Posted on 11/02/2025 9:05:23 AM PST by Red Badger
The article you posted answers your question. The FAA has jurisdiction over US air space. The tribe has no say.
All of it is actually correct.
I have done research on the subject which you have not.
They don't control the airspace, the U.S. government controls all the airspace over the U.S. including indian reservations.
Technically correct. Factually irrelevant in this case. The Air Commerce act, Civil Aeronautics Act, United States v. Causby, Griggs v. County of Allegheny, Branning v. United States and many others established that in certain areas you may not fly below a certain point.
I deserve reparations..for being the good little citizen slave paying for all of this.
50 to 150 thousand bucks for a Stinson.
Yup I’d steal it Back!
Indian giver?
That’s okay. They’ll all just take turns riding in it by pushing it down the side of a mesa.
“All airspace above the US is US controlled and it NOT owned by the tribe. He should sue them in federal court.”
This.
Are these German indians?
“I have to follow orderz!”
You got that right. It only encourages a lot of corruption. Subprime lenders incorporate on reservations to avoid state usury laws across the country. Many other examples of businesses that cloak themselves in the native land exemption to export contract conditions that violate state law.
I think native Americans are very foolish in terms of their public image in instances like this. It’s like taking the “Indians” out of the “Cleveland Indians”, or the “Redskins”, etc., etc., etc. Go ahead and insist on removing all references. It will be one less occasion to think of Native Americans, which seems to be their problem, in the first place.
Cut off federal money until the plane is returned.
I’ll bet they’ve already done that with “their” plane. “It’s our thunderbird, now.”
Wait until they try to cook big bird.
You’re citing some of the precedent-setting cases regarding aircraft noise litigation, but don’t understand the actual implications. First, local jurisdictions can’t control aviation activity/use of airspace over their land. This “Indian nation” can pass all the laws or ordinances it wants, but they have precisely zero effect upon the NATIONAL airspace. That’s why it’s called the “National Airspace System”, or “NAS” for short. Only the federal government has jurisdiction over the NAS, as effected through the FAA and Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). Local political entities and landowners are barred by federal preemption from interfering with the use of airspace.
What those entities or landowners CAN do is initiate civil litigation against the federal government, or a local government (for example, a city that owns and controls an airport) for a “taking” under the U.S. Constitution. Under a takings claim, a property owner does have some right to the airspace over their property, to the extent that flying through it negatively effects the “use and enjoyment” of their property, BUT that right ends where “navigable airspace” begins (for reasons I just cited).
I’ve been personally involved in numerous “takings” and “damages” claims over aircraft noise (I used to manage the aircraft nose abatement program for Denver International Airport). Every homeowner who sued lost under both a takings claim and a parallel damages claim. The judges involved, in the case of the takings claims, applied a test that required the plaintiffs to prove that aircraft flying over their property were not within navigable airspace, and generally used the minimum operating altitudes specified in FAR Part 91 (500’ AGL over a “non-congested” area and 1,000’ AGL over a “congested” area). They actually were too lenient in those particular cases, because Part 91 exempts aircraft from any minimum altitude at all when they are “in the process of taking off or landing” (for obvious reasons), which applied in most of the Denver cases. The homeowners’ damages claims, separate from their takings claims, are not relevant to this particular discussion, but they lost those as well, though in part due to specific precedent in Colorado law that makes those claims more difficult here than in some other states (they have to prove that the damages they suffered are “different in kind, and not merely in degree” to those experienced by the public at large - a nearly impossible standard to meet).
And one final thing: No matter what this tribe may try to claim regarding their misperceived ability to affect air traffic passing over their land, they have NO right whatsoever to confiscate an aircraft from its owner, period.
It’s the same with native Hawaiian “homestead” lands. They use the “sacred land” as garbage dumps. Burned out cars, garbage, appliances, all just dumped on the side of the road.
There is a reservation in Northern California. The Weitcpek (spelling) tribe dump is a pull out on the side of the road along the Klamath river where they just dump everything right in to the river. That’s the same river the state is removing all the dams so the tribes can have their “sacred fishing grounds” restored.
He was an airman in distress. With no engine obviously he would break the altitude deck.
I suspect they will keep the plane or charge an exorbitant amount.
This guy should watch a few episodes of Airplane Repo then go get his plane back !
If he sneaks one the reservation and fly it home what could they do ?
But was the pilot under 20,000 feet over the reservation before he had the emergency event? The emergency event would not be relevant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.