South Carolina Code of Laws
Chapter 3 - State Law For Aeronautics
Section 55-3-100. Restrictions on the use of waterway by seaplane; criteria.

If the division determines that use of a waterway by a seaplane poses an unreasonable risk to public health, safety, or property, the division or commission may withdraw approval or limit use of the waterway or make the use of the waterway subject to conditions, after following criteria set forth in this section. If considered necessary to protect public health, safety or property, the division may issue an interim order restricting the use of a waterway by a seaplane pending completion of the procedures in this section. In determining if a waterway is suitable for seaplane use, the division shall consider the following criteria:
(1) the safety and general suitability of the waterway for seaplane use;
(2) the impact of seaplane use on the use and enjoyment of the waterway and adjacent properties by other persons;
(3) the availability of suitable alternative waterways for seaplane use;
(4) the public interest in fostering aviation and allowing the use of navigable waterways for aviation and other purposes;
(5) whether competing interests may be balanced by imposing limitations or conditions on use of the waterway by seaplanes; and
(6) any other factor which reasonably would be affected by a decision to allow seaplane use notwithstanding the local ordinance.
HISTORY: 2012 Act No. 270, Section 2, eff June 18, 2012.

Editor's Note
Former Section 55-3-100 was entitled "Trick flying and other misuse of aircraft" and was derived from 1962 Code Section 2 10; 1952 Code Section 2-10; 1942 Code Sections 1130, 7108; 1932 Code Sections 1130, 7108; 1929 (36) 220.
NOTES OF DECISIONS
In general 1
1. In general
Laws prohibiting stunt flying in congested areas are justified by state's interest in protecting human life and property; although, if especially skilled pilots were to attach streamers to airplanes, their conduct would have expressive element and unusual maneuvers would help draw attention to their messages, laws may nonetheless be enforced against such persons without proof their conduct was actually harmful or dangerous. F.T.C. v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass'n, U.S.Dist.Col.1990, 110 S.Ct. 768, 493 U.S. 411, 107 L.Ed.2d 851, on remand 897 F.2d 1168, 283 U.S.App.D.C. 146.