Flying seaplanes, it's relatively easy to find out what lakes and rivers are legal. SPA have been good about that.

For land planes, though, it seems a bit tougher. I assume I can land anywhere a landowner allows, but what about public land? Specifically, Indiana. How do I find out if it's legal to land on some clearing in the Hoosier National Forest, for instance? Another example: the Ohio and Wabash rivers. It's legal to land a seaplane on both, as they're navigable waterways. But what about gravel bars in the same rivers?

Thanks in advance. And apologies if this should've been obvious to me. Search was unrevealing.

Stu

I had a conversation with an FAA guy about this once, he said ..."Whatever rules apply to that land, apply to an airplane. So, if the rules allow you to have an ATV there then you can have an airplane there, unless it's a Super Cub, then you can just one anywhere."

flyingzebra wrote:I had a conversation with an FAA guy about this once, he said ..."Whatever rules apply to that land, apply to an airplane. So, if the rules allow you to have an ATV there then you can have an airplane there, unless it's a Super Cub, then you can just one anywhere."

It's important to point out here that the FAA knows almost nothing about the legalities of public land management. There are VERY different rules for ATVs and for aircraft.

To answer the OPs question, the BEST way to find out the legalities of landing an airplane on public lands is to contact the office which manages those lands.

National Park and Wildlife Refuges in the Lower 48 are pretty straightforward.....they are generally closed to aircraft landings. GENERALLY being the operative term. There are a couple exceptions, but not many.

The Forest Service, on the other hand, generally leaves this up to the individual Forest.....and each Forest can have a bunch of restrictions, or not.

Same with state lands. Check with the land management agency.

Absolutely stay away from Indian Reservations, unless you have specific permission to land there.

And don't believe everything you read on the Internet.....it won't hold up in court.

Also, if you believe everything in the SPA directory, be careful.....it's generally well out of date.

Be careful out there.

MTV

The title of this thread actually kinda killed my mood a little, is this where our great country is going? Mother may I?

Let me fix that for you/us

Dont ask if where it's legal, it's always legal, unless it SAYS it's illegal, I know I might be nit picking, but unless something says you can't, you can.

Thanks for the answers so far.

As far as the managing authority, what about gravel bars? Since I'm talking about navigable waterways, does the Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over the shores?

NineThreeKilo wrote:The title of this thread actually kinda killed my mood a little, is this where our great country is going? Mother may I?

Let me fix that for you/us

Dont ask if where it's legal, it's always legal, unless it SAYS it's illegal, I know I might be nit picking, but unless something says you can't, you can.

While you are certainly preaching to the choir on this forum, unless you want to ruin your trip by becoming a sort of martyr for liberty in a local pokie, the trick lies in learning where "something says you can't". Just check out the current thread about "Pilot Charged with Violating Little Known Local Ordinance". Being an advocate for freedom is one thing, enjoying your trip is another! Too many rules.

MTV's advice is sound. Found out who the governing body is for the dirt in question, and check their rules. It ain't always easy, and as far as water goes, the SPA Directory is often incomplete and out of date, plus it is non-regulatory. You can't use it as a defense. Just ask that guy in Chaska!

One "trick" some of us water fliers use after we've spent time inquiring, poring over the relevant agency's website and other sources and still aren't sure if it's OK, is to call whichever law enforcement agency has jurisdiction and will show up if there is a problem. Either county sheriff, forest rangers, town cops, whoever, and tell whoever answers the phone that you are planning on visiting the lovely ________ lake or ________ area to do a little hiking/fishing/birdwatching/whatever, and you're inquiring if there any restrictions you ought to know about that you didn't see on the website. They'll likely answer something like "no, just standard fish rules, no campfires outside blah blah, etc." , or maybe they'll refer you to some good info you didn't know about. Then get their name and copy it down with the phone no. you called. Don't specifically ask about airplanes because they won't know and typically slightly freak out and say they have to check up the chain of command, and trigger a lot of time and attention and still not be sure. I've been waiting several weeks for an answer about a particular lake in a National Forest and I think they've forgotten my inquiry.

Then if you do end up being approached by an officer who tells you you're not supposed to be there with a plane (like I wrote about on Folsom) you can politely ask them to cite which agency, which law or reg, and get a chapter and section and write it down. Then you can explain what research you did, the sources you consulted prior to arriving, and finish with "I even called your office, spoke with _______ and inquired about restrictions in this area". They will likely know the person you spoke with, since you called their agency. This doesn't clear you of anything, but unless it is an egregious trespass or violation, it may show that you did your your best, were trying hard to be a good citizen, and they'll just let it go. A one time pass. It also may get them to check and find out that they were misinformed, or like in the case of Folsom, there were conflicting rules between the State and the Feds, and the information was not properly disseminated.

Later on, if you are of the right temperament (i.e. not a hothead or loudmouth), and you want to help open a closed area, volunteer to help work through the system through either RAF or SPA. They can be effective at getting things done.

Pierre

+1 on comments by NineThreeKilo

Here is a great website that really provokes you to think about a lot of things like the recent Chaska, Minnesota incident.
Link: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/government-takes-sells/

For reference regarding the Chaska police action, the landing in Lake Hazeltine is the focus of a current thread here on BCP
"Pilot Charged with Violating Little Known Local Ordinance".
https://www.backcountrypilot.org/community/forum/latest/pilot-charged-with-violating-little-known-local-ordinance-19911

.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

Pierre_R wrote:
While you are certainly preaching to the choir on this forum, unless you want to ruin your trip by becoming a sort of martyr for liberty in a local pokie, the trick lies in learning where "something says you can't". Just check out the current thread about "Pilot Charged with Violating Little Known Local Ordinance". Being an advocate for freedom is one thing, enjoying your trip is another! Too many rules.

Well freedom isn't free.

Now I'm not saying go try to land in someone private coy pond, or in a drinking water resivoir, but something like the guy who LEGALLY landed on that lake by the silly golf game, nothing wrong with that.

Frankly I'd go land over there today if I was in that state, actually I think we should find some seaplane pilots over there, find the local ACLU, or whatever other lawyer group, and have a "fly a lawyer day".

Go land half a dozen seaplanes on that lake, have local lawyers riding shotgun, plenty of go pros all over the plane, give the local press a heads up and show them the laws as the pertain to seaplane ops, a little info on seaplane saftey info, the cool types of folks who fly them, local economic benifits, and see if the police chief still wants to overstep his authority.

Okay, just as an experiment, today I attended a raptor festival. There was a young lady there in a Forest Service uniform. So, out of curiosity, I approached her, introduced myself as a pilot, and asked her the question: Can I land my airplane on Forest Service lands in your forest.

Answer (predictably): Oh, no, in fact you can't even fly over National Forest lands below a certain altitude, let alone land or takeoff from those lands.

Really???? So, I quizzed her a little more, asking for specific regulations, particularly on overflights. Finally she admitted she didn't know, but she thought that one was an FAA regulation.

Okay, so we KNOW that a big part of her answer is BS right away. Forest Service has NO jurisdiction over the airspace over a National Forest (with the exception of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, which is overlain by a Prohibited Area--don't ask), and the FAA could care less if you overfly a National Forest.

So, I continued to chat with her, not being pushy, but questioning the airspace issue. She said that they were told that in a meeting earlier this year. Finally, she said it would be a good idea to call the local National Forest office here in Bozeman on Monday, and ask to speak to their Law Enforcement Ranger. I will do so.

In any case, this is a classic example of just how difficult it can be to gather ACCURATE information on this topic.

I'll call the LE person Monday, and see what she says, but frankly, I'm not betting that she has the correct answer either. She was the one who addressed employees at the meeting earlier this year apparently.

As far as gravel bars go: Another classic can of worms, called navigable waters. In most States, the state has jurisdiction over navigable waters, which includes the stream bed up to "ordinary high water", sometimes referred to as "mean high water". In some areas, like conservation areas, the feds MAY have jurisdiction.

But, another challenge is determining what constitutes "ordinary high water". There is legal mumbo jumbo that would fill several computer hard drives on that stuff. Again, find out who owns the adjacent lands, and ask them.

By the way, the Corps of Engineers has NOT been particularly friendly to airplane landings on Corps projects.....

MTV

MTV

Excellent idea Pierre!

Just a few hours ago, I saw 2 white pickups blocking a 2 lane gravel road " in the middle of nowhere ", as I had been low level flying in the area, it occurred to me to take closer look see. My thinking was, if they were F&G, they might be hoping/suspecting I was spotting game and/or shooting out of the airplane. If they were.... I was going to road land and have a word with them. Like, " nope, and I just wanted to assure you so, so not to waste your time." Stupid, maybe, but as it willturns out they were civilians, out hunting, and blocking the road is a non event in the area (no traffic). I did similar years ago with some INEL security, who seemed to be (trying) to follow me as I overflew the nuke research site, at a more then legal altitude. I landed, (once clear of the site of course) and first thing told them I didn't HAVE to, I was just being a good citizen as it appeared they thought I was a problem, and then..... I laughed. Their hands came off their holstered weapons, and the tension eased, and they got educated ( they didn't know) on the minimum altitude over their territory, end of problem. 35 years later, when I overfly the area (twice today), I double check my altimeter, and laugh. When we are in the right, we need to let them know.

One of the disadvantages of being retired is that there are no more holidays....federal or otherwise. In fact, there are no more weekends.

Tried to call the Forest Circus today.....Columbus Day, it turns out. So, I'll call them on Tuesday.

Who'da thunk?

MTV

mtv wrote:One of the disadvantages of being retired is that there are no more holidays....federal or otherwise. In fact, there are no more weekends.

Tried to call the Forest Circus today.....Columbus Day, it turns out. So, I'll call them on Tuesday.

Who'da thunk?

MTV

Sounds terrible!

CamTom12 wrote:

mtv wrote:One of the disadvantages of being retired is that there are no more holidays....federal or otherwise. In fact, there are no more weekends.

Tried to call the Forest Circus today.....Columbus Day, it turns out. So, I'll call them on Tuesday.

Who'da thunk?

MTV

Sounds terrible!

Yeah, retirement isn't all it's cracked up to be. This afternoon, I took No. 1 Woman's car for an oil change at the local Honda emporium. Not only did they try to sell me on a whole bunch of stuff that her cream puff Civic doesn't need, but they took 3 full hours from the time I arrived until I could pay and leave! What a total waste of my lazing around time!

Cary

flyingzebra wrote:I had a conversation with an FAA guy about this once, he said ..."Whatever rules apply to that land, apply to an airplane. So, if the rules allow you to have an ATV there then you can have an airplane there, unless it's a Super Cub, then you can just one anywhere."

Take a look at the legend on the GREAT FALLS Sectional (June 2016 to January 2017). You can read for yourself what you can and cannot do on public lands managed by the US Forest Service, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service in the lower 48 states. The same language is on every Sectional I've seen.

In essence the chart legend says that 'landing of any aircraft on the land or water within a national forest, national park, or national wildlife refuge is prohibited except at designated airports and landing sites, or with prior permission'.

Don't count on getting prior permission. There might be a fine for landing on in these areas to prove a point. A couple of years ago some guy landed on a ridge in one of the Wilderness areas in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. A hiker got a picture of his plane. The Forest Service LEO tracked the pilot down and he got to explain to a Federal Magistrate why he did a stop and go on lands clearly marked on the sectional as 'landing aircraft prohibited'. FWIW, FAA sectional legends also say to avoid flying below 2000' AGL over these lands. The Montana Pilots Association put together this write up a few years ago. It looks like it's still accurate: http://www.montanapilots.org/legislation/Legality%20&%20Liability/Legality_of_Off-airport_landings.pdf

Good catch!

MTV

I hate to revive an ancient thread, but the original post is one that has turned up often in my search for the answer to my questions. So far, the news is not good for having much fun, but I am hopeful that there will be some good (legal) way around this. I contacted the appropriate officials, and this is the response I got as to the legality of off airport landings in the state of Indiana.

Thanks for reaching out. I will send some links to Indiana Code and Indiana Administrative Code to help you. It’s a ton of information, so I will summarize this in a nutshell:



All landing areas in the State of Indiana must be certified by the department of transportation as private or public. There are a few exceptions:



Rotorcraft operations
Lighter than air aircraft operations
Agricultural spraying operations – if the pilot is a state licensed chemist.




Indiana Code:



http://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2020 ... /008/#8-21 – this is state law governing aeronautics



Indiana Administrative Code 105-3. I attached this document which covers state certification processes, airport development, standards, etc.



Let me know if you need anything else!



Stay warm and safe!





Marty Blake

Manager

Office of Aviation

Indiana Department of Transportation

(317 ) 407-7451

www.aviation.indot.in.gov

mtv wrote:
I'll call the LE person Monday, and see what she says, but frankly, I'm not betting that she has the correct answer either. She was the one who addressed employees at the meeting earlier this year apparently.

She won't know. I have a USFS law enforcement officer who lives down the road from me here in Seeley. I asked him that very question. When you write me a ticket for landing in the forest what is the law I am breaking? They have to put that on the ticket. He had no idea. I asked if he'd get back to me on that. He agreed. He won't, he never will.

Bonanza Man wrote:

mtv wrote:
I'll call the LE person Monday, and see what she says, but frankly, I'm not betting that she has the correct answer either. She was the one who addressed employees at the meeting earlier this year apparently.

She won't know. I have a USFS law enforcement officer who lives down the road from me here in Seeley. I asked him that very question. When you write me a ticket for landing in the forest what is the law I am breaking? They have to put that on the ticket. He had no idea. I asked if he'd get back to me on that. He agreed. He won't, he never will.

Yes, so far, that's the experience I've had with the Custer/Gallatin NF as well. I'm working my way up the chain of command.

Frankly, as a federal land management law enforcement officer for 28 years, I can tell you that LEOs are REQUIRED to answer those kinds of questions, by law. I'd hate to take that to court, but.... The point being, however, that if the LEO who is specifically tasked with enforcing Forest Service regulations and policy (and that's what we're talking about here, because the FS does NOT have a national statute in code on the subject), then we sure shouldn't expect our local county Sheriffs Deputy to know either.

This one's got under my hide a bit, at least partially because the Custer/Gallatin extends all the way into South Dakota, and there are a lot of places out to the east where one might logically land an airplane.....

MTV