Okay this it kind of hypothetical, if a person had a few thousand acres of land, and yeah the $$ too, at what height above that land could you
fly a plane and not be under FAA authority? 100 feet ?
Printable View
Okay this it kind of hypothetical, if a person had a few thousand acres of land, and yeah the $$ too, at what height above that land could you
fly a plane and not be under FAA authority? 100 feet ?
There's no such altitude. If you have an aircraft capable of operating out of ground effect, as soon as you leave the ground you're under FAA control. It doesn't matter if you own the entire state of Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by enginesrus
Ron is technically correct. All aviation operates under the authority of the FAA (hence its name.) However, I am not sure that what you wrote is what you want to know. Can you be a bit more specific?
Per the FAA........
Myth #1: The FAA doesn't control airspace below 400 feet
Fact—The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up. This misperception may originate with the idea that manned aircraft generally must stay at least 500 feet above the ground
What is the real question? If you own an area the size of Texas and there is no one around but you, you are welcome to fly around at the speed of heat 10' AGL (14 CFR 91.119). The FAA is concerned with the safety of the public, not your safety, although other folks think that your safety falls into their baliwick. An example of FAA policy is airshow performers flying down to the surface.
The flip side is that if you have a friend filming your flying in your Texas-sized real estate so you can post your skills for all of your friends on YouTube, you must fly at least 500' from that friend to avoid pointed questions.
Best of luck,
Wes
Ever consider the ultralight airplane? After proper training of course but the FAA rules ARE pretty minimal? And they don't really require 'thousands' of a acres from which to safely operate.
Why do you ask?
Actually, you are not. The FAA very much will enforce several regulations stopping that as well (notably 91.117 and likely 91.813).Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
Do not confuse when the FAA has relaxed rules (operation outside of controlled airspace) with the lack of authority.
Well you are conflating the original vagueness of the question with my response. If I win megabucks and am able to purchase the unpopulated area of say west Texas, I could apply for, and receive, an FAA Certificate of Authorization to operate in deviance of those FARs. I am very familiar with the airspace waiver process.
All of that said, we still don't know whether the original question is really about the span of the FAA charter and authority, or whether the original poster had some more specific case in mind.
Which is day that we would like to hear from the author of post #1.
Best of luck,
Wes
Has anyone noticed that the original poster has not come back to clarify the question. Hey we been trolled?
I came back lots of times after the post. No one answered as of yet. I was just day dreaming about winning a power ball or what ever and how it would be nice to have some land and be able to sort of fly like the good old days even if its only 100 feet off the ground. It would be cool to have an old propliner to solo when ever you liked, just around the property. I guess a millionaire could go through legal channels to get what he or she wished to do on their own land.
The Epstein estate probably has a couple of islands for sale.....
Then there's Sealand, but you'll have trouble landing a DC-6 there.
Ron "Brakes! Brakes!" Wanttaja
Actually, several folks have answered... The Other Ron, Chris, and Wes. It's just that the answer is "you can't escape the FAA's rules on US territory."Quote:
Originally Posted by enginesrus
Ron "You may not like the ******* FAA, but they like ******* you" Wanttaja
I don't want no stinking DC-6, I want a flame spraying DC-7 or a Connie, maybe a C-97:cool:.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Connie. Yep. Beautiful aircraft, nice curves. An L-049 with max fuel tankage and an STC for the 3350 TC18-EA-2? Ah, yes, just the oil bill alone would be divine.Quote:
Originally Posted by enginesrus
Well if we’re gonna tear up some airspace sans the FAA then I’ll sign up for a Douglas A-26. Speed, maneuverability, good looks and ya get to blow up some stuff if you’re in the mood.
A-26 yes nice, but not enough engines, though I think Neptunes look a bit nicer. For a twin a P-38 would be the choice though. I'd like the thrill of flying the heavy 4 engine job solo. How many have done that? A hand full maybe?
interestingly, there is a way.... used when testing glider tow capabilities. As long as there is a rope or cable attached to a vehicle or track on the ground, the aircraft and pilot do not require licensing. Once free of the rope, rules change. Sounds stupid, but is reality. Found this out when helping a friend test a glider in the 60’s.Quote:
Originally Posted by enginesrus
vr.. Don
Not really. An airplane-shaped thing attached to the ground with a rope is just a big kite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaproll
Exactly the point. Answer is get a damn license and fly like everybody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleB
vr... Don Stits
That's certainly not true. Gliders under tow (either ground or aero) and tethered balloons are fully under FAA regulation and the pilot and the aircraft airworthiness regs must be met. A kite or a moored balloon (one tied down but UNMANNED) does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaproll
The first Otto Lilienthal hang gliding meet in 1971 was held at a secret location disclosed only to the competitors at the last minute, because the FAA had said (this was long before Part 103) they would charge anybody who got even inches into the air in an unregistered aircraft, or without a pilot certificate.
Now this is getting fun. If the original poster wants something 4 engined and warbird-like, there is the 1/3 scale B-17 that came to AirVenture year before last!
Reminds me of this Gahan Wilson cartoon.....Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingRon
http://www.wanttaja.com/wilson_kite.jpg
RIP....
Ron Wanttaja
The "Bally Bomber" was for sale last year, about 200 large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc
Wow, how many racing boats that end up doing aerobatics, and race cars flying through the air, then there are the moto cross guys flying motor cycles, and the ones that jump cars and motorcycles over buses and the like. Have they been charged for flying?
This is moving into troll territory.....
Best of luck,
Wes
I think that would be defined as falling vs flying. Jumping off a building or a cliff does not make you an airman. I believe the operative word would be sustained flight.
Interesting that no one has discussed a wing in ground effect craft. The FAA seems to have taken a hands off approach and not really sure anyone in the US is actively pursuing. Guess they are only viable over large flat surfaces.
Yep, hovercraft and ground effect vehicles aren't aircraft. I pointed this out in my first post in this thread.
It doesn't take "sustained" flight either. The FAA covers parachuting in which you don't so much fly as plummet (at least not until the chute is deployed). They don't cover bungie jumping however.
My gosh when ever logic enters a discussion its a troll. Just wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by WLIU
Yeah fun not allowed right?