NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Many airports are located in areas populated by people. Most people dislike the constant noise of the aircraft, but deal with it anyway. However, sometimes the noise can be too much for some people and action will be taken. In some extreme cases, a major question becomes involved.
Does the flight of aircraft over the property of another constitute a taking? Thomas Lee Causby and his wife were proud owners of a 2. 8 -acre chicken farm that happened to lie under the approach path of a military airfield near Greensboro, North Carolina. They claimed that the noise level and glaring lights during the nighttime interfered drastically with the normal use of their property. Their sleep was disturbed as well as their chickens. Unfortunately, they had to give up their chicken business. Six to ten chickens would suffer death each day because the noise would scare them, and they flew into walls.
A total of 150 chickens suffered unfortunate deaths because of this. Then, the Causby's decided to take action. They submitted a claim to the Federal Government for the loss of their property. What started out as a simple claim, finally led to a Supreme Court ruling. The government s defense argued that there was no taking because the government had asserted control over the use of the airspace. Aircraft flying within this airspace was deemed navigable airspace according to the 1926 Air Commerce Act and the Civil Aeronautics act of 1938.
Such flights were an exercise of the declared right of travel through public airspace. In turn, damages caused by a lawful action are consequential and do not constitute a taking Heated arguments for the respondents were claims that the use of the overlying airspace by the defendant amounted to a taking. An old slogan was then brought up in the case. He who owns the soil owns it to the heavens! The taking of airspace over Causby s property resulted in damage to the remainder of the property. Causby should receive both for the value of the property taken and the damages caused.
Upon reaching Supreme Court, the court made an analysis of the airspace and whether or not the flights were within legal navigable airspace. The minimum navigable airspace defined by congress consisted of three hundred, five hundred and one thousand foot flight levels. Despite the fact that the Civil Aeronautics Authority had been given full authority to submit air traffic rules, the glide path did not meet the minimum safe altitude of flight. Congress had defined navigable airspace only in terms of the minimum safe altitude of flight. The airport s approach slope was not considered to be the downward reach of the minimum prescribed altitudes. Then, the Supreme Court agreed with the U.
S. court of claims that there had been a diminution of property value and that the frequent low-level flights had been the reason behind all of the damages. The Supreme Court then ruled that compensation was due. Next, the court reversed the lower civil court s decision because it had not found a precise description of the easement taken. It was not described in terms of frequency of flight, permissible altitude, or type of airplane.
Also, there was no finding as to whether the easement taken was a temporary or permanent one. Finally, the case was brought back to the court of claims so that the necessary findings were made with the Supreme Court s opinion. The Causby's use of their land presupposes the use of some of the adjacent airspace. Unauthorized use of this airspace can affect the uses of the land below.
The court s opinion indicates that something as simple as flight over land does not constitute a taking, but must be attended by something else such as noise or glare. The court found that flights over private land are not a taking unless flown so low and so frequently as to be a direct interference with enjoyment as well as use of the land. In the closing arguments of the case, Justice Black stated that the court s findings were, an opening wedge for an unwarranted judicial interference with the power of congress to develop solutions for new and vital national problems. Also, he stated that the case should have been reversed on the grounds that there had been no taking in the Constitutional sense.
The U. S. Constitution entrusts Congress with all the power to control all navigable airspace. With that power, Congress had already used that power. They stated, The United States of America is to possess and exercise complete and exclusive national sovereignty in the airspace above the United States. Congress then declared that the air was free, not subject to private ownership, and not subject to delimitation by the courts.
In Justice Black s opinion, the court elected to thwart the intent of Congress with its findings in the case. Personally, I can agree and disagree with both sides on certain issues. Causby had every right to do what he did. It was very unfair that his business had to be shut down and that the chickens had to die. But, people must understand that it is not the airport s fault that they moved next to the airfield. Where else could my fellow pilots and I land?
At least we don t land on the street outside their house or land on their house. I would have defended the United States Congress in this particular case. 31 c
Free research essays on topics related to: supreme court, airspace, flight, chickens, noise
Research essay sample on Minimum Safe Altitude Minimum Safe Altitude Of Flight Airspace
