Buzzed?

Ross Richardson wrote:

We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
pattern altitude.

I'm not sympathetic to the buzzer, but how can an airport enact an ordinance
regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local government
that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the runway and surface,
but I'm confused how they could attempt to regulate airplanes already flying.

"John" wrote in message ...
Ross Richardson wrote:

We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
pattern altitude.

I'm not sympathetic to the buzzer, but how can an airport enact an
ordinance
regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local
government
that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the runway and
surface,
but I'm confused how they could attempt to regulate airplanes already
flying.

Let me turn the question around. Where did you get the idea that you don't
have to obey local laws whenever your feet are not touching the ground?

In a previous article, "Ted" said:
"John" wrote in message ...
Ross Richardson wrote:
regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local
government that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the
runway and surface, but I'm confused how they could attempt to
regulate airplanes already flying.

Let me turn the question around. Where did you get the idea that you don't
have to obey local laws whenever your feet are not touching the ground?

From the federal government, who gave exclusive regulatory power over
aircraft in the air to the FAA. No local law applies to aircraft in the
air, period.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"It's just a cardboard model. Fake security"
"Jeez, that's a first for Microsoft"
- User Friendly

Where did you get the idea that you don't
have to obey local laws whenever your feet are not touching the ground?

Whenever there is a preemption or lack of jurisdiction.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I'm not sure, but our city attorney is a pilot with instrument rating
and came up with the proposal that was adopeted. It is even anotated in
the A/FD. We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.

John wrote:

Ross Richardson wrote:


We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
pattern altitude.


I'm not sympathetic to the buzzer, but how can an airport enact an ordinance
regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local government
that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the runway and surface,
but I'm confused how they could attempt to regulate airplanes already flying.

"Ross Richardson" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure, but our city attorney is a pilot with instrument rating and
came up with the proposal that was adopeted. It is even anotated in the
A/FD. We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.

Is he also an aviation attorney?

Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
fly (pardon the pun) in court.




John wrote:

Ross Richardson wrote:


We used to have a pilot come buzz our airport is a small aerobatic
plane. Not sure the brand. He had total disregard to any traffic in the
area. He would get down to 20' and run the runway. He would fly over the
top of folks, run head-on to departing aircraft then abruptly turn away,
etc. Our airport enacted an ordinance against high speed flight below
pattern altitude.


I'm not sympathetic to the buzzer, but how can an airport enact an
ordinance
regarding aircraft in the air? I could see how they (or a local
government
that owns the 'port) could pass ordinances affecting the runway and
surface,
but I'm confused how they could attempt to regulate airplanes already
flying.

Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
fly (pardon the pun) in court.

If you sign an agreement, you are bound by the terms. You may legally
agree not to fly fast and low, and although you may not be subject to
local criminal sanctions, you would be subject to whatever penalties you
agreed to abide by, same as any other contract.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Like someone here already said, such violations are the jurisdiction of the
FAA. The locals could post most anything on the gas pumps, but it'll never
fly (pardon the pun) in court.

If you sign an agreement, you are bound by the terms. You may legally
agree not to fly fast and low, and although you may not be subject to
local criminal sanctions, you would be subject to whatever penalties you
agreed to abide by, same as any other contract.

Define "fast"?
Define "low"?
Does a missed approach meet these definitions?
Isn't a low approach, by its very name, a violation?
How about a balked landing?
I think your local ordinance will be difficult to enforce.

Define "fast"?
Define "low"? [...]
I think your local ordinance will be difficult to enforce.

It's not my ordinance. I did not say it was well written (I have the
same opinion as you that way) but I do say that it is possible to limit
aviation, despite federal provisions, through contract law.

No, I am not a lawyer.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Ross Richardson wrote:
I'm not sure, but our city attorney is a pilot with instrument rating
and came up with the proposal that was adopeted. It is even anotated in
the A/FD. We have a sign at the fuel pump as a reminder.

Interesting. I wonder if it would stand up in court. I doubt it, but
who knows?

Matt