Flat Country Pilot wrote:Montana is not immune to the legal system either, not my personnal experience, but I know Montana is not immune. However, Montana has a lot of wide open spaces to operate backhoes.

If you tell someone they cannot land on your land, they do it anyway wrecking their plane, you could still lose in court. That's just the way our society is wired right now.


Bill

We changed this here in Montana a couple legislatures ago, actually we've had these laws for quite a while but we added aviation specifically to the law because we are starting to get quite a few private strips opened to the public. A landowner owes the least duty and care to a person(of the three possibilities) that they allow on their land for recreational purposes. You can google this and get all the info you need on any state but here's some info on ours:

If a recreationist is injured on private land, is the landowner liable?

Montana law restricts the liability of landowners who allow free use of their property for recreation. The statute, similar to those in other states, extends the lowest level of liability to landowners who allow free recreational use of their property, making landowners liable only for "acts or omission which constitutes willful or wanton misconduct." When landowners charge for access or recreational use, they are liable for their ordinary negligence, which requires higher standards of care.



Willful or wanton misconduct is interpreted to mean I have to go out and try to hurt you intentionally. The legislature actually changed that wording after the law was first written because they wanted to be very clear that they did not want land owners held liable. Period. Willful or wanton misconduct doesn't mean a lot to the layman but talk to a lawyer and the meaning is clear to them. This is the same level of care I owe to a tresspasser, usually comes up with people on your land while hunting. We aren't the first state to do this so check your states laws.

If you live in Kalifornia, and you own stuff, there is no real way to have an iron clad assurance you will not be sued. I spend a little too much time with lawyers doing expert witness stuff and they will all tell you that anyone can sue for anything, especially in Kalifornia.

When I first moved to the Sonoma/Napa County area, it was common place to see hot air ballons flying overhead and landing in nearby fields. These were mostly tourists enjoying the view of the wine country. Part of the tradition was a champagne celebration after landing.

Well, a few of these folks got hurt. Hard landings, wind dragging the balloons through the trees, and barb wire cuts on there ass.

Even back then I am sure the paying passengers signed some sort of waiver and the companies were shells with no money anyway.

So what did the lawyers do? They sued the land owners based on God only knows what legal theory and won.

Now, the only place the balloons can land is at the airport and in a few approved fields. Kinda took the adventure out the idea of ballooning.

mtv wrote:Nizina,

One thing to consider with putting yellow X's on each end of the strip, is that then if YOU land there, you are technically in violation of the FAR, right?

So, if anything bad were to happen to YOU, the Friendly Aviation Administration might be asking you why you were landing on a closed airport, even though you were the one closed it.

I've thought about this issue some, and it seems like a real potential gotcha at least in some states. Sounds like Montana's the place to have a private strip, though.

Perhaps the best approach is simply not to INVITE anyone. If they drop in uninvited, what can you do about that???

Hand em a beer?

MTV

Come on Mike, this is basic. You're the airport and the land owner. If I want to put X's on my runway this is not now and never will be, an FAA issue. Private airports not open to the public don't have to follow any rules, because there aren't any. What ever issues you have will not be Federal, only local. X's aren't needed in any case. A private airport is no different than someone coming on to your land to hunt without permission. They are tresspassers, plain and simple.
It seems most states are pretty friendly, or at least neutral, about having your own strip. From what I've read California is not but if you're dumb enough to live there that's what you get.

I found the link I was originally looking for. This is from the Montana Pilots Assoc and summarizes this issue.


http://www.montanapilots.org/backcountry/legality.html

Tim

I have been paying $1400/ year for airstrip insurance. They have not billed me yet for this year, but I expect it to go up and I'm not sure I'll buy it.

I recently had a survey of only the strip, and put it into a LAC, hoping that may insulate the strip from the rest of my assets and some lawyer???

jg

A friend of mine has a ranch strip in northern Calif. on the Klamath river west of Yreka.
His lawyer said, "Put an X on the approach end, and do not allow it to show up on any charts." Claims the uncharted with the "X" implies that this is private, with NO public access.

He does allow aquaintances to use the strip, and the cabin, after having been shown the approach a couple of times.

So far no lawsuits.

My strip in Idaho is on the sectional as a private strip in case anyone needs it in an emergency. Other than an emergency it is listed in Airnav as "prior permission required, own risk". I think that covers it. Any lawyer that sees otherwise that attempts to drive up the 1/2 mile dirt road into my farm will have some warning shots fired over the bow.

Bonanza Man wrote:From what I've read California is not but if you're dumb enough to live there that's what you get.

Come on guys, someone has to stay here and fight the communist takeover. I have thought about moving many times, but I will be damned if I am going to let California go without a fight.

They already own Nevada too. Imagine how it will be with the dynamic trio of Obama, Pelosi and Reid?

Bonanza Man wrote:I found the link I was originally looking for. This is from the Montana Pilots Assoc and summarizes this issue.

http://www.montanapilots.org/backcountry/legality.html

I'll take your word for it and read the link tonight. I commend your politicians for stepping up to the plate and dealing with it.

We still have to post our land against trespassing which includes hunting. Our legislators don't understand private ownership.

Bill

There are a few private airstrip developments in the rural areas around Sacramento, including one a friend of mine lives in. They seem to use the "R" approach. I will try to get some feedback from him regarding their association's decision to use the "R".

SEP

I have done some research on this myself living here in California and the lawyer thing is the pits, true. Besides that, first off, the FAA could give a Sh#* where you land if it is private or public property, as long as its not an "FAA designated airport". This comes from my buddy (Big Cheese) in the Sac FSDO. What you DO have to deal with is the Sheriff, local police, or land owner for either trespassing, or a local ordinance prohibiting you from landing there.

As for your own strip, as many have insinuated, don't label it an airstrip. I know of one private property owner with a 3000' long paved DRIVEWAY. It does traverse his property as a driveway, that happens to be wide enough for him to land his plane. Nothing says you can't land a plane on your PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. If your "buddy" balls up his plane on your property and then tries to sue, he isn't your "buddy" anymore. First, call the Sheriff, say he is trespassing on private land, you never gave him permission to be there and he crash landed on your property, making the emergency a choice HE made. Tough for him to get out of that one.

I never figured out the need to "designate" a private strip. That opens you up to alot more litigation, I believe. Barring any specific local laws, there is nothing that prohibits you from landing in your private corn field. The FAA only cares about aircraft in flight or FAA funded and operated airports.

Something to think about.

Splashpilot wrote: If your "buddy" balls up his plane on your property and then tries to sue, he isn't your "buddy" anymore. First, call the Sheriff, say he is trespassing on private land, you never gave him permission to be there and he crash landed on your property, making the emergency a choice HE made. Tough for him to get out of that one.

Unfortunately you buddy will have no control over his insurance company or his passengers going after you. There is a subrogation clause in every aviation policy and I can tell you from first hand experience they will use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subrogation

From the AIM:

Marking and Lighting of Permanently Closed Runways and Taxiways. For runways and taxiways which are permanently closed, the lighting circuits will be disconnected. The runway threshold, runway designation, and touchdown markings are obliterated and yellow crosses are placed at each end of the runway and at 1,000 foot intervals.

So, the point is, if you put yellow X's on your "pasture", you are not only indicating that it is a RUNWAY, by definition, but you are also posting it as "CLOSED".

Closed means you can't land an airplane there, cause it's CLOSED, NOT because its not a runway.

If it's not a runway, you can land there legally.

If it's closed, you land there, and screw up, my guess is that the FAA could cite you. That will depend on the Inspector who investigates.

MTV

Why even make it look like a runway? If you want to land at a runway, fly to one and land there. I think the guys saying mow your pasture and land there have the right idea. And if your buddy lands and rolls his plane up into a ball and then sues you, kick the crap out of him because he isn't your buddy. It won't help your legal situation but it might make you feel better.

svanarts wrote:Why even make it look like a runway? If you want to land at a runway, fly to one and land there. I think the guys saying mow your pasture and land there have the right idea. And if your buddy lands and rolls his plane up into a ball and then sues you, kick the crap out of him because he isn't your buddy. It won't help your legal situation but it might make you feel better.

I still like the "backhoe and big hole" defense better...

Well ,other then those pesky buzzards that will be looking for dinner it should fix the little problem

We still have to post our land against trespassing which includes hunting. Rolling Eyes Our legislators don't understand private ownership. Mad

Bill


My brothers and I own some property in SW Minnesota and we are required to post it for no tresspassing. Apparently if we don't we can't have any beef with tresspassers. In Montana no signs are needed. Nobody may tresspass on any private land without permission. It is up to the hunter to get any needed permissions. It all seems so simple.....

Come on guys, someone has to stay here and fight the communist takeover. I have thought about moving many times, but I will be damned if I am going to let California go without a fight.


You better call in some reinforcements, it's lookin' a little bleak.

mtv wrote:From the AIM:

Marking and Lighting of Permanently Closed Runways and Taxiways. For runways and taxiways which are permanently closed, the lighting circuits will be disconnected. The runway threshold, runway designation, and touchdown markings are obliterated and yellow crosses are placed at each end of the runway and at 1,000 foot intervals.

So, the point is, if you put yellow X's on your "pasture", you are not only indicating that it is a RUNWAY, by definition, but you are also posting it as "CLOSED".

Closed means you can't land an airplane there, cause it's CLOSED, NOT because its not a runway.

If it's not a runway, you can land there legally.

If it's closed, you land there, and screw up, my guess is that the FAA could cite you. That will depend on the Inspector who investigates.

MTV

None of that applies to private property as has been discussed here.

Splashpilot wrote:I never figured out the need to "designate" a private strip. That opens you up to alot more litigation, I believe. Barring any specific local laws, there is nothing that prohibits you from landing in your private corn field. The FAA only cares about aircraft in flight or FAA funded and operated airports.

Something to think about.

You have your own set of problems living in California that most of us don't have. There is no increased liability because your airport is listed on the chart. What it does give you is proof that you have an established airstrip should you get a neighbor or municipality at some point in the future who is not friendly.

My brothers and I own some property in SW Minnesota and we are required to post it for no tresspassing. Apparently if we don't we can't have any beef with tresspassers. In Montana no signs are needed. Nobody may tresspass on any private land without permission. It is up to the hunter to get any needed permissions. It all seems so simple.....

It does seem like a simple concept.

If someone wants to fly my airplane or drive my car, they should have to ask for and get my permission.

If someone wants to go onto or use my land, they should have to ask for and get my permission. That gos for landing an airplane, hunting, hiking, etc... We have to post our land against trespassers or its open to the public.

I believe in private ownership and if qmdv/Tim wants to land on his own property, more power to ya. Have fun.

I'm not there, but I would fight for California vinyards and wine. Makes me happy

Bill