[wingspan33]

This is the complete law. Much of it doesn't have that much relevance to hang gliding activities. I've bolded what I believe are the more important areas.

From - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103

U.S. Code, Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.—

(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for—

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.

(3) To establish security provisions that will encourage and allow maximum use of the navigable airspace by civil aircraft consistent with national security, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall—

(A) establish areas in the airspace the Administrator decides are necessary in the interest of national defense; and

(B) by regulation or order, restrict or prohibit flight of civil aircraft that the Administrator cannot identify, locate, and control with available facilities in those areas.

(4) Notwithstanding the military exception in section 553 (a)(1) of title 5, subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 applies to a regulation prescribed under this subsection.

(c) Foreign Aircraft.— A foreign aircraft, not part of the armed forces of a foreign country, may be navigated in the United States as provided in section 41703 of this title.

(d) Aircraft of Armed Forces of Foreign Countries.— Aircraft of the armed forces of a foreign country may be navigated in the United States only when authorized by the Secretary of State.

(e) No Exclusive Rights at Certain Facilities.— A person does not have an exclusive right to use an air navigation facility on which Government money has been expended. However, providing services at an airport by only one fixed-based operator is not an exclusive right if—

(1) it is unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for more than one fixed-based operator to provide the services; and

(2) allowing more than one fixed-based operator to provide the services requires a reduction in space leased under an agreement existing on September 3, 1982, between the operator and the airport.

[Bill Cummings]

Rod Houser gave me a handbook put out either before USHPA or after USHGA that was put out by one of the two about opening airports to hang gliding and possibly paragliding.

I know I still have that book here somewhere.

The just of it said that if an airport had received any funding from City, State, County or Federal monies at anytime in the past or currently that the airport would have to accommodate the publics right to fly. If a pilot was prohibited from flying and the airport didn’t accommodate you in some fashion they could be stripped from receiving any future funding. (It’s all about the money.)

A pilot could request that the FAA Safety Inspector contact and inspect the airport (which wouldn’t be fun) and find out why the pilot was being refused.
The FBO could be chased down the runway by the FAA inspector with a knife and cut off----(This is from memory two decades ago so it’s not verbatim.)

Rod Houser opened the Tomah (sp?) Airport in Wisconsin and the Cottonwood AZ airport that I’m sure of and maybe more - for towing hang gliders.
Rod told me they really didn’t have a choice otherwise they would smother under red tape from the FAA.

I could look for that book put out by USHGA (I think) but maybe there is a terms of service or copyright that will prevent me from quoting from it. (You know how they are.)

[JoeF]

Air rights?
Study start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

Land-use rights stemming from historical traditional use? For over a century Torrey Pines cliffs has received gliding experimenting efforts by citizens. Such use may be masked by uncontested concession sell-out of historical use. I am only at the beginning of knowing anything about this approach to the public land at TP. The arena of beach access has notes some toward this tack: http://www.beachapedia.org/Beach_Access

How Oregon almost lost public access to its beaches

[wingspan33]

From the "Felon" thread -

Wingspan33,
In Arizona if there is public land in back of someone’s property and there is a gate on the private property and the road leads to the public land they have a law where the AZ Fish And Game laws come into play.

It is typical there for a person to stop their vehicle at the gate and get out and go the post that has the Fish and Game cards to be signed including you license plate number, hang a mirror numbered tag with a corresponding card to be placed in the mail slot on the post. I don’t remember if there was a fee but if there was it was small or I would have gone postal. So the gate could be opened and the vehicle has to stay on the road and go directly to public land.

The illegal private property owners do it like this.
They put a combination lock on the gate with a sign that says for access call this phone number (whatever #). They screen their calls with an answering machine and don’t pick up. You never find out what the combination is. You go home.
I have written letters to the three different land owners behind the one gate asking for the combination after giving them all my contact information. And asking them to call me collect or mail the information to me in the self addressed envelope, postage paid. === NOTHING.
Is it worth the trouble to take the crooks to court?
No I will not put up with that irritation.
It takes someone like Bob to tolerate that level of low life's.
I think that's really how life works. If someone is being a jerk they will only yield to a bigger jerk. (talking about actions here not Bob)

The situation at Torrey is a hybrid of your example. The concessionaire is not a private land owner. It is only a business (squatter) on public property. A valid lease once existed which named a "Flight Director" who, during that time was given the responsibility to oversee flight operations. But as things stand at this time the lease is invalid and the position of Flight Director is just as invalid.

However, if the City of San Diego has (ever) received Federal funds connected with its City Park system, then flight (launching and landing) activities can't be denied to ANY citizen of the US at that site. At least that's how I'm interpreting the Federal law. I think it's a fair interpretation.

[Bill Cummings]

Right of Transit Thru Navigable Airspace

As another example of how land owners will illegally block transit on public lands that I have first hand knowledge of happened while scouting a tow area on BLM lands close to private land.

With a 7 and a half minute Geological Survey Map and my GPS I can find a survey pin within spitting distance at best and an under hand stone toss at worst.

At a gate on a road the sign said private property no trespassing. As I checked for a lock and turned on my GPS two German Pilots from Holloman Air Base near Alamogordo NM drove up to me on their dirt bikes. They read the sign and I told them the sign was illegal I’m going through the gate and I’ll close after we go through if you like. They conferred with each other and decided to turn around and leave. The sign should have been on the next gate one mile to the north.
At best the rancher only had grazing rights in back of the fence and gate.
I stopped at the BLM office in Las Cruces and reported the illegal sign. The field officer told me he would be out that way the next day and if the sign was where I said it was he would take it down.

Another trick jerks use is to put a chain and lock on the gate but then don’t push the lock shut. It just looks like it’s locked. (Dummy locked)

Another deception while technically following the law is to close the lock on the chain but the chain can be undraped and is really not secured.

Still another deception that I’ve found in New Mexico is the lock and chain is secure but you can left the gate off of the hinge pins and let the chain now be the hinge point to swing the gate open.

People will go to all measures to privatize land for themselves and they have no right to do it. They are little empire builders that should be hung. (Free rope here just come and pick it up.)

In Minnesota private property surrounding a lake must allow public access.

To my way of thinking the City of San Diego has no authority to even convey to a lessee let alone a squatter the power to block the public's use of the glider port when the public had that right for near one hundred years.

[wingspan33]

Bill I think you (and our group's thinking) is on the money.

Look up the concept of the "Public Trust". This is a VERY OLD legal concept. It defines that private interests can not block the public from access to, or navigation upon, (originally) waterways. The right to access and navigation was placed in the Public Trust. This is Black Letter law. That essentially means it can not be legally refuted/denied. I even told Bob about this long established "rule of law" many months ago.

The "Public Trust" legal concept, bound - as it MUST be - to a US citizen's right of transit through navigable airspace, means that access to that airspace can not be denied! Just as it was determined, long ago, that private parties (or small governing bodies?) can not interfere with a citizen's right to navigate upon the water. The difference that is not a difference in this case means that the Public Trust applies equally to having the free ability to access locations that allow a person the right of transit through the airspace above the US.

The combination of a US citizen's "Right of Transit" and the Black Letter legal concept of the Public Trust create a VERY SOLID case against several parties who are currently acting to thwart those rights!



Note - This applies most certainly to access points on publicly owned lands.

[wingspan33]

Air rights?
Study start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

Land-use rights stemming from historical traditional use? For over a century Torrey Pines cliffs has received gliding experimenting efforts by citizens. Such use may be masked by uncontested concession sell-out of historical use. I am only at the beginning of knowing anything about this approach to the public land at TP. The arena of beach access has notes some toward this tack: http://www.beachapedia.org/Beach_Access

How Oregon almost lost public access to its beaches

Joe,

Along the lines of your above quoted post -

I've found long standing law (a number of years ago) about the use of land.

In my case, I had been accessing a group of large adjacent hay fields by way of a vacant lot a block away from my home. I would walk my dog (off leash) in that area.

Well, the lot was developed and 3 rental homes built there. While the once vacant lot was clearly owned by someone, I had established a right of way (by continuous use) to cross the property in order to gain access to the adjoining hay fields. Since there was ample space between the buildings to continue crossing over to the hay fields I "technically" had a right to continue doing so.

But I saw my problem as being, . . . the (non resident) property owner and/or renters would probably NOT know the laws that existed that gave me the right to cross their property. Result - Maybe I'd have been arrested for trespass. Result - I stopped crossing over to the hay fields. But if I had wanted to I should have been able to continue using my "right of way" path to the hay fields.

Joe,

I'm connecting your point above to the (essentially?) closed down Torrey Pines Glider Port (where the sail planes typically launched). As I understand it, that facility is (at this point) owned by UCSD. Clearly that University receives Federal funds - from MULTIPLE sources! And, . . . as you say, the Glider Port has established historical significance as an air navigation facility used by US citizens for entry into the navigable airspace above Torrey Pines. I understand that "permits" are issued by UCSD to allow flight activities - but that no such permits have been issued for a number of years.

I would ask, how is it that US citizens are being denied their (historically established) access to navigable airspace by way of the (old) Torrey Pines Glider Port? What law(s) give the State of California (via UCSD) the legal ability to circumvent other established Federal and Black letter laws?

What gets me is that it seems that the City of San Diego has put a group of THUGS in charge of excluding certain US citizen pilots from Torrey Pines City Park (and its air navigation facilities). While, at the same time, the State of California (via UCSD) is also denying US citizens use of a long established and recognized air navigation facility known as Torrey Pines Glider Port.

This doesn't seem right in MANY ways. And as has been said before - If a citizen, or group of citizens, fails to assert their rights, then they shouldn't be too surprised when they lose those rights all together. Perhaps it's time for an Assertion of Rights!

[JoeF]

Just launch.
Just land.
Simply do not recognize someone selling such actions.
Someone calls police: "He launched!" "Arrest the launcher!"
Court shown: Launching has been occurring for about a century.
Court decides: OK for citizens of USA to launch into FAA governed non-privatized airspace without having to pay a volatile private business operator that lies about the airspace by a false push in its advertising pretending to have essentially privatized that which has not been privatized.
--------------------------
==================
Horses have been launching into the airspace.
Birds launch regularly.
Insects launch regularly.
High jumpers launch regularly.
Runners launch into the airspace regularly.
Hopping people launch into the airspace regularly.
Pole vaulters launch regularly into the airspace.
Dust launches into the airspace regularly.
Some surfers launch into the airspace.
People at public recreation parks launch into the air regularly: runners, jumpers, rope jumpers, high jumpers, long jumpers, hoppers, swing seat-leaver launchers, etc.
MEANWHILE, hot dog stands are permitted to sell hot dogs.
Stores are permitted to sell jumping shoes, wings, harnesses, etc.
But the forced selling of launching for runners, jumpers, HGs, etc. violates the traditional launching open to dust and people and birds for thousands of years.
Quit the usurpation of the privilege to launch into FAA navigable airspace!

=====================
The Concessionaire has grabbed aspects of life that it has no right to grab. Let it grab and keep ... and risk losing.
Just launch from the public park and do not pay a dime for such launching.

Another tactic: Come into the airspace with others regularly without launching or landing on the patch of grass. Have 20 HGs regularly doing such. Have no radios. VFR. Let the Concessionaire dance and whistle and yell an unearned set of commands; it does not have private rights over the airspace. e-HGs might be needed; some private launch/land space might be needed during the test phase of the open airspace.

========== Or:
City of San Diego, wake up and be firm to establish "Taking Turns" ... Concessionaire launches one of its commercial flights of phony joyride tandem-waiver-breaking deals. Then Public Citizen Park User person takes next turn and launches. Etc. Count the Concessionaire Commercial Flights; count the public-citizens waiting to launch; make equitable balance. Maybe 10 public citizens and 2 commercial persons are in queue: then each fifth run is commercial launch; the other four of each five would be public park recreationists. Cure the unfortunate grab of recreational launching sold out to a Concessionaire. If needed, recreationists pay the City a small fee for launch maintenance (recall how the Concessionaire deliberately went against the City and watered and planted ignoring the City's directive).
Hot dog stand does not stop runners from running, jumpers from jumping, HGs from launching .... not normally. Correct the wrong that is being lived out at TPGP public park.

Just launch.

The Concessionaire will rant and rave probably. Concessionaire will try to hold on to what does not really belong to them. Concessionaire may still advertise what is equivalent to a privatization of federal airspace that has been open to aviation by birds and humans for ages.

=================
FAA itself gets into hot water:
http://www.natca.org/ULWSiteResources/n ... l_2002.pdf
Apparently the FAA has had some efforts to relinquish control to private companies; apparently courts are saying "No" to such privatization efforts.

Message? FAA, keep the control; do not give the governmental function over to private companies.

TP? FAA guide is adequate. Pilots are to respect the safe guides already in place. The overlay of a stark for-PG-profit hot dog stand over the FAA federal airspace degrades the airspace safety. Aircraft coming into the airspace should not have to put up with hot dog stand's whimsical self-serving rules. The unearned tacit privatizing "control" by the hot-dog-PG stand is increasingly installing accidents to happen.
=================

[brianscharp]

swing seat-leaver launchers

That was my first method of launching. I took pride in being the highest and furthest. I'd bail at the top of the arc and do a half twist so I was facing the swing when I landed, then ball-up and roll backward to break the fall. I used the same landing method for distance. A fearless four year old I was. Probably one of the reasons my back gives me grief. Sorry for the detour, it just struck a memory.

Maybe you could get some big friends to run passive interference while you set-up and launch.

[JoeF]

Ever treasure those swing launches! I like your twist and back roll!
==================
Add to the list at parks: parents launching their kids into the public airspace using parental arms to lift and toss ...


================================
Click for history note on women flying in the airspace:


=========================================
Some high-aspect ratio wings spread to help the flight through the airspace at significant altitude: