D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
@Big Fin
First off wanted to say thank you for the corner crossing series on your podcast.
Second, here is a question and/or statement that came to mind when listening.
Part of my job is creating/managing our plats for drilling permits. I've done this in 7 different states, one permit that gets filed is an FAA permit, you don't file it for every site but if you are close to an air field you have to file it. This is more common out west where seemingly every 5th landowner has an field where planes occasionally land that is registered with the FAA, yes these count in the requirement.
As part of the process we essentially take a map tool the FAA provides, type in the location of our pad and the tool tells us how tall our rig can be before we have to file. It changes as obviously a 30ft structure right at the end of an airfield is more of a hazard than a 100ft one 3 miles away. I'm filing these in states with very little public land as well.
So here is the question, I've never heard of trespass for planes, noise complaints sure, but I'm required to file a permit if my 100ft rig is within 1 mile of some airstrip in a dudes field, and it all cases required to hang lights on the top of the rig at night. That seems to say there is a presumption that it's ok to fly below 100ft over the private land that my pad site is built upon without permission from my landowner (lessor). The discussion of airspace seems to center around altitudes like 10,000ft for commercial planes, but there is a regulatory frame work that seems to suggest sub 100 and even sub 50ft flights over private are legal, how does that fit into the ad coelum doctrine and legal precedence that have been establish?
Has any of your legal experts seen any crop dusting lawsuits? I imagine that would be the context of someone flying an aircraft sub 50ft above private land regularly.
I guess the final point is that many of the aviation regs/lawsuits folks reference are flying above houses, not unimproved land miles from domiciles. Sure you can't fly below 500 or 1000ft over peoples houses in the burbs of Boston... but how low can you get in Nebraska.
First off wanted to say thank you for the corner crossing series on your podcast.
Second, here is a question and/or statement that came to mind when listening.
Part of my job is creating/managing our plats for drilling permits. I've done this in 7 different states, one permit that gets filed is an FAA permit, you don't file it for every site but if you are close to an air field you have to file it. This is more common out west where seemingly every 5th landowner has an field where planes occasionally land that is registered with the FAA, yes these count in the requirement.
As part of the process we essentially take a map tool the FAA provides, type in the location of our pad and the tool tells us how tall our rig can be before we have to file. It changes as obviously a 30ft structure right at the end of an airfield is more of a hazard than a 100ft one 3 miles away. I'm filing these in states with very little public land as well.
So here is the question, I've never heard of trespass for planes, noise complaints sure, but I'm required to file a permit if my 100ft rig is within 1 mile of some airstrip in a dudes field, and it all cases required to hang lights on the top of the rig at night. That seems to say there is a presumption that it's ok to fly below 100ft over the private land that my pad site is built upon without permission from my landowner (lessor). The discussion of airspace seems to center around altitudes like 10,000ft for commercial planes, but there is a regulatory frame work that seems to suggest sub 100 and even sub 50ft flights over private are legal, how does that fit into the ad coelum doctrine and legal precedence that have been establish?
Has any of your legal experts seen any crop dusting lawsuits? I imagine that would be the context of someone flying an aircraft sub 50ft above private land regularly.
I guess the final point is that many of the aviation regs/lawsuits folks reference are flying above houses, not unimproved land miles from domiciles. Sure you can't fly below 500 or 1000ft over peoples houses in the burbs of Boston... but how low can you get in Nebraska.
seeth07
Well-known member
I looked into exactly this as a result of a crop duster in my area that was buzzing our house all the time. I looked into what the state statue says about flying altitudes and it was something along the lines that a plane can fly at any altitude provided that it does not present any harm to person or property in the event of aircraft failure.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Maybe something to consider are the mechanized travel rules are promulgated specifically to stop the establishment of roads, not like wilderness or NPS to stop the actual use of mechanized transportation.
Specifically look at snowmobiles, mostly, once there is snow on the ground you can essentially drive anywhere on USFS and BLM overland.
Helicopters et al. aren't establishing roads so the rules don't apply to them, is my argument.
one of the worst things allowed to happen on gods green earth
BrentD
Well-known member
Yeah, but what about on god's white earth...
Always thought snowmobiles would make great practice targets for jump hunting deer.
They somehow trespass semilegslly in my own property, usually around 2 am, for some reason.
Wouldn't that be ANY elevation?
I would guess that there are special exemptions for ag purposes in Iowa, and for when there are not, the laws are probably ignored by pilots and "authorities", as any backyard beekeeper can tell you.
seeth07
Well-known member
I think the intent is buildings and people. Crashing into a woods or field I think its considered "property" in this instance.Yeah, but what about on god's white earth...
Always thought snowmobiles would make great practice targets for jump hunting deer.
They somehow trespass semilegslly in my own property, usually around 2 am, for some reason.
Wouldn't that be ANY elevation?
I would guess that there are special exemptions for ag purposes in Iowa, and for when there are not, the laws are probably ignored by pilots and "authorities", as any backyard beekeeper can tell you.
In other words, the pilot if he is flying low needs to consider that if he all of a sudden can't turn, he isn't going to crash into my house.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
FAA, state probe chemical spraying of Fort Collins homes by crop duster
FAA, state probe chemical spraying of Fort Collins homes by crop duster
www.denverpost.com
Article about people in the burbs pissed about crop dusters, seems from the descriptions the pilot was very low... no mention of charges for trespassing, there are numerous other articles to similar effect and all are about flight plans and flying too close to houses.
I've seen nothing that says you can't fly 12ft (aka ladder height) over someone's land, as long as it's not near a structure.
Highly doubt this guy is at 1000ft when he hits the neighbors fence at the end of the field.
<div style="width:100%;height:0;padding-bottom:33%;position:relative;"><iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/25HSgZE2VIRYQ" width="100%" height="100%" style="position:absolute" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe></div><p><a href="
BTW, lots of mountains in the background that could put this above the low-density air at 10K feet.
PrairieHunter
Well-known member
I'm always glad to see the optimism from other hunters around this.
When I read the latest article that discussed the landowners past lawsuits and combined that with the shenanigans that go on in Wyoming I felt like the chances this case has a positive outcome for hunters were well below 100%.
But the hill has been picked, just a matter who dies on it at this point.
When I read the latest article that discussed the landowners past lawsuits and combined that with the shenanigans that go on in Wyoming I felt like the chances this case has a positive outcome for hunters were well below 100%.
But the hill has been picked, just a matter who dies on it at this point.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I think chances that this works out for these particular individuals is decent but not slam dunk. The chances that this is once and for all decided for the whole state (or even whole region given the fed angle) in a way hunters want is fairly low. I would guess this will be one of those "hedgerow by hedgerow" situations.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Not what I'm hearing. This is getting more favorable for a resolution all the time.
Your not landing a helicopter on top of Elk Mt unless its jet powered. I know of one guy who did it for hunting purposes.
PrairieHunter
Well-known member
If these charges are dropped there will be a lot of corner crossing in that area specifically IMO. And with much of the rest of the state not prosecuting it is likely to be a game changer not only in Wyoming but possibly other states where public land corners touch.
But if these charges stick, and other landowners in the state hear about it and put pressure on DA's to charge corner crossers then the whole thing could backfire IMO.
IMO somebody is dying on this hill. Wyoming is like a small town in many ways, everyone will know who won when the dust settles.
Judge orders Civil case be passed on to Federal Court. ““The clerk of the district court is hereby advised that jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of the above-entitled action is deemed removed from the district court to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming…” Chief U.S. District Judge Scott W. Skavdahl wrote in an order filed Thursday. The order becomes effective once the hunters’ attorney files documents in state district court,”
https://wyofile.com/judge-transfers-corner-crossing-trespass-case-to-federal-court/
https://wyofile.com/judge-transfers-corner-crossing-trespass-case-to-federal-court/
Addicting
Well-known member
So do the hunters now file a counter suit to make sure it stays there until adjudication? That way Iron mountain pulling their side of the suit doesn’t kill the precedings.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I doubt they pull their civil suit...rich guys don't like being told no, and aren't used to that word.
Addicting
Well-known member
He has pulled them before though, and if he does….
