Flying on your own property

[Hawk]

I have read on the forums, just a few weeks ago and unable to locate, a thread talking about the regs on flying your aircraft with out a rating or registration on and over your own private property. Is there anyone who get defiantly answer the question per the far's as to operation of a aircraft with/without a rating or registration on private property??

Thanks,

Rick

[Alan_Cheatham]

Only if the vehicle is a true, part 103 ultralight aircraft can you fly it legally without rating or registration. If the aircraft doesn't meet part 103 you can NOT legally fly it even if operating over your own land.

.

[pilotescort]

This section deals with "experimental operating limitations". Obviously, as ALL land is owned by someone: private, local, state, or federal, no person shall operate any aircraft without permission from the controlling "agency". For test purposes, flight must be conducted over water, or sparsly populated areas, (for me, every flight is a test flight). Except for take off and landling purposes, minimum altitude is any altitude that provides for a safe landing in the event of an engine failure, and 300' agl over any population (including your next door neighbor) in the case of rotorcraft. Common sense goes a long ways. Special and restricted airspace must be paid strict attention to. Class E airspace, generally below 1200' agl, but sometimes below 700' agl, is pilot controlled. Refer to your Sectional to know your airspace. Fly safe.

[hillberg]

F.A.A. will not enforce F.A.R.s or pursue any violations, :whoo:In the following conditions, :suspicious:Your own property or privte property-Uncontroled air space-No Certificates-Nonregistered Aircraft.:cool: Had a couple that flew from privte property through uncontroled airspace (class G) To another privite property(A freinds) along the way the plane had engine problems and landed on Air Force property:spy:-F.A.A. legal had no grounds as all the actions happened out side the control of F.A.A. oversite. :lalala:Got the story from Riverside F.S.D.O.:Cry:

[WaspAir]

F.A.A. legal had no grounds as all the actions happened out side the control of F.A.A. oversite.

Not so.

If you leave the ground in an aircraft over the territory of the United States or its coastal waters, and you are not flying for the military, the FAA has the authority to regulate what you do (see, e.g., 91.1, "applicability", 61.3(a) "requirements for certificates", and for ultralights 103.1 "applicability").

"Uncontrolled" airspace does not mean that the FAA has no control over your actions; it means that only that you do not need clearance from or communication with ATC while operating there. The FAA still regulates it, and you still need aircraft registration, pilot certificates, medical certificates, weather minimums, right of way rules, etc., etc. no matter who owns the land below you.

If you fly it, and the taxpayers aren't footing the bill, you have to comply with FAA regs. In the story you told, the FAA might have chosen not to act, but they certainly can if they wish, and in these days of heightened security, they are increasingly unlikely to overlook such things.

[MikeBoyette]

I have heard a story of a very rich rancher in Texas who fought the FAA and won. The story goes that he learned to fly a helicopter but refused to get his ticket. He was flying over his ranch,which was many many square miles, and got busted. He was reported and was told to stop by the FAA. He refused and was hauled into court. His argument was based on the old premise that a land owner owns the land from the surface to the center of the earth and from the surface to space. He basically was saying the FAA has no jurisdiction as long as he is flying over his own property. I do not know this to be fact but, he won the fight and continues to fly today.

[Chuck Roberg]

Mike, I heard the same story. Except the rancher was legal as long as he kept out of controlled airspace and over his own property.

This story sort of makes sense. You can drive a vehicle with out license plates or a drivers license as long as you stay on your own property.

Problem with stories is. Unless I can back it up with the FAR's or a copy of a legal decision. Then I just treat it as a story. But then again I'm the type of person who would rather not draw the attention of the FAA. :)

[gyro-3xio]

1000.1A No pilot or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or attempt to try or make or make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part of the herein mentioned Federal Aviation Regulations, except as authorized by the Administrator or an agent appointed by, or inspected by the Administrator.

1000.1B If the pilot, or group of associated pilots becomes aware of, or realizes, or detects, or discovers or finds that he, or she, or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Federal Aviation Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify, in writing, the Administrator.

1000.1C Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the Administrator will immediately rewrite the Federal Aviation Regulations in such manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.

1000.1D The Administrator may, at his or her option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in Federal Aviation Regulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable of understanding anything.


Sums it up kind of nicely,....
Don't you think???

Jim.

[WaspAir]

I have heard a story of a very rich rancher in Texas who fought the FAA and won. The story goes that he learned to fly a helicopter but refused to get his ticket. He was flying over his ranch,which was many many square miles, and got busted. He was reported and was told to stop by the FAA. He refused and was hauled into court. His argument was based on the old premise that a land owner owns the land from the surface to the center of the earth and from the surface to space. He basically was saying the FAA has no jurisdiction as long as he is flying over his own property. I do not know this to be fact but, he won the fight and continues to fly today.

It's a great story, but legal hogwash. You don't own the airspace above your property. In urban areas, you may have limited rights derived from the old common law doctrine of "ancient lights", meaning you may have a basis to complain if somebody builds a tall structure right next to you that blocks the sun, and you have the right of "quiet enjoyment", meaning that you can sue if somebody's low flying is interfering with your use of the land, but that's about it. Heck, it takes approvals just to build tall towers or buildings that might interfere with aviation, and that would not make any sense if you "owned" the airspace. If you really "owned" it, you could require United Airlines to deviate around it; good luck with that.

The FARs apply over private property, period. There's no ambiguity in 91.1, and no exceptions for ranchers:

§ 91.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and §§91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

(b) Each person operating an aircraft in the airspace overlying the waters between 3 and 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United States must comply with §§91.1 through 91.21; §§91.101 through 91.143; §§91.151 through 91.159; §§91.167 through 91.193; §91.203; §91.205; §§91.209 through 91.217; §91.221, §91.225; §§91.303 through 91.319; §§91.323 through 91.327; §91.605; §91.609; §§91.703 through 91.715; and §91.903.

(c) This part applies to each person on board an aircraft being operated under this part, unless otherwise specified.

(d) This part also establishes requirements for operators to take actions to support the continued airworthiness of each airplane.


Part 47 requires that your aircraft be registered, with no exceptions for ranchers who fly only on their over their own land:

§ 47.3 Registration required.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft that is eligible for registration under 49 U.S.C. 44101–44104, unless the aircraft—

(1) Has been registered by its owner;

(2) Is carrying aboard the temporary authorization required by §47.31(c); or

(3) Is an aircraft of the Armed Forces.


Part 61 requires licenses for operating registered aircraft:

§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

(a) Pilot certificate. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person—

(1) Has a pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization issued under this part in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization.

There's no way out, even for Texans.
We should all be glad. Imagine if we had to wind our way around all the private property in America while flying gyros!

[Chuck Roberg]

So in other words. Don't try this around your home. :noidea:

[Hawk]

I appreciate all the feed back, and the ones lost in cyber space?.This query was inspired from a conversion/discussion between my CFI and myself. It is amazing the many different ideology's of the FARs! The best explanation put forth are the 1000.1 series!!! Love it!!.

Thanks again,

Rick

[Doug Riley]

Mike Boyette is correct about the original common-law rule of ownership that we inherited from Jolly Olde England. The rule makes reasonable sense in a pre-technological world. It started to cause problems when flying machines were invented. In the early days of aviation, there was quite a legal circus as individual aviators were sued for "trespassing" in their neighbors' airspace.

It's been the law for a long time now that airspace, like navigable waterways, is to be available for public transportation (even thought the ground-pounder down below still nominally owns it).

You might get a ruling out of a tradition-minded judge that you can fly up to (pick a number under 20) X feet above your own land in the exercise of those ancient residual rights. Don't expect the FAA to acknowledge this right without a fight, though. If they even cared in a given case.

[ffdriver]

Part 91 or part 103 is going to define the vehicle and how its operated, and part 61 defines 'who can fly it', but the FAA "owns the airspace". Controlled or uncontrolled, it's their sandbox and they let you play in it by their rules.

Now being realistic about it, if your in the middle of the Black Rock Desert outside Gerlach, NV, and it's not "Burning Man" week I can assure you the FAA isn't gonna be out there looking to bust you for violating their rules.

But if your flying (illegally) even if only over your own property, and people start complaining to their local FSDO or GADO; they will have to take some form of action.

[bryancobb]

Hi Guys,

An acquaintance named Mac Hodges, who was a farmer, in Americus in South Georgia, owned a Grumman spray plane and was doing his own agricultural spraying, as recently as the mid to late 90's, without ever holding any type of rating whatsoever. If I remember correctly, he had a waiver from the Atlanta FSDO. The waiver was probably based on a demostration in front of an FAA person(s)?

It looks like, according to the FAA, he finally got his license in 2010, but up until then he was spraying without it.

[birdy]

1000.1C Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the Administrator will immediately rewrite the Federal Aviation Regulations in such manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.
Priceless. :)
Unfortunatly, its`also true. :(

[Arnie Madsen]

Rick I made a light hearted attempt with our regulators to see if I could hover a helicopter on our private farm land.

A time expired Bell 47G was available for only $20k and I was wanting to coax another 100 hrs of hover time out of it at less than 3feet skid height. Turns out I was dreaming , the Franklin engine had no compression on one cylinder and was ready to throw some piston and connecting rod shrapnel.

But I thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth phone dialogue I had with the rule makers.

Using my legs , I could jump 3 feet into the air all day long and not break any aviation regulations.

I could jump 10 feet in the air from a trampoline and be OK.

I could build a ramp and fly my car through the air as much as I wanted. I could build a hovercraft and fly 18 inches over my private land without penalty.

I could fly a kite off my barn , or jump off a cliff , or hang onto a sheet of plywood on a windy day and it didn't matter to them.

Simply because every single inch I gained in altitude was immediately followed by a decent to the ground. Period.

But if I left the ground , even one inch , in any type of craft that had the potential to gain high altitude , I was now bound by aviation regulations. The air I was flying in could care less who owned the dirt underneath.

Whether I was in a hot air balloon , an old Cessna, a worn out helicopter , or a piece of plywood with an engine on it , I was in airspace and the aviation regulations applied.

The air I am flying in doesn't care if it is one inch over Chicago O'Hara International Concrete , or one inch over a dirt farm in Manitoba. The regulators view it the same way. Made sense to me.

I felt very fortunate that a learned regulator enjoyed the challenging questions I posed , and in the end I agreed with him. He seemed to have lots of free time for me , he is probably flying to Florida right now to escape our winter , and I am still here typing on frozen privately owned land . :)

[Arnie Madsen]

Kind of an afterthought comment about privately owned land. Private property is fundamental and maybe more important than air regulations.

Aviation regulations tend to keep flying machines at a minimum of 500 feet above people and private residences. This is good. Our aviation regulations have the underlying motive to prevent us from making a wreckage in somebodies front lawn. Most lawns are privately owned land. Crash somewhere else.

Most air rules are intended to protect private landowners and their families from damage in the skies , and damage from the skies. I think we win both ways. Just some thoughts.

If the Texas rancher wants special aviation rights to fly unrestricted low level over his land , I will not disagree with him.

But if I use those same laws to fly unrestricted over his land , he would wish the rules to be changed.

If I buzz 100 of his $2000 free range cattle and cause injury , we are talking big bucks , $200,000 damages. He could fix me with $5 of ammo , but then he would need a full time ground to air defense on his ranch. Much easier to use air regs.

I love Texas rules , and I chewed ten grams of Texas Beef Jerky while typing this . Damn that Texas beef is tough. Alberta Beef and Manitoba Beef is only sold in high end Texas restaurants because it is so tender and juicy.

We don't muster our beef from the air , or chase them 1000 miles to market . We just hold out a glass of ice cold Canadian Champagne and tell them they have a free trip to TEXAS . :)

They even load themselves on the truck. A pilot would call it self loading freight. Passenger airlines use the same terminology.

[WaspAir]

Hi Guys,

An acquaintance named Mac Hodges, who was a farmer, in Americus in South Georgia, owned a Grumman spray plane and was doing his own agricultural spraying, as recently as the mid to late 90's, without ever holding any type of rating whatsoever. If I remember correctly, he had a waiver from the Atlanta FSDO. The waiver was probably based on a demostration in front of an FAA person(s)?

It looks like, according to the FAA, he finally got his license in 2010, but up until then he was spraying without it.

I'm afraid that the only "waiver" of that type you have any hope of getting these days is one that says "Pilot Certificate" on it.

[hillberg]

As a FSDO friend said, Teather the helicopter to a wrench on a piece of string with no intent of flight or aerial navagation, As long as the wrench is in contact of the ground. I have no problem, But when you ball it up in your neighbors house ,That's where the Doo Doo hits the fan.

[bryancobb]

As a FSDO friend said, Teather the helicopter to a wrench on a piece of string with no intent of flight or aerial navagation, As long as the wrench is in contact of the ground. I have no problem, But when you ball it up in your neighbors house ,That's where the Doo Doo hits the fan.

Where there's a will...THERE'S A WAY! LOL

[RotorRambler]

Arnie,

I enjoy your take on things. If I'm ever confronted with an FAA hearing, I want you for my general counsel.

[KD>]

Hi All, a new guy again....and I'm kind of bummed out that I am finding many interesting topics that have more or less "died on the vine" with no one responding for months or years. I guess that's the price I pay for being late to the party. :violin:

However, I will give it a try anyway. Maybe I just like discussing things with myself. OK, very simply put, excessive regulation is far, far more evil than limited regulation. No, I am not an anarchist and no, I am not a wild-eyed, daredevil. I am just a plain old, older-than-middle-age scientist.

Since I have been in Australia I (and I do love this place, its beauty, its people, its hospitality and its concentration of excellent scientists in numbers way more than would be expected for its population size) I have noticed a terrible problem with over-regulation.

Being from the USA, I never realized how wonderful it was to be able to work in my home lab/shop on virtually ANY project or innovation, invention etc. There is much I hated about the USA but its previous lack of unnecessary regulation has brilliantly driven amazing innovation and entrepreneurship at a level greater than any other industrialized country.

Now, just like in the USA, there are always people that will say "if you don't like our regulation, why don't you just go back to the USA?" But the problem with this cliche' is that it implies that in Australia, private individual's new ideas and innovations are not welcome here. Is that true?

Probably the most frustrating to me is the zillions of regulations based on some politician's/"citizen interest group's" SPECULATION that something MIGHT cause harm. The amount of things, actions and techniques that are illegal because of POTENTIAL issues is astounding.

When I came here I was excited that I was going to be out in the country and would have over a 100 acres to tinker with my various flying machine ideas. Boy did that excitement deflate when I read the regulations. Without getting into details, let me just say that with Australia's air regulations, the Wright brothers would have never flown, civilian flying platforms would be invented, perfected and patented elsewhere long before a single Australian would ever be able to develop and/or patent them.

In fact, Australia's truly talented and brilliant individual inventors and scientists are locked out of the process unless they are part of, or specially-exempted by, the government. A study of history shows that many, many significant advances in aviation (and science)were made OUTSIDE of government's knowledge, much less its approval.

So, why do Australians put up with these sorts of over-regulated, nanny-state rules? I don't really know but I suspect it is a combination of fear, complacency, misplaced "good citizen responsibility" and a culture of people "doing what they are told" by the government.

No don't get me wrong. Some regulations, ESPECIALLY THOSE SUPPORTED BY HARD EVIDENCE OF CAUSALITY AND A PATTERN OF BAD OUTCOMES, are worth considering and passing. However, the passing of regulations should always be subject to the same scrutiny and standards of proof that any serious criminal laws are subject to.

When I moved here, I paid well-over $10,000 to ship over my laboratory equipment, specialized instruments and precision prototyping machine tools (milling machines, lathes, etc.) and titanium, aluminum and CrMo stock. Unfortunately, they are now sitting idle in their crates and boxes because I pretty much am not allowed to use them to build human-operated flying prototypes and various machines. As I subsequently found out from other American ex-pats, a few of them are in exactly the same boat and are sitting on valuable prototypes.

So,all of this restriction MUST be because of REALLY IMPORTANT, PROVEN SAFETY RISKs....RIGHT?

Sorry to say...NO!! Not ONE study of how many incident per year of people working on unapproved flying machines in rural areas, flying their prototypes into an unapproved neighbor's airspace or property. Not one study (or even a single report) of a non-participating person being injured or killed because of a non-approved-for flight, flying machine encroaching on a privately owned area.

In fact, the only flying machines that seem to crash on private property are those that have been approved to fly by a government agency. I am not saying that this means that the government should NOT APPROVE ANY AIRPLANES (though I bet some out there thought that was the obvious solution).

What I am saying is that the ONLY effect of government regulation on experimental testing on local, PRIVATE or permission-given, property is the SUPPRESSION OF INNOVATION! That's It! So, one can reasonably conclude that this sort of regulation's SOLE EFFECT is:

INNOVATION SUPPRESSION!

I challenge anyone to produce even a shred of evidence of any r:(eal-world benefits of these kind of regulations. I hope you all realize I am bringing this up because i really wanted to come here and launch an R&D laboratory and be able to develop and manufacture innovative products. I wanted to do well here and employ people and compete aggressively with America. Now, I am not sure that is an option any more. :(

But for now....I have just began to fight! I hope many Aussies will support my (and their own) efforts. :rant::rant:

[Murray Barker]

What exactly is it you want to fly?

If its gyro's you are talking about you are living in one of the easiest places in the world to own and fly one.

[brett s]

Great, just what we needed here - another tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

[gyromike]

Hi All, a new guy again....

(snip snip)

But for now....I have just began to fight! I hope many Aussies will support my (and their own) efforts. :rant::rant:

Why didn't you research the Australian aviation regulations before you moved all of your gear down there?

[KD>]

Hi Murray,

I do like the liberty gyro people have once they have completed their licenses and registered their machines (which, as I understand it, must meet various standards of "safe" design) with ASRA.

However, the machines I want to tinker with use some unconventional and/or non-standard designs. In order for me to experiment with and prove or disapprove the proof of concept, I need lots of money, specially-designated private testing facilities, specially licensed test pilots and a great deal of government documentation.

If I was a large company or super-well capitalized or if I could do it in partnership with some larger, more "connected" company...then it wouldn't be too difficult. But that is NOT who or what I am.

I operate on a shoestring and barely have the cash to pay for my tools and or parts. I sometimes make large changes one day and test them the next. It is possible that even at the very low altitudes I test at (usually below 15-20 feet) and even with my safety equipment, I might break a leg or worse. However, to date, the worst I have done is skin arms and legs under my armor and have given myself an occasional whack upside my helmet. I am careful and am not in any hurry to injure or kill myself.

Funny thing, in the past, many really important designs, innovations and inventions came about because of some "crackpot" messing around with something in his garage or barn. Do I think I am one of those special inventors? Probably not, but I won't ever know If I am not allowed to find out.

But as I understand it, as an independent researcher and technologist, I can't just go out and test on my land with me or a volunteer as the testers. I need lots more approvals, permits, dollars and hoops to jump through. But I'm just a little guy....not rolling in dough and not interested in selling my rights for the privilege of giving away my designs to someone else...assuming anyone were even interested.

So Murray, I am wanting to work on a couple of different simplified gyro propulsion systems. I have some preliminary designs that I would like to fire up and see if they are even practical. If they work, they have the potential to simplify a certain class of gyro for guys like me with little experience with standard gyros but a fair amount of experience with small specialized airplanes and highly-efficient propulsion systems. From that I became very interested in small gas turbines, super high-efficiency, rare earth motors and ducted fans.

In the end, both of those propulsion systems are going to be very important one day....even if nothing I do helps facilitate that. I would sure like giving my research a try.

Thanks for your interest!

Regards,
KD

[KD>]

Hi Mike,

Why didn't you research the Australian aviation regulations before you moved all of your gear down there?


OK, before I answer that, please let me dispel any POSSIBLE hostility some may be feeling because of my disagreement with what I perceive as 'over-regulation'. So, here goes:

1) I am NOT a troll (at least not in the Internet sense).
2) I am most definitely NOT ungrateful for the wonders and special privileges I have been granted by being allowed a resident visa here.
3) I really love this place and most of the terrific people I have met here.
4) It will do NO good to try to get me into a polemic where I whine about being here....it just ain't going to happen. I enjoy it here too much.
5) My disagreeing with something that objectively harms the people of Australia far more than it harms me is not the same as castigating Australians for not doing things MY WAY!

So, please put away the long knives and understand that I am NOT the enemy or a whinging American just running my mouth (well, at least not intending to sound that way).

Now to answer your question. I came here because my lovely fiancee' wanted to move from America, where she had spent the last three years with me, back here because her parents are getting old and sick. She wanted to be here for them if you get my drift.

So, I gave up my executive scientist position with a medium-sized international company in the USA, sold most of my personal possessions, had my lab and shop packed-up and shipped here and then jumped on Qantas with my fiancee' and headed to Melbourne. Once here and as planned, we went to stay with her parents on their horse ranch and we have been looking after them and helping out ever since.

After a year here, your government kindly granted me a permanent visa and has freed me up to work. So, being that I am a scientist specializing in R&D and applied energy physics products, I thought it was time to find something to do that I was good at rather than trying to convince various ill-tempered horses that I was there to be their best friend.

OK, so since I am here and not planning to leave very soon, I will be getting married here and will be here to help my fiancee' to look after her very wonderful folks (I never had much of a family so I think it is very important that she looks after hers as they age).

I have a great love of aviation and Australia is pretty darn advanced for a country of 22 million people in many areas of the sciences and some areas in aviation. So, it would not have mattered if I had checked the rules and regs here first, family takes precedence. And, if I find that I can't do anything in aviation, then I am sure I will find something else to do. My fiancee' and her folks come first now.

So, I'm sorry if I have offended you with my pointing out what many of you already know. If it pleases you and/or you agree that it is worth it that some forms of innovation are severely stifled by regulation, then by all means, change nothing. For now, I am just a guest here (at least until I get my dual citizenship) and am not here to make YOUR country, in my image. Nor to have you change anything for me. It was just a point I brought up for discussion.

In the sciences, we often say "Truth fears no rational inquiry" (actually it's a quote but I forgot who said it). My discussion of the regulations that are not helping me do research, I consider that a rational inquiry and, in my mind, worth discussing. If you think not and are offended, again, I apologize. Thank you for hearing me out.

Best Regards,
KD

[KD>]

Hi Brett,

I see from your comment that you consider my concern frivolous and "crackpot" in nature. I am sorry you feel that way. Frankly, if you all would prefer that move on elsewhere, I will understand and not hold it against any of you.

Unfortunately, I am not very good at being in a discussion forum and not discussing things. Many of the responses I get are how I learn. At the same token, My way of commenting/discussing might be too offensive for some (for which I apologize). Maybe you all would rather I leave so that you might have people around you that think and speak more like you do and "know their place".

If so, please let me know. As I said, I will not hold it against you and I will move on quietly and thank you for your earlier hospitality and information. Thank you.

Best Regards,
KD

[Boots]

Hey KD
Is testing propulsion systems illegal there... seems you could test on a test stand as most experimenters do and not advertise it.

[BEN S]

Hell man
I can't imagine the trouble I would get into with 100 acres at my disposal!
You got energetics to experiment with, flying things and maybe even flying energetic things!
It seems to me that you aren't taking your assets into full account, 100 acres affords you some serious privacy.
Ben S

[KD>]

Hi Rodney,

It is not really illegal here per se....and remember, I am FAR, FAR away from being an expert on Australian law/regulations. However, I don't really need to test that the propulsion systems work or their power outputs, they have already proven that. The issues I have are whether or not they will work attached to and confined to a free-floating craft and be smooth enough to control while in the air. Especially out of ground effect.

Additionally, I need to determine the effect on power consumption during lift generation while messing with generally unneeded lateral movement. All of the calculations in the world will not account for the many factors that cause excessive battery loads while airborne...in and out of ground effect. Finally, I need to be able to continuously change rotors and props will I am looking for various down/up wash patterns and effects on stability, power consumption (the less power need to compensate for drift, the more that can be used for remaining in the air). Finally, I have a two rotor system that has to be kept airborne at 20 feet....and stay that way for an hour or two.

I don't mean to be vague but there are a lot of measurements that are most effectively made when the test bed is free-floating and at the correct height & weight. Plus, the gas turbines I want to test are designed to turn a shaft that will swing a prop. They are very small, very light and very expensive. Think 35lbs for 125 hp. Finally, I want to test a parachute system that I can launch from 20 feet AGL. Kinda hard to do on a non-moving test stand.

Anyway, I'm not being real specific here. I just wanted to let you know that I would like to putter around with a couple of configurations while they are airborne and not under the most ideal of conditions. Nothing spectacular, just looking around for some things.

Thanks for the questions and feedback.

Regards,
KD

[NoWingsAttached]

I wonder...say a commercial pilot has a heart attack, and so does the co-pilot. Some guy goes up front and lands the plane. He is vilotaion of FAA regs, or there is a reg that exempts emergencies like that?

[KD>]

Hi Ben,

You make a great point. But, technically it is not "my" acreage. I am allowed to use it if I want (and I don't annoy the horses) and I don't get the law aggravated at me. However, there are plenty of people around and it is not really hidden or particularly private. From what I was told, I best not do anything that I can't clearly explain and justify to the police.

I suspect that if I was on/in something that was about 20 feet long and floated up to about 15-20 ft AGL, I would have many neighbors very interested....some too much so. Especially because the electric drive system doesn't make any noise and it would attract attention like crazy. The gas turbine, on the other hand , is pretty loud at this point and sounds like a small fighter jet.

If i start working and don't get all of the permits and jump through all of the hoops, I will probably be fined and shut down. That would be a very bad thing.

So, I am kind of at a loss for the moment. I was thinking of trying to get one of the aero-manufacturers at a nearby airport to lease me some hangar space and set-up an impromptu research lab. However, that would really be a pain since I do my best work near the house. That way I can get a hare-brained idea and just walk across the compound and go right to work.


Oh....and one other point...someone mentioned that my thoughts on over-regulation amounted to a "tinfoil hat", "conspiracy theory" (yeah, I don't understand it either)....I just wanted to make one thing clear about how I feel about human "conspiracies", to wit:

As a rule, humans are too stupid to plan, execute and maintain a conspiracy of more than a few people for any more than a week or two. I am not sure why I got labeled by someone with that pejorative since I don't EVER consider humans capable of any sort of conspiracy more sophisticated than mice are capable of.

But I suppose if you don't have a rational argument and would rather try to discredit a perfectly legitimate question by ignoring the facts and making up some lame allegation to deride the concept, and to make others laugh, you might divert them from considering that the facts that the points brought up are completely valid....then such a lame tactic might be understandable.

Though I admit to being disappointed that such an attack came from someone in the aviation community. It is a shame.

Thanks for your time.
Regards,
KD

[birdy]

So, why do Australians put up with these sorts of over-regulated, nanny-state rules? I don't really know but I suspect it is a combination of fear, complacency, misplaced "good citizen responsibility" and a culture of people "doing what they are told" by the government.
Firstly, your not liven in Oz, your liven on the Oz coast.
Compleatly different planet.
If your in the middle, they wouldnt even know you were ere.

If your lookn for room to move, iv got 1100 squ miles ere the guvment dont know bout. ;)

And your rite, the reason why the govment gests away with it is coz 99% of its 'loyal subjects/peasants' just bend over n take it up the ***.

[KD>]

Greg,

I have to say that to my knowledge (which is very limited under the best of circumstances---so be WARNED...I am no lawyer or expert) it is technically illegal to operate any aircraft (not part 103 which would not be considered an aircraft anyway), flying, preparing to fly or immediately able to fly without a license unless you are accompanied by a properly licensed PIC other than yourself. The PIC must be prepared to claim all actions that you take as their actions. The other condition is one where a student, properly licensed as same, operates a plane solo per the rules of solo-flight-in-training. Please do not quote me on this as this is how I learned it and I won't swear that it is 100% true.

Additionally, in times of life-threatening emergency where no other licensed pilot is available, an unlicensed person may take over flying an aircraft with the intentions of landing as soon and as safely as is possible. Said unlicensed person, if at all possible, is to remain in radio communications with ATC, a licensed pilot, an experienced less-than-licensed-pilot or any other person who is more familar with aircraft operations than yourself with the intentions of minimizing the risk to ALL persons, including those on the ground as well as the ones in the aircraft. All efforts should be made, if at all possible, to quickly move the aircraft to an area of the least risk to human life and property before any attempt to land is made. Barring that, attempts to bring the plane down as safely as possible should begin immediately. Under most situations, the "good samaritan(s)" involved in this action, shown to be intending to do the safest thing possible, will be held harmless for the attempt to take over and land, even if not successful (lawyer weasel language).

So, technically it is illegal....but practically defensible if shown to be for good Samaritan purposes. To my knowledge, no one has been prosecuted for legitimately taking over the controls of an aircraft in an emergency. That includes the case of an unlicensed 12 year old kid taking a parked airplane from the middle of nowhere and flying his mostly unconscious and dying grandfather to the nearest area with medical care, without any assistance whatsoever (don't know if that is an urban legend as I heard it many years ago from an old phart like me at a Lakeland fly-in).

I suspect this involves a lot of common sense and, in most cases, a judge would throw out such a case. And, if the judge didn't do it, then the jury would practice nullification and find "not guilty". And if that didn't work, most governors would issue a complete pardon and an honorary good citizen award.

All that being said, TSA/Homeland Security has numerous rules/laws/powers that would allow them to immediately take the good Samaritan into custody, not charge him/her with any crime, lock them away without putting them on trial for a crime nor allowing them a lawyer and then hold them indefinitely. They would be allowed to torture the good Samaritan in order to obtain the names of others in his "cell" and to provide information on the next flight takeover by fellow Samaritans. Technically, they could legally assassinate him and deny the whole thing since he was a potential threat to national security and a likely terrorist.

Supposedly these powers are outlined in what Americans call the "Patriot Act" (LOL!! the lulu of ALL misnomers!) and the new NDAA, all rushed though and passed by congress to protect the laws from being overturned by public outrage. Those laws allow for the implementation of immediate martial law if the public should try to resist the enforcement of these laws.

OK, that's my take on things. I will swear to none of it but I will say this is how I have had it explained to me by sensible sources. So I believe virtually all of it.

Best Regards,
KD>

[KD>]

Hi Birdy,

Even if you are not serious, I really enjoyed reading your post! Your attitude is one that many, many Americans cherish and respect. I am in complete agreement and have a great deal of respect for anyone who stands up for doing the right thing in the face of intense peer pressure. You are to be commended and looked up to as an honorable man I would be proud to know.

If you are serious, I would enjoy checking things out. But, since I am a guest in your country (though I plan to achieve dual citizenship if possible) I will NEVER violate any Australian laws, under any circumstances. Nothing I want to do would drive me to break your laws for any reason.

Your government has been very kind to me and has been very helpful getting my resident visa processed. As such, agree with various things or not, I will follow your laws and never make those that have helped me get here, regret their kindness. Sorry to sound like a coward, but I am honor-bound to support those who supported me. It is the kindness of the Australian people that has made it possible to allow me to be here with my fiancee' during this most difficult of times for her.

That being said, I will encourage others to follow your laws as well. If I think something is bad for Australia, I will question the need for it as much is considered acceptable in my current position. I will not "rabble rouse" or encourage others to do so. I will encourage legal, civil discussion and dissent where it is appropriate and allowed. However, I will do everything in my power to conduct myself as a "good resident" and try to always make it clear that legal and proper dissent is all that I will support no matter what. And this would only be for the reason to help other Australians, not just myself, as a fortunate guest.

I am sorry that I am not a good example of someone who is coming to Australia to "fight" for others rights. But, I do know my place and do recognize that no one 'owed' me anything allowing me to come here. I am very grateful to be here and I do not expect Australia to change to accommodate me. Quite the opposite in fact. I intend to change in order to be as "good an Australian" as I possibly can be.

But, I would definitely enjoy getting together with you and discussing what sort of testing you would allow on your property. Such wide-open spaces would allow for testing rotor-tipped, refillable rockets, emergency parachutes (two different types e.g., one mounted underneath the craft which would immediately fire back and upwards if the craft tumbles and the rotor begins to break-up or mounting on the rotor head assembly designed to shoot upwards, above the spinning rotors. With proper rockets, it should be possible to lift the craft high enough to get full inflation of the canopy before dropping in a controlled descent.

All sorts of things that I hope to test and design or test. Please let me know! Thank you!

Best Regards,
KD>

[birdy]

I will NEVER violate any Australian laws, under any circumstances.
Id never break any laws either, cept the ones that are there to be broke.
And theres sh1tloads of them in this country.
Mostly ritn by wankers who never lived outside a airconditioner.

Theres only one law ere; if you so much as think the word 'sue', itll be with your last breath.
Everyone ere is responsable for everythn they do.

Such wide-open spaces would allow for testing
We got room ere to test big bombs, but i wouldnt let that happen.
The only problem with buildn anythn ere is, well, every aspect of buildn sumthn. Your hundreds of miles from nowhere, the roads are crap, and wen they are good, you still cant drive on them. Any specialty materials cant be found ANYWHERE in Oz of any real quality and freight companies still dont know where central Oz is. [ apparently 'the center' is a little too hard for them to understand.]

Oh, nearly forgot, theres usualy a million flies ere too.

[KD>]

Hi Birdy,

It sounds like a great place to test stuff. I wish I could say that I have never blown up anything accidentally. But, I still have memories of a couple of gas jets, both a shaft drive and a pure thruster, that I either caused to cook-off or were part of a small group that caused them to cook-off. In either case, we concluded later that, had we known what we were doing, we might not have trashed our very nice little jets. I was a lot younger then and learned a very expensive but unforgettable lesson.

Now I am just an ole' phart making sure that when I am in Rome, I do as the Roman's do. Seems to me that there is a fairly large contingent of folks here who treasure each and every regulation, logical or not. Many of those very same folks consider it their mission in life to be sure everyone else does everything exactly as the regulations describe. Often, these people nearly worship the rule books and will virtually ALWAYS fallback, when challenged about their support for a given rule, on the fact that rules ONLY exist to make the sport safe for everybody.

Whether or not I agree with such statements or whether or not I think that aviation is an intrinsically dangerous activity and that it is not possible to remove all of its risks, doesn't matter at all. I have to say that if it's the law then I follow it a 100%. In the USA, we have lots of rules, regulations and laws that are made under the guise of safety but are actually put out there just because of politics, knee-jerk reactions by ignorant politicians, a means for special interests to protect their profits/powerbases or are just created because of unverified pseudo-science. In other words, many USA rules and regs exist, or are biased, for a a lot of bad reasons and not based on safety. The ones intended for safety are usually fairly obvious and virtually anyone with a brain follows them without question.

However, I am a new guy to Australia. From what I have been told so far, ALL Australian air rules, regs and laws are made for only two reasons and those are safety and/or the betterment of aviation. In fact, even the really restrictive rules are worth it because despite them being really crushing to small inventors and developers, the loss of innovation and technological advancement is well worth it because it keeps the sport SAFE for everyone. As such, there are plenty of folks out there more than happy to report ANY violations of any rules for the betterment of everyone in aviation.

Well being an American, I realize that we don't have good sense and are too used to being "cowboys" willing to take risks in order to advance science and technology. I realize that such an attitude is irresponsible and not acceptable here in Australia. The rules, regs and laws here may make it very, very hard to make any advances, but it is still much better to be behind others in aviation so long as we are the leaders in being safe, responsible and compliant. What good is advancement if people are unruly, don't follow the law precisely and take risks?

So, I have some equipment, some ideas, some parts, some designs and some tools that will just have to remain packed away so that we all can be very, very safe.

Regards,
KD

[KD>]

Hi Birdy,

I sent you a PM. Thanks.

Regards,
KD

[KD>]

Coming from the part 103 world, I am not sure my opinions matter much on this subject but I'll give it a try. Having grown-up in northwest Florida, it was not uncommon that we would be airboating, and find a narrow land bridge or a huge mass of waterlogged branches and decide to jump it. We'd crank up the Lycoming powering the airboat, run in as tight a circles as we had the balls to, and then "snap the whip" and fly over the obstruction. It always looked and felt impressive even if it did usually dent the crap out of the keel and/or hull.

Obviously, the boats with largest engine power to weight ratio and the flattest hull to weight ratio had the largest effect on how far (and high) one could fly. No one ever bothered us about "flying", even if we grabbed 5 to 10 feet of air. Though if you wrecked and got caught you would get a reckless boating ticket. Other than that, everyone ignored it.

So, based on what has been said here, is that not an FAA violation?

[WaspAir]

So, based on what has been said here, is that not an FAA violation?

Not a violation.
Other acts not requiring a pilot's certificate:
Evel Knievel jumping a motorcycle over 14 buses
riding a hovercraft
Olympic ski jumping
NBA dunks
Accidentally driving off the roof of a parking garage structure
Flying a kite

There's more common sense built into the rules than you might realize.

[HobbyCAD]

From what I have been told so far, ALL Australian air rules, regs and laws are made for only two reasons and those are safety and/or the betterment of aviation. In fact, even the really restrictive rules are worth it because despite them being really crushing to small inventors and developers, the loss of innovation and technological advancement is well worth it because it keeps the sport SAFE for everyone. As such, there are plenty of folks out there more than happy to report ANY violations of any rules for the betterment of everyone in aviation.


I think you have it wrong. There are no more regs here than in the US. We are not over-regulated, we are under-"criminalized". I'm not biased in my opinion, I'm an ex-pat as well.

As the program manager, also in charge of system development at a small Part-23 aircraft manufacturer, we have the ability to test anything, anywhere. The CASA regulations do not restrict us. There is a legal way to attach an engine to a bedstead, and attempt to make it fly.

The "I'll dob you in" crowd does leave a bad taste in my mouth.....