This sounds to me like Oregon is trying to regulate airspace. The FAA is pretty
touchy about this as they seem to think that's their jusridiction. I would contact
the local AOPA rep and see if they know about this. AOPA is pretty good in dealing
with local and state laws that may adversely effect their members. If a state is
allowed to regulate airspace, this would clearly be bad for the members (not mention
modelers).
-Ben
Dave Seay wrote:
>
> Since, it seems many, if not most of us, do not lurk at the
> rec.models.rc.soaring newsgroup, I thought I'd bring this thread over
> here...
>
> I found this on the power news group but it pertains to sailplanes as
> well....
>
> "The following change to current Oregon state laws is being considered. The
> link works
>
> http://www.leg.state.or.us/01reg/measures/sb0001.dir/sb0048.intro.html
>
> (x) A site for the takeoff and landing of model aircraft,
> including such buildings or facilities as may reasonably be
> necessary. Buildings or facilities shall not be more than 500
> square feet in floor area or placed on a permanent foundation
> unless the building or facility preexisted the use approved under this
> paragraph. { + A surface used for takeoff and landing of
> model aircraft must not be located within 1,000 feet of the
> property boundary of an adjacent property owner. The operator of a model
> aircraft taking off from or landing on the site may not
> fly the model aircraft over the property of any adjacent property owner,
> unless the adjacent property owner has given written
> consent. Written consent may be revoked. + }The site shall not include an
> aggregate surface or hard surface area unless the
> surface preexisted the use approved under this paragraph. As used in this
> paragraph, 'model aircraft' means a small-scale version
> of an airplane, glider, helicopter, dirigible or balloon that is used or
> intended to be used for flight and is controlled by
> radio, lines or design by a person on the ground.
>
> Read, consider the implications and weep. Or read, consider the
> implications, consider the possible causes and other solutions and write."
>
> This was originally posted by Jim Branaum, [EMAIL PROTECTED], AMA 1428
>
> Now, granted we don't need 'runways' to launch but the limitation on flying
> over someone else's property seems a little excessive.
>
> I am of the understanding that the law holds that a person owns the area
> above his or her property up to a REASONABLE height and that this is
> generally held to be the height of the tallest element of or on that
> property. If it was unlimited, we could demand a 'toll' for airliners
> flying over out houses!
>
> I wonder how this all might affect 'slopers' as I would think that is big in
> Oregon.
>
> Dave
>
> RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
>"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and
"unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
