23 GMT, Dallas
wrote:

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)

Sidestepping the "license" vs. "certificate" issue, even a student
pilot has a "student pilot certificate". Though it does make one
wonder about the pilot of an ultralight, which requires no
certificate.

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

Definitely not valid... the FAA has actually defended pilots who get
busted on local regulations like this.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowadays only a lawyer can tell legal from illegal, and the lawyers don't know the difference between right and wrong.

Dallas writes:

So every citizen of the United States has a license to fly, you're just not
allowed to do it without a certificate?

These sorts of distinctions are specious. A pilot certificate and a pilot
license are both the same thing, simply because there is only one thing to be
named.

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

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

A certificate cannot be a license?

In most contexts, including this one, the terms are interchangeable.

A certificate is only a certificate if it does not convey an authorization. A
certificate of a completion of an art class is not a license.

A license is only a license if no document attesting to the license exists.
James Bond's license to kill is not a certificate, because it is authorization
without documentation (presumably?).

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

Larry Dighera writes:

Does the federal government license Constitutional rights?

Flying, like driving, is not a Constitutional right.

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

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.

Erik writes:

When I first started all of this I was completely amazed at the
similarities between a C150 engine and my VW Bug's engine.

Outside of a funnily-placed carb and another couple cylindars, you
could probably bold a C150 engine into a bug and run it just fine.

The technology of propulsion for small aircraft lags greatly behind the times.
I suppose there is little incentive to develop new powerplants and there are
high costs associated with getting them certified. Fuel issues in the future
and/or pollution or noise issues may force the hand of manufacturers
eventually.

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

"Dana M. Hague" wrote

Sidestepping the "license" vs. "certificate" issue, even a student
pilot has a "student pilot certificate". Though it does make one
wonder about the pilot of an ultralight, which requires no
certificate.

Not at all. The rule concerning ultralights state very plainly, that
ultralights are not aircraft.
--
Jim in NC

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Does the federal government license Constitutional rights?


No.

Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilege?

Sure Larry, but you're absolutely the first person to ask or even bring it
up. Does it mess up your newsreader somehow? How did you notice the format
when no one else has complained? I'd seriously like to know - I'm not being
a smartass here.... otherplaces, probably.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:03:00 GMT, "Jim Carter"
wrote in :

Ya' live and ya' learn.

But, can you learn to turn off html encoding for Usenet articles?