National Conservation Area Question

To fly over a national conservation area, is the 2000 feet a request by FAA or by law, I read the work, "you are requested to keep a 2000 feet" distance in many places, nonetheless if they request it, its best to oblige. But the area that's just south of KISP airport (Long Island, NY), you can visit the TAC or Sectional chart by going to www.skyvector.com, there's the Fire Island National Seashore. What I wondering is, can one fly at 500 feet along the south shore line, as long as they don't go over the island itself.

Or I guess one could keep himself at least half a mile away (>2000 feet) from the shore line.
 

Sandy

Well-Known Member
The answer to the first part of your question is that it is a request not a law.

I'll leave the rest of your questions for others to answer as it becomes somewhat subjective and lengthy.
 

Bernoulli Fan

Controller
The answer to the first part of your question is that it is a request not a law.

I'll leave the rest of your questions for others to answer as it becomes somewhat subjective and lengthy.
A partial answer to your first question is that it's a request by the FAA. However, I know of at least one place in CA where there is a sanctuary over which it is illegal (state law) to fly below a certain altitude, and the chart shows only the usual FAA "pilots are requested" verbiage. There may be several governing bodies making the rules for an area, but the only rules shown on FAA charts are FAA.
 

Capt. Chaos

Well-Known Member
NOAA/NMFS also have a group that investigates marine mammal harrasment, or harrasment of endangered critters. An its the usual guilty until proven innocent administrative law crap.
 

TwoTwoLeft

o- - - - - - -l
Even if it says "requested" on the chart does not necessarily mean it isn't law. It's not a FAR, but it could be a state law, some civil statute or regulated by a different federal bureau. Each area needs to be looked at a case by case basis.

Where you don't mess around is with the new NOAA/NMFS regulated areas along the Pacific Coast.

Pilots seem to think "Hey, if it's not a FAR you cant touch me." If you want to test that out, go land out on a dirt road on BLM land in California and see how well that works out for you.

For the record, I think it's all a load of bull feces...
 

Autothrust Blue

Commander Air Group, BSG-75
NOAA/NMFS also have a group that investigates marine mammal harrasment, or harrasment of endangered critters. An its the usual guilty until proven innocent administrative law crap.
It falls under the "do not be a feminine hygiene product" regulations...
 

Sandy

Well-Known Member
Even if it says "requested" on the chart does not necessarily mean it isn't law. It's not a FAR, but it could be a state law, some civil statute or regulated by a different federal bureau. Each area needs to be looked at a case by case basis.

Where you don't mess around is with the new NOAA/NMFS regulated areas along the Pacific Coast.

Pilots seem to think "Hey, if it's not a FAR you cant touch me." If you want to test that out, go land out on a dirt road on BLM land in California and see how well that works out for you.

For the record, I think it's all a load of bull feces...
There is a difference between "landing on" and "flying over".

Can you cite court case in which someone was convicted of violating a state, county, or municipal law for flying over an area?
 

TwoTwoLeft

o- - - - - - -l
There is a difference between "landing on" and "flying over".

Can you cite court case in which someone was convicted of violating a state, county, or municipal law for flying over an area?
Not sure about a conviction but I do personally know several pilots who have received phone calls from the NPS. All had the same attitude of "well it's not a FAR..." The NPS informed them of the civil code and let them off with a warning. I have also flown a NOAA survey mission where we had an aircraft's tail number and location radioed to us in an attempt to positively ID it. The aircraft was spotted by a NOAA vessel had allegedly busted the NOAA regulated Marine Sanctuary altitude requirement next to one of the Channel Islands. I looked, but didn't see nuthin....

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/flight/

Pilots can deny it, pretend like it doesn't exist just because it's not in 14 CFR... I know its real because stacks of paperwork we have to carry waiving us from these laws every time get hired to survey some National or State Park, buzz some whales, conduct pinneped or low-level bird surveys around the islands. Ive been told the reason why is okay for us to operate in these areas is because our airplanes meet or exceed the external noise requirements.
 
Top