Hello Backcountry Pilots,

Came across this Federal Law 36 US CFR 261.13 at work today. It appears that we as backcountry pilots have the legal right to land on Forest Service property if it isn't designated "wilderness". Note: Aircraft are exempt. There are a lot of cool places I've always wanted to land on FS (designated) property to hunt, fish, camp & explore. Now I have a specific law on my side. Please don't screw it up!

Merry Christmas

James
Clear Creek, Idaho

How would bicycles come into the picture ?

If one were to unload a mountain bike from the back of a Bearhawk...would that be cool or would that be frowned upon?

Denali wrote:How would bicycles come into the picture ?

If one were to unload a mountain bike from the back of a Bearhawk...would that be cool or would that be frowned upon?

As far as I know, no bikes in the "wilderness", game carts, wheelbarrows or even wheels on your beer cooler. Sat phones, propane stoves, battery powered stereos, and trails covered with horse sh#t are cool with the FS. I think bicycles are OK on any other FS property not designated as "wilderness" .

James

Since I started ski flying a few years back, I have noticed that I see snowmobile tracks all over the place, places where you'd never think to ride a dirt bike or ATV in the summer. It makes for murky legality, that whole "over the snow" concept, landowners that'd bitch like hell in the summer if you were on wheels, give you a pass come winter, at least around here. If you never touch the ground, does it count as a landing?

You might want to take a look at the legend on a sectional chart. This is printed on it.

Waterboy wrote:You might want to take a look at the legend on a sectional chart. This is printed on it.

Hello Waterboy,

I would agree that landings are prohibited within the areas depicted by solid blue lines and dots on the sectional chart is correct. The legend on the sectional chart is however not quoting specific Federal Law. The sectional chart legend verbiage would have you believe that landing on any Forest Service designated property is prohibited. This is simply not true in accordance with 36 United States Code 261.13. This law supersedes all state and local laws. The specific law was brought to my attention by a Federal Judge in a case recently. The defendant won his case of landing on Forest Service property within Washington State.

There are thousands, if not millions of acres of Forest Service designated property that is not depicted as "wilderness", "wildlife areas" etc. This is Our land, American land that can be utilized with respect and common sense. I plan to carry a copies of this law in my airplane. If I am ever questioned by FS personnel on FS designated property, I will simply give them a copy. CFR 261.15 (use of vehicles off road) does state that you can't operate as to become a hazard, so be careful.

Merry Christmas,

James
Clear Creek, Idaho
& PS: Zane, thanks for the new spell check and all your efforts on BCP

Super-Maule wrote:...The specific law was brought to my attention by a Federal Judge in a case recently. The defendant won his case of landing on Forest Service property within Washington State...

James, is there a place we can get a copy of the Federal Judge's decision? Might be good to carry that as well.

Thanks for sharing this, I'll have copies with me as well.

Barnstormer wrote:

Super-Maule wrote:...The specific law was brought to my attention by a Federal Judge in a case recently. The defendant won his case of landing on Forest Service property within Washington State...

James, is there a place we can get a copy of the Federal Judge's decision? Might be good to carry that as well.

Thanks for sharing this, I'll have copies with me as well.

Greetings Mr. Barnstormer,

I'll see what I can do. It will be well after the holidays before I get back to the office. Going to test drive my new SPOT 3 Tracker & a new muzzleloader this weekend.

James
Clear Creek, Idaho

Most users on this site live in the US.
A country that was founded on freedom.

We must always remember that we are free to do anything we want to do!!!

As long as the government says it's okay

James:

Thanks for bringing this to our attention!! I will look forward to seeing a copy of that case!!

Good luck hunting.

Larry

Super-Maule wrote:

Waterboy wrote:You might want to take a look at the legend on a sectional chart. This is printed on it.

Hello Waterboy,

I would agree that landings are prohibited within the areas depicted by solid blue lines and dots on the sectional chart is correct. The legend on the sectional chart is however not quoting specific Federal Law. The sectional chart legend verbiage would have you believe that landing on any Forest Service designated property is prohibited. This is simply not true in accordance with 36 United States Code 261.13. This law supersedes all state and local laws. The specific law was brought to my attention by a Federal Judge in a case recently. The defendant won his case of landing on Forest Service property within Washington State.

There are thousands, if not millions of acres of Forest Service designated property that is not depicted as "wilderness", "wildlife areas" etc. This is Our land, American land that can be utilized with respect and common sense. I plan to carry a copies of this law in my airplane. If I am ever questioned by FS personnel on FS designated property, I will simply give them a copy. CFR 261.15 (use of vehicles off road) does state that you can't operate as to become a hazard, so be careful.

Merry Christmas,

James
Clear Creek, Idaho
& PS: Zane, thanks for the new spell check and all your efforts on BCP

James,

I think your conclusion is accurate, but for a little different reason. The chart statement reads "landings are prohibited on lands managed.......without specific authorization by the respective agency."

So, if an agency specifically permits landings on its managed lands, this chart legend is irrelevant THERE. An example is in Alaska, where aircraft landings are specifically permitted in most if not all parks, refuges and forests. That chart legend still appears on the Alaska charts.

The question then remains whether the Forest Service actually permits aircraft landings on National Forest lands, and your citation of the USC suggests that they do, UNLESS specifically prohibited.

So....here comes the tough one: A particular national forest MAY have specific regulations that actually prohibit aircraft landings. Nothing in that USC cite that you posted prohibits a specific forest from being more restrictive.

The question then is: Are there any specific restrictions on aircraft landings in national forests, other than big W wilderness areas?

I would think that the FS legal department would have to answer that.

Point is, having that citation in your pocket won't do much for you in an enforcement case IF there are local restrictions.

MTV

MTV,
I have only come across one forest order (on the Bridger-Teton) prohibiting aircraft landings

https://fs.usda.gov/wps/PA_WIDContribut ... 796597.pdf

I would let experts on the matter, like Mark Spencer, weigh in on the topic before getting too excited. He will tell you that it's not as simple as it seems.
Even though 36 US CFR 261.13 seems clear, I remember reading something that said the same thing MTV is alluding to. Each National Forest either needs to specifically state that landings are prohibited or specifically state that landings are permitted.
Splitting hairs I know.

Rezrider wrote:I would let experts on the matter, like Mark Spencer, weigh in on the topic before getting too excited. He will tell you that it's not as simple as it seems.
Even though 36 US CFR 261.13 seems clear, I remember reading something that said the same thing MTV is alluding to. Each National Forest either needs to specifically state that landings are prohibited or specifically state that landings are permitted.
Splitting hairs I know.

'

Any idea where the regulations specific to each national forest? Available/searchable online hopefully?

Those of us in the mountain regions (CO/WY/NM/UT/etc) spend so much time flying over the various nat forests although I have never been able to find the regs for each one.

[/quote]Any idea where the regulations specific to each national forest? Available/searchable online hopefully?

Those of us in the mountain regions (CO/WY/NM/UT/etc) spend so much time flying over the various nat forests although I have never been able to find the regs for each one.[/quote]

That's the hard part. I waded through pages of 'fed lingo' on the nearby forest website in my area. I found the draft revision plan, the old plan, plus various other documents and it's easy to miss something. It's also hard to know what you are looking for exactly.
Local or regional knowledge is key in getting a feel for how they think about aviation in their area.

The only explicit prohibition to aircraft landings on NF lands is 1) within the aforementioned wilderness areas (with some exceptions) or 2) if a specific region, forest, or district passes an order under 36 CFR 261.58 (y). That's it. Everything else refers to planning processes and such. However doing something careless, causing damage to some pristine meadow, starting a fire with a hot exhaust, etc could expose you to violating another section.

Its easy to check the website of a specific forest to see if they have an order under 36 CFR 261.58 (y) prohibitting landings.

Here are all of the prohibitions;
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SI ... ain_02.tpl

There are very few forests that prohibit landings, so fly smart and we can keep it that way.

This is actually part of the 2005 Travel Planning Rule and certainly something worth having knowledge of, but abuse of it could and probably would reverse some of the progress the RAF and various state organizations have made with the USFS on backcountry aviation. Sure we could thumb our nose and say it's our right, but they could change this rule in a heart beat, and probably would. Take note that over the snow vehicles are also exempt, "except as otherwise provided for" and then in fact they do limit their access in the same rule. I've had nothing but positive interactions with the FS here in AZ and NM, in fact we've opened several airstrips back up, officially, that had been closed for 25+ years. Many of the District Rangers have become our personal friends and even attend our backcountry fly in events. We had one Ranger agree to and sign the FAA 7480 form to chart a previously uncharted airstrip this year, check our this month's Pilot Getaways for a preview of Double Circle Ranch, and we've now filed the 5010 form so this little gem will appear on the Phoenix Sectional very soon. There will be several more to follow. These friendships, and the trust we've fostered in multiple regions has produced many inside advocates for backcountry aviation within the USFS all the way to D.C. I personally believe that this friendly approach will work far better for us in the long run than will waiving our fingers in their face proclaiming it's our land and they work for us. Of course it's our land, I am not disputing that, but there is certainly a place for care and management of the incredible American backcountry. If everyone treated it as if it were their own personal property I am pretty sure there'd be a lot of places I would not even want to visit any longer. So while we perhaps can, and many already do land wherever they want, discretion and respect of the land manager's vision, a vision that we can and do influence, is, in my mind, the best approach. M. Spencer

mspenc45 wrote:This is actually part of the 2005 Travel Planning Rule and certainly something worth having knowledge of, but abuse of it could and probably would reverse some of the progress the RAF and various state organizations have made with the USFS on backcountry aviation. Sure we could thumb our nose and say it's our right, but they could change this rule in a heart beat, and probably would. Take note that over the snow vehicles are also exempt, "except as otherwise provided for" and then in fact they do limit their access in the same rule. I've had nothing but positive interactions with the FS here in AZ and NM, in fact we've opened several airstrips back up, officially, that had been closed for 25+ years. Many of the District Rangers have become our personal friends and even attend our backcountry fly in events. We had one Ranger agree to and sign the FAA 7480 form to chart a previously uncharted airstrip this year, check our this month's Pilot Getaways for a preview of Double Circle Ranch, and we've now filed the 5010 form so this little gem will appear on the Phoenix Sectional very soon. There will be several more to follow. These friendships, and the trust we've fostered in multiple regions has produced many inside advocates for backcountry aviation within the USFS all the way to D.C. I personally believe that this friendly approach will work far better for us in the long run than will waiving our fingers in their face proclaiming it's our land and they work for us. Of course it's our land, I am not disputing that, but there is certainly a place for care and management of the incredible American backcountry. If everyone treated it as if it were their own personal property I am pretty sure there'd be a lot of places I would not even want to visit any longer. So while we perhaps can, and many already do land wherever they want, discretion and respect of the land manager's vision, a vision that we can and do influence, is, in my mind, the best approach. M. Spencer

How close is Tuweep to being reopened.

tim

mspenc45 wrote:I've had nothing but positive interactions with the FS here in AZ and NM, in fact we've opened several airstrips back up, officially, that had been closed for 25+ years. Many of the District Rangers have become our personal friends and even attend our backcountry fly in events. We had one Ranger agree to and sign the FAA 7480 form to chart a previously uncharted airstrip this year, check our this month's Pilot Getaways for a preview of Double Circle Ranch, and we've now filed the 5010 form so this little gem will appear on the Phoenix Sectional very soon. There will be several more to follow. These friendships, and the trust we've fostered in multiple regions has produced many inside advocates for backcountry aviation within the USFS all the way to D.C. I personally believe that this friendly approach will work far better for us in the long run than will waiving our fingers in their face proclaiming it's our land and they work for us.

Thanks for your efforts!!!

+1 thanks!