14 C.F.R. § 77.23
Heliport imaginary surfaces
(a) Primary surface. The area of the primary surface coincides in size and shape with the designated take-off and landing area. This surface is a horizontal plane at the elevation of the established heliport elevation.
(b) Approach surface. The approach surface begins at each end of the heliport primary surface with the same width as the primary surface, and extends outward and upward for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet where its width is 500 feet. The slope of the approach surface is 8 to 1 for civil heliports and 10 to 1 for military heliports.
(c) Transitional surfaces. These surfaces extend outward and upward from the lateral boundaries of the primary surface and from the approach surfaces at a slope of 2 to 1 for a distance of 250 feet measured horizontally from the centerline of the primary and approach surfaces.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1969–2009 · leading case: Lopez v. Three Rivers Elec. Coop., Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. 2000).
Lopez v. Three Rivers Elec. Coop., Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. 2000). “The power lines were not considered an obstruction to air navigation so as to require marking under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations because they were fewer than 200 feet above ground level and were not within close proximity to a public airport.”
Lee v. Farmer's Rural Elec. Coop. Corp., 245 S.W.3d 209 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007). “For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Barren Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of Farmer’s Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation is reversed. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Hosto v. Union Elec. Co., 51 S.W.3d 133 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). “FAA regulations strictly prohibit persons from acting or attempting to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft within 8 hours of consuming any alcoholic beverage.”
Clark Cnty. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 522 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “See 14 C.F.R. § 77.23 (a)(3); Handbook ¶ 6-3-9(e)(4) (requiring FAA to issue Notice of Presumed Hazard when structure penetrates 40:1 departure slope by more than 35 feet).”
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Ass'n v. Fed. Aviation Admin., Wset, Inc., Intervenor, 600 F.2d 965 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “The regulations set out various standards against which proposals may be evaluated, see 14 C.F.R. § 77.23 (a), and also require the FAA to conduct aeronautical studies in certain circumstances, see 14 C.”
Catchings v. City of Glendale, 743 P.2d 400 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “14 C.F.R. §§ 77.23 , 77.25(b)(c). It is undisputed that at the time of the accident, obstructions existed within those imaginary surfaces at the Glendale Municipal Airport.”
Roberts v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 2 A.3d 131 (Del. Super. Ct. 2009). “14 C.F.R. § 77.23 (1968). 13 . Bryant , 1995 WL 653987 at *2.”
Joseph Weiss, Jr. & Brigitte Weiss v. United States, 889 F.2d 937 (10th Cir. 1990). “Under 14 C.F.R. § 77.23 (a)(1), a Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) regulation, no object less than 500 feet above ground level is an obstruction.”
Aeronautics Comm'n of Indiana v. State Ex Rel. Emmis Broad. Corp., 440 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “The FAA regulations set out various standards against which proposals may be evaluated, see 14 C.F.R. § 77.23 (a), and also may require the FAA to conduct aeronautical studies in certain circumstances, see 14 C.”
BFI Waste Sys. of North Am., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 293 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “Sub-part C states that a proposed manmade object, like a landfill, is “an obstruction to air navigation” if it is “500 feet above ground level at the site of the object,” 14 C.F.R. § 77.23 (a)(1), or if it is “200 feet above ground level .”
Columbia Helicopters, Inc. v. United States, 314 F. Supp. 946 (D. Or. 1969). “14 C.F.R. § 77.23 . The government has been found negligent for failing to mark obstructing lines.”
Flowers Mill Assocs. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 182 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “14 C.F.R. § 77.23 . After FAA is notified of a proposed structure in accordance with Subpart B, it issues an acknowledgment which states that an aeronautical study of the proposed construction has resulted in one of three determinations: (1) that the proposed construction or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.