After the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash a lawmaker from New York is trying to make a state law that says helicopters must have a terrain awareness system. While I have no objection to the idea behind this, I do object at the state level.

Even though I don’t fly helicopters I think this could set a precedent that states can make what ever laws they want with regards to aviation.

My question is is do states even have the jurisdiction to make what ever laws they want in regards to aviation since this is done at the federal level with the FAA?

What if tomorrow Florida decided to make a law saying that you must have 10,000 hours total time to fly IFR in their state. I would be out of work with my airline.

And if they are allowed to make their own regulations with regards to aviation are there any exsciting out there?

Does Minnesota have a law stating you must have 5,000 hours in an A320 before you can be PIC while flying in their state? I hope not...idk.

Do I now to to check each state law before I fly there? Link below.

if you have any experience with this matter please chime in.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...m_medium=email

This is political grandstanding. About 15 years ago (?) a flight instructor, student and camerman were killed in a crash. The backstory was the girl student was trying to set a record as the youngest student pilot or somesuch and was "at the controls" during the crash -- not withstanding the fact that she was with her CFI.

It was a tragic event, and of course local politcians saw an opportunity. They tried to create a state law making it illegal for minors to "fly" aircraft.

It went nowhere.

You are correct to be concerned. The tool in NY is just trying to grab some attention for himself (bet he's up for re-election).

Generally no, and absolutely no as far as flight operations procedures and equipment goes.

This is well established legal doctrine and any state would be wasting it's breath trying.

The only place where state/local governments seem to have an opportunity to regulate aviation is in areas where the existence of aviation is impacting their local interests. Curfews is the obvious example, and also some states tax aircraft ownership under property/luxury tax. State/local governments can and usually do own airports, and have a lot of leeway in their management but cannot infringe on FAA rules (ex. clearways).

But they cannot seem to do anything which would be in effect after the aircraft leaves their borders (required equipment). They also have no jurisdiction over airspace, any limits they want on that have to be requested from the FAA (or lawsuits in some cases, but they cannot legislate it). HI and AK for example have some special regulatory provisions in the FARs, but the FAA had to do that.

1996, 24 years ago......I just realized I'm old!

I think there is a rule somewhere about flying VFR in IMC. I don’t know.

I remember that incident and the ensuing debate - Should she have taken off in that weather? Was she too young to be a pilot? the real question was - Should women be allowed to fly? I keed...I keed...

I can totally see retiring abroad.

So that there are stronger and better regulations, I get that totally.

Something Something ...decentralization.

I'd have no problem with States pretty much doing whatever they want. Just because the FAA monopolized the sky.....doesn't mean the States have no dog in this Aviation fight amiright?

For the record....Slavery was the one thing that could have prevented our founding as a Nation if the battle where fought at the founding. 1/2 Million Americans died to make sure it ended less than 100 years later.

When she gets worn out sometimes you just have to upgrade to a newer model...


It went so easily with your Rodney avatar.