C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER E—AIRSPACE › PART 77—SAFE, EFFICIENT USE, AND PRESERVATION OF THE NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE › Subpart D—Aeronautical Studies and Determinations

14 C.F.R. § 77.25

Applicability

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This subpart applies to any aeronautical study of a proposed construction or alteration for which notice to the FAA is required under § 77.9.

(b) The purpose of an aeronautical study is to determine whether the aeronautical effects of the specific proposal and, where appropriate, the cumulative impact resulting from the proposed construction or alteration when combined with the effects of other existing or proposed structures, would constitute a hazard to air navigation.

(c) The obstruction standards in subpart C of this part are supplemented by other manuals and directives used in determining the effect on the navigable airspace of a proposed construction or alteration. When the FAA needs additional information, it may circulate a study to interested parties for comment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC (2005) conn · cites it 5× “25 (d) of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines the “[ajpproach surface” for the lype of airport at issue in the present case as a surface that starts 200 feet from the end of the runway; 14 C.F.R. § 77.25 (c) (primary surface ends 200 feet beyond end of runway);…”
Flowers Mill Associates v. United States (1991) cc · cites it 4× “14 C.F.R. § 77.25 . Safe and efficient use of airspace requires that areas under these imaginary surfaces be kept clear of obstacles.”
D&F Afonso Realty Trust v. Garvey (2000) cadc · cites it 2× “After reviewing D&F’s filing, the FAA determined that the completed house exceeded one of the air navigation obstruction standards listed in 14 C.F.R. § 77.25 . Specifically, the FAA found that 16.”
City of Austin v. Travis County Landfill Co. (2000) texapp · cites it 2× “See 14 C.F.R. § 77.25 (1999). One such surface is the "approach surface.”
HIGHLANDS AIRPORT AUTH. v. Singleton Auto Parts, Inc. (2009) va · cites it 4× “The Airport Authority supports its argument by referring to the language of 14 C.F.R. § 77.25 (d)(2) (2007) in conjunction with evidence of the type of aircraft that use runway 24.”
City of New Haven v. Town of East Haven (1977) connsuperct · cites it 2× “2; 14 C.F.R. 77.25 (1977). “Transition zone” is a broader area of air space in whieh there may be obstructions which may affect air travel.”
Blue Sky Entertainment, Inc. v. Town of Gardiner (1989) nynd “]” of the parachute jumping center or small airport, as those perimeters are defined by 14 C.F.R. § 77.25 . Compliance with section 6(a) would require jump aircraft to turn virtually constantly during ascent.”
County of Westchester v. Town of Greenwich, Conn. (1992) nysd · cites it 2× “FAA regulations specifically define two types of clear zones that are significant for this case: a trapezoidal-shaped “approach surface” beginning from a point 200 feet beyond the end of the runway and extending outward for a distance of 5,200 feet at a slope of one foot…”
Backcountry Against Dumps v. Faa (2023) ca9 · cites it 3× “” 14 C.F.R. § 77.25 (c). FAA’s Order JO 7400.”
County of Westchester v. Town of Greenwich, Conn. (1990) nysd “See 14 C.F.R. § 77.25 (1990). If intrusions into this zone are present, aircraft will be forced to land or take off at an angle that is unsafe.”
County of York v. Peninsula Airport Commission (1988) va “See 14 C.F.R. § 77.25 (1988) (establishing “Civil airport imaginary surfaces”); id.”
Goodspeed Airport, LLC v. East Haddam Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission (2010) ctd “See 14 C.F.R. § 77.25 (d). The “transitional surface” is shaped like a trapezoid; it flares upwards and outwards at right-angles from the edge of the primary surface to 1250 horizontal feet at a slope of 7-to-l.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.