Six figure fines for overflying west coast sanctuaries

Anthony said:
Totally agree. The problem is their is no legislation for them to implement policy. That was given long ago by people who never anticipated this kind of abuse of power, and big government takeover by the far left environmental movement.

The power of these agencies to make overly restrictive rules for no good reason except to promote their own power, and agenda needs to be ratcheted back. I would hope the people affected are speaking to their elected representatives about this and will remember it during the next election. We all know who supports this crap.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Got hyperbole?
 
steingar said:
I am astonished that the FAA would cede their statutory authority to NOAA in this manner.
Click to expand...

Be astonished no more. Despite AOPAs inaccurate spin the FAA ceded nothing. They simply agreed with years of legal precedent that despite confusing rumors to the contrary mostly in the GA pilot community they are not the final authority over all things aviation.

It may very well be that the inevitable legal review may prove them wrong in this particular circumstance. We will see. The court must conclude that the regulation is "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law."
 
Last edited:
cause if ya think that's bad wait until you see what the park service has in store for ga...
 
ClimbnSink said:
cause if ya think that's bad wait until you see what the park service has in store for ga...
Click to expand...

What ever the "park service" does in this area will have the FAA just as prominently featured in the action or it will be voted upon in the halls of Congress. We're smarter than NOAA :wink2:
 
Jim Logajan said:
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the "presumption of disturbance" has nothing to do with a presumption of the facts. Specifically, someone who claims that a motorized aircraft flew within a restricted area would have to first show proof that the restricted area was breached.
Click to expand...

Since when did the presumption of anything related to common sense apply to any bureaucracy?

John
 
alaskaflyer said:
Be astonished no more. Despite AOPAs inaccurate spin the FAA ceded nothing. They simply agreed with years of legal precedent that despite confusing rumors to the contrary mostly in the GA pilot community they are not the final authority over all things aviation.
Click to expand...
Care to elaborate on what AOPA and others got wrong?

It may very well be that the inevitable legal review may prove them wrong in this particular circumstance. We will see. The court must conclude that the regulation is "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law."
Click to expand...
That makes little sense to me. One, what are we paying for if every Tom, Dick, and Harry can write their own regs with little to none reference to existing law or policy? What of the structure of the US federal govt?

Two, it should be decided by the judiciary whether the reg follws precent or not? Well, I guess fed employees are vastly overpaid if they cannot write policy or reg to establish jurisdiction...or that is not capricious. And if it is to be left to "legal review", why so sullen? Apparently you are annoyed it should come to that. Is this not how govt works?

As for it being arbitrary, I think the motored vessels on the water could have argued that since aircraft have so far not been prohibited. The topic of this post could be seen as closing that 'loophole'.

In the meanwhile, can we expect a stay of the reg?
 
alaskaflyer said:
We're smarter than NOAA :wink2:
Click to expand...
Or more devious. I always saw the NOAA as my buddies wearing white hats. I always saw the F&G and NFS as the outlaws in the forest seeking to club me at a moments lack of awareness.

In each I have good reaon to think such.
 
Y
Richard said:
Care to elaborate on what AOPA and others got wrong?


That makes little sense to me. One, what are we paying for if every Tom, Dick, and Harry can write their own regs with little to none reference to existing law or policy? What of the structure of the US federal govt?

Two, it should be decided by the judiciary whether the reg follws precent or not? Well, I guess fed employees are vastly overpaid if they cannot write policy or reg to establish jurisdiction...or that is not capricious. And if it is to be left to "legal review", why so sullen? Apparently you are annoyed it should come to that. Is this not how govt works?

As for it being arbitrary, I think the motored vessels on the water could have argued that since aircraft have so far not been prohibited. The topic of this post could be seen as closing that 'loophole'.

In the meanwhile, can we expect a stay of the reg?
Click to expand...

I'm having difficulty understanding your post. That being said I am not sullen. I personally don't think the reg is a great idea as written, even if action is needed to protect what the sanctuaries were established to protect. It is the lazy way to enforce what needs to be enforced and I don't think it will survive judicial review if someone sues. Not because they don't have authority and not because of some imaginary rule that only the FAA can regulate pilot behavior. I think they have regulations right now which can be used to hold a pilot accountable for either intended or negligent harassment. And they most certainly have that authority.

On the other hand we are here because too many jack hole pilots obviously couldn't resist doing that which NOAA now further tries to prevent.

As for my other comment I was just noting that when you see flight restrictions over national parklands you will not find them in title 36 of the CFR, you will find them either in the FARs or in a couple of cases codified by acts of Congress.
 
Last edited:
kimberlyanne546 said:
This is VERY true. Due to the mountains, they warned me they would lose us, even at 3500 feet, but that I could try again in a few miles on a different frequency which they gave me. So I had to squak 1200 and say goodbye to them which is when I went lower for photos. The article mentions 1,000 msl or 2,000 msl and I don't think I was ever below 2,000 msl so I'm sure I was OK.
Click to expand...

That's what they all say. Tell it to the Judge. :(
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Whoops. Sorry. Well what I was saying is they couldn't pick me up on their radar or tell my altitude in that area, so the earlier posters idea of "proving" stuff might not work since they don't know where I am / what I'm doing if they are no longer picking me up on their radar. And I think that was at 3,500 over water right off the shore.
Click to expand...

It sounds like "they" don't have to prove what you did. YOU have to prove what you didn't.
 
Mason said:
That's what they all say. Tell it to the Judge. :(
Click to expand...
Whoa back pard. Kimberly is a new pilot. She is also innocent, Both conditions suggest she will not understand your post.

There are two things being said here: Kimberly saying loss of contact due to terrain; the other is loss of contact due to pilot intentionally swtiching the transponder to STBY or OFF.

Many times I have flown in that area which Kimberly mentions loss of contact. Absolutey, unequivocably is it due to terrain. BTW: most of California is classified as mountainous terrain. I have flown all over CA and on many flights I have lost contact (transponder and radio comm and quite often ground based nav aids).
 
Mason said:
It sounds like "they" don't have to prove what you did. YOU have to prove what you didn't.
Click to expand...
I think more than anything else in the impending reg which is so troublesome it is that this "burden of proof" is decidely opposite to that of English common law which is the basis of our legislation. To wit, an action is permissible unless specifically said it is not permissible. And if it is not permmisible, any violation must be proved by the accuser, in this case a govt agency.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Y

I'm having difficulty understanding your post. That being said I am not sullen. I personally don't think the reg is a great idea as written, even if action is needed to protect what the sanctuaries were established to protect. It is the lazy way to enforce what needs to be enforced and I don't think it will survive judicial review if someone sues. Not because they don't have authority and not because of some imaginary rule that only the FAA can regulate pilot behavior. I think they have regulations right now which can be used to hold a pilot accountable for either intended or negligent harassment. And they most certainly have that authority.

On the other hand we are here because too many jack hole pilots obviously couldn't resist doing that which NOAA now further tries to prevent.

As for my other comment I was just noting that when you see flight restrictions over national parklands you will not find them in title 36 of the CFR, you will find them either in the FARs or in a couple of cases codified by acts of Congress.
Click to expand...
Again, how did AOPA get it wrong in their reporting? And do you think these regs have come into existence as response to "jack holes"? My contention is such regulatory restrictions exist independent of a demontrated 'need', ie public safety or what have you.

Much like the USGS conducting studies of biota, why is the NOAA now an enforcement agency? That is, did the charter change for the agency? If so, why since it constitutes a broadening of powers.

I assume most of us know where to find the overflight restrictions. I am befuddled by your mention. Please elaborate. What other of your comments do you mean?
 
Three inch numbers, transponder off, and let's come up with some way for AOPA to get the funds needed to both fight this in court and to ensure the elections and energetic representation of congressmen and senators who have their heads on straight.
 
ateamer said:
Three inch numbers, transponder off, and let's come up with some way for AOPA to get the funds needed to both fight this in court and to ensure the elections and energetic representation of congressmen and senators who have their heads on straight.
Click to expand...
Don't be a nancy boy. I say leave the transponders on and when the ADS-B equipped ground observer is locked on, fire and forget.

As for coercing AOPA to act in the interests of pilots I don't know how.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
Much like the USGS conducting studies of biota, why is the NOAA now an enforcement agency? That is, did the charter change for the agency? If so, why since it constitutes a broadening of powers.
I assume most of us know where to find the overflight restrictions. I am befuddled by your mention. Please elaborate. What other of your comments do you mean?
Click to expand...



Why is NOAA an enforcement agency now? I thought their mission was to report and predict the weather?

Where does NOAA get the legal right to do this with absolutely no debate, nor any type of analysis? It is a joke. Agencies, like these can do anythign they want now, can't they. All in the name of the public good. Is that really what it is?
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
Again, how did AOPA get it wrong in their reporting? And do you think these regs have come into existence as response to "jack holes"? My contention is such regulatory restrictions exist independent of a demontrated 'need', ie public safety or what have you.

Much like the USGS conducting studies of biota, why is the NOAA now an enforcement agency? That is, did the charter change for the agency? If so, why since it constitutes a broadening of powers.

I assume most of us know where to find the overflight restrictions. I am befuddled by your mention. Please elaborate. What other of your comments do you mean?
Click to expand...

A previous poster commented that the FAA ceded their jurisdiction. They did no such thing. AOPA is trying to characterize this as airspace regulation. Not exactly IMO - if anything they are backing away from the previous regulations that simply prohibited overflight and are now linking it directly to disturbances on the surface.

Is the FAA an enforcement agency? It has been empowered by Congress to investigate violations and assess serious civil penalties and other regulatory actions. Same with NOAA. And unlike the FAA, NOAA has also had a law
enforcement component since its founding in 1970, having taken over several roles for such from previous agencies that were folded into it. You do know that there have been altitude restrictions over at least three of these sanctuaries for years before now, don't you?

And lastly if you are befuddled by my mention, it is because I was very befuddled by yours. I mentioned it because you responded to my comment about the National Park Service approach to resolving aviation conflicts being different than NOAA's.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
Where does NOAA get the legal right to do this with absolutely no debate, nor any type of analysis? It is a joke. Agencies, like these can do anythign they want now, can't they. All in the name of the public good. Yeah right, how about in the name of self serving, guaranteed wasteful government employment. Must be nice to create "jobs" for yourselves and permanent employment on our dime.
Click to expand...

The only part of your tirade that deserves response is that federal regulatory rule making is by its very nature both an analysis and a debate. Or does it only qualify as such when the result is something that you personally agree with?

I look forward to hearing about how you personally engaged the process, having heard about it periodically through AOPA and on here, and how you forwarded both your personal opinion and expert analysis to be considered by the agency. Or at the very least how you pay AOPA dues for them to do the heavy lifting.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
The only part of your tirade that deserves response is that federal regulatory rule making is by its very nature both an analysis and a debate. Or does it only qualify as such when the result is something that you personally agree with?

I look forward to hearing about how you personally engaged the process, having heard about it periodically through AOPA and on here, and how you forwarded both your personal opinion and expert analysis to be considered by the agency. Or at the very least how you pay AOPA dues for them to do the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...


Sorry. I thought intelligent conversation could be had. I thought wrong.
 
alaskaflyer said:
You thought? Well jeez it must be true then.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking someone could make a lot of money out there if they offered to "repaint" N numbers using directionally affected paint, i.e. paint that changes color and/or reflectivity when viewed from different angles. Make is so that from straight on or above your N number reads correctly but when viewed from below it changes to something else. Ideally that "something else" would be the number of a plane owned by someone you didn't like but it could also be a short expletive.
 
dmccormack said:
Keep in mind Alaska is sustained by Government largesse.
Click to expand...


Understood, but I am sure that does not affect neither his judgment nor perspective on the matter. After all us pilots have a lot more in common than most folks, right?

My legislators will be hearing from me, and I hope many more of us about these arbitrary, and dubious violations of due process of law.
 
gismo said:
I'm thinking someone could make a lot of money out there if they offered to "repaint" N numbers using directionally affected paint, i.e. paint that changes color and/or reflectivity when viewed from different angles. Make is so that from straight on or above your N number reads correctly but when viewed from below it changes to something else. Ideally that "something else" would be the number of a plane owned by someone you didn't like but it could also be a short expletive.
Click to expand...

This what the Chief looks like from below:

spaceballs+we+brake.png
 
alaskaflyer said:
A previous poster commented that the FAA ceded their jurisdiction. They did no such thing. AOPA is trying to characterize this as airspace regulation. Not exactly IMO - if anything they are backing away from the previous regulations that simply prohibited overflight and are now linking it directly to disturbances on the surface.
Click to expand...

That was me. If the FAA says you can't overfly a certain area and imposes penalties if you do, that's part of their regulatory oversight. You'll not hear the mighty roar of Steingar in complaint. I may not be wise, but I'm loud.

alaskaflyer said:
Is the FAA an enforcement agency? It has been empowered by Congress to investigate violations and assess serious civil penalties and other regulatory actions. Same with NOAA. And unlike the FAA, NOAA has also had a law enforcement component since its founding in 1970, having taken over several roles for such from previous agencies that were folded into it. You do know that there have been altitude restrictions over at least three of these sanctuaries for years before now, don't you?
Click to expand...

And there's the rub. The FAA has jurisdiction over the sky. They can make altitude restrictions and enforce them as they see fit. That isn't a function of NOAA and never has been.

That's why things like the DC no flight zone and Presidential TFRs were mandated by the FAA, even if they were at the behest of the Secret Service. Once every federal agency that feels like it starts making restrictions, there won't be much left.

Of course, a moving target like "disturbance of unseen wildlife" is unenforceable in court, unless NOAA has it's own pet kangaroo court like the FAA. If so, they can do whatever they want.

At least, that's my take from what I know living down the street from the NOAA for a few years. If I'm wrong I'd be glad to hear it.
 
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article...-a-gamble.html

I think this is a perfect example of a typical self-serving AOPA maneuver: to misrepresent a situation/regulation/etc. to make it appear to be a serious threat to GA and thus increase the need for more AOPA advocacy and scare us into making more contributions to the AOPA.

I read the amended regulation. I read the old regulation. The amendment changes almost nothing.

- Q: Were new prohibited areas added? A: No.

- Q: Did the existing prohibited areas change in size, height or location? A: No.

- Q: Did the amount of the potential fines change? A: No.

- Q: Does the agency still have to prove you entered the prohibited area? A: Yes.

What changed? The only thing that changed is that, if they can prove you entered the prohibited area, they no longer have to prove that wildlife was disturbed as a result of your violation.

No different really than a bust of Class B or an assigned altitude as I see it. If you did it, you're guilty. No need for them to prove safety was actually compromised.

The FAA is not your friend, and I'm not sure about the AOPA either.
 
If they want the airspace to be prohibited, they should make it a P or an R, and chart it accordingly.
 
TedR3 said:
[No different really than a bust of Class B or an assigned altitude as I see it. If you did it, you're guilty. No need for them to prove safety was actually compromised.
Click to expand...


They don't fine you $100K for busting a Class B. The worst you'll get is a number to call.


The FAA is not your friend, and I'm not sure about the AOPA either.
Click to expand...


Well I AM sure AOPA is more of a freind than the FAA, NOAA, Interior, Park Service (heh, heh), EPA etc. :D
 
TMetzinger said:
If they want the airspace to be prohibited, they should make it a P or an R, and chart it accordingly.
Click to expand...
Shush. Perhaps you know more than I about how airspaced is declared SUA. So how would that work here?

Keep in mind once it works here it will work everywhere else. What will keep say, W from becoming P?
 
alaskaflyer said:
A previous poster commented that the FAA ceded their jurisdiction. They did no such thing. AOPA is trying to characterize this as airspace regulation. Not exactly IMO - if anything they are backing away from the previous regulations that simply prohibited overflight and are now linking it directly to disturbances on the surface.
Click to expand...
Perhaps AOPA is trying to protect the privledges of pilots and those active in avaition. Maybe they did mischaracterize the issue. Please provide cite to support your contention.

Is the FAA an enforcement agency? It has been empowered by Congress to investigate violations and assess serious civil penalties and other regulatory actions. Same with NOAA. And unlike the FAA, NOAA has also had a law
enforcement component since its founding in 1970, having taken over several roles for such from previous agencies that were folded into it. You do know that there have been altitude restrictions over at least three of these sanctuaries for years before now, don't you?
Click to expand...
Ask any pilot who looked down the barrel of the gun if the FAA is an enforcement agency. Perhaps being some kind of LEO yourself (that only means I know you are long time NPS but am unaware of your exact title in your employment) you are quibbling over terms but not context.

Heretofore, the NOAA has had jurisdiction over the navigable waters. We now read this as a broadening of powers to include the air. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/news/2011/11/08_enf_priorities.htm

And lastly if you are befuddled by my mention, it is because I was very befuddled by yours. I mentioned it because you responded to my comment about the National Park Service approach to resolving aviation conflicts being different than NOAA's.
Click to expand...
Ok, I understand now. Thank you for your explanation.

Oh yes, I do know some altitude advisories have been in effect for some years. Intentionally buzzing a pod of whales or willfull harrassment of sea otters is not to be confused with a 'bust' of 2,000 msl over a designated marine sanctuary.

EDIT TO ADD: IF you know something more than the average Joe, and I think you do, please share that information if allowed.
 
Last edited:
There are a number of places like this charted as sanctuaries. One that I can think of is in the area of Bar Harbor Me )Petit Manan National Wildlife Sanctuary). Another I recently discovered is a rule that states remaining 1,500' away from a pod of whales.
As I recall, there are updates to VFR charts released constantly. It's the pilots responsibility to copy these to his chart. While it isn't on the printed chart, the information should be available if you seek it out.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Keep in mind Alaska is sustained by Government largesse.
Click to expand...

I like Anthony's virtual persona very much (having never actually met him ;) ) but his post didn't strike me as intelligent conversation :frown: Perhaps I should go back and read it again and attempt to find signs of intelligent life in his ignoring the interesting parts if the issue in favor of attacking me for no good reason other than I exemplify the idea that not all GA pilots are libertarian-leaning conservatives despite the ample numbers of them on this forum?

And though I am a government employee you might be surprised by how little your "largesse" is responsible for sustaining me.
 
I always thought that Alaska was in many ways sustained by it's natural resources, - the riches there make it possible, and make the state important in a way that's not necessarily equivalent to it's relative population size.
 
TMetzinger said:
I always thought that Alaska was in many ways sustained by it's natural resources, - the riches there make it possible, and make the state important in a way that's not necessarily equivalent to it's relative population size.
Click to expand...

I thought he was referring to me, not the state I happen to reside in for the moment :rofl:

The only thing that my employment colors is my understanding of some of the legal and resource issues involved, not my opinion of them. We aren't all issued the same liberal club jacket when we take the federal oath of office. NOAA is in the Department of Commerce fer' cryin' out loud, and as for my own agency though there are certainly plenty of liberal pie eyed young ones running around it is still run at the higher levels by Teddy-Roosevelt-conservationist-conservative types.

And Richard I am among other things a LEO, as well as a federal manager, a legal analyst, a medic, rule writer, professional aviation manager, and an investor, a pilot and a bull shooter (conversationally-speaking.) Then there are the avocations... :rofl:
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
I like Anthony's virtual persona very much (having never actually met him ;) ) but his post didn't strike me as intelligent conversation :frown: Perhaps I should go back and read it again and attempt to find signs of intelligent life in his ignoring the interesting parts if the issue in favor of attacking me for no good reason other than I exemplify the idea that not all GA pilots are libertarian-leaning conservatives despite the ample numbers of them on this forum?

And though I am a government employee you might be surprised by how little your "largesse" is responsible for sustaining me.
Click to expand...


I said "Alaska," not "Alaskaflyer."

You'll see in this table that Alaska now ranks in the top 5 in government dollars dispersed v taxes received (IOW, you got more than you gave):

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

I'm sure Alaska is a gorgeous place as is Montana and West Virgina, two states I know well which also rank high on the dollars from the feds list.

That doesn't change the fact that Fed government largesse is sustaining a disproportionate number of people in Alaska compared to, oh, let's say, Pennsylvania.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top