Violated!

Specifically which Channel Island? Catalina or the northern chain of Anacapa, Santa Cruz, San Miguel and Santa Rosa? I'd suspect they could count a standard dive boat with 40 people in the water at any given time could be considered a 'populated area.'

It'd be hard to argue as well that you were operating at an altitude that would allow for a safe power off landing should a power unit fail. The terrain in mountainous and ditching isn't really an option due to the cold water (currently about 58 degrees) unless your wearing immersion suits. I'm sure some will disagree with me but I spend a lot of time diving in the area and there is no chance in hell I'm getting in Pacific without my drysuit!

Lastly, the channel islands are populated with a bunch of really really big brown pelicans. Legalities aside, if you hit one of those fellas your going to get hurt.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
...edited, referring to the video...
Click to expand...

At the end, yes I watched it all, good stuff. But at the end, the guy says to write an apology letter to the victim and the accused asks how. The guy says, "in your own words."

I can't help it, it made me think of this:

George Carlin, "In your own words. Do you have your own words? Personally, I'm using the ones that everyone else has been using. Next time they tell you to say something in your own words, say, 'Nigflot blorny quando floon.'"

I tried to find a video but was unsuccessful. It is the video on "things we say."


Edit: Mshunter, good luck with that bro, I hope it works out for you.
 
mshunter said:
http://resources.ca.gov/ocean/Final_MMAs/PDF/App_B.pdf

Page B15. I know it's BS, but you could get off with a written warning, up to $10k in fines.
Click to expand...

Section 10501.5. (a) It is unlawful to fly any aircraft, including any airplane or helicopter, less
than 3,000 feet above water or land over the Sespe Condor Sanctuary, and less than 1,000 feet
above water or land over the A: o Nuevo State Reserve, the Farallon Islands Game Refuge, the
Point Lobos State Reserve, the California Sea Otter Game Refuge, and Anacapa, San Miguel,
Santa Barbara, and San Nicolas Islands, except for rescue operations, in case of any
emergency, or for scientific or filmmaking purposes under a permit issued by the department
after a review of potential biological impacts.​

Read it, you had carb ice.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
You want to confess to what may or may not be a crime to what certainly is a law enforcement officer? That would be the easiest way to get charged with a crime.

Right now he doesn't know:
1) Who was flying the plane
2) Whether or not it was ACTUALLY flying lower than proscribed in whatever federal law, merely that to him it looked like it was flying too low.

I mean... he is a park ranger but he also has to be somewhat busy, it would take a lot of work to find out #1 and then to confirm #2, if even possible from ATC depending on radar coverage, and you want to do all this for him?

[yt]6wXkI4t7nuc[/yt]
Click to expand...

Badass video! Thank you for that, that was great information and entertaining as well.
 
CameronF said:
Badass video! Thank you for that, that was great information and entertaining as well.
Click to expand...

popaviator said:
Just to be safe, I'd wait and get some legal advice first.... best of luck to ya man:bandit:
Click to expand...

Hunter, you'd be out of your mind to talk to this guy directly at this point. Never talk to the police. Ever. Never admit anything. You're not obligated to tell this officer anything. Don't. If they get in touch with you, tell them they can talk to your lawyer. Period.

That is the best way to CYA.
 
NASA ASRS form + AOPA legal/aviation attorney now.

Lawyer-up immediately.
 
Bumblebee said:
and stop posting on public forums about it. I know of a fine aviation attorney in San Francisco. He is a good guy, and very skilled.
Click to expand...

That too. My guess is AOPA legal services won't cover something that isn't FAA related. Either way, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer.

Hopefully you watched the entire video that SpiraMirabilis posted. Anything you say can and/or will be used against you.
 
There is a difference between morality vs the legal system we have in the US.

If your dog tore up your neighbor's potted plants, yeah, go own up and apologize.

In this case you have an officer who may or may not have it out for you, no need to find out one way or the other if you don't have to. For all he knows, you don't even know he's trying to find you. In the meantime, send in the NASA form and have the flight school decline to release the information for privacy reasons. I DOUBT the officer will subpoena the flight school for that info, but if he does you know it's ON. Get a lawyer.

I'm not sure the state can issue a violation against your federally issued pilot certificate. Instead it may be a misdemeanor or infraction of some sort, nothing to do with flying. In any case, 'right' and 'wrong' don't matter here; all that matters is the law, and the government is not your friend in this situation. Calling them thinking you'll get peace of mind could bring you just that, or it could bring you headache, paperwork, and a very very large bill.

(just my uninformed opinion)
 
The chart says 200 feet. If you were below that, you deserve what ever you get. Next time read the rules.
 
Not all (but many) Park Rangers are like TSA of the wilderness. A few however will let you bury a body for a kind word and a promise to pack out your trash.
 
mshunter said:
He called asking who was the pilot of the airplane, and the office girl told him she would get back to him, not knowing if she could release the information. QUOTE] This is the pertinent part. Is it your responsibilty to have any part in USPS investigation?

Is it your responsibility as a renter pilot to contact this guy? Do not self report. Everyone knows that.

Did any of the school staff obligate you to call the fish cop?

Are you an employee at the place of plane rental? It sounds like you are. Therefore, are you the best person to call this guy?

Your call will bring to the fore in his mind this infraction alleged against you. It's likely you'll give him ammunition.

Let him bring his own case. Don't feed him a thing. IF he should call asking why you haven't, you are quite honest when you say you didn't know you were to call him.

If you do call him, how will you prevent anything you say as not being mis-understood or -interpreted? As you can tell, I haven't yet met an honest CA fish cop. And I've spent several decades of time sailing all over CA coast, fishing streams and rivers, boating on lakes, and hiking Yoesmite and other places. Experiences that place me thick amidst them.

Were there any sea otters in your proxmity? :D
Click to expand...
 
butt said:
The chart says 200 feet. If you were below that, you deserve what ever you get. Next time read the rules.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is thou who should read the chart before making a statement like this.

You are wrong, regardless of typo in your post.

It pretty clearly says "Pilots are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2000' AGL..." [emphasis added by me].

The "law" in the discussion here is a California State statute that has no reference on the chart.
 
"There is a difference between morality vs the legal system we have in the US"

You're telling me - most people on this thread seem to mistrust the police - some say "you're stupid read all the rules", and others say get a lawyer before even thinking...

To go to jail in this instance is, while theoretical, completely nonsensical. Lawyers were not designed to get involved in such a minor thing. If it escalates to that, then sure bring em in, but the common sense approach is to try and diffuse this by having someone talk to the guy, whether yourself or the chief pilot. To get a lawyer increases the stakes on both sides, unless it gives you a false glow of security?

Alex.
 
mshunter, look at the bright side, or the dark side depending:

......the FAA is the least of your worries....

.....what you should be worried about is right here: JC.

Now, whenever the obligatory weekly aviation argument comes out (usually over the same crap argued 10,000 times before), you're going to get the "hey, why don't you go buzz some wildlife sancturies while you're at it!"

:D
 
mshunter said:
Thankfully, thats the AIM, and is not regulatory. I already had a talk with the Chief Pilot about this.
Click to expand...

Except that the AIM is informing you that
c. Federal statutes prohibit ...
Click to expand...

If the AIM's information is correct, you can bet that "federal statutes" are indeed "regulatory". Just about as "regulatory" as you can possibly get. In the US, only the US Constitution is more "regulatory."

Talk to an aviation lawyer, not your Chief Pilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top