How is this legal?

EdFred

EdFred

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
30,260
Location
Michigan
Display Name
Display name:
White Chocolate
KIOW - class G airport. Radio REQUIRED for operations?
 
You didn't check all available information.

Check the 5010 data. Oh yeah, there's more info that's not just in the AF/D.

06070.*AIAA96ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY DISCOURAGED-RDO RQRD.
 
EdFred said:
You didn't check all available information.

Check the 5010 data. Oh yeah, there's more info that's not just in the AF/D.

06070.*AIAA96ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY DISCOURAGED-RDO RQRD.
Click to expand...

Good grief....

(I didn't check NOTAMS, either, but KIOW isn't high on my gotta go soon list)

:frown2:

Pretensions of granduer, perhaps?
 
dmccormack said:
Good grief....

(I didn't check NOTAMS, either, but KIOW isn't high on my gotta go soon list)

:frown2:

Pretensions of granduer, perhaps?
Click to expand...


Yeah, the only reason I checked IOW is cause Jay said we should fly out there for lunch. If that is legalling binding, can I make it "required" that all high wings have to have "low wings rule" stickers on the tail to land at 6Y9?
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, the only reason I checked IOW is cause Jay said we should fly out there for lunch. If that is legalling binding, can I make it "required" that all high wings have to have "low wings rule" stickers on the tail to land at 6Y9?
Click to expand...


Makes me want to leave the handheld at home, fly there, land, then gleefully await the airport radio cops arrival.
 
dmccormack said:
Makes me want to leave the handheld at home, fly there, land, then gleefully await the airport radio cops arrival.
Click to expand...

Same here. I also want to go back to HII and fly 10 mile legs.
 
My question still remains unanswered.
 
The other thread was interesting, but didn't exactly answer yes or no.

My conclusion would be that if pushed, this would be resolved in court (at great expense) in favor of the radio-less pilot in an ultralight.
 
Last edited:
Los Alamos has the same requirement. Class E airport. KLAM:

- RY 27 GRADIENT 1.5% UP TO WEST.
- VFR LNDG TRAFFIC REMAIN 5 MILES EAST OF THE ARPT UNTIL TURNING FINAL FOR RY 27 TO AVOID RESTRICTED AREA SOUTH OF THE ARPT.
- RADIO COMMUNICATION REQUIRED BEFORE ENTERING TFC PATTERN.
- STRONG GUSTY CROSSWINDS. - BLAST BARRIER AER 09.
- NO TOUCH & GO LANDINGS.
- RY 27 MAKE RIGHT TURN ON GO-AROUND OR MISSED APCH; RESTRICTED AREA ADJ TO SOUTH SIDE OF ARPT.
 
EdFred said:
Same here. I also want to go back to HII and fly 10 mile legs.
Click to expand...

I used to laugh at that requirement. You call "Straight in" and invariably, someone would come on the radio and tell you that you were breaking the law.

Never stopped me.
 
EdFred said:
You didn't check all available information.

Check the 5010 data. Oh yeah, there's more info that's not just in the AF/D.

06070.*AIAA96ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY DISCOURAGED-RDO RQRD.
Click to expand...

dmccormack said:
Makes me want to leave the handheld at home, fly there, land, then gleefully await the airport radio cops arrival.
Click to expand...

Says "RDO RQRD", not that you have to turn it on...keep your hand-held in your flight bag!
 
EdFred said:
KIOW - class G airport. Radio REQUIRED for operations?
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're hearing/reading that, but I can assure you that we have no such requirement here in Iowa City. Heck, on a nice day I've seen half a dozen NORDOs in the pattern here.
 
FAA - 5010 airport information, also shows up on airnav and skyvector.
 
EdFred said:
FAA - 5010 airport information, also shows up on airnav and skyvector.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's just pure B.S. I don't think a public airport can legally supercede FAA rules WRT radio communication. Especially not one that has accepted federal funding -- and lately KIOW has accepted a TON of ObamaBux. (We've got two brand-new runways out of it.)

In 13 years of operating on this field I know of no one who has ever had a problem with NORDO traffic (well, other than our run-ins with crop dusters in '08, whom we eventually chased off the airport for repeated unsafe operations...) nor have I EVER heard anyone mention this so-called rule.

I wonder how we can get that removed? Is that something our airport manager sends in?
 
Jay Honeck said:
I'd say that's just pure B.S. I don't think a public airport can legally supercede FAA rules WRT radio communication. Especially not one that has accepted federal funding -- and lately KIOW has accepted a TON of ObamaBux. (We've got two brand-new runways out of it.)

In 13 years of operating on this field I know of no one who has ever had a problem with NORDO traffic (well, other than our run-ins with crop dusters in '08, whom we eventually chased off the airport for repeated unsafe operations...) nor have I EVER heard anyone mention this so-called rule.

I wonder how we can get that removed? Is that something our airport manager sends in?
Click to expand...


Manager should be able to send that information in. Though, the FAA is notoriously slow to update info. The FAA still shows us at 2000 feet even though the information was submitted to them in January 2009 to change it to 2600. And I've been trying to get them to change the lat/long which is wrong for the past 5 years. In other words, the FAA sucks and good luck.
 
EdFred said:
Manager should be able to send that information in. Though, the FAA is notoriously slow to update info. The FAA still shows us at 2000 feet even though the information was submitted to them in January 2009 to change it to 2600. And I've been trying to get them to change the lat/long which is wrong for the past 5 years. In other words, the FAA sucks and good luck.
Click to expand...

I've sent this information to our airport manager and the chairwoman of our airport commission, asking that this bogus "rule" be omitted.
We'll see how quickly it disappears. Thanks for pointing it out!
 
They own the airport, they make the rules. No FAA rule says they can't as long as it's safety-driven and not otherwise discriminatory.
 
Ron Levy said:
They own the airport, they make the rules. No FAA rule says they can't as long as it's safety-driven and not otherwise discriminatory.
Click to expand...
Do you have any case law that would support that?

It seems that if this was truly the case anyone could make a rule and as long as they could base it on data that supports their safety claim their rule would trump federal regulations.
 
It doesn't say you have to use the radio or that it even be turned on.
 
EdFred said:
The FAA still shows us at 2000 feet even though the information was submitted to them in January 2009 to change it to 2600. And I've been trying to get them to change the lat/long which is wrong for the past 5 years.
Click to expand...
How 'bout a polite letter to your Senator?

-Skip
 
dmccormack said:
Hunh? Last I checked, Fed law trumps local.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Local restrictions can be stricter than Federal when certain criteria are met, but they cannot make legal that which Federal law prohibits in a Federally pre-empted area (e.g., they can't issue their own pilot certificates allowing non-FAA certificated pilots to fly when Federal law prohibits such flight), or prohibit that which Federal law requires (e.g., banning low altitude flight required by a SIAP). Federal law only allows aircraft to operate without radios -- it does not require it. Therefore, an airport can, if their action can be shown to be safety-related and neither arbitrary nor capricious, prohibit that which the FAA allows (but does not require), i.e., operations without a radio. Likewise, states can require state registration (but not certification) of pilots and aircraft based in that state even though it's not a Federal requirement.
 
KFCM is documented as "closed" when the tower is not in operation.

Part of a hostage negotiation between nearby residents concerning reliever status/or runway lengthening. Airport Commission offers to discourage flights after 10pm. AF/D says "closed." Everyone sort of winces and offers -- well not really *closed*

Our club got a letter directed at me once after a very late arrival and an intrepid do-right monitoring the CTAF over the internet or with a scanner.

Now I understand that watching an airport grow over the course of a 30 year mortgage might be objectionable and I am totally sympathetic. Just offering another data point for the case law ...
 
Ron Levy said:
Likewise, states can require state registration (but not certification) of pilots and aircraft based in that state even though it's not a Federal requirement.
Click to expand...
I was surprised when I lived in Idaho that pilot registration was required. It apparently still is.

Pilot Registration--Fees. Subject to the limitation of subsections (c) and (d) of this section, the department is authorized to require that every individual who pilots an aircraft within this state is to register with the department and to renew such registration every other year thereafter in which he/she pilots an aircraft within this state. The department may charge for each such registration, and for each biennial renewal thereof, a fee of twelve dollars ($12.00). Such income shall be used for search and rescue of lost aircraft and airmen, which said search and rescue shall be under the direction and supervision of the director of the department.
Click to expand...
http://itd.idaho.gov/aero/airmen-aircraft/airmen-aircraft%20reg.htm#Pilot_Registration
 
Ron is right guys - remember, the FARs are written to prohibit acts, not to allow them (I can't think of any exceptions)....

So unless you can find a FAR that specifically says "Pilots may (or must) operate without radios" a local law can exist that restricts it further. The absence of law does not a law make.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not exactly. Local restrictions can be stricter than Federal when certain criteria are met, but they cannot make legal that which Federal law prohibits in a Federally pre-empted area (e.g., they can't issue their own pilot certificates allowing non-FAA certificated pilots to fly when Federal law prohibits such flight), or prohibit that which Federal law requires (e.g., banning low altitude flight required by a SIAP). Federal law only allows aircraft to operate without radios -- it does not require it. Therefore, an airport can, if their action can be shown to be safety-related and neither arbitrary nor capricious, prohibit that which the FAA allows (but does not require), i.e., operations without a radio. Likewise, states can require state registration (but not certification) of pilots and aircraft based in that state even though it's not a Federal requirement.
Click to expand...

Sure, local law can be more restrictive as long as it never goes to court and is proven to somehow contradict state or federal law.

In this case, the burden will be on the airport board to prove that a radio is required at this airport, which is somehow unlike every other airport of the same category/class/traffic load -- whatever.

They'd lose.
 
SkyHog said:
Ron is right guys - remember, the FARs are written to prohibit acts, not to allow them (I can't think of any exceptions)....
Click to expand...

There are some here that believe an exception is use of handheld GPS for IFR enroute navigation in controlled airspace. They insist it's prohibited, but cannot cite an FAR that supports that position.
 
Basically call the ADO (Airport Districts Office) in the region that the aforementioned airport is in and ask them. Typically Airport Managers (and they aren't certificated nor do they have to possess any training) will put out such nonsense. The ADO will gladly clear that up.

When an airport accepts Federal Funds they have to sign off on "Grant Assurances" that essentially say the Federal Government controls the airport. A sponsor (Airport Owner) cannot make up rules or laws that will be contrary to Federal Law or operating practices.
 
twdeckard said:
Our club got a letter directed at me once after a very late arrival and an intrepid do-right monitoring the CTAF over the internet or with a scanner.
Click to expand...

Which is why you use some elses N number. Preferably someone on the other side of the country...

(Just kidding)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top