2013 Annual Convention. Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "2013 Annual Convention. Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner"

Ira Lambert
5 years ago
Views:

1 2013 Annual Convention Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner Aviation Law Committee 3.0 General CLE Hours May 8-10, 2013 Cleveland

2 CONTRIBUTORS Thomas A. Alston Aero & Marine Tax Professionals Elk Grove, California Mr. Alston is the CEO of his organization and was personally involved in the preparation and filing of hundreds of tax returns with a 100 percent success rate. His four decades of running companies, creating new services, public speaking experience, communications skills, and the ability to select and train great people has resulted in his organization becoming the premier California sales and use tax consulting firm specializing in the area of mobile transportation equipment (aircraft, vessels, and vehicles). Mr. Alston is a frequent author of California sales and use tax articles for a number of publications, including The Successful Accountant, Inflight USA, The Log, San Diego Business and Aviation Journal, Van Nuys Business and Aviation Journal, Orange County Business and Aviation Journal, Sacramento Business Journal, Latitude 38, and other legal and professional journals. He is the publisher and editor of a publication called Tax Matters, which is dedicated to keeping California owners of aircraft and vessels informed about taxes. Mr. Alston also co-wrote A Baseball Coaches Survival Guide and also has published a column titled The Winning Pitch for the national sports publication Collegiate Baseball. For additional information, please visit marinetaxpros.com. Honorable C. Douglas Chamberlain Retired, Logan County Common Pleas Court Domestic Relations, Juvenile, and Probate Divisions Bellefontaine, Ohio Judge Chamberlain received his undergraduate degree from Ohio Northern University and his JD from Ohio Northern University Claude W. Pettit College of Law. His professional memberships include the National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges, American Judges Association, Ohio Judicial Conference, Ohio Probate Judges Association, Ohio Domestic Relations Judges Association, Ohio Juvenile Judges Association, American Bar Association, Ohio State Bar Association (Aviation Law Committee), Logan County Bar Association, Hardin County Bar Association, and the Inns of Court. Judge Chamberlain retired from the bench of the Logan County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations, Juvenile, and Probate Divisions, in Logan County, Ohio, after serving from January 2, 2005, until July 31, He now serves as a Visiting Judge sitting by assignment. Before being elected to the bench in 2004, Judge Chamberlain served four years as the Logan County prosecutor, 12 years as the referee for Bellefontaine Municipal Court Small Claims Division, 8 years as an acting judge for Bellefontaine Municipal Court, and 3 years on the Logan County Board of Elections. For 35 years, he was engaged in the practice of law in the civil and criminal litigation along with probate and transactional law. Judge Chamberlain has held a Private Pilot Certificate since 1969, to which Instrument Airplane and Glider ratings have been added. William F. Hayes Attorney at Law Bowling Green, Ohio Mr. Hayes received his BBA from The University of Toledo and his JD from The University of Toledo College of Law. His professional memberships include the Ohio State Bar Association (Ohio Lawyers Assistance Committee; Chair, Aviation Law Committee), Henry County Bar Association, Wood County Bar Association, and Ohio Bar College. In addition to being a private practitioner, Mr. Hayes has over 30 years of experience in the fields of criminal and traffic law. He is also an FAA Commercial Single- and Multiengine pilot and flight instructor and a ground instructor and an advanced ground instructor. Mr. Hayes has been a writer and columnist for Plane and Pilot News, a monthly column in Aviation Law, since He has taught at The University of Toledo College of Law and Bowling Green State University and is a regular speaker at OSBA CLE seminars. For additional information, please visit

3 David A. McGee Svete & McGee Co. LPA Chardon, Ohio Mr. McGee received his AB from Fordham University and his JD from Cleveland State University Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. His professional memberships include the Lake County Bar Association, Geauga County Bar Association, Ohio State Bar Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (Aircraft Owner; Legal Services (Panel Member)), and Ohio State Bar Foundation (Fellow). Mr. McGee is a partner in his firm and practices in the areas of civil, domestic, probate, aviation, criminal litigation, and appellate practice. For additional information, please visit Christopher P. Renkel W.H. Hunt Legal Group LLC Westlake, Ohio Mr. Renkel received his undergraduate degree from The Ohio State University and his law degree from Cleveland State University Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. His professional memberships include the American Bar Association, Ohio State Bar Association, West Shore Bar Association, Lawyer-Pilot Bar Association, and Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Mr. Renkel is a trial attorney with experience in the bankruptcy, criminal, and civil courts and has represented clients in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, state courts, and many municipal courts in Ohio. He handles consumer bankruptcy filings under both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 of Title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code; criminal defense matters, including traffic and OVI defense; and civil litigation, including property damage cases, commercial collection actions, and contract dispute suits. Mr. Renkel has experience in labor contract negotiations under the Railway Labor Act and has participated in highly successful contract talks under the auspices of the National Mediation Board. He has held positions as an officer and director of the Air Line Pilots Association and has served in numerous primary and support roles during collective bargaining. Mr. Renkel also is an experienced professional pilot and holds the Federal Aviation Administration s highest certification as an Airline Transport Pilot, as well as being an FAA Certified Flight Instructor. For additional information, please visit

4 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner Session # 801 Chapter 1 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption Thomas A. Alston California Tax Levies PowerPoint Presentation Claims for Exemption PowerPoint Presentation Chapter 2 Enforcement of FAA Regulations by Local Law Enforcement: Do You Really Want to Be on the National News? William F. Hayes Enforcement of FAA Regulations by Local Law Enforcement: Do You Really Want to Be on the National News? PowerPoint Presentation Secret No-Fly Zone? Ohio Rev. Code Prohibited Acts State v. Collins U.S.C. Chapter 463. Penalties ( ) Chapter 465. Special Aircraft Jurisdiction of the United States ( ) Violation of National Defense Airspace U.S.C. 342 Operation of a Common Carrier Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs ERA11FA History of Flight Pilot Information Aircraft Information Meteorological Information Wreckage Information Medical and Pathological Information Additional Information U.S. Department of Transportation Order B: FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program Chapter 3 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner David A. McGee Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

5 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1 Thomas A. Alston Aero & Marine Tax Professionals Elk Grove, California

6 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.1

7 1.2 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

8 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.3

9 1.4 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

10 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.5

11 1.6 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

12 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.7

13 1.8 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

14 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.9

15 1.10 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

16 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.11

17 1.12 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

18 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.13

19 1.14 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

20 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.15

21 1.16 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

22 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.17

23 1.18 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

24 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.19

25 1.20 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

26 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.21

27 1.22 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

28 California Tax Levies and Claims for Exemption 1.23

29 Enforcement of FAA Regulations by Local Law Enforcement: Do You Really Want to Be on the National News? 2 William F. Hayes Attorney at Law Bowling Green, Ohio

30 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.1

31 2.2 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

32 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.3

33 2.4 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

34 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.5

35 2.6 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

36 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.7

37 2.8 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

38 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.9

39 2.10 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

40 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.11

41 2.12 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

42 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.13

43 2.14 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

44 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.15

45 2.16 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

46 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.17

47 2.18 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

48 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.19

49 2.20 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

50 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.21

51 2.22 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

52 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.23

53 2.24 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

54 Ohio Statutes Title 45. MOTOR VEHICLES - AERONAUTICS - WATERCRAFT Chapter AERONAUTICS Includes all legislation filed with the Secretary of State's Office through 4/1/ Prohibited acts (A) No person shall operate any aircraft in this state unless such person is the holder of a valid aviator's license issued by the United States. No person operating an aircraft within this state shall fail to exhibit such license for inspection upon the demand of any passenger on such aircraft, or fail to exhibit same for inspection upon the demand of any peace officer, member or employee of the department of transportation, or manager or person in charge of an airport or landing field within this state, prior to taking off or upon landing said aircraft. No person shall operate an aircraft within this state unless such aircraft is licensed and registered by the United States; this section is inapplicable to the operation of military aircraft of the United States, aircraft of a state, territory, or possession of the United States, or aircraft licensed by a foreign country with which the United States has a reciprocal agreement covering the operation of such aircraft. No person shall operate an aircraft within this state in violation of any air traffic rules in force under the laws of the United States or under sections to of the Revised Code, and the rules and regulations of the department adopted pursuant thereto. (B) Whoever violates this section shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both. Cite as R.C History. Effective Date: Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.25

55 2.26 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

56 Page Ohio App.3d 72 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 1984) 480 N.E.2d 1132 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. COLLINS, Appellant. [*] Nos. 83AP-990, 83AP-991. Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin. June 28, 1984 [480 N.E.2d 1133] Syllabus by the Court 1. In order to determine whether an Ohio statute has been preempted by federal legislation, the court must determine whether Congress has expressly or impliedly excluded state action in the field, and, if not, whether the state law conflicts with the federal law so as to impair the federal superintendence of the field. 2. Because the state s goal in enacting R.C and (A) is Page 73 not contrary to the purpose of the federal legislation (both to promote and encourage aviation safety), and because enforcement of the Ohio statutes will not result in conflict with federal laws, R.C and (A) represent a valid exercise of the state s police power and are not void under the doctrine of preemption. Gregory S. Lashutka, City Atty., Ronald J. O Brien, City Prosecutor, and David E. Tingley, Columbus, for appellee. [480 N.E.2d 1134] Tudor, Cloud & Cesner and Robert E. Cesner, Jr., Columbus, for appellant. NORRIS, Judge. Defendant appeals his convictions for failing to exhibit his pilot s license upon demand of a police officer (R.C ), and for carrying a passenger without possession of a valid airman s certificate (R.C [A] ). Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.27

57 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges. An oral hearing was held in which the testimony revealed the following facts relevant to this appeal: that, in the early morning hours of June 5, 1983, defendant radioed Port Columbus Airport that he wished to land his airplane; that he encountered some difficulty in locating the airport and eventually was led to the airport by the Columbus police helicopter unit; that, upon landing, two Columbus police officers assigned to the airport were dispatched to the area where defendant was taxiing his plane; that the officers noted a passenger in the airplane; and that, when one of the officers asked defendant to produce his pilot s license and log book, he was unable to do so. The trial court overruled defendant s motion to dismiss. Defendant entered pleas of no contest to the charges, and the court made findings of guilty on each. In support of his appeal, defendant raises one assignment of error: The trial court erred in holding that Ohio Revised Code Sections and (A) constitute the valid exercise of police power generally. R.C states in part: No person shall operate any aircraft in this state unless such person is the holder of a valid airman s license issued by the United States. No person operating an aircraft within this state shall fail to exhibit such license for inspection upon the demand of * * * any peace officer, * * * upon landing said aircraft. R.C (A) provides: No person shall commit any of the following acts: (A) Carry passengers in an aircraft unless the person piloting the aircraft is a holder of a valid airman s certificate of competency in the grade of private pilot or higher issued by the United States; * * *. In his brief, defendant contends that his convictions should be reversed on the ground that the Ohio Department of Transportation is vested with authority to administer and enforce the provisions of R.C through R.C (see R.C ), and not the city prosecutor. Because it does not appear from the record that defendant raised this contention in the trial court, the issue is not properly Before this court. See State v. Nelms (Oct. 6, 1981), Franklin App. No. 81AP-339, unreported. Defendant s second contention is that the statutes under which he was convicted are invalid inasmuch as the federal government, through the Federal Aviation Administration, has acted to the exclusion of state and local governments in the field of pilot licensing. This exclusivity, it is argued, necessitates a finding by this court that 2.28 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

58 Page 74 the statutes are void under the doctrine of preemption and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, United States Constitution. Our review of the cases in the area of preemption reveals essentially a twoprong test--first, a determination of whether Congress has expressly or implicitly excluded state action in the field and, if not, then, whether the state law and federal law * * * can be enforced without impairing the federal superintendence of the field, * * *. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul (1963), 373 U.S. 132, at 142, 83 S.Ct. 1210, at 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248; Jones v. Rath Packing Co. (1977), 430 U.S. 519, 97 S.Ct. 1305, 51 L.Ed.2d 604. Thus, our initial inquiry is whether Congress has expressly claimed dominion over the field of pilot licensing. We have found no provision, nor has defendant brought one to our attention, in which the [480 N.E.2d 1135] federal government has reserved the exclusive authority to license pilots. Therefore, it is clear that Congress has not expressly preempted the field. Nor has Congress impliedly preempted the field, as was found to be the case in City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. (1973), 411 U.S. 624, 93 S.Ct. 1854, 36 L.Ed.2d 547; United States v. City of Blue Ash (S.D.Ohio 1978), 487 F.Supp. 135, affirmed (C.A.6, 1980), 621 F.2d 227. Those cases involved ordinances enacted by each of the cities designed to regulate the noise levels of aircraft arriving at and departing from city airports. While the courts in both cases found the ordinances represented a valid exercise of each city s police power, they were nonetheless held invalid under the doctrine of preemption. The court, in City of Burbank, held that, although there was no intention on the part of Congress to expressly preempt the field of aircraft noise regulation, [i]t is the pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft noise that leads us to conclude that there is preemption. * * * City of Burbank, supra, 411 U.S. at 633, 93 S.Ct. at This decision was cited as controlling in City of Blue Ash, supra. Here, no such pervasive regulatory scheme exists with regard to pilot licensing. While Congress has enacted statutes and the FAA has issued regulations dealing with this subject matter, we cannot say that they are of the same pervasive nature as those in the field of aircraft noise. Therefore, we conclude that the federal government has not impliedly preempted the licensing field. The final question is whether state statutes under consideration conflict with federal laws or regulations requiring the licensing of pilots. This necessitates the determination of * * * whether [the state regulation] stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), 312 U.S. 52, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed It has been said that states may enact criminal statutes concerning aircraft and their operation. See 8 American Jurisprudence 2d (1980) 561, Aviation, Section 158. Specifically, state statutes which make the reckless operation of an aircraft a criminal offense, punishable by imprisonment and fine, have weathered challenges on preemption grounds (Ward v. State [1977], 280 Md. 485, 374 A.2d 1118, certiorari denied [1978], 434 U.S. 1011, 98 S.Ct. 723, 54 L.Ed.2d 754; State v. Bahl [Iowa 1976], 242 N.W.2d 298) on the theories that they represent a valid exercise of Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.29

59 the police power of the states and enhance, not obstruct, the objective of the federal laws. See, also, Tatum v. City of Hallandale (Fla.1954), 71 So.2d 495 (ordinance requiring operators of aircraft flying over the city for advertising purposes to obtain permit not invalid on preemption grounds). Turning to our case, the statutes were passed for the purpose of ensuring the safety of Ohio citizens. This is unquestionably the same goal on a nationwide basis that Congress and the FAA had in mind in enacting laws and regulations Page 75 regarding pilot licensing. The Ohio statutes do not provide for licensing by the state. Furthermore, one cannot reasonably argue that they are in conflict with federal licensing laws since they promote and encourage the goal of federal licensing, that of aviation safety, by providing for criminal penalties (as distinguished from the civil sanction provided for in federal law), with the purpose of enhancing the safety of Ohio citizens by assuring that only federally licensed pilots will operate aircraft and carry passengers in Ohio. It should be noted here that the Ohio Department of Transportation is required by R.C to report probable violations of R.C and federal aviation laws to the proper governmental authorities. This further enhances the goal of federal regulation. This is not to say that the state may act freely in the field of pilot licensing. If a state law was enacted which is clearly contrary to the purpose of federal law, or if compliance by a pilot with a state law [480 N.E.2d 1136] would result in a violation of federal law, then, under the Supremacy Clause and the doctrine of preemption, the state law would be invalid. However, where, as here, the federal and state regulations are designed to promote the same objective, the state law will be held to be a valid exercise of police power. Because the state s goal in enacting R.C and (A) is not contrary to the purpose of the federal laws, and because enforcement of the statutes will not result in conflict with federal laws, we hold that the statutes represent a valid exercise of the state s police power. Accordingly, the assignment of error is overruled. The assignment of error is overruled, and the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. Judgments affirmed. McCORMAC, P.J., and LYNCH, J., concur. LYNCH, J., retired, of the Seventh Appellate District, was assigned to active duty under authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Ohio Constitution Notes: [*] A motion to certify the record to the Supreme Court of Ohio was overruled on November 7, 1984 (case No ) Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

60 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.31

61 2.32 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

62 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.33

63 2.34 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

64 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.35

65 2.36 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

66 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.37

67 2.38 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner

68 Enforcement of FAA Regulations 2.39

69 Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner 3 David A. McGee Svete & McGee Co. LPA Chardon, Ohio A. General representation. B. Sales tax. C. Homeland security. D. OVI/federal preemption? E. Insurance. F. Enforcement. G. Partnership agreement. H. Buy/sell/title. Aviation Legal Issues for the General Practitioner 3.1

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS LOREN W. DANNER AND PAN DANNER

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS LOREN W. DANNER AND PAN DANNER IN THE IOWA SUPREME COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED APR 18, 2018 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT NO. 17-1458 THE CARROLL AIRPORT COMMISSION (OPERATING THE ARTHUR N. NEU MUNICIPAL AIRPORT), Plaintiffs/Appellees, VS.