Six figure fines for overflying west coast sanctuaries

Somebody please tell me how the buzz of an airplane 500 feet above a gaggle of screaming geese walking on a turded rock outcropping is going to endanger them any more than the crashing waves, thunderstorms and predators.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Somebody please tell me how the buzz of an airplane 500 feet above a gaggle of screaming geese walking on a turded rock outcropping is going to endanger them any more than the crashing waves, thunderstorms and predators.
Click to expand...

Endangerment is not the issue in these things. Disturbance and/or the chance of disturbing the wildlife is the issue. I have to deal with this type (restricted areas, not airspace problems) of thing in Wyoming on a daily basis.
 
Last edited:
Ground observers are going to judge altitude and call the authorities. Curious to know what power binoculars it takes to read a tail number at 1000 AGL. They're what, going to track you on radar?
Read the cited article before you comment. Sounds rather scary.
 
jnmeade said:
Ground observers are going to judge altitude and call the authorities. Curious to know what power binoculars it takes to read a tail number at 1000 AGL. They're what, going to track you on radar?
Read the cited article before you comment. Sounds rather scary.
Click to expand...

Right. Does this mean angry homeowners in the area who are sick of the noise will call in or who are the ground observers? Even the AOPA person quoted in the article says he can't judge a plane's altitude from the ground. So how can they know my altitude?
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
This has a direct impact on my flights. Thank you very much for posting this, I recently flew low (ish) down / around the coastline on a scenic flight to Monterey.

Kimberly
Click to expand...

Yes, I enjoy flying to Monterey, too. I guess we just need to stay inland...:confused:

Ground observers are going to judge altitude and call the authorities. Curious to know what power binoculars it takes to read a tail number at 1000 AGL. They're what, going to track you on radar?
Read the cited article before you comment. Sounds rather scary.
Click to expand...

Yes, scary. My plane has small numbers though (old plane)...
 
This is why we need to start a hippie hunting season. You can bag an extra 2 if you use fire.
 
DavidWhite said:
This is why we need to start a hippie hunting season. You can bag an extra 2 if you use fire.
Click to expand...
I propose a more sensible idea: march on the Washington, D.C., and raze it to the ground (leave lampposts standing, of course). It's too bad that advocating any sensible measure would be seen as an incitement of violence, so I won't. But it's quite likely that the people of America can figure it out on their own.
 
I am astonished that the FAA would cede their statutory authority to NOAA in this manner.
 
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.
 
Good the more rules we get against everything the sooner we can start over. Race is on. Will Apathy, Hippies against lead, or hippies for birds be the death of little airplanes?
 
I love this requirment:

"Once NOAA advises that an operator has violated “their airspace,” pilots would be forced to prove wildlife was not disturbed to escape sanction. "

I suspect these matters will be tried before an ALJ I can see it now. Your honor I subponeaed the Sea Lion and he has failed to appear I request you honor draw an adverse infrence from the fact that the sea lion has ignored the subpona which in and of itself is contempt of this august body. If said sea lion was so disturbed by my flight he surely would be here to state that fact.
 
While it is fun denigrating some groups and blaming them for all of societies woes (I suppose I should be relieved. The group that usually gets this kind of attention is us Jews) I have it on very very good authority that NOAA is neither run nor staffed by folk-music loving drug addicts with supernumerary elongated locks and loose sexual proclivities.
 
steingar said:
While it is fun denigrating some groups and blaming them for all of societies woes (I suppose I should be relieved. The group that usually gets this kind of attention is us Jews) I have it on very very good authority that NOAA is neither run nor staffed by folk-music loving drug addicts with supernumerary elongated locks and loose sexual proclivities.
Click to expand...

Nah, NOAA is run by people of Jewish heritage...:D
 
Right. But that is who they get their marching orders from. Even if there is a study backing up their rulemaking no one believes it anymore. Science has lied too many times for policy. Scientists now have less credibility then journalists.:rofl:
steingar said:
While it is fun denigrating some groups and blaming them for all of societies woes (I suppose I should be relieved. The group that usually gets this kind of attention is us Jews) I have it on very very good authority that NOAA is neither run nor staffed by folk-music loving drug addicts with supernumerary elongated locks and loose sexual proclivities.
Click to expand...
 
Anyone know if there are more of these areas? Are they charted?

On a recent vacation to Key West my wife and I took a ride in a Bi-plane. At one point the pilot turned away from and Island and said something to the effect "If you fly over the island and a bird takes off, you'll be fined":yikes:
 
I'm guessing they'll go after all the sanctuary advisory areas. Solid blue line next to a dotted line. NY sectional has a bunch on the MA coast, I can't recall any around LI/CT but there probably are. Once they get one they go after more.
 
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...

The Monterey Bay and Gulf of the Farralones sanctuaries are big enough so that it would not be difficult to prove you were within the lateral limits unless you were near an edge. As for proving your altitude, I suppose getting flight following and saving your FlightAware.com record would be a way of proving that you were high enough.
 
Palmpilot said:
The Monterey Bay and Gulf of the Farralones sanctuaries are big enough so that it would not be difficult to prove you were within the lateral limits unless you were near an edge. As for proving your altitude, I suppose getting flight following and saving your FlightAware.com record would be a way of proving that you were high enough.
Click to expand...

I get flight following most flights and I have only seen my flights on FlightAware.com a few times and those are when I filed a flight plan (but even that doesn't seem to gaurantee it). It will usually pick up my trips to Santa Barbara (about 2 1/2 hours) and once to Red Bluff (about an hour). It seems pretty random.
 
Funny how Mode S altitude reporting seems to stop working when people fly near these sorts of areas...
 
Mike I said:
Funny how Mode S altitude reporting seems to stop working when people fly near these sorts of areas...
Click to expand...

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.
 
This is the latest salvo in the battle for land, sea, and air. Make no mistake, this is a war and the enemy is the tree huggers who have infiltrated state and federal agencies. They now write policy.

From declaring a whole fishery shut down on specious data to declaring pelagic species as endangered to recolonizing pinniped species to levels not historically supported, it is a resource grab.

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary extends from north of the Golden Gate to Cambria in the south. Originally intended for the Monterey Bay and it's deep submarine canyons, the sanctuary continually expands. For several years there has been serious talk of joining it to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. And talk of declaring basically the whole Southern California bight to the Mexican border is gaining support.

Some parts of the MBNMS extends inland and not because of riparian habitat. "They" want control of the public's every movement. Punishable by incarceration and/or a $10,000 fine for removing a rock from the beach, never mind that rock is a grain of sand. It's all there in the regulations.

All this and more can be contributed to a world view which holds some idealized fantasy of a world without people.
 
They don't believe you. Just a slight misstep over the bounds of reasonableness is all. AOPA will help them understand the errors of their ways and all will be well.:rolleyes:
Visited NC for the first time last summer and I have to give the locals credit they damn well know what is up with protecting the beach from people standing on it.
Richard said:
This is the latest salvo in the battle for land, sea, and air. Make no mistake, this is a war and the enemy is the tree huggers who have infiltrated state and federal agencies. They now write policy.

From declaring a whole fishery shut down on specious data to declaring pelagic species as endangered to recolonizing pinniped species to levels not historically supported, it is a resource grab.

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary extends from north of the Golden Gate to Cambria in the south. Originally intended for the Monterey Bay and it's deep submarine canyons, the sanctuary continually expands. For several years there has been serious talk of joining it to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. And talk of declaring basically the whole Southern California bight to the Mexican border is gaining support.

Some parts of the MBNMS extends inland and not because of riparian habitat. "They" want control of the public's every movement. Punishable by incarceration and/or a $10,000 fine for removing a rock from the beach, never mind that rock is a grain of sand. It's all there in the regulations.

All this and more can be contributed to a world view which holds some idealized fantasy of a world without people.
Click to expand...
 
There have been observers along the CA coast for decades. They have very high powered mono- and binoculars on tripods. They may sit at the same spot all day and for several days before moving to a different location. Originally they were to observe the recolonization of sea otters. Then with the formation of marine sanctuaries they would observe beach goers, kayakers, or fishing vessels. Oft times a commercial fishing vessel was boarded by the USCG because of unsubstantiated reports the crew was engaged in "taking" otters (protected mammal) or pinnipeds. The Salmon fishery was significantly impacted by large population growth of protected species so they were issued permits to scare with "seal bombs" (basically an M-100 cherry bomb) or on occasion to kill a seal.

It is likely that these observers will expand their duties to now observe and report aircraft. They are quite zealous in their activities.
 
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...
What Mike is referring to is not nearly as innocent as that... :nono:

Sometimes people will turn off the transponder when they don't want to be detected.
 
Everskyward said:
What Mike is referring to is not nearly as innocent as that... :nono:

Sometimes people will turn off the transponder when they don't want to be detected.
Click to expand...

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.
 
That's what I was alluding to. Transponders aren't even required in those areas, outside the 30NM Mode C veil etc. No need to squawk altitude if it's not required. I'm not advocating violating any FARs, but no need to give more information than needed.
 
Mike I said:
That's what I was alluding to. Transponders aren't even required in those areas, outside the 30NM Mode C veil etc. No need to squawk altitude if it's not required. I'm not advocating violating any FARs, but no need to give more information than needed.
Click to expand...

Wait what? I thought it was GOOD to have your transponder on since many pilots use little fish finders that help them avoid traffic. If your transponder is off those pilots may run into you.
 
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...

Come to think of it, you're right. I didn't think of the terrain effects.

I guess the next thing to do is see if my handheld GPS keeps a record of my altitude.
 
Last edited:
Kimberly, agreed. It is possible though to keep your transponder on while not reporting altitude information. I don't fly in those areas so I'm not subject to any of this brouhaha...but there is already an AC that covers these areas, using the wording "...Advisory Circular (AC) encourages pilots making VFR flights near noise sensitive areas to fly at altitudes higher than the minimum permitted by regulation".

I'm just opposed to this turf grab, as others point out. It is the start of a slippery slope by which outside agencies and localities can pass airspace regulations that should be within the jurisdiction solely of the FAA. Think about if towns could put up their own permanent TFRs (ala Disney's TFR) requiring overflight at 3,000AGL regardless of airspace considerations, simply to appease residents complaining about airplane noise etc?
 
Retarded bored Californians at it again. (No offense to Kim and others here...)

They can't even keep their ridiculously wealthy State's government from having to write IOUs, they're such geniuses out there.

Laughingstock of the country. Place has Silicon Valley and Hollywood ($$$$$) and can't pay their bills from all the ridiculous government bureaucracy they seem to crave.

Seriously sad place. Too many people who think they're living the California Dreamin' dream sitting in hours of bumper to bumper traffic.

(Petaluma may be just barely far enough outside of the overpopulated insanity, Kim.)

L.A. Story was funny, though. Didn't do well at the box office because Angelinos didn't want to be reminded of the idiocy and the rest of the country didn't quite believe it. The scene where Steve Martin gets in his convertible and pushes it with his foot out the door to go a block was so true it was painful.
 
Richard said:
This is the latest salvo in the battle for land, sea, and air. Make no mistake, this is a war and the enemy is the tree huggers who have infiltrated state and federal agencies. They now write policy.

From declaring a whole fishery shut down on specious data to declaring pelagic species as endangered to recolonizing pinniped species to levels not historically supported, it is a resource grab.

The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary extends from north of the Golden Gate to Cambria in the south. Originally intended for the Monterey Bay and it's deep submarine canyons, the sanctuary continually expands. For several years there has been serious talk of joining it to the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. And talk of declaring basically the whole Southern California bight to the Mexican border is gaining support.

Some parts of the MBNMS extends inland and not because of riparian habitat. "They" want control of the public's every movement. Punishable by incarceration and/or a $10,000 fine for removing a rock from the beach, never mind that rock is a grain of sand. It's all there in the regulations.

All this and more can be contributed to a world view which holds some idealized fantasy of a world without people.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top