Floatplane in "hot water" at Ryder Cup, or not?

Hank S said:
This is exactly why U.S. Airspace is regulated by the Federal government, otherwise how many places would you have to check before making a flight anywhere? Has anyone in this board routinely checked local laws at their destination as part of pre-flight planning? Cities cannot regulate where you can and cannot fly, it would destroy aviation with a god-awful patchwork of laws.
Click to expand...
Since when is a lake inside the city limits of a town part of the airspace?

My local county can decide which county roads I can land on and which ones I can't...i.e. they must grant specific permission before I land on any road and they can rescind that permission at will. How is this any different? (albeit in reverse)
 
coloradobluesky said:
Just because the lake appears inside the city boundries doesnt necessarily mean it is in the city. It may have NEVER been officially annexed. Cities annex subdivisions and often neglet to annex lakes. Sort of an oversight. A good lawyer will find out and use that if he can.
Click to expand...

Now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass for the sake of argument!
 
James331 said:
When you wear more gold stars and regalia than General Patton, guess you just make the laws up as you go along.
Click to expand...
LMAO!

James331 said:
Fixed it for ya :)
Click to expand...
iamtheari said:
I agree that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but the conclusion I reach from that belief differs from yours. The city government's ignorance of federal law is no excuse for not having requested that a TFR and a NOTAM to be issued for the event.
Click to expand...
Someone's going to have to prove to me that a lake inside of a town is part of the national airspace system and thus worthy of NOTAM issuance. Again, if it was an officially charted seaplane base, sure, but it's just a lake.

I'm quite willing to accept that I'm wrong, but I don't think I am with the information provided thus far.

iamtheari said:
I keep hoping that someone knowledgeable about Minnesota water law will chime in to tell us if the courts there have decided the issue,
Click to expand...
me also.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Some of the stupidest college towns turned into overflow suburban tract housing for Denverites, complete with thirty or forty identical strip malls with all the standard corporate chain places -- around here, regularly make those "objective" "best places to live" lists.

It's marketing. And it works on a great many.
Click to expand...

Judging by the traffic I saw on I-25 in 2015 I'd guess Fort Collins fits that category.
 
I have seen something in the past where the FAA had no problem with city restrictions (landing times that were published in the AFD - or whatever it is called now. Don't land or take off between certain times for noise control). Was up to the city to enforce it.
 
A lake not being inside the city limits was exactly what won a case when a city tried to prohibit landing in a case in Florida, btw.

The thing you have to understand is the police dont often, perhaps never, have given a ticket for a landing violation. So they really don't know what they are doing, unlike traffic tickets which happen all the time...
 
coloradobluesky said:
The thing you have to understand is the police dont often, perhaps never, have given a ticket for a landing violation. So they really don't know what they are doing, unlike traffic tickets which happen all the time...
Click to expand...
Ordinance states "you can't land here."

You land.

You get a ticket for violating the ordinance.

Doesn't sound like rocket surgery to me.
 
iamtheari said:
Sorry to bring this thread back toward its original topic, which I know is frowned upon around here, but I found this regulation from the MN DOT, expressly listing Hazeltine Lake as being open for seaplane operations: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=8800.2800 I still haven't found any follow-up news articles.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Per your link, the state of Minnesota explicitly permits seaplane operations on a finite list of public waters, and the list spefically includes Lake Hazeltine.

In relevant part, the local ordinance prohibits people from operating or being on a "boat or other floating object" during the Ryder Cup. If that is interpreted to prohibit seaplane operations, as the local constable seems to believe, then it is in conflict with the statute.

Per this publication from the state legislature, the local ordinance would be invalid for trying to forbid what the state statute permits.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/ssprempll.pdf

Minnesotat_Conflict.jpg
 
UPDATE: Charges dropped! color me surprised (sarcasm here)

http://www.startribune.com/charges-...at-landed-on-lake-during-ryder-cup/403406556/


Is the next article a public apology from the chief? "The chief further commented that the pilot’s actions were “imbecilic” and “stupid.”"

So it turns out the pilots actions were within the law (or the Carver county attorney's office wouldn't have thrown it out).

Is the chief planning a public apology? Seems appropriate to eat some crow here.
 
The chief was just following the dumbass city council's instructions. Not only did they try to exert jurisdiction over the lake this year, but they made it illegal to WALK or BICYCLE in public near Hazeltine. They hadn't felt necessary to do so in the previous times the Ryder was there.
 
flyingron said:
The chief was just following the dumbass city council's instructions. Not only did they try to exert jurisdiction over the lake this year, but they made it illegal to WALK or BICYCLE in public near Hazeltine. They hadn't felt necessary to do so in the previous times the Ryder was there.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that publicly declaring to the news media that someone was being investigated by the FAA because he broke their rules and that his actions were the most imbecilic thing the police chief had ever seen did go above and beyond the call of duty to enforce the city council's ill-thought-out ordinance. This is why the most common--and typically most correct--response from law enforcement and lawyers on all criminal cases is that charges are being considered, the case is being investigated, and we have no further comment on a pending criminal investigation and/or prosecution. Saying anything else risks making you look quite stupid when the investigation is complete.
 
flyingron said:
The chief was just following the dumbass city council's instructions. Not only did they try to exert jurisdiction over the lake this year, but they made it illegal to WALK or BICYCLE in public near Hazeltine. They hadn't felt necessary to do so in the previous times the Ryder was there.
Click to expand...

Wow that's nuts.
 
flyingron said:
The chief was just following the dumbass city council's instructions. Not only did they try to exert jurisdiction over the lake this year, but they made it illegal to WALK or BICYCLE in public near Hazeltine. They hadn't felt necessary to do so in the previous times the Ryder was there.
Click to expand...

That's no excuse, and the following orders line has led a few people to the business end of a rope.

The Chiefs job is to follow the law, not the will of uneducated mayors who probably couldn't run their way out of a wet paper bag. Ofcourse looking at all the "flare" the chief wears, I'd wager he's beyond saving.
 
James331 said:
That's no excuse, and the following orders line has led a few people to the business end of a rope.

The Chiefs job is to follow the law, not the will of uneducated mayors who probably couldn't run their way out of a wet paper bag. Ofcourse looking at all the "flare" the chief wears, I'd wager he's beyond saving.
Click to expand...
He was following the law. It's not the police department's job to interpret the validity of the laws, that's what the judiciary is for.
 
flyingron said:
He was following the law. It's not the police department's job to interpret the validity of the laws, that's what the judiciary is for.
Click to expand...

Then why was the case un winnable and dropped?

Because it never should have been brought forward, and I'd hope that dude with the PA18 sues the crap out of that PD, maybe when they lay a few guys off the other will think twice before pulling the crap on a citizen.
 
Looks like a few pilots hit the comments section on the Chief's Facebook page. Yes, that appears to be the real Capt. Zoom. And is that Joe Ebert from the Red Board?

https://m.facebook.com/ChaskaPoliceDepartment/

Jim Campbell · October 3, 2016
Amazed at the inaccurate and unsubstantiated statements made by your Police Chief when arresting a seaplane pilot who violated NO airspace restrictions, no TFRs and landed his aircraft at a documented seaplane landing site. The hyperbole and invective used by your Chief are based on inaccuracies, ignorance of the FARs, and are anti-aviation to the core. I have little doubt that the pilot has a significant complaint to make against your city in a court of law. The FAA has verified that there were no TFRs or published airspace restrictions in force at the time of the (apparently) false arrest. If you're going to render judgments about aviation matters, please make sure that you have the requisite knowledge to do so. Better to be suspected of being a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

15203337_10210961242525594_83848451639014508_n.jpg
Gene Bishop · October 3, 2016
My rating is specifically directed at the Chief, and not a reflection of the fine men and women who serve under him.

Chief Knight, I read some of your comments today regarding the man who landed his floatplane next to the golf tournament. You used the words "stupid" and "imbecilic" to describe the pilot, but it would seem that you sir, are the uneducated one here.

That plane landed on a state approved waterway, and was operating completely within federal aviation regulations when it did.

The only thing he violated, was your own "stupid" and "imbecilic" city ordinances which I would imagine had far more to do with restricting people who did not pay their way into the golf tournament than with any sort of public safety issue.

14606517_10154679889828324_7088862694984716610_n.jpg
Grant Nielsen
Exactly what did the seaplane pilot do wrong?​
3 · October 3 at 6:19pm
14666116_1556763994349253_5971776179164773205_n.jpg

Joe Ebert
He did nothing wrong. He just landed on a lake (which happens all the time in Minnesota) at a time that the Chief of Police felt was going to interfere with really rich people dropping a putt for birdie on the 7th hole. Don't forget, he also busted t...See More​
4 · October 4 at 8:50am · Edited
14606517_10154679889828324_7088862694984716610_n.jpg

Grant Nielsen Joe Ebert

so when will the imbecile police chief be issuing a public apology? That's the real question. I hope the sue the city for trying to enforce imaginary laws.​
4 · October 4 at 8:51am
14666116_1556763994349253_5971776179164773205_n.jpg

Joe Ebert Grant Nielsen

From everything I've read, the police chief has too big an ego to accept that he doesn't have an understanding of FAA regulations, let alone what constitutes a violation of them, and how restrictions on using a particular landing area get...See More​
4 · October 4 at 11:35am · Edited
1625633_10201945106854897_982287204_n.jpg

Cary Alburn

Gosh, doesn't being chief of a 28 person department of the Independent Republic of Chaska allow Chief Knight to manufacture his own laws, to disregard federal and state preemption? I suppose wearing 4 stars on his shoulders must mean something, although I'm not sure what.
3 · October 5 at 9:53am​
14606517_10154679889828324_7088862694984716610_n.jpg
Grant Nielsen

Still looking for an explanation. No TFR was issued, no NOTAM I could find. The pilot did NOTHING wrong. The police chief displayed incredible ignorance and overstepping of boundaries. Some might say he acted like an imbecile.
October 13 at 1:48pm · Edited
Click to expand...
 
SkyDog58 said:
I wonder if he has a case for slander for the statements the chief made about him.
Click to expand...


Probably, but that sounds like a rather minor recompense for someone who hijacked an aircraft and unlawfully detained its pilot. I wonder if the pilot has filed any sort of formal complaint.
 
Half Fast said:
Probably, but that sounds like a rather minor recompense for someone who hijacked an aircraft and unlawfully detained its pilot. I wonder if the pilot has filed any sort of formal complaint.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope so! If not already, then soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top