"bush flying" in the suburbs?

Cub Driver wrote:

And no water landings, right?

There used to be a private seaplane base on the Raritan river just below New
Brunswick. The guy who owned the property kept a Cessna with amphibs there. He
operated from the river during the summer.

A few years ago, he was talking about selling the property. Someone at Kupper
(probably John Price) was telling me that the license to operate aircraft there
would expire unless he sold it to another seaplane owner.

Even if that's gone, there are seaplane bases on the Raritan Bay at Atlantic
Highlands, on the Navasink river above Rumson, on the inland waterway near
Lakewood, at Toms River, and at Manahawkin. Though a few of those are miles
inland, all of them are on tidal waters, and may be beyond the control of the
State. There're also bases on Greenwood lake and the Delaware, but both of those
are on State borders - I can't tell for sure if they're in NJ.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

I fly one every day and it is a kool bird for short fields. Out here in
Jackson Hole Wy, the places are unlimited for landing spots.
Ben Haas N801BH

wrote:
I fly one every day and it is a kool bird for short fields. Out here
in
Jackson Hole Wy, the places are unlimited for landing spots.
Ben Haas N801BH

[redirected to rec.aviation.homebuilt only]

Are you the Ben Haas of the no-slot-flaps modification described at
http://www.liming.org/ch801/FHNSF.html?
How is that working out for you? Do your flaperons have any tendency
to vibrate or oscillate (twisting along their length) in flight?
~Adam Aulick

wrote:
Among other aircraft I've been looking at the Zenith Air STOL CH 801
lately, which attracted my attention purely as an inexpensive and eaily
built plane to cart my family around. http://www.zenithair.com

But the advertised 390-ft fully-loaded ground roll got me fantasizing
about all the convenient places I could land with a STOL bush plane.
Somebody give me a reality check -- even in relatively densely
populated suburbs, there are a number of large open fields suitable for
a bush plane. As it happens there is one such within walking distance
of my parents' house in the northern D.C. suburbs, and there are other
flattish largish open spaces near other places I visit. Has anybody on
these newsgroups had any luck convincing random private landowners to
let them land on their unimproved property? Anybody even tried? Are
there likely to be local ordinances prohibiting intentional off-airport
landings in the suburbs? Lets just leave aside for the moment the
pesky little question of whether I'm qualified for this kind of
adventuring...



Don't the federal regulation forbid dropping under 500ft AGL over
someone else's property? I think the law is that anything below 500 is
the airspace of the private property owner (trying to remember the
details of an AOPA article I read a LONG time ago), and you would be
hard pressed to land anywhere in a suburb without crossing low over
someone who would take issue.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

"Ernest Christley" wrote in message
. com...
Don't the federal regulation forbid dropping under 500ft AGL over someone
else's property?

Not even close.

I think the law is that anything below 500 is the airspace of the private
property owner

Property owners have no right of ownership of any sort with respect to the
airspace above their property.

Don't the federal regulation forbid dropping under 500ft AGL over someone
else's property?

Not even close.

The regs generally forbid flying an airplane less than 500 feet from
any structure or vessel, except for takeoff and landing.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
The regs generally forbid flying an airplane less than 500 feet from any
structure or vessel, except for takeoff and landing.

So what? Those regulations don't apply in congested areas (such as those
described by Ernest), and they don't apply during takeoffs and landings in
any case (the specific situation this entire thread is about).

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

I think the law is that anything below 500 is the airspace of the
private
property owner

Property owners have no right of ownership of any sort with respect
to the
airspace above their property.

Yes they do. A property owner has rights to airspace for any
reasonable use thereof under common law, where FAA's 500' reference
may be irrelevant. One example is erection of an antenna tower on
your property. FAA rules under Part 77 on obstructions apply only to
a potential obstruction to public-use airports and to otherwise
navigational airspace -- at least 500' for the latter, but not to
private strips at all. So if such a tower under 500' AGL poses a
hazard to aircraft for an adjoining private airfield, the rights of
the antenna owner's property may just be superior under common law.
Of course, to be decided in a court of common pleas, or by Judge Judy,
or at minimum a rather good "arguendo" exercise under individual State
law as to "neighbor law" in a law school class!

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
Yes they do.

No, they don't.

[...] So if such a tower under 500' AGL poses a
hazard to aircraft for an adjoining private airfield, the rights of
the antenna owner's property may just be superior under common law.

That in no way alters the right of any aircraft to pass through that
airspace freely. The property owner does not "own" the airspace, and has no
privilege to prohibit other people from using it where it is not already
being occupied by something else, as suggested by the person to whom I was
replying.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
[...] So if such a tower under 500' AGL poses a
hazard to aircraft for an adjoining private airfield, the rights
of
the antenna owner's property may just be superior under common
law.

That in no way alters the right of any aircraft to pass through that
airspace freely. The property owner does not "own" the airspace,
and has no
privilege to prohibit other people from using it where it is not
already
being occupied by something else, as suggested by the person to whom
I was
replying.


It's not really a matter of "ownership," but rather whether use of
airspace down low over other people's property denies them their right
of enjoyment and freedom from hazards. Here's 3 samples of decisions
in various states, concerning private airstrips:

"The court emphasized that in this case the airport was private, not
public, and ruled that "there is nothing to distinguish a private
airport from any other private business with regard to enjoining
operations which create a nuisance."

"The trial court issued an injunction against use of the airstrip, and
the appellate court held the injunction appropriate on the grounds
that use of the airstrip, even without actual invasion of the
utility's land, constituted a nuisance to the utility's transmission
lines." [Note the utility put up the transmission lines; then sued the
adjacent private airport owner!]

"Neighboring property owners sued owners of a private airport for
damages due to aircraft noise. Held: An airport operating in
conformance with state and federal law may nevertheless constitute a
nuisance, and the Federal Aviation Act does not preempt damages for
unreasonable noise from an airport....In addition, plaintiffs may
recover for inconvenience, annoyance, and discomfort caused by
nuisance as long as the interference with use and enjoyment of their
property is unreasonable and substantial."

Fred F.