Realistically, it'll likely be no harm, no foul. Lesson learned.
....but you're still going to pay for it here!
Violated!
- Thread starter mshunter
- Start date
Realistically, it'll likely be no harm, no foul. Lesson learned.
....but you're still going to pay for it here!
Realistically, it'll likely be no harm, no foul. Lesson learned.
....but you're still going to pay for it here!
So I'm guessin ther's some sort of nick name being developed?
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
So I'm guessin ther's some sort of nick name being developed?
I'm thinking something about Sea Otters...I'll get back to you.
Nigel Croker
Well-Known Member
The Pm's are flying back en forth with every JC member but you taking polls on your new nickname...well get back to you....:rotfl:
TheresaPilot
Well-Known Member
Make a poll for everyone to vote on! :insane:
So I'm guessin ther's some sort of nick name being developed?
Lol, no....just messing with you. Sounds like it all turned out OK. Good stuff.
The state regs for areas like that are kind of nebulous to find, and are oftentimes known only by local pilots or people who may deal with them for a living.
I equate it to one time when I was pulled over in Illinois by a cop. I'd flown to Illinois for some reason I couldn't remember and rented a car, one cloudy day. Pulling out of the airport and proceeding about ten miles down the road, it had started lightly raining. A couple of miles later, I get pass a cop on the side of the road who pulls out behind me and pulls me over for; the citing being that I had my windshield wipers on in the light rain, but my headlights weren't. Since there's no similar law in AZ where I'm from, I didn't know that was a requirement and told the cop so. He gave the standard "ignorance of the law is no excuse," and wanted to cite me; to where I explained that there are extenuating circumstances sometimes. In my case, I have a driver's license from AZ. Since you can only legally have a DL in one state, my AZ license is implied consent that I will be familiar with and follow all rules contained in Title 28 of the AZ Revised Statues (the motor vehicle code), and any posted rules of any other state. Since I can't have multiple license in multiple states, then there's no way I can reasonably be expected to know the different tiny nuances of another state's law(s) when it comes to normal everyday driving (obviously, things outside the scope of normal driving such as weight limitations, overheight, etc one should study for every individual state they're going to be doing those things in). I dropped in and rented a car, so if there are specifics that aren't posted, it isn't reasonable for me to have known that I needed headlights when the wipers are on, since it's not normally done in AZ. But I'll gladly drive with them on now, in the rain in IL, no problem. I ended up with only a verbal warning, which is far more reasonable than a ticket in that case.
Kind of a somewhat related example, but it makes the point of reasonable expectation. You knew the FAA requirements, but the state requirements were a little more difficult to know they existed and then to find. So no harm, no foul; lesson learned, now you know and can follow that and pass it on.
CirrusMonkey
No Real Usefulness
Hey, good for you man! I am sure you slept good knowing that you made a good moral and mature decision. Hopefully, the LEO has the same bit of integrity that you do! :clap:
ghogue
Well-Known Member
I thought I would post a two scans from San Francisco Sectional charts. One is from 1985 and the other is current. Notice the different wording used as indicated by the red arrows. I have a 1993 sectional and it reads as it does today, so the change obviously took place during the intervening years (1985-1993).
I have no idea why the wording changed, but I find it interesting, anyway. Just thought I'd post for anyone else interested.
If you're unable to clearly read the 1985 sectional, it states:
NOTICE TO PILOTS
The State of California Fish and Game Code prohibits flights below 1000' AGL over CALIFORNIA SEA OTTER GAME REFUGE.
I have no idea why the wording changed, but I find it interesting, anyway. Just thought I'd post for anyone else interested.
If you're unable to clearly read the 1985 sectional, it states:
NOTICE TO PILOTS
The State of California Fish and Game Code prohibits flights below 1000' AGL over CALIFORNIA SEA OTTER GAME REFUGE.
Attachments
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
Awesome, the otter is game now. (Sez so, right on the chart) Which means there must be an open season. Alright!
Those things are more trouble than you can shake a stick at. They're the darling of the bleeding hearts who've infected the F&G all the while they ravage the ecosystem. Incidently, harrassing an otter (throwing rocks counts as harrassment) can incur a Federal $10,000 fine and 5 years in the big house per incident.
EDIT: If memory is correct, the Monterey Bay Nat'l Marine Sanctuary was formed in the early 1990s. I'm thinking 91-92. That would place it within the time frame noted by ghogue. I'm pretty sure the Nat'l Fisheries had to do with implementing the change in the chart notice. This to protect the beloved furry rat.
Actually, they continue the push to ban all powered craft from the coast. (boats, PWC, even kayaks) In the last couple yrs there has been a push to extend the MBNMS to encompass the Channel Islands and then on to the Mexican border. As we speak the sport (charter and personal vessels) boats are feeling the heat to drastically limit their take. Seeing how they stood in opposition when commecial fishing was taking the hits, I don't give a rat's ass about the sports now. I was still in commercial fishing then, many of my friends still are. Whole families have been wiped out at the stroke of a pen.
In that light, the change to the Aeronautical chart can be seen as one step towards that goal.
my apologies for off topic banter.
Those things are more trouble than you can shake a stick at. They're the darling of the bleeding hearts who've infected the F&G all the while they ravage the ecosystem. Incidently, harrassing an otter (throwing rocks counts as harrassment) can incur a Federal $10,000 fine and 5 years in the big house per incident.
EDIT: If memory is correct, the Monterey Bay Nat'l Marine Sanctuary was formed in the early 1990s. I'm thinking 91-92. That would place it within the time frame noted by ghogue. I'm pretty sure the Nat'l Fisheries had to do with implementing the change in the chart notice. This to protect the beloved furry rat.
Actually, they continue the push to ban all powered craft from the coast. (boats, PWC, even kayaks) In the last couple yrs there has been a push to extend the MBNMS to encompass the Channel Islands and then on to the Mexican border. As we speak the sport (charter and personal vessels) boats are feeling the heat to drastically limit their take. Seeing how they stood in opposition when commecial fishing was taking the hits, I don't give a rat's ass about the sports now. I was still in commercial fishing then, many of my friends still are. Whole families have been wiped out at the stroke of a pen.
In that light, the change to the Aeronautical chart can be seen as one step towards that goal.
my apologies for off topic banter.
ghogue
Well-Known Member
Actually, the "prohibited box" was listed up and down the coast of California on the charts. I just happened to pick the one about the Sea Otters, but I suppose it could be tied to the Marine Sanctuary. However, if you're thinking the sanctuary may have made it more restrictive, the notes currently on the charts are less restrictive than in 1985.
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
Because the Prohibited box specifically mentions sea otters what do you mean "up and down the coast"? As example, there weren't any otters south of Pt Conception (until they tried unsuccessfully to breed them at the Channel Islands) or north of the Golden Gate. Going off their own data, there were but 19 otters in all of CA back then and those were approximately centered just south of Pt Lobos in Big Sur. I'm not sure if I have that chart from back then.
Now I'll have to research if there were a lawsuit behind the changing of the chart notice to a less restrictive verbiage. Actually, the big push back then was to procure irrefutable evidence that the CA sea otter was a species distinct from the otter found in AK and Russia.
ghogue, thank you for your information.
BTW, that section of the sectional you show is about 40 nm NW of my home.
Now I'll have to research if there were a lawsuit behind the changing of the chart notice to a less restrictive verbiage. Actually, the big push back then was to procure irrefutable evidence that the CA sea otter was a species distinct from the otter found in AK and Russia.
ghogue, thank you for your information.
BTW, that section of the sectional you show is about 40 nm NW of my home.
ghogue
Well-Known Member
On the sectional I have, there were warnings for the California Sea Otter Game Refuge, Point Lobos State Reserve, and Año Nuevo State Reserve. I'll have to see if I have any other sectionals north or south of the San Francisco sectional.
Just looked at a 1985 Los Angeles sectional and found the same "prohibited" warning boxes around the following islands: San Miguel, Anacapa, San Nicolas and Santa Barbara.
Beautiful section of coast where you live.
Guy
Well-Known Member
Mark, here is a question for you.
Is this state law enforceable? My understanding is that as long as the wheels don't touch the ground, the state does not have regulatory authority over air commerce. Vice versa, I seem to remember that many years ago liquor wasn't served while flying over some states. Help me out with the real answer please.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
I don't have a good off-hand answer for you. Issues of federal supremacy (federal law trumps state law), pre-emption (federal law that Congress intended be the only law on a certain subject doesn't allow state regulation of that subject) and whether state regulation "burdens" interstate commerce are not always completely clear and can get pretty complicated.
Guy
Well-Known Member
I suspect the practical side of it is that even if one could "beat the rap" by arguing the law was not applicable, by the time it was all over one would still be a loser for the legal expenses, time, and emotional energy spent on defending the case.
Thanks for your answer to my question.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Old Pete
Cockpit Authoritarian
subpilot
Squawking 7600
I would reply to that question with another question. Why would you not comply with the request? I would not want to attract any attention toward myself and be forced to challenge the "requested is not mandatory" argument.