How is this legal?

Rotor&Wing said:
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.
Click to expand...

But as others have pointed out, how is this "rule" contrary to Federal Law? Indeed, how is it any different than an local airport authority "rule" that says "no take-offs or landings 11pm to 7am" or something like "no touch and goes?"

So, what's their recourse if you violate their local rule? Can you be denied access to a public airport for not playing by the local rules? Is there any FAR that wraps up local rules into something that is actionable against your certificate?
 
PittsDriver said:
But as others have pointed out, how is this "rule" contrary to Federal Law? Indeed, how is it any different than an local airport authority "rule" that says "no take-offs or landings 11pm to 7am" or something like "no touch and goes?"

So, what's their recourse if you violate their local rule? Can you be denied access to a public airport for not playing by the local rules? Is there any FAR that wraps up local rules into something that is actionable against your certificate?
Click to expand...


Perhaps the go-to CFR 91.13?
 
PittsDriver said:
But as others have pointed out, how is this "rule" contrary to Federal Law? Indeed, how is it any different than an local airport authority "rule" that says "no take-offs or landings 11pm to 7am" or something like "no touch and goes?"

So, what's their recourse if you violate their local rule? Can you be denied access to a public airport for not playing by the local rules? Is there any FAR that wraps up local rules into something that is actionable against your certificate?
Click to expand...

Contact the ADO and discuss with them.
 
Okay, I got a clarification from Mike Tharp, our "Airport Operations Specialist" here in Iowa City.

1. This "Radio Required" rule was passed by the Iowa City Airport Commission back in 1997 as a way of restricting ultralight traffic. (I don't know what happened to precipitate this, and neither does Mike.)

2. The rule ONLY applies to ultralights. NORDO traffic is welcome; NORDO ultralights are not.

This is a pretty odd rule, if you ask me -- but the issue has never come up in the 13 years I've been based at the Iowa City Airport.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Okay, I got a clarification from Mike Tharp, our "Airport Operations Specialist" here in Iowa City.

1. This "Radio Required" rule was passed by the Iowa City Airport Commission back in 1997 as a way of restricting ultralight traffic. (I don't know what happened to precipitate this, and neither does Mike.)

2. The rule ONLY applies to ultralights. NORDO traffic is welcome; NORDO ultralights are not.

This is a pretty odd rule, if you ask me -- but the issue has never come up in the 13 years I've been based at the Iowa City Airport.
Click to expand...

Then why isn't the rule "NO ULTRALIGHTS" or some such?
 
dmccormack said:
Then why isn't the rule "NO ULTRALIGHTS" or some such?
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like the airport commission (back in '97) didn't want to forbid ultralights, but rather to "encourage" them to use radios whilst in the pattern. Like I said, it seems like a strange rule, to me.

On the other hand, I've never been cut off by a NORDO ultralight here -- so I suppose that's "proof" that the rule works? :rolleyes:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Contact the ADO and discuss with them.
Click to expand...

Why? Are the answers to these questions not interesting to others on this forum? Are they not apropos to the topic being discussed here? I don't have any issue I'm personally researching. I just thought the questions were appropriate to the discussion.
 
dmccormack said:
Perhaps the go-to CFR 91.13?
Click to expand...

I think the question is "Who is they?"

I doubt the FAA can enforce a local ordinance, so that rules out certificate action.

I suspect they could refuse you access to the airport, and/or issue a fine.
 
PittsDriver said:
Why? Are the answers to these questions not interesting to others on this forum? Are they not apropos to the topic being discussed here? I don't have any issue I'm personally researching. I just thought the questions were appropriate to the discussion.
Click to expand...

If you want "real" answers then go to the source. The reason I suggested asking the ADO is because here you will only receive lots of conjecture from the internet lawyers. :rolleyes:
 
Steve Foley said:
I think the question is "Who is they?"

I doubt the FAA can enforce a local ordinance, so that rules out certificate action.

I suspect they could refuse you access to the airport, and/or issue a fine.
Click to expand...


Apparently the airport authority is "they" (see Jay's post)

"They" wanted to keep ultralights out and imposed a radio requirement (probably based on some advice that such a requirement would achieve the desired end under some pretense of safety).

The question hangs on the ability of the local airport authority to impose such restrictions and the requirement for pilots to abide by same. Since this is a public airport, and not Class A-D, it will be up to the airport authority to prove that they have a valid reaosn to impose such a requirement should this be challenged.

Sure local airports can make up rules as they go, on any grounds, to any ends, but the question is -- will the "rule" stand to challenge?
 
dmccormack said:
Sure local airports can make up rules as they go, on any grounds, to any ends, but the question is -- will the "rule" stand to challenge?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think the rule would stand up if challenged. I'm fairly certain that our current airport commission would scrap this rule, if confronted and/or given reason to repeal it.

However, I also don't think anyone cares enough about ultralights flying into our airport to challenge it. It's simply not an issue that has concerned any of our local pilots. Quite frankly, I don't even know any ultralight pilots anymore.
 
dmccormack said:
They're all deceased from operating NORDO...
Click to expand...

The rule apparently has worked, because there are no recorded ultralight accidents near IOW in the NTSB database since the rule was passed.

But there weren't any recorded ultralight accidents near IOW in the NTSB database before the rule was passed, either.

Us GA-types were pretty well represented, though...Pipers, especially, for some reason...


Trapper John
 
dmccormack said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's not the way the Compliance Manual reads. Do some digging in there and you'll see.
 
roncachamp said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can -- 91.205(d). Cases argued before the NTSB have made clear that for 91.205(d) purposes, required aircraft equipment must, unless specifically stated otherwise (like signaling equipment for overwater flight) be installed. This was settled in a case over the clock required for IFR operations. For avionics, if it isn't installed, it doesn't exist for 91.205 purposes.
 
Ron Levy said:
I can -- 91.205(d).
Click to expand...

You believe that you can, but you cannot.

Cases argued before the NTSB have made clear that for 91.205(d) purposes, required aircraft equipment must, unless specifically stated otherwise (like signaling equipment for overwater flight) be installed. This was settled in a case over the clock required for IFR operations. For avionics, if it isn't installed, it doesn't exist for 91.205 purposes.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Equipment which is not required need not be installed but can still be used.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
If you want "real" answers then go to the source. The reason I suggested asking the ADO is because here you will only receive lots of conjecture from the internet lawyers. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why do you even post/read here if you don't understand how an internet forum works? I'll explain for ya:

Step 1: Post a question
Step 2: People respond

I didn't think it was that difficult, but perhaps I was giving everyone too much credit...
 
Jay Honeck said:
Okay, I got a clarification from Mike Tharp, our "Airport Operations Specialist" here in Iowa City.

1. This "Radio Required" rule was passed by the Iowa City Airport Commission back in 1997 as a way of restricting ultralight traffic. (I don't know what happened to precipitate this, and neither does Mike.)

2. The rule ONLY applies to ultralights. NORDO traffic is welcome; NORDO ultralights are not.
Click to expand...

As I read it all ultralights are unwelcome. So what's the penalty for operating a radioless ultralight at IOW?
 
dmccormack said:
Hunh? Last I checked, Fed law trumps local.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to speak to the intricacies of the law involved here, but what you're talking about is "preemption."

There are various kinds of preemption, but the bottom line is that simply because the Feds can regulate something doesn't make them the exclusive regulators of that something.

Now, the Feds can certainly be the exclusive regulator, either by express law or impliedly. Or, the Feds can dabble in an area, and so can states and/or localities. Or, even though the Feds have the power to regulate something, they might not do so at all and leave it to the more local governments.

It's a weird, complicated mess.

If you want more information, google "Federal preemption." There's bound to be something that will pop up - but be careful what you trust. There's a lot of information on the internet about this, and related, subjects that's just flat-out wrong.
 
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...

Ron's post pretty much nails what I'm getting at.

While I can't discuss the accuracy vis-a-vis aviation law (I am just too damned tired to look up whether the Feds intended to "occupy the whole field" when it comes to the use of radios in aviation, but I have zero reason to question Ron's accuracy on this point - no instance comes to mind where I've seen him flat-out wrong in issues of aviation law), the concepts above are right on point.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I'm not going to speak to the intricacies of the law involved here, but what you're talking about is "preemption."

There are various kinds of preemption, but the bottom line is that simply because the Feds can regulate something doesn't make them the exclusive regulators of that something.

Now, the Feds can certainly be the exclusive regulator, either by express law or impliedly. Or, the Feds can dabble in an area, and so can states and/or localities. Or, even though the Feds have the power to regulate something, they might not do so at all and leave it to the more local governments.

It's a weird, complicated mess.

If you want more information, google "Federal preemption." There's bound to be something that will pop up - but be careful what you trust. There's a lot of information on the internet about this, and related, subjects that's just flat-out wrong.
Click to expand...

Right -- and state preemption as well (Pennsylvania's Constitution includes a preemption clause).

This my point that the rule is only as good as its ability to stand a challenge. In this case, since there is no clear penalty, it's unlikely that will happen.

:dunno:
 
timwinters said:
Discriminatory.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to turn this political, but under the U.S. Constitution, things actually can be discriminatory provided there's a good reason for it. "Good reason" being defined generally as "compelling interest," and it also requires that there be no less restrictive/discriminatory manner in which to achieve that interest.
 
dmccormack said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well...not exactly. The issue would be whether the use of radios somehow serves a compelling interest that is not achievable through any less restrictive means.

As to the burden of proof, my memory is failing me, but it's possible that it might be on those challenging the restriction to show that the rule is unjustified, rather than on the airport to show that it is justified.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
...

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.
Click to expand...

This is also true. While there can always be exceptions, the general rule on accepting Federal funds is that those funds come with attached strings.

That's one reason we never took farm subsidies. The same is true with pretty much any other grant you get from the government (no matter what government it is).
 
dmccormack said:
Then why isn't the rule "NO ULTRALIGHTS" or some such?
Click to expand...

Probably because the City Attorney felt that a blanket ban on an entire class of aircraft wouldn't pass the constitutional sniff test that I referenced above (the compelling interest and no less restrictive means).

So, instead they opted to use radios as the issue. Your average judge ain't a pilot, and it's going to make perfect sense to the average member of the bench that "well, of course a radio should be required, and it seems damned unsafe to me that any plane doesn't have one!"

So, there's you're compelling interest, and there's your least restrictive means.

And, being as I don't think that most ultralights have radios, you also get the supposed benefit of ridding yourself of ultralights.

The above does presume, however, that this isn't contrary to Federal law. If it is, or even if it's not but the Feds have "occupied the whole field," it's invalid.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
If you want "real" answers then go to the source. The reason I suggested asking the ADO is because here you will only receive lots of conjecture from the internet lawyers. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

We're jackbleeps, no doubt about it. :yes:
 
dmccormack said:
Right -- and state preemption as well (Pennsylvania's Constitution includes a preemption clause).

This my point that the rule is only as good as its ability to stand a challenge. In this case, since there is no clear penalty, it's unlikely that will happen.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

In my flurry of responses, I missed this one. :)

You're right. At the same time, though, until someone challenges a law it is valid. In other words, the law is constitutional - and thus effective - until declared unconstitutional.

And this something to keep in mind, whether it's in situations involving aviation or in situations involving any other issue of constitutional magnitude - apathy and the slippery slope go hand in hand. I usually don't buy slippery slope arguments, but it's a real concern in constitutional issues.

I'm not suggesting going out and looking for fights (primarily because most things don't require fights to resolve), but I am suggesting the old watchwords of "eternal vigilance."
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
In my flurry of responses, I missed this one. :)

You're right. At the same time, though, until someone challenges a law it is valid. In other words, the law is constitutional - and thus effective - until declared unconstitutional.

And this something to keep in mind, whether it's in situations involving aviation or in situations involving any other issue of constitutional magnitude - apathy and the slippery slope go hand in hand. I usually don't buy slippery slope arguments, but it's a real concern in constitutional issues.

I'm not suggesting going out and looking for fights (primarily because most things don't require fights to resolve), but I am suggesting the old watchwords of "eternal vigilance."
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
SkyHog said:
Why do you even post/read here if you don't understand how an internet forum works? I'll explain for ya:

Step 1: Post a question
Step 2: People respond

I didn't think it was that difficult, but perhaps I was giving everyone too much credit...
Click to expand...

Perhaps you were attempting to simplify too much but I think you missed a couple steps:

Step 3: Differing opinions lead to heated responses
Step 4: Content of several posts drift away from the initial subject (like this post).
:D
 
Jay Honeck said:
That's a secret. I could tell you, but...well, you know the rest... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Seriously, what's the penalty? A fine? Jail time? Do they take away your middle name?

Please contact Mike Tharp, your "Airport Operations Specialist" there in Iowa City, and ask him the penalty for operating a radioless ultralight at IOW.
 
roncachamp said:
You believe that you can, but you cannot.



Nonsense. Equipment which is not required need not be installed but can still be used.
Click to expand...
Well, AFS-420 says otherwise, and I know you can't find any FAA document which says it's legal to use non-installed radio navigation equipment for IFR operations. If you choose not to believe them, that's not my problem. Further, the authorizations in the AC's and AIM for IFR GPS operations very clearly and specifically limit you to certified, installed equipment.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
Seriously, what's the penalty? A fine? Jail time? Do they take away your middle name?

Please contact Mike Tharp, your "Airport Operations Specialist" there in Iowa City, and ask him the penalty for operating a radioless ultralight at IOW.
Click to expand...

I'll ask, but I doubt I'll receive an answer...
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, AFS-420 says otherwise, and I know you can't find any FAA document which says it's legal to use non-installed radio navigation equipment for IFR operations. If you choose not to believe them, that's not my problem. Further, the authorizations in the AC's and AIM for IFR GPS operations very clearly and specifically limit you to certified, installed equipment.
Click to expand...

I guess the question then is: Is there a FAR that specifically prohibits the use of non-certified, non-installed equipment?
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, AFS-420 says otherwise,
Click to expand...

Did they offer anything to support that position, or did they just tell you to contact the chief counsel if you didn't believe them?

and I know you can't find any FAA document which says it's legal to use non-installed radio navigation equipment for IFR operations.
Click to expand...
For legalities I refer to the FARs, and I know you can't find any regulation which says it's illegal to use handheld GPS during IFR enroute operations.

If you choose not to believe them, that's not my problem. Further, the authorizations in the AC's and AIM for IFR GPS operations very clearly and specifically limit you to certified, installed equipment.
Click to expand...
The AIM and ACs very clearly state they're not regulatory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top