"Pilots are requested" on charts...

Old Geek

Old Geek

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
1,888
Location
Northern California
Display Name
Display name:
Old Geek
What's up with the semantics here? I learned that a "request" was not the same as "commanded" or "required". Yet on any sectional, there's areas and text blocks where "pilots are requested" to do such and such and it's pretty clear that bad things can happen if they ignore the request.

Does anyone know why the the word "requested" is used when the meaning is clearly "required"? Has anyone legally questioned the meaning?
 
Now sure what the legal definition is but where on the chart have you seen "request"?
The only place I can think of is contacting approach before entering Bravo, well nothing bad will happen if you don't contact them, you just won't be allowed to enter the airspace.
 
MachFly said:
Now sure what the legal definition is but where on the chart have you seen "request"?
The only place I can think of is contacting approach before entering Bravo, well nothing bad will happen if you don't contact them, you just won't be allowed to enter the airspace.
Click to expand...

I've seen it a number of times. IIRC, there's one over certain National Park facilities, and one over a nucular site in Ohio.

Standby...

This one is in the Brush Creek MOA:

For reasons of national security pilots are requested to avoid flight at and below 2500' MSL in this area
Click to expand...
 
Around nuke plants for one

"For reasons of national security pilots are requested to avoid flight at and below 2500' MSL in this area"

Look 11 miles NE of AMT on the Cincy sectional for an example
 
There's also one near Charlottesville, VA that's slightly different:

For reasons of national welfare, pilots are requested to avoid flights below 2400' MSL in this area
Click to expand...
 
Over Lawrence Livermore National Lab near KLVK: "NOTICE: FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY PILOTS ARE REQUESTED TO AVOID FLIGHT AT AND BELOW 800' AGL IN THIS AREA"

About 50 miles SW of there near EUGEN: "NOTICE TO PILOTS: Pilots are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2000' AGL over the ANO NUEVO STATE RESERVE"

And just NW of there it says "SAN FRANCISCO TERMINAL AREA: Pilots are encouraged to use the San Francisco VFR Terminal Area Chart for flights at and below 10,000'"

It has always been my understanding that these are requests or encouragements, not requirements. I have always complied with the requests, though. Where did you hear that these requests are actually requirements?

-Paul
 
Last edited:
When writing request for proposals, I had to be careful of the use of "will" and "shall". The computer will come with a table and chair, meant it didn't have to come with a table and chair. But "shall" made it mandatory.

As for power plants or other sensitive sites, "the first circle is a tourist, the second circle is a terrorist."
 
MultiMediaWill said:
According to law enforcement, requested = required. See this story: http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130110secret-no-fly-zone.html
Click to expand...

In that case, there was no note on the charts so whether such notes are optional or mandatory didn't matter.

I wouldn't make assumptions about the legal requirements based on one overzealous deputy sheriff who was later shown to be wrong (and the county was concerned they'd get sued). Does anyone know if the FAA has ever busted someone for not complying with a request on a chart like this?


-Paul
 
Old Geek said:
What's up with the semantics here? I learned that a "request" was not the same as "commanded" or "required". Yet on any sectional, there's areas and text blocks where "pilots are requested" to do such and such and it's pretty clear that bad things can happen if they ignore the request.

Does anyone know why the the word "requested" is used when the meaning is clearly "required"? Has anyone legally questioned the meaning?
Click to expand...

I suspect, but am not sure, that "requested" appears for areas that a pilot may get in trouble with agencies other than the FAA (e.g. National Park Service or U.S. Forest Service.) Such as flight below 2000' over sensitive bird nesting areas.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I suspect, but am not sure, that "requested" appears for areas that a pilot may get in trouble with agencies other than the FAA (e.g. National Park Service or U.S. Forest Service.) Such as flight below 2000' over sensitive bird nesting areas.
Click to expand...

I believe that's the case regarding flying over national marine sanctuaries, but it appears that the charts are going to be corrected.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47202
 
Palmpilot said:
I believe that's the case regarding flying over national marine sanctuaries, but it appears that the charts are going to be corrected.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47202
Click to expand...

They've already been corrected. If you look just SE of the Ano Nuevo notice I mentioned earlier, you'll see: "Flight operations below 1000' AGL over the designated areas within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary violate NOAA regulations (see 15 CFR 922)." Note that this is a requirement and so it's not stated as a request. I still believe that a request is optional, though I personally opt to comply.


-Paul
 
I once attended a meeting where this was explained by one of the chart makers. It seems that there is a difficult process that must be gone through to make something required or mandatory on a chart. But, it is much easier to put something on a chart as a "request". So, they have gotten into the habit of avoiding the "red tape" and put things on the chart as a "request". If you decide not to comply with that request, though, you might discover that there are unexpected penalties associated with that decision.
 
The slippery slope of multijurisdictional airspce regulating has gone full waterslide. Haha we're screwed, maybe not today, but next week at the latest.
 
AuntPeggy said:
I once attended a meeting where this was explained by one of the chart makers. It seems that there is a difficult process that must be gone through to make something required or mandatory on a chart. But, it is much easier to put something on a chart as a "request". So, they have gotten into the habit of avoiding the "red tape" and put things on the chart as a "request". If you decide not to comply with that request, though, you might discover that there are unexpected penalties associated with that decision.
Click to expand...

This is undoubtedly correct. If the chart said "Pilots are required to avoid overflight of....", that has just created, by definition, a Prohibited Area, hasn't it? Establishment of such special use airspace requires public notice, public comment periods, publishing in the Federal Register, etc., as it's a rulemaking action.

"Requested" lets them avoid that process and just put it on the chart. However, the waters are getting murkier with the whole wildlife sanctuary thing.
 
The "Pilots are Requested" area near Charlottesville, VA is over Monticello. (If you don't know what that is, I recommend browsing a history book)....
 
wsuffa said:
The "Pilots are Requested" area near Charlottesville, VA is over Monticello. (If you don't know what that is, I recommend browsing a history book)....
Click to expand...

Oooh, Oooh, I know!
That's where Eric Idle and John Cleese played large stringed instruments!
 
wsuffa said:
The "Pilots are Requested" area near Charlottesville, VA is over Monticello. (If you don't know what that is, I recommend browsing a history book)....
Click to expand...

Or as FlyingRon might say, the second oldest Presidential TFR, with the oldest being P-73 over Mt. Vernon.
 
Most of the time when I've seen those they are National Security Areas, which are not mandatory.

The main advantage of charting these non-mandatory areas is that they can later be prohibited by NOTAM if circumstances warrant. Because they're already on the charts, they're easy to find should such a NOTAM be published.
 
Requested means requested. I can't imagine any jury in the world that would buy the argument that they just put it on the chart as requested because it was too much trouble to go through the red tape to make it required.

The only situation that I know of where there is a difference is in certain marine sanctuaries (Monteray Bay south of San Fran is one) where NOAA has established a minimum flight altitude. However, in these situations, the charts have changed wording - they now say "Flight operations below X000' AGL over the designated areas with the XYZ violate certain NOAA regulations". Over these areas, they carry both the madatory 1000' (usually) AGL restriction as well as the 2000' requested minimum.

The difference should be immediately clear - you have a law establishing a hard limit at 1000' and a request to maintain at least 2000'. The legal requirements are not ambigious.
 
Taos has one to facilitate peace pipe smoking and general tax avoidance. I usually went right through it
 
wsuffa said:
I've seen it a number of times. IIRC, there's one over certain National Park facilities, and one over a nucular site in Ohio.

Standby...

This one is in the Brush Creek MOA:
Click to expand...

Skylane81E said:
Around nuke plants for one

"For reasons of national security pilots are requested to avoid flight at and below 2500' MSL in this area"

Look 11 miles NE of AMT on the Cincy sectional for an example
Click to expand...

wsuffa said:
There's also one near Charlottesville, VA that's slightly different:
Click to expand...

pdonahue said:
Over Lawrence Livermore National Lab near KLVK: "NOTICE: FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY PILOTS ARE REQUESTED TO AVOID FLIGHT AT AND BELOW 800' AGL IN THIS AREA"

About 50 miles SW of there near EUGEN: "NOTICE TO PILOTS: Pilots are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2000' AGL over the ANO NUEVO STATE RESERVE"

And just NW of there it says "SAN FRANCISCO TERMINAL AREA: Pilots are encouraged to use the San Francisco VFR Terminal Area Chart for flights at and below 10,000'"

It has always been my understanding that these are requests or encouragements, not requirements. I have always complied with the requests, though. Where did you hear that these requests are actually requirements?

-Paul
Click to expand...

Maybe I just need to pay more attention to the charts...
 
wsuffa said:
I've seen it a number of times. IIRC, there's one over certain National Park facilities, and one over a nucular site in Ohio.
Click to expand...

In theory over every wildlife refuge, wilderness or primitive area and unit of the national park system of any decent size. Though I've seen some missing - probably an oversight. The note is in the margin of the VFR sectional (and WAC I think) - only the boundaries are shown over the area on the chart itself, most of the time. In this era of EFBs and online stitched charts you just don't look at the chart legends and margins any more.

As noted certain west coast marine sanctuaries now have new language. Also, I can think of three wilderness areas where it is more than just a request but mandated: Grand Canyon National Park by FAA rule making (under strong prompting by Congress), and certain portions of Yosemite National Park and the Boundary Waters Canoe wilderness by Congressional law. Might be others I'm not aware of.
 
bflynn said:
The only situation that I know of where there is a difference is in certain marine sanctuaries (Monteray Bay south of San Fran is one) where NOAA has established a minimum flight altitude. However, in these situations, the charts have changed wording - they now say "Flight operations below X000' AGL over the designated areas with the XYZ violate certain NOAA regulations". Over these areas, they carry both the madatory 1000' (usually) AGL restriction as well as the 2000' requested minimum.
Click to expand...
Of course Ground Level over the marine sanctuary is already covered by water, so I guess you really need to know the water depth there to figure out how low you can fly! :)
 
gprellwitz said:
Of course Ground Level over the marine sanctuary is already covered by water, so I guess you really need to know the water depth there to figure out how low you can fly! :)
Click to expand...

If you read the actual legislation they include "surface of the water" or similar wording in the statute.
 
AFAIC, a request was made, I'll do my best, but if I fly in there, then I fly in there. If asked, I will just state 'safety of flight would have been compromised'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top