ADS-B used for enforcement. Interesting letter---

Country Flier

Country Flier

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Sep 20, 2019
Messages
1,017
Display Name
Display name:
CFL
I found this online (it is not my letter). I think a certain superintendent needs a lesson on what "Advisory Circular" means:

upload_2021-5-15_8-14-7.png
 
Country Flier said:
I think a certain superintendent needs a lesson on what "Advisory Circular" means:
Click to expand...
FYI: the guidance/rules on operating below 2000' over certain wilderness areas is not FAA but a different agency. The AC was issued as a "courtesy" to aircraft owners/operators that those other agency rules exist. I believe there is additional FAA guidance on this as well in the AIM or other similar document.
 
I looked on a sectional, and notice there are 2 paved airports within the park, within 4 miles of the Montezuma Castle Monument. One is less than 1.5 miles away. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
 
Why did you redact the government official's name and number?


Country Flier said:
I looked on a sectional, and notice there are 2 paved airports within the park, within 4 miles of the Montezuma Castle Monument. One is less than 1.5 miles away. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

I was about to make the same point.
 
Supposedly the guy who wrote the letter didn’t know anything about aviation. He has since been educated, and the letter totally re-written.

Not that it makes it OK, just sayin, these are no longer going out.
 
Those evil, rich pilots, burning their poisonous leaded fuel shouldn’t be allowed to go anywhere near the parks for which their tax money helps to support.
 
Bob Noel said:
maybe people need to understand how easy it is to forge ADS-B messages
Click to expand...
Easy? Do you realize how hard it would be to, say, use your N number for my ride. First, I would have to find out what your N number is. Then I would have to lookup the hex code that corresponds with that number. Next step would require me to open the app on my phone that programs my ADS-B system. Then, well, what if I type in the wrong code? Then it would be some random persons number. But if I get it right, then I would have to push the "program" button. That's a lot of steps. Once I had your number it could take me 10 or 15 minutes. And, that doesn't even count the time it takes to drive to the airport. How much more secure can a system be?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Easy? Do you realize how hard it would be to, say, use your N number for my ride. First, I would have to find out what your N number is. Then I would have to lookup the hex code that corresponds with that number. Next step would require me to open the app on my phone that programs my ADS-B system. Then, well, what if I type in the wrong code? Then it would be some random persons number. But if I get it right, then I would have to push the "program" button. That's a lot of steps. Once I had your number it could take me 10 or 15 minutes. And, that doesn't even count the time it takes to drive to the airport. How much more secure can a system be?
Click to expand...
If you haven’t done anything wrong, then you don’t have anything for me to hide using your identity.
 
Always thought the FAA installed ground stations and not the national park service.
 
Most of the areas with the ‘2000’ AGL’ notice/restriction are on the remote side with rough, damp, or inhospitable terrain. I gotta say, for the most part, 2025’ AGL is still a plenty good view. Now one may have a peak or high spot, & accurate 2000’ estimation may be difficult. One can get down to minutiae, then are we talking a single flyby or circling for the best pictures? Maybe that altimeter is off a few feet?
 
The original source for this is this thread on BeechTalk.

A couple additional facts from that thread.
  • The pilot approached an airport in the wilderness area, which is specifically exempted from the AC.
  • The specific areas called out in the letter aren’t actually charted as wilderness areas.
The pilot that received the letter had an informative conversation with the superintendent and made them aware that the areas are not charted and that the language about the US Attorney was inappropriate. The superintendent agreed.
 
bluesky74656 said:
The original source for this is this thread on BeechTalk.

A couple additional facts from that thread.
  • The pilot approached an airport in the wilderness area, which is specifically exempted from the AC.
  • The specific areas called out in the letter aren’t actually charted as wilderness areas.
The pilot that received the letter had an informative conversation with the superintendent and made them aware that the areas are not charted and that the language about the US Attorney was inappropriate. The superintendent agreed.
Click to expand...
How dare you interrupt a good rant/bash thread with facts. What are you, new here or something?
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
..”and then quietly proceeded with research on how to change regulations and charting such that in future, his/her letter would have standing.”
Click to expand...

They went after popular vloggers Kara and Nate for posting videos on YouTube, saying that it was "commercial filming" and a commercial film permit was required. All there were using was a GoPro and DSLR. They were fined $1000 and ordered not to film in National Parks again without said permit (which takes $$$ to get and weeks to get approved - not reasonable for travel vloggers).

The FAA went after them, too, for their videos that were taken with a drone - commercial drone permit required.

Apparently NPS got sued over their commercial filming policy and has now changed it for folks doing what K&N do.

I have no doubt the the FAA drone ID rules are intended for enforcement purposes and will be heavily used for such.
 
bluesky74656 said:
The original source for this is this thread on BeechTalk.

A couple additional facts from that thread.
  • The pilot approached an airport in the wilderness area, which is specifically exempted from the AC.
  • The specific areas called out in the letter aren’t actually charted as wilderness areas.
The pilot that received the letter had an informative conversation with the superintendent and made them aware that the areas are not charted and that the language about the US Attorney was inappropriate. The superintendent agreed.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I’m not a member of beechtalk, I didn’t get this from there, and where I saw it had a different story.
 
Does the ADS-B system installed by the park service correct for pressure altitude being transmitted by the transponder ?
 
I immediately thought of some non-aviation type, with a bug up his/her butt about "airplanes" sitting in his/her office on flightradar24.com and getting absolutely indignant about unofficial info on his/her computer screen.
 
Long before ADSB was a thing, I knew of a pilot who had "the men in black" meet him on the ramp as he shut down for flying over a "Pilots of asked to not fly.." airspace (for a nuclear facility).

Again, long before ADSB, and they met him on the ramp as he shut down from that flight.

The swerve here is the pilot was contracted by said facility to do mapping work there, and once it was calmly explained to said MIB and he made one phone call it was all over.

Moral of the story: they were able to track you for "enforcement" long before ADSB got all you anti-gov / paranoid folks up in arms.
 
Of course, requested is not regulatory. From the AC, “Aircraft operators, aviation associations, airport managers, and others are asked to assist in voluntary compliance with this AC by publicizing it and distributing information regarding known noise-sensitive areas.”
 
bflynn said:
requested is not regulatory
Click to expand...
As mentioned, the 2000' limit does not come from the FAA rather the NPS and other similar agencies than manage wilderness areas. Given how the "environmentalist" lobby is much stronger than the GA lobby with congress, it's just a matter of time when it does become an FAR just like the Part 93 Grand Canyon and Part 136 rules came to be. Hopefully, people continue to follow the AC "request" otherwise it may end up down the same road as drones in wilderness areas: prohibited.
 
Bell206 said:
As mentioned, the 2000' limit does not come from the FAA rather the NPS and other similar agencies than manage wilderness areas. Given how the "environmentalist" lobby is much stronger than the GA lobby with congress, it's just a matter of time when it does become an FAR just like the Part 93 Grand Canyon and Part 136 rules came to be. Hopefully, people continue to follow the AC "request" otherwise it may end up down the same road as drones in wilderness areas: prohibited.
Click to expand...

yes, but is not today. Any threat to pursue legal action is empty.
 
There used to be a notice on the San Francisco Sectional about mandatory minimum altitudes over Yosemite National Park, but those are no longer on the chart. I don't know whether the law changed, or they just stopped charting it for some other reason.

Yosemite Restrictions.png
 
bflynn said:
yes, but is not today. Any threat to pursue legal action is empty.
Click to expand...
How so? My comment was toward new FARs. There are existing rules/regulations that have been around for years that can catch the average aviator off guard when operating in these areas. I know of 3 individuals who were fined for breaking current USFS and NPS regulations. Two of them landed without permission which was a big no-no but the 3rd did not and still got nailed. FAA wasn't directly involved but was consulted after the fact as all 3 tried to claim they had an "aircraft emergency." Bottom line they could take the non-aviation hit for illegal landing/wildlife harassment, or take the aviation hit for operating an unairworthy aircraft after an "emergency." But to each their own.
 
wsuffa said:
They went after popular vloggers Kara and Nate for posting videos on YouTube, saying that it was "commercial filming" and a commercial film permit was required. All there were using was a GoPro and DSLR. They were fined $1000 and ordered not to film in National Parks again without said permit (which takes $$$ to get and weeks to get approved - not reasonable for travel vloggers).
Click to expand...
Depending on where they film, no permit needed anymore.
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/commercial-film-and-photo-permits.htm
 
Palmpilot said:
There used to be a notice on the San Francisco Sectional about mandatory minimum altitudes over Yosemite National Park, but those are no longer on the chart. I don't know whether the law changed, or they just stopped charting it for some other reason.

View attachment 96408
Click to expand...

The Boundary is still on the Chart and explained in the margin with reference to AC-91-36. The AC tells you about Public Law 100-91. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-36D.pdf

upload_2021-5-16_21-48-58.png
 
luvflyin said:
The Boundary is still on the Chart and explained in the margin with reference to AC-91-36. The AC tells you about Public Law 100-91. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-36D.pdf

View attachment 96416
Click to expand...
If you compare the language in that text block to the text that was formerly printed on the chart next to the park, you will see that the word "prohibits" is gone except for landings. For minimum altitudes, what remains only says "requested." The AC referred to only talks about "voluntary practices." I haven't gotten around to reading PL 100-91 yet, so I don't know whether it has any mandatory altitude restrictions. If it does, that should be stated on the chart.
 
Well in these cases I guess you can use what has become known as, "The Lunken Workaround" that goes like this (from the article):

But she said a coincidental malfunction of her Cessna 180’s transponder with ADS-B-Out may have resulted in her being slapped with an emergency revocation of all her certificates instead of the suspension that normally accompanies such transgressions.
Click to expand...

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/bridge-stunt-leads-to-ads-b-revocation/

Not sure what the penalty will be ... :D
 
Palmpilot said:
If you compare the language in that text block to the text that was formerly printed on the chart next to the park, you will see that the word "prohibits" is gone except for landings. For minimum altitudes, what remains only says "requested." The AC referred to only talks about "voluntary practices." I haven't gotten around to reading PL 100-91 yet, so I don't know whether it has any mandatory altitude restrictions. If it does, that should be stated on the chart.
Click to expand...

I’m gonna guess it has some kind of prohibit language in it along with fines and sentences inasmuch as it’s a Law.
 
wsuffa said:
Correct. But that court decision came after they were chased down.

Every reference that NPS makes to the new policy references the court decision - someone apparently has a chapped ass for being chewed out by the court.
Click to expand...
Just adding that the policy was updated, as your post, although correct, didn't allude to the changes.
 
Palmpilot said:
so I don't know whether it has any mandatory altitude restrictions. If it does, that should be stated on the chart.
Click to expand...
Except the restrictions are not FAA. From what I've seen the FAA was told to play nice with the Dept of Interior. Hence the AC to request 2000' from the NAS side but they never 'enforce" it because its not their rule. Same reason to push Part 136 creation as that was not an FAA idea either. Another dreaded inter-gubment turf war.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top