Yes, although K&N weren't the reason it was updated. And without knowing specifically what they agreed to in connection with the fine, they may still be prohibited (If they did some form of consent decree in which they agreed to get a permit forever in the future, they may be bound by that outside of the overall policy change - unless the agency rescinds the restriction). Bottom line: their mess may not yet be cleared up.
Of course, but the National Park Service and other affected agencies have a need for pilots to be aware of which areas the "prohibit language" applies to. The most effective way to bring that about is to put the information on aeronautical charts, as is done for the Grand Canyon, and as used to be done for Yosemite.
Yeah. Grand Canyon is easy, ya go to FAR 93 to see what you can and can’t do. Boo Boo and ya got the Department of Transportation on your azz. For Yosemite and others ya got the Interior Department on your azz. The old way requires less reading, tells ya right there on the Sectional, at Yosemite, go below 2000 and ya may get a date with the cat in the long black robe with the big wood hammer. The new way ya gotta go read the thing in the margin of the Chart. And it kinda baits you into maybe busting the Public Law by saying “...aircraft are requested...”. Keep reading and it tells ya about the AC which tells ya about the Public Law which tells ya don’t do it. None of that ‘requested’ stuff. I’d guess that ‘requested’ thing on the Chart might get you off the hook with an admonishment to not do it again.
You don't even have to do that. There is a special chart for the Grand Canyon that gives it to you right on the chart.
That doesn't mean they won't try.
And it's available straight from the horse's mouth as a GEO-TIFF or PDF.
Hypothetically maybe, but has anyone heard of the FAA actually using 91.13 as the sole support for sanctioning failure to comply with a minimum altitude "request"?
As mentioned, it’s not FAA rules you break. The 2000’ is a NPS guidance trigger point that brings other NPS rules into play. Where the OP letter writer went wrong was to state the trigger instead of the actual rule like wildlife harassment.The FAA merely "advises" you of these other rules by requesting the 2000' with the AIM taking a step further with this:
Note that the AIM passage you quoted says that the restrictions are charted. However, it looks like they forgot to update their list of examples when the Yosemite restriction expired.
That's the point you keep missing. It's not an airspace violation. See below. You need to think like a tree-hugger vs a sky king to see how this works.
If you think the FARs are a mess you should try other departmental regulations. The one thing everyone seems to overlook is none of these are "airspace" violations. But let the government speak for themselves as I do have one example I have personal experience with. This one is a NOAA law/rule. Each individual wilderness agency, to include the NPS, have their own unique version of these type rules in case you wish to research more.
They can find something. And it's not limited to the FAA - could be NPS, could be EPA, could be any number of other agencies. Could be simply an administrative rule or regulation, and under administrative law your pretty much have to prove that you didn't do whatever they allege.
I'm aware of the NOAA ones and they're on the charts, with appropriate mandatory wording and the CFR reference. (The nearest one is about 20 miles from my house.)That's the point you keep missing. It's not an airspace violation. See below. You need to think like a tree-hugger vs a sky king to see how this works.
If you think the FARs are a mess you should try other departmental regulations. The one thing everyone seems to overlook is none of these are "airspace" violations. But let the government speak for themselves as I do have one example I have personal experience with. This one is a NOAA law/rule. Each individual wilderness agency, to include the NPS, have their own unique version of these type rules in case you wish to research more.
Here's the NOAA overflight FAQ's with specific examples extracted:
https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/flight/faqs.html
"3) How can NOAA impose overflight regulations when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the only agency that can establish flight rules and restricted airspace?
Answer: NOAA recognizes the FAA's authority to regulate airspace and worked closely with the FAA to craft regulations that are explicitly linked to NOAA's statutory authority for natural resource protection. NOAA has established a minimum altitude disturbance threshold for federally protected marine mammal and seabird communities within discrete areas of each relevant west coast national marine sanctuary. Flying motorized aircraft below the 1,000-foot minimum altitude threshold in certain coastal areas of these sanctuaries violates a federal wildlife disturbance prohibition – not an FAA airspace restriction. The FAA, in a 2012 letter to the Aircraft Operators and Pilots Association (AOPA), stated that it does not view NOAA's minimum altitude disturbance thresholds as airspace regulations, nor as an infringement on the FAA's stated authority to regulate airspace."
7) The Sanctuary overflight regulation states that failure to maintain a specified minimum altitude in certain areas of a sanctuary is presumed to disturb marine mammals or seabirds. What does that mean?
Answer: It means that if NOAA can establish that a pilot operated a motorized aircraft below 1,000 feet AGL within any NOAA regulated overflight zone, the pilot could be charged with a wildlife disturbance violation simply by the act of flying below the minimum altitude threshold**. In other words, disturbance is presumed to have occurred, unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof that no disturbance occurred would rest upon the pilot. "Rebuttable presumption" is a principle that has been applied in law for centuries.
** At least with an FAA violation the burden of proof rests on the FAA.
Here's the actual rule:
https://nmsfarallones.blob.core.win...ve/manage/pdf/77FR3919_Overflighfinalrule.pdf
Here's more NOAA overflight guidance link:
https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/flight/
That's some interesting logic.
My operating limitations have the phrase, "Except for takeoffs and landings, this aircraft may not be operated over densely populated areas." When I inquired as to what a densely populated area was I was led to believe that they would tell me when they needed me to know.
Even in a certified plane, I always do my best not to fly over areas populated by dense people.
Pretty much impossible nowadays.
IIRC they got that guy for minimum altitude and minimum altitude for aerobatics... and no doubt as they always do, threw in "careless or reckless" as the proverbial cherry on top.
And you obviously don’t know a lot of boat owners.You obviously do a lot of over water flights.
