Pilot enters reluctant plea

[Richard]

Tribal attorney Paul K. Charlton says the tribe has the ability to regulate it's airspace and prosecute those who fly over without permits.

A couple of questions: Are such flyover permits available to pilots? What court would even allow tribal jurisdiction of airspace as evidenced by issuance of said permits? Do attorneys just make stuff up?

http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2009/03/14/news/20090314_front_192643.txt

 

[ScottM]

A very bad precedent!

 

[Richard]

A very bad precedent!

Yes. But aren't there legal requirements for what can or cannot be used as precedent?

This tribe owns the Skywalk in the Grand Canyon. Boycott, firebomb, drop leaflets, according to your fancy. So much for sacred lands, eh?

 

[SkyHog]

I'd be happy to just see them pay taxes for the services they receive...

Or integrate into society like every other person in this country has. They've had a few hundred years....

 

[jayjenkinssr]

Its time to play cowboys and indians again!!!

 

[ScottM]

Yes. But aren't there legal requirements for what can or cannot be used as precedent?

In whose court? This tribe has now ascerted that they have the right to regulate airspace above their lands and can show someone paying the fine and admitting guilt. The next guy who comes along will now have a tougher time. The FAA should not have remained silent. They should have quickly gotten involved and asserted their rights and forced the US Gov to quickly set the tribe right.

 

[Kelvin]

Scott you are spot on...

I do think someone will stand up to these folks and put them in their place...

 

[Steve Foley]

That's really scary. The reservations have laws that are different than everywhere in the USA (Kinda like Chicago).

I guess I'll just stay away from the local reservations.

The only ones I know of are Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods.

Anything else I should stay away from?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

What exactly is the FAA doing with all their (our) time that they didn't weigh in on this simple and important issue?

 

[ScottM]

What exactly is the FAA doing with all their (our) time that they didn't weigh in on this simple and important issue?

They are working on GA user fees and reducing the impact to commercial 121 carriers.

 

[poadeleted20]

Reminder: This is Hangar Talk, not Spin Zone. Keep it polite and apolitical, do not make racially-charged remarks, and do not try to bypass the obscenity filter or we'll delete the whole thread.

 

[ScottM]

Reminder: This is Hangar Talk, not Spin Zone. Keep it polite and apolitical, do not make racially-charged remarks, and do not try to bypass the obscenity filter or we'll delete the whole thread.

It is my understanding from the many posts that politics dealing with aviation are permitted outside of the SZ. If there is suddenly a new rule that only apolitical topics may permitted in HT then I have missed the announcement from the MC on that change.

This post, from you, was in Oct 2008.

Reminder -- per the forum rules, non-aviation politics still go in the SZ. Only politics related to aviation are allowed elsewhere. Unless it's something like candidates' positions on pending aviation legislation like the FAA Reauthorization Bill, politics is not aviation-related.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think discussing airspace issues, the legal background to why a tribe may be trying to declare their right to regulate said airspace, and the FAA's apparent inaction would be a topic that should be in the SZ?

I am asking for the clarification because on at least one occasion a person felt that there was an absolute prohibition on politics outside of the SZ regardless of whether or not it was aviation politics. I think your choice of the word "apolitical" was a mistake made in the haste of writing your response and was used to in a way in which you did not intend.

 

[Trapper John]

In whose court? This tribe has now ascerted that they have the right to regulate airspace above their lands and can show someone paying the fine and admitting guilt. The next guy who comes along will now have a tougher time. The FAA should not have remained silent. They should have quickly gotten involved and asserted their rights and forced the US Gov to quickly set the tribe right.

I agree that the FAA should have set the tribe straight. But the guy may have a chance - I think he should file a civil rights claim in Federal court. In my non-scholarly opinion, the tribe deprived him of his rights. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can confirm that 42 U.S.C. 1983 can be applied to tribes.


Trapper John

 

[SkyHog]

I agree that the FAA should have set the tribe straight. But the guy may have a chance - I think he should file a civil rights claim in Federal court. In my non-scholarly opinion, the tribe deprived him of his rights. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can confirm that 42 U.S.C. 1983 can be applied to tribes.


Trapper John

I would not be surprised to see it as yet another thing that we yielded to the Indians when we learned that they were too dumb to successfully negotiate trade deals or defend their land properly.

 

[Richard]

So much for a hope of enlightening the pilot crowd. Other than B&M about it, what are YOU gonna do about it? I mean, each individual should put up or....

 

[tdager]

Woohhaaa....yes my statements were done in a moment of "heat" but I never expected them to be deleted.

I will say it AGAIN then but to assuage the weak-hearted I will try to be a bit more PC.....it is time for us to re-think, and possibly null-and-void these "treaties" and tell them to assimilate like everyone else.

 

[Trapper John]

So much for a hope of enlightening the pilot crowd. Other than B&M about it, what are YOU gonna do about it? I mean, each individual should put up or....

You didn't get the reaction you were looking for?

Maybe if you write your Senator or Congressman, others will follow...


Trapper John

 

[Trapper John]

I will say it AGAIN then but to assuage the weak-hearted I will try to be a bit more PC.....it is time for us to re-think, and possibly null-and-void these "treaties" and tell them to assimilate like everyone else.

What do you propose to assimilate them into? "Hey, go get a job like everyone else, even though you're in the middle of nowhere and there's no economic development going on!"

Why propose a knee-jerk solution over a singular defined dispute? Why not a court challenge?


Trapper John

 

[Maxmosbey]

We are reading Cindy Cole's rendition of this whole thing, so it might not have all of the fact here. I noticed that she says, "The tribe said De Antoni's flight over Hualapai land was a form of trespassing and that he interfered with the flight paths of other aircraft bound for the local airport."

OK, so now we have Mr. De Antoni doing something stupid. Then she says, "In addition, Mr. De Antoni admitted to the Tribe that he flew recklessly and placed pilots and passengers in other aircraft at substantial risk of imminent bodily harm," tribe attorney Paul K. Charlton said in a written statement."

Then in the very next paragraph, she says, "De Antoni says there was no risk of a collision between himself and other aircraft. He says he was a half-mile from the nearest plane and about 1.5 miles from the tribe's airport." What the heck is this. Did he say something to someone, and now he is backpedling? He says he was a mile and a half from the airport and a half mile away from other planes, but was he? Maybe there is another pilot who is telling a different story, that Ms Cole either left out, or it got cut out of the column. Is the tribe's attorney making something up, or is he reading from a statement made during the investigation? What is going on? Evidently something happened that caught someone else's attention.

Finally, She says that Mr. De Antoni said, "They're just overplaying the facts." Before we all cry foul, wouldn't it be nice to know just what are the facts that are being overplayed? Is it possible that Ms Cole might be mis-quoting people, or mis-intepreting what people are saying? Is it possible that Mr. De Antoni is underplaying the facts in his favor?

When I read something like this that seems to be way out in left field, I have to wonder what really happened. I just can't trust some reporter from azdailysun.com to give me a true and accurate information about what acutally happened. Sorry, but I don't believe that Ms Cole knows what is going on, and Mr. De Antoni wouldn't be the first Paraglider to fly through a runway approach with his head up his you know what. I'll bet there is a lot more to this story.

 

[SkyHog]

We are reading Cindy Cole's rendition of this whole thing, so it might not have all of the fact here. I noticed that she says, "The tribe said De Antoni's flight over Hualapai land was a form of trespassing and that he interfered with the flight paths of other aircraft bound for the local airport."

OK, so now we have Mr. De Antoni doing something stupid. Then she says, "In addition, Mr. De Antoni admitted to the Tribe that he flew recklessly and placed pilots and passengers in other aircraft at substantial risk of imminent bodily harm," tribe attorney Paul K. Charlton said in a written statement."

Then in the very next paragraph, she says, "De Antoni says there was no risk of a collision between himself and other aircraft. He says he was a half-mile from the nearest plane and about 1.5 miles from the tribe's airport." What the heck is this. Did he say something to someone, and now he is backpedling? He says he was a mile and a half from the airport and a half mile away from other planes, but was he? Maybe there is another pilot who is telling a different story, that Ms Cole either left out, or it got cut out of the column. Is the tribe's attorney making something up, or is he reading from a statement made during the investigation? What is going on? Evidently something happened that caught someone else's attention.

Finally, She says that Mr. De Antoni said, "They're just overplaying the facts." Before we all cry foul, wouldn't it be nice to know just what are the facts that are being overplayed? Is it possible that Ms Cole might be mis-quoting people, or mis-intepreting what people are saying? Is it possible that Mr. De Antoni is underplaying the facts in his favor?

When I read something like this that seems to be way out in left field, I have to wonder what really happened. I just can't trust some reporter from azdailysun.com to give me a true and accurate information about what acutally happened. Sorry, but I don't believe that Ms Cole knows what is going on, and Mr. De Antoni wouldn't be the first Paraglider to fly through a runway approach with his head up his you know what. I'll bet there is a lot more to this story.

Then don't trust the reporter. Go with the known facts:
He was flying an airplane
Tribes have no control over airspace.

Done deal.

 

[Maxmosbey]

Then don't trust the reporter. Go with the known facts:
He was flying an airplane
Tribes have no control over airspace.

Done deal.

First of all, he wasn't flying an airplane, he was flying a para-glider, but it sounds like someone he got too close to was flying an airplane. Second, how do you know that they don't have control over the airspace? Maybe they do. I don't know, do you? Finally, evidently it is a done deal for the pilot of the para-glier.

 

[SkyHog]

First of all, he wasn't flying an airplane, he was flying a para-glider, but it sounds like someone he got too close to was flying an airplane. Second, how do you know that they don't have control over the airspace? Maybe they do. I don't know, do you? Finally, evidently it is a done deal for the pilot of the para-glier.

How do I know? Because Airspace is federally protected, not city/town/etc. protected. Last time I checked, we allow them to use the LAND, not the airspace above our land.

They can have their little la la religious ceremonies like the Taos Pueblo does and petition the FAA for a Welfare Area. As it stands, no one but the Federal Government owns airspace.

Can I sue you for flying over my house (well, yes, but can I win?) Can I put a no-fly zone around my house and have you arrested for flying over it because I'm practicing some religion involving smoking pot from a long pipe and dancing for rain? Not likely.

 

[Maxmosbey]

How do I know? Because Airspace is federally protected, not city/town/etc. protected. Last time I checked, we allow them to use the LAND, not the airspace above our land.

They can have their little la la religious ceremonies like the Taos Pueblo does and petition the FAA for a Welfare Area. As it stands, no one but the Federal Government owns airspace.

Can I sue you for flying over my house (well, yes, but can I win?) Can I put a no-fly zone around my house and have you arrested for flying over it because I'm practicing some religion involving smoking pot from a long pipe and dancing for rain? Not likely.

You're very angry about this, aren't you?

 

[SkyHog]

You're very angry about this, aren't you?

You have to understand, I live in an area where they use massive amounts of our resources but don't pay for them. They sign pacts with us where they refuse to uphold their side. And they charge us for the right to build roads through the land that we LET THEM USE.

And now they're going to try to take control of airspace? No. I already deal with their greedy BS day in and day out, I don't think we need to be "respectful" of their attempt to soak even more money from everyone they can.

And don't kid yourself, this 100% about money.

 

[jesse]

...I'm practicing some religion involving smoking pot from a long pipe and dancing for rain? Not likely.

lmfao...still laughing..

 

[ScottM]

how do you know that they don't have control over the airspace? Maybe they do. I don't know, do you? Finally, evidently it is a done deal for the pilot of the para-glier.

The plot thickens

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/pdf/14cfr93.319.pdf

§ 93.319 Commercial air tour limitations.
(a) Unless excepted under paragraph
(f) or (g) of this section, no certificate
holder certificated in accordance with
part 119 for part 121 or 135 operations
may conduct more commercial air
tours in the Grand Canyon National
Park in any calendar year than the
number of allocations specified on the
certificate

....

(f) Certificate holders satisfying the
requirements of § 93.315 of this subpart
are not required to use a commercial
air tour allocation for each commercial
air tour flight in the GCNP SFRA provided
the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) The certificate holder conducts its
operations in conformance with the
routes and airspace authorizations as
specified in its Grand Canyon National
Park Special Flight Rules Area operations
specifications;
(2) The certificate holder must have
executed a written contract with the
Hualapai Indian Nation which grants
the certificate holder a trespass permit
and specifies the maximum number of
flights to be permitted to land at
Grand Canyon West Airport and at
other sites located in the vicinity of
that airport and operates in compliance
with that contract; and
(3) The certificate holder must have a
valid operations specification that authorizes
the certificate holder to conduct
the operations specified in the
contract with the Hualapai Indian Nation
and specifically approves the number
of operations that may transit the
Grand Canyon National Park Special
Flight Rules Area under this exception.

The tribe may think it has no been granted the authority to regulate the airspace based on this rule. But I do not agree. For one thing this is specific to part 119,121, and 135 COMMERCIAL operations. Failure to abide by this rule would seem to still be under the jurisdiction of the FAA and not the tribe. But it would seem that the FAA kinda screwed up by allowing such a permit to be part of the rules. Probably why they did not jump in on this matter.

 

[RMCN172RG]

How do I know? Because Airspace is federally protected, not city/town/etc. protected. Last time I checked, we allow them to use the LAND, not the airspace above our land.

I'm going to say the Indians may have the authority based on this.

Indian reservations are by definition not, US Territory, they are a separate nation.

That's how they get around gaming laws, etc.

The citizens have been granted rights which are similar not not the same as the citizens of the territories (Guam, Puerto Ricom American Samoa and American Indes).

Note PR is officially a commonweatlh and trying to gain legal status as a separate country, to some degree.

 

[roncachamp]

Second, how do you know that they don't have control over the airspace?

Because they are not the FAA.

 

[roncachamp]

I'm going to say the Indians may have the authority based on this.

Indian reservations are by definition not, US Territory, they are a separate nation.

Indians living on reservations are not US citizens? There are customs agents posted at roads entering reservations?

 

[tdager]

What do you propose to assimilate them into? "Hey, go get a job like everyone else, even though you're in the middle of nowhere and there's no economic development going on!"

Why propose a knee-jerk solution over a singular defined dispute? Why not a court challenge?


Trapper John

I honestly and sincerely would tell them what I would say to someone whining about jobs/resources in much of Africa, or Siberia, or any other place that is "in the middle of nowhere and no economic development".....MOVE.

Sorry but no one, NO ONE, is entitled to put a stake in the ground anywhere and say "now, all of you come to ME and bring jobs and development" especially when one lives in desert high-country.

 

[Anthony]

I honestly and sincerely would tell them what I would say to someone whining about jobs/resources in much of Africa, or Siberia, or any other place that is "in the middle of nowhere and no economic development".....MOVE.

Sorry but no one, NO ONE, is entitled to put a stake in the ground anywhere and say "now, all of you come to ME and bring jobs and development" especially when one lives in desert high-country.

Its ridiculous that this pilot would have to pay a fine for flying over their land. Is it marked as a Restricted Area on the Sectional?

 

[Lawreston]

I honestly and sincerely would tell them what I would say to someone whining about jobs/resources in much of Africa, or Siberia, or any other place that is "in the middle of nowhere and no economic development".....MOVE.

Sorry but no one, NO ONE, is entitled to put a stake in the ground anywhere and say "now, all of you come to ME and bring jobs and development" especially when one lives in desert high-country.

My brother, until moving from Page, AZ to St. George, UT, was a distributor of milk and other dairy products to all the reservations within 100sm of his departure point.

From St. George he now drives doubles and triples to Las Vegas and return. It's easier on his back because he's now an employee, rather than an owner, and doesn't have to load/unload his freight. Just drive them and drop them.

Anyway, below is his comment which accompanied the photo he sent(prior to relocating to St. George). Sorry about the size of the image.

"This is a family's Hogan on the Navajo reservation where I go almost every day to peddle my milk and other supplies."

HR

 

[docmirror]

Based on this ruling, here's what every GA pilot may be facing in the future. Look at the attached map. Find a reservation. If you fly below 15,000' AGL you could be prosecuted for tresspass. It's about the money. If the tribe can find a way to control the air over their reservation, and charge is for access to it, we're doomed again.

http://www.nps.gov/history/nagpra/DOCUMENTS/RESERV.PDF


Atlas Shrugged again.

 

[Ghery]

Indians living on reservations are not US citizens? There are customs agents posted at roads entering reservations?

Nope, but watch for police officers just off the reservation around the 4th of July waiting to bust you for the illegal fireworks you bought there. And, no, I haven't been busted. But to show you how the indians play the game, there's a fireworks stand on a reservation near Spokane, WA that is called the Ill Eagle fireworks stand. Or so I've been told.