Boy gets special ride to school -- in a helicopter; FAA alerted

Ron Levy said:
Please tell me which state allows helicopters to land on non-airport property without the owner's permission.
Click to expand...

Washigton. Idaho.and Oregon that I know of.
 
Here's where someone needs to drag out the excuse of not having that paperwork anymore because they are no longer at that job, and we are just supposed to take their word for it.

If there is no law prohibiting it, where would it be written?

There is no law saying I can't chew watermelon flavored bubble gum, so where would I find it on the books saying it allowed?
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Statutory citations, please.
Click to expand...

There is no law to quote. you can land any where and not be prosecuted.

That said, you are responsible for any damage you cause in any action on state/private property.

Back when Dixie Lee Ray was gov, her DOT sec. tried to limit private aircraft from state land, he was fired, quickly, and the next year we doubled state airport funding.

the only FAR that comes close to being a limit to landing any where is careless and reckless.

let's turn this around, show me any Federal Regulation that requires a pilot to gain permission to land on private property.
 
Tom-D said:
There is no law to quote. you can land any where and not be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
You're telling me there's no trespass law in those three states? I know you're wrong about Washington, since I've reviewed RCW 9A.52.070, et seq., including the defenses to criminal trespass in 9A.53.090. Do I need to check on Idaho and Oregon, too?
 
Ron Levy said:
You're telling me there's no trespass law in those three states? I know you're wrong about Washington, since I've reviewed RCW 9A.52.070, et seq., including the defenses to criminal trespass in 9A.53.090. Do I need to check on Idaho and Oregon, too?
Click to expand...

"criminal trespass" is a far reach.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Ron, you can't cite a law that doesn't exist!
Click to expand...
Let's start with Washington, which Tom mentioned. It has a criminal trespass law, and one identifying defenses for it (which doesn't include non-emergency aircraft landings). That means there would have to be a law allowing helo landings anywhere for that to be legal, like the law in Michigan allowing aircraft to land on public waters (but not elsewhere -- specifically prohibited, in fact). If you can't find such a law, you can't land "anywhere."

IOW, the original statement that you can legally land a helo anywhere is "absolutely not true" and nobody has yet identified a state where the law says you can.
 
Which Michigan state law prohibits landing on public property?
 
So let me understand this; some of you think there's nothing wrong with renting a helicopter and flying your son to school when school is in session without telling anyone in advance or scouting the area ahead of time? Is that what I'm hearing?

Let me tell you what we did in circumstances like this when I flew for the Guard and we were asked to land at a mall, school or other place to demonstrate our equipment and abilities.

Written permission was obtained in advance from the mall owner, school administrator and our commanders. There was a form that was used. Local police and fire department would be notified if it was something like a school; mall maybe not if it was very large like a regional mall. Safety officer was appointed. He scouted the area for obstacles and wires or power lines; recommended an approach and departure path. Many times, we would call ahead when departing and ground personnel would be there when we arrived to guide us in and more importantly, to be sure no one walked into a rotor--very important for the tail rotor.

A mall, business or remote area is one thing; a school while in session would take more prior planning; written permission and safety personnel on the ground unless it was an emergency. Imagine what would have happened if some young kid, eager to see the helicopter, ran up from behind where the pilot would never see him and ran into the tail rotor.

This doesn't do much for people's confidence in GA. If I was the school's principal, I'd be pretty upset that someone could just plop in unannounced and I'd be answering to parents for their negligence if there was an accident.

The more urban the area or in places where there are children, the more formal the approval process. Yes, in rural areas, we sometimes landed in a farmer's field or off an airport and usually didn't have a problem. But if the land owner didn't want you there or any problem developed, there could be big problems; so, we always tried to clear it with an owner if possible.

Best,

Dave
 
Ron Levy said:
Tell you what, Ed -- you land your helo in the middle of the street in downtown Detroit and I'll bet you'll find out.
Click to expand...

That would be a local Detroit ordinance, not a state one. There are plenty of local ordinances prohibiting it - Lake Angelus and Reeds Lake in Michigan both prohibit sea-planes landing there, but those are local ordinances. 5 years ago, I dug through all the Michigan laws I could to try and find where it said I could not land on state owned land, and I could not find it at all. I already posted the Michigan Aeronautics Code that stated it's only prohibited to land on a highway - and says nothing about landing elsewhere.

It's sorta like the FARs. Find me the FAR that says red-headed left handers aren't allowed to fly.
 
Response from the Michigan Aeronautic Commission...


There's no law like that that I know of.
<snip>
We try to land the balloon on public property to avoid the unhappy landower situation. Schools, parks, ROW, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Ron's pretty well in the right. Just because state law doesn't expressly forbid landing a helicopter off-airport doesn't mean that you're not committing trespass in doing so.

In other words, trespass is a much broader law, and applies whether you walk across property, drive a car across it, or land a helicopter on it. Period.

Public lands, of which there are significantly more in the west than in the east, *can* be a different story. Nevertheless, the safer bet is that you don't do it unless you know: 1) that where you're looking at is actually public land; and 2) you're actually allowed to land there (aka, statutory, regulatory, or written/oral permission).

So, unless there's a law on the books specifically saying "helicopters are allowed to land on private [note discussion re: public] property," trespass laws still apply to forbid it.

Emergencies, however, are a different situation. If there's a car accident in front of your house with the nice open 10-acre field, and you get upset about a helicopter landing for 15 minutes to pick up the grievously injured passengers, you've got other problems. The law of emergencies has long been established - I might be liable for damage I cause in using your property in an emergency (and rightly so), but I can still use your property in an emergency. Period. That law originally developed of boats/ships caught in storms and tieing up to private docks.
 
EdFred said:
That would be a local Detroit ordinance, not a state one. There are plenty of local ordinances prohibiting it - Lake Angelus and Reeds Lake in Michigan both prohibit sea-planes landing there, but those are local ordinances. 5 years ago, I dug through all the Michigan laws I could to try and find where it said I could not land on state owned land, and I could not find it at all. I already posted the Michigan Aeronautics Code that stated it's only prohibited to land on a highway - and says nothing about landing elsewhere.

It's sorta like the FARs. Find me the FAR that says red-headed left handers aren't allowed to fly.
Click to expand...

You'd better carry your search well past the simple statutes. For most state land, some state agency is delegated rule-making authority; often, the state agency delegates its authority to individual parks. In other words, the Michigan State Department of Parks/Forestry/Whatever might have a regulation stating "no airplanes absent permission," or a specific state park might have a specific rule saying "aircraft require prior permission to land."
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
You'd better carry your search well past the simple statutes. For most state land, some state agency is delegated rule-making authority; often, the state agency delegates its authority to individual parks. In other words, the Michigan State Department of Parks/Forestry/Whatever might have a regulation stating "no airplanes absent permission," or a specific state park might have a specific rule saying "aircraft require prior permission to land."
Click to expand...

Which is why I asked the state aero commission, and posted the response.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
So let me understand this; some of you think there's nothing wrong with renting a helicopter and flying your son to school when school is in session without telling anyone in advance or scouting the area ahead of time? Is that what I'm hearing?

Let me tell you what we did in circumstances like this when I flew for the Guard and we were asked to land at a mall, school or other place to demonstrate our equipment and abilities.

Written permission was obtained in advance from the mall owner, school administrator and our commanders. There was a form that was used. Local police and fire department would be notified if it was something like a school; mall maybe not if it was very large like a regional mall. Safety officer was appointed. He scouted the area for obstacles and wires or power lines; recommended an approach and departure path. Many times, we would call ahead when departing and ground personnel would be there when we arrived to guide us in and more importantly, to be sure no one walked into a rotor--very important for the tail rotor.

A mall, business or remote area is one thing; a school while in session would take more prior planning; written permission and safety personnel on the ground unless it was an emergency. Imagine what would have happened if some young kid, eager to see the helicopter, ran up from behind where the pilot would never see him and ran into the tail rotor.

This doesn't do much for people's confidence in GA. If I was the school's principal, I'd be pretty upset that someone could just plop in unannounced and I'd be answering to parents for their negligence if there was an accident.

The more urban the area or in places where there are children, the more formal the approval process. Yes, in rural areas, we sometimes landed in a farmer's field or off an airport and usually didn't have a problem. But if the land owner didn't want you there or any problem developed, there could be big problems; so, we always tried to clear it with an owner if possible.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

No doubt what Dad did was not the smartest thing, at the very least he should have spoke with the school principal before hand.

In civilian helicopter ops it's not as involved as with all the bureaucracy of the military, just simple call and coordinate use of the LZ.

As previously stated no laws were broke by Dad. ( I live in this area and there are no laws or ordinances against it)
 
EdFred said:
Which is why I asked the state aero commission, and posted the response.
Click to expand...

That's a good place to start, but I wouldn't rely on its answer. The state aeronautics division won't necessarily know, for instance, what the forestry division does. That would be like asking the FAA whether the White River National Forest has any special rules regarding aviation - the person you talk to at the FAA might, by chance, but you still better call the NF to make sure.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
No doubt what Dad did was not the smartest thing, at the very least he should have spoke with the school principal before hand.

In civilian helicopter ops it's not as involved as with all the bureaucracy of the military, just simple call and coordinate use of the LZ.

As previously stated no laws were broke by Dad. ( I live in this area and there are no laws or ordinances against it)
Click to expand...

Don't forget the criminal charge of reckless endangerment.

Simply because a knowledgeable group of people (e.g., pilots) agree that it wasn't particularly risky, doesn't mean that a prosecutor, judge and/or jury of the community would feel the same.

Would it stick? I don't know, but I could see some hotshot prosecutor filing the charge after the school deputy made the arrest. That's the real world.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Don't forget the criminal charge of reckless endangerment.

Simply because a knowledgeable group of people (e.g., pilots) agree that it wasn't particularly risky, doesn't mean that a prosecutor, judge and/or jury of the community would feel the same.

Would it stick? I don't know, but I could see some hotshot prosecutor filing the charge after the school deputy made the arrest. That's the real world.
Click to expand...

I'm from this area and know some of those involved. I can tell you that's not going to happen. The FAA has already washed their hands of it and found no violations have occurred. If a "hotshot" prosecutor tried to pursue this now after a Federal Agency says nothing was violated and the Lake County Sheriff's Office did not make an arrest he's not going to get very far.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I'm from this area and know some of those involved. I can tell you that's not going to happen. The FAA has already washed their hands of it and found no violations have occurred. If a "hotshot" prosecutor tried to pursue this now after a Federal Agency says nothing was violated and the Lake County Sheriff's Office did not make an arrest he's not going to get very far.
Click to expand...

That may very well be true - but don't fool yourself as to: 1) the audacity of prosecutors; or 2) the effect of the FAA's position or the SO's decision not to make an arrest.

As to the latter, the FAA's determination would never be admitted into evidence, and the lack of an arrest or citation at the scene isn't a bar to criminal prosecution.

All it would take is a group of upset parents, or even community members at large, to put just a little pressure on the prosecutor's office. And, if that happened, even if charges weren't filed, you're still looking at a potential investigation, the stress of not knowing, potential expense of hiring your own attorney (preferably one at least knowledgeable about airplanes).

And, if charges weren't filed, looking at it with my "reasonable person" cap on (as I'm required to do), I could make a case for reckless endangerment. And, if I could get the right persons on the jury, I could see there being a conviction.

My message is this: Don't do stupid bleep just because you can. You're likely to personally pay some kind of penalty (be it criminal, or just defending yourself from criminal charges), and you make the entire aviation community look bad. Don't fly at the minimum altitude over somebody's house just to prove you can - it annoys the person on the ground and, ultimately, there are more people on the ground annoyed then there are pilots, meaning you're putting a privilege further at risk. Show some common sense, and some respect for others. If you wouldn't be ok with the local motorcycle club revving their engines on your neighborhood street at 6 in the morning, don't pretend that it's acceptable for you to land your plane in front of your neighbor's house - neither are expressly illegal, but both are kind of effed up when you're a part of a community; especially when that community has the power to make it expressly illegal.

In other words, reasonability in everything.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
That may very well be true - but don't fool yourself as to: 1) the audacity of prosecutors; or 2) the effect of the FAA's position or the SO's decision not to make an arrest.

As to the latter, the FAA's determination would never be admitted into evidence, and the lack of an arrest or citation at the scene isn't a bar to criminal prosecution.

All it would take is a group of upset parents, or even community members at large, to put just a little pressure on the prosecutor's office. And, if that happened, even if charges weren't filed, you're still looking at a potential investigation, the stress of not knowing, potential expense of hiring your own attorney (preferably one at least knowledgeable about airplanes).

And, if charges weren't filed, looking at it with my "reasonable person" cap on (as I'm required to do), I could make a case for reckless endangerment. And, if I could get the right persons on the jury, I could see there being a conviction.

My message is this: Don't do stupid bleep just because you can. You're likely to personally pay some kind of penalty (be it criminal, or just defending yourself from criminal charges), and you make the entire aviation community look bad. Don't fly at the minimum altitude over somebody's house just to prove you can - it annoys the person on the ground and, ultimately, there are more people on the ground annoyed then there are pilots, meaning you're putting a privilege further at risk. Show some common sense, and some respect for others. If you wouldn't be ok with the local motorcycle club revving their engines on your neighborhood street at 6 in the morning, don't pretend that it's acceptable for you to land your plane in front of your neighbor's house - neither are expressly illegal, but both are kind of effed up when you're a part of a community; especially when that community has the power to make it expressly illegal.

In other words, reasonability in everything.
Click to expand...

So who was "recklessly endangered" here?

The pilot of the helicopter made an approach and landing into the selected LZ. During his approach and landing he followed FAR's. No one was in the LZ as he landed, nor did he get near anyone. The kid departed the aircraft and he departed the LZ, again following FAR's and good practice.

Just amazes me how people on this web board cry and whine because the general public "doesn't understand GA and our little airplanes" but yet these same people want to demonize helicopters because they are clueless to their operation.

Sad.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
So who was "recklessly endangered" here?

The pilot of the helicopter made an approach and landing into the selected LZ. During his approach and landing he followed FAR's. No one was in the LZ as he landed, nor did he get near anyone. The kid departed the aircraft and he departed the LZ, again following FAR's and good practice.

Just amazes me how people on this web board cry and whine because the general public "doesn't understand GA and our little airplanes" but yet these same people want to demonize helicopters because they are clueless to their operation.

Sad.
Click to expand...

Well, you can choose to live in a "pilot-centric" universe, in which aviation is god and aviation alone gets to set the standard by which it conducts its affairs; or, you could recognize reality, which is that GA pilots and GA in general are pretty insignificant to the population at large and, even more important, a significant part of the population at large is fairly hostile to GA. With that in mind, you can broadly assert your privileges in the pilot-centric universe as solely governing your behavior; or you can recognize that those privileges can be taken from you quite handily in the real world if you do things that annoy the community at large. You can take your pick, but part of being an endangered species due to overt hostility from a larger community that has complete authority over you is to be a good ambassador for the activity you don't want to see eradicated. Additionally, part of being a responsible citizen in general is abiding by community norms, rather than needlessly raising alarms and anger.

Here, there probably wasn't anyone who was actually endangered. Nevertheless, it's hardly disbelievable for someone to say "what about the kids in the school? What if one had walked into the tail rotor? What if there'd been an engine failure near the school?" Realistic concerns? I don't know, but appearance is reality - especially with crimes like reckless endangerment.

Like it or not, that's reality.

So, it's not so much a matter of me demonizing, as it is a matter of me saying "be reasonable in what you do."
 
Ron Levy said:
If you can't find such a law, you can't land "anywhere."

IOW, the original statement that you can legally land a helo anywhere is "absolutely not true" and nobody has yet identified a state where the law says you can.
Click to expand...

Feel free to post a quote where anyone in this thread said you can land "anywhere." No one is talking about "anywhere."

I don't mean to be rude but you are being very slippery. "Anywhere" is not the same as "everywhere."

I'm still waiting to hear how in "all fifty states" you "must" have received the owner's prior permission to land.

Must I call the BLM in advance every time I want to land on their land in Alaska? If I land in a farmer's field in Montana must I have called him and asked permission in advance? If I don't, what is his redress? How about in Nevada? Arizona?

How about Colorado David? If you are sitting on your porch in rural Wheatfield county and see me land out by the creek in the distance, what law have I broken and what can you as the landowner do about it?

And no we aren't talking about zoning. We all know about zoning.

I can't believe that as a lifelong bureaucrat it is I who have to lecture some of you about the concept that if something isn't expressly prohibited by law than it is permitted :sosp:

And David while wisdom, courtesy and common sense have a role in this discussion I am talking about courtrooms and summons, since some are ready to throw the book at the helicopter pilot.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
Feel free to post a quote where anyone in this thread said you can land "anywhere." No one is talking about "anywhere."

I don't mean to be rude but you are being very slippery. "Anywhere" is not the same as "everywhere."

I'm still waiting to hear how in "all fifty states" you "must" have received the owner's prior permission to land.

Must I call the BLM in advance every time I want to land on their land in Alaska? If I land in a farmer's field in Montana must I have called him and asked permission in advance? If I don't, what is his redress? How about in Nevada? Arizona?

How about Colorado David? If you are sitting on your porch in rural Wheatfield county and see me land out by the creek in the distance, what law have I broken and what can you as the landowner do about it?

And no we aren't talking about zoning. We all know about zoning.

I can't believe that as a lifelong bureaucrat it is I who have to lecture some of you about the concept that if something isn't expressly prohibited by law than it is permitted :sosp:

And David while wisdom, courtesy and common sense have a role in this discussion I am talking about courtrooms and summons, since some are ready to throw the book at the helicopter pilot.
Click to expand...

It depends? Are we talking BLM land, or are we talking my wheatfield?

By landing near the creek, are you screwing up the natural surface flow of drainage and thereby stealing my water? ;)

If it's private property (and we'll presume it's marked "No Trespassing," as that is a prerequisite to a trespassing criminal charge in many, if not all, places), then you're trespassing. Period. Simply because you're doing it via helicopter rather than via foot or automobile doesn't change that.

Public land? I'm not going to pretend to know - as I said, you'll need to consult the regulations for BLM or whatever agency is in control, as well as determine whether the area itself prohibits it.

And, if it's private property you're landing on, the redress is that you face both criminal charges and civil liability. Even if you don't face criminal charges, you're still looking at civil liability - even if just for nuisance.

All in all, the rule is that you don't get to go on other peoples' property, absent express statutory (or otherwise) permission to do so. There's nothing novel about that.

As to this particular chopper pilot, there's not *really* anything that can be thrown at him. You can't call it trespassing (school is open to the public). You could be looking at reckless endangerment, but that really depends on the particulars - people outside, no one outside, people in cars, was route unreasonably close to nearby buildings/school, etc.? So, maybe, maybe not.
 
Last edited:
Dave Siciliano said:
So let me understand this; some of you think there's nothing wrong with renting a helicopter and flying your son to school when school is in session without telling anyone in advance or scouting the area ahead of time? Is that what I'm hearing?

Let me tell you what we did in circumstances like this when I flew for the Guard and we were asked to land at a mall, school or other place to demonstrate our equipment and abilities.

Written permission was obtained in advance from the mall owner, school administrator and our commanders. There was a form that was used. Local police and fire department would be notified if it was something like a school; mall maybe not if it was very large like a regional mall. Safety officer was appointed. He scouted the area for obstacles and wires or power lines; recommended an approach and departure path. Many times, we would call ahead when departing and ground personnel would be there when we arrived to guide us in and more importantly, to be sure no one walked into a rotor--very important for the tail rotor.

A mall, business or remote area is one thing; a school while in session would take more prior planning; written permission and safety personnel on the ground unless it was an emergency. Imagine what would have happened if some young kid, eager to see the helicopter, ran up from behind where the pilot would never see him and ran into the tail rotor.

This doesn't do much for people's confidence in GA. If I was the school's principal, I'd be pretty upset that someone could just plop in unannounced and I'd be answering to parents for their negligence if there was an accident.

The more urban the area or in places where there are children, the more formal the approval process. Yes, in rural areas, we sometimes landed in a farmer's field or off an airport and usually didn't have a problem. But if the land owner didn't want you there or any problem developed, there could be big problems; so, we always tried to clear it with an owner if possible.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...

What the law provides (and, provides not) for and what a reasonable person would do are sometimes two different things. I prefer the reasonable person principle myself, as outlined by Mr. S.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
astanley said:
What the law provides (and, provides not) for and what a reasonable person would do are sometimes two different things. I prefer the reasonable person principle myself, as outlined by Mr. S.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Click to expand...

When in doubt, you can't go wrong acting reasonably. Here, the dad didn't really do anything wrong.

Something like this, talk to the kid's science teacher or something like that beforehand. Turn it into a show and tell -- what class of 9th graders wouldn't think it was effing sweet to go out to look at an actual helicopter on the first day of school?

But, you just don't do stuff like this. It doesn't really reflect badly on the dad, but what if you've got a jerk of a principal, or jerk of a deputy at the school? Then you've got a problem.
 
Ron Levy said:
...
IOW, the original statement that you can legally land a helo anywhere is "absolutely not true" and nobody has yet identified a state where the law says you can.
Click to expand...
:confused:

I don't think I'll find laws saying I can drive down public roads either, but that doesn't mean it's prohibited.
 
mikea said:
:confused:

I don't think I'll find laws saying I can drive down public roads either, but that doesn't mean it's prohibited.
Click to expand...

I hate to be bearer of bad news, but "highway" is the generic term used by the law for any roadway - be it a multi-lane interstate or a dirt road to the dump.

As a general matter, as defined specifically in law, a highway is a road "open to use of the public". . . .
 
David, you don't get to make the presumption that it is posted "no trespassing." That is my whole point. There are too many presumptions already evident here with little basis behind them. There is no pat "rule of thumb" to be had. Fact is there are vast areas in this nation where you can land a helicopter off-airport without asking anyone. There are vast areas that belong to private parties or businesses where it may or may not be civil or criminal trespass to land without express permission, depending on how the laws of the state are constructed. There are large swaths of land where it is expressly prohibited to land by law, ordinance, or regulation - or perhaps where landing for certain activities is prohibited instead (commercial activities vs private ones for example.)

Say "it is always wise to check in advance before landing" or "we should be good ambassadors for GA" if you want but don't give me some line that makes it sound as though every state is like Maryland or Florida.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
David, you don't get to make the presumption that it is posted "no trespassing." That is my whole point. There are too many presumptions already evident here with little basis behind them. There is no pat "rule of thumb" to be had. Fact is there are vast areas in this nation where you can land a helicopter off-airport without asking anyone. There are vast areas that belong to private parties or businesses where it may or may not be civil or criminal trespass to land without express permission, depending on how the laws of the state are constructed. There are large swaths of land where it is expressly prohibited to land by law, ordinance, or regulation - or perhaps where landing for certain activities is prohibited instead (commercial activities vs private ones for example.)

Say "it is always wise to check in advance before landing" or "we should be good ambassadors for GA" if you want but don't give me some line that makes it sound as though every state is like Maryland or Florida.
Click to expand...

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant when I wrote "assume."

To perhaps clarify, what I meant was that you, as the pilot, should assume that unless you know otherwise.

But, as to the law of trespass, it is what I've written it to be - you don't get to to go on someone else's property absent permission to do so. If you're willing to take the risk of either criminal or civil liability, that's certainly fine, but...why would you?

But, to dispel assumptions...in Colorado, you commit the criminal offense of trespass simply by being on land without permission. Posting isn't necessary, being aware isn't necessary - you're breaking the law simply by being on the property of another. Even in Maryland, which is more permissive than Colorado in that you have to be told to leave before it becomes a trespass (or it has to be posted) - you're a fool if you just go land somewhere and hope it ain't posted or you'll get permission.

I see where you're coming from and, to a large extent, agree - but the fact of the matter remains that you don't get to plop your butt down wherever/whenever you want. There are certainly places where you can do it without express permission from the responsible party (think heli-skiing in Alaska, as an example) - but that doesn't necessarily mean you're doing it without "permission." The permission is simply the mandate saying, "you can cometh and goeth as you please."

Like I said, I'm not going to speak to public lands like NF, BLM, etc. - but all of those have their own rules, and I'm willing to bet there's more than one area that says "you don't get to land wherever/whenever you want."

Keep in mind that THE fundamental concept of ownership is exclusion as to others - be it title, possession, or use.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I also thought Texas and Montana allowed planes to land on roads as long as they didn't cause problems for other traffic.
Click to expand...

"Allowed"? Doubt there is a law that "allows" you to do anything. Or is there a conspicuous lack of any law or regulation making it illegal? Same in Alaska.

>Insert dead horse emoticon<
 
By "allow" I mean does not prohibit - as in the case of Michigan where it says not-gonna-happen.
 
This is the dumbest thread ever. There are so many laws on the books you're probably breaking one when you put on your pants.

What the hell good is a damn helicopter if you can't anywhere in reach of anything without the locals getting their damn panties in a wad.
 
EdFred said:
By "allow" I mean does not prohibit - as in the case of Michigan where it says not-gonna-happen.
Click to expand...

Again, keep in mind that the law is frequently a lot more subtle than "it doesn't say I can't land so I can" or looking for something saying "yes I can land here."

Let me try a real-world example. Right now, a pretty frequent headline is "text messaging while driving needs to be made illegal," in states where it isn't expressly illegal.

Just because the law doesn't specifically say that you can't text message while driving doesn't mean that you can text message while driving. For instance, if I'm a prosecutor, maybe I'll charge you with "careless driving" - which is generally defined as you giving less than your full attention to the road. In other words, it's already illegal to text while driving because, in doing so, you're driving carelessly, which is a crime.

Does what I'm writing make any sense?

As applied to airplanes landing on, say, a road, imagine that your state doesn't have a law expressly saying "airplanes can't land on roads." But, imagine that there's something saying "a public highway shall only be used by a vehicle designed for travel thereon," as some places do.

So, what I'm saying is, don't rely on the "if it doesn't say I can't do it, I can do it." The law just doesn't work that way. It can, but that presumes a vacuum.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
So, what I'm saying is, don't rely on the "if it doesn't say I can't do it, I can do it." The law just doesn't work that way. It can, but that presumes a vacuum.
Click to expand...

Criminal and administrative law does work that way. You just need to make sure you read the entire body of law to make sure you aren't missing one :cornut:
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
If it's private property (and we'll presume it's marked "No Trespassing," as that is a prerequisite to a trespassing criminal charge in many, if not all, places), then you're trespassing.
Click to expand...

I wonder how common it is for private land in the wide open spaces in the west and Alaska to be posted "No Trespassing."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top