The Minnesota Pilots Association says it doesn’t know if its representatives or any other non-tribal individuals will be allowed to attend a trial on Nov. 3 that may determine the fate of an airplane owned by one of its members. As we reported earlier this month, the aircraft had an engine failure over the Red Lake Reservation in northern Minnesota and the pilot put it safely down on tribal lands. It was immediately impounded and remains that way. The tribal nation alleges the flight was in violation of a new law it enacted banning flights over its territory below 20,000 feet. It was enacted to counter a bid by the Air Force to create a high-speed fighter training corridor through the reservation.
There is ample precedent that federal law supersedes local government laws and regulations regarding airspace, and the Minnesota group is getting plenty of support from the aviation community, including AOPA. The FAA and state transportation officials are also involved. If the tribal court finds the pilot guilty of breaking the new law, the aviation group must first try to settle the issue through the tribal court before taking it to federal court. It will likely be costly, and the group is recommending that members avoid overflying the reservation until the dust settles. It’s also urging members to check their insurance to ensure legal costs are covered in case something like this happens to them.
I fault the FAA for not stepping in when the tribe enacted their law governing airspace up to 20,000′. This entire situation could probably have been avoided by a little pro-activity on the FAA’s part.
I think ZeroGee has the right of it. The Red Lake Band of the Chippewa Indians is not a local government. As a federally recognized tribe it is a sovereign nation, which complicates things a wee bit. The airspace issue should have been, and may still have to be, a matter negotiated by the federal government and the tribal government.
Just a quick question for clarity: What is the status of the airspace above a foreign nation’s US embassy? Is that considered “property” owned by a foreign government? Is there a permanent ground-to-stratosphere TFR over those properties, or some other means to claim ownership of “their” airspace? Sure, they bought the property, and used their funds to build the embassy, but exactly when did they take ownership of the airspace above it? I’m just trying to find a relevant precedent for another nation asserting “ownership” of any airspace within the borders of the US.
I am totally sympathetic to First Nation objections to a low-level training route over their gamelands; I’d be pissed too, if they put one over my backyard, but that issue was negotiated to a mutual degree of discomfort.
But this guy’s timing couldn’t have been worse, with the federal government doing nothing but pointing fingers at each other while critical federal service workers are unpaid, if not laid off.
concerning Aviatrexxx. embassy land is not considered foreign soil; it remains under the sovereignty of the host country. However, the land is given “inviolability” under international law, meaning local authorities cannot enter without permission, granting it special protection and immunity, but not ownership. This is a common misconception; stepping into an embassy is not like entering another country.
Sovereignty: The embassy’s land is still legally part of the host country’s territory.
Protection: International law, such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, protects embassy grounds from local authorities entering without permission.
Immunity: The embassy and its staff have certain immunities, but this does not change the fact that the land is part of the host nation.
Ownership: The host country remains the owner of the land, whether the embassy purchases it or leases it.