TFR Bust = Criminal Record For Pilots?

[Larry Dighera]

Is this new change TFR wording the result of our new Administrator
who, unlike the previous one, holds an airmens certificate?

While I believe those airmen who fail to get a briefing immediately
before departing, or who fail to concern themselves with current
airspace information published on Sectional Charts, or otherwise
display wanton negligence and disregard for FAA regulations may
deserve criminal prosecution, such criminal charges against a pilot
whose inadvertent violation of a TFR results in no harm nor hazard to
persons nor property seems inappropriate to me.

CRIMINAL REFERENCE IN TFRS RANKLES AOPA
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/982-full.html#196411)
AOPA says it's concerned about a not-so-subtle change in the
wording of the text descriptions of temporary flight restrictions
(TFRs). The FAA is now warning pilots they could be held
criminally responsible for violating TFRs. AOPA says the agency
has always had that ability but seeing it in black and white
raises the specter that those powers will actually be employed.
AOPA President Phil Boyer has written the FAA asking that pilots
who accidentally bust TFRs not face criminal proceedings.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/982-full.html#196411
Further, if legal balance is to be maintained, it would seem only
equitable that FSS briefers who fail to brief TFRs should also be
subject to criminal proceedings.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:

LD> While I believe those airmen who fail to get a briefing
LD> immediately before departing,... or otherwise display wanton
LD> negligence and disregard for FAA regulations may deserve
LD> criminal prosecution,

So a pilot who simply fails to get a briefing--something hundreds or
thousands of pilots do every day--"may deserve criminal prosecution".

LD> criminal charges against a pilot whose
LD> inadvertent violation of a TFR results in no harm nor hazard
LD> to persons nor property seems inappropriate to me.

Oh, you think? And how does one inadvertently violate a TFR if they
have gotten a briefing?

This administration is out of control. Of course we knew that a long
time ago. If the killing of hundreds of thousands in an illegimate war
was not enough to warn us, criminalizing common flying habits might be
the clue some need.
--
Religion, comprises a system of wishful illusions together with a
disavowal of reality, such as we find in an isolated form nowhere else
but in amentia, in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion.
~ Sigmund Freud

[[email protected]]

On Oct 22, 4:58 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Is this new change TFR wording the result of our new Administrator
> who, unlike the previous one, holds an airmens certificate?
>
> While I believe those airmen who fail to get a briefing immediately
> before departing, or who fail to concern themselves with current
> airspace information published on Sectional Charts, or otherwise
> display wanton negligence and disregard for FAA regulations may
> deserve criminal prosecution, such criminal charges against a pilot
> whose inadvertent violation of a TFR results in no harm nor hazard to
> persons nor property seems inappropriate to me.
>
> CRIMINAL REFERENCE IN TFRS RANKLES AOPA
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/982-full.html#196411)
> AOPA says it's concerned about a not-so-subtle change in the
> wording of the text descriptions of temporary flight restrictions
> (TFRs). The FAA is now warning pilots they could be held
> criminally responsible for violating TFRs. AOPA says the agency
> has always had that ability but seeing it in black and white
> raises the specter that those powers will actually be employed.
> AOPA President Phil Boyer has written the FAA asking that pilots
> who accidentally bust TFRs not face criminal proceedings.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/982-full.html#196411
> Further, if legal balance is to be maintained, it would seem only
> equitable that FSS briefers who fail to brief TFRs should also be
> subject to criminal proceedings.

I think that the Dept of Homeland security needs to set up TDRs
(Temporary Driving Restrictions) which are not marked by signs, and
can come and go at any time. All drivers of automobiles must check
with their local DMV prior to driving on the roads to ensure that they
don't violate them. If a TDR is violated, it is a criminal offense.
Everywhere the president goes, a 30nm TDR will appear around the
location where the president will be, and only authorized vehicles
will be allowed on the road. Need to run to the store for milk?
Tough, wait untilt he president is done and leaves...

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Oct 22, 10:34 am, Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>
> LD> While I believe those airmen who fail to get a briefing
> LD> immediately before departing,... or otherwise display wanton
> LD> negligence and disregard for FAA regulations may deserve
> LD> criminal prosecution,
>
> So a pilot who simply fails to get a briefing--something hundreds or
> thousands of pilots do every day--"may deserve criminal prosecution".
>
> LD> criminal charges against a pilot whose
> LD> inadvertent violation of a TFR results in no harm nor hazard
> LD> to persons nor property seems inappropriate to me.
>
> Oh, you think? And how does one inadvertently violate a TFR if they
> have gotten a briefing?
>
> This administration is out of control. Of course we knew that a long
> time ago. If the killing of hundreds of thousands in an illegimate war
> was not enough to warn us, criminalizing common flying habits might be
> the clue some need.
> --
> Religion, comprises a system of wishful illusions together with a
> disavowal of reality, such as we find in an isolated form nowhere else
> but in amentia, in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion.
> ~ Sigmund Freud

I recall one morning after Katrina when I was in the local pattern in
Mobile,AL (KBFM). The USCG uses KMOB/KBFM for a lot of training and
one of their helicopters called for his clearance back to KGPT
(Gulfport) and the tower asked if they knew they were not going to
make it back before the TFR time. Slight pause..."WHAT TFR are you
talking about?" says the shocked coastie. Well, after Katrina, all the
politicians in the world were trying to make the TV news and someone
decided to visit on a spur of the moment and a TFR was pushed into
place. The coasties had done a very complete pre-flight and nothing
was mentioned until the tower advised them. So ......the problem still
exists about how to know if you are going to penetrate a TFR if there
is no information disseminated in a timely fashion. I suspect the same
will happen, as it does each year about this same time, for the
Santana winds in CA. Those same freaking winds have been blowing at
the same time frame every year since I began flying in SOCal the 50's.
Difference is now they can put a TFR in place within hours of a new
fire and a pilot who got a complete briefing only hours before can
blunder smack into one and never know it until he gets the ass chewing
followed by a letter and giant Excedrin headaches.
Ahhh lets hear it for the ever more protective government who know
what is best for us misguided children......
Ol S&B

[[email protected]]

On Oct 22, 2:03 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, Ol Shy & Bashful > posted:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 10:34 am, Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>
> >>> While I believe those airmen who fail to get a briefing
> >>> immediately before departing,... or otherwise display wanton
> >>> negligence and disregard for FAA regulations may deserve
> >>> criminal prosecution,
>
> >> So a pilot who simply fails to get a briefing--something hundreds or
> >> thousands of pilots do every day--"may deserve criminal prosecution".
>
> >>> criminal charges against a pilot whose
> >>> inadvertent violation of a TFR results in no harm nor hazard
> >>> to persons nor property seems inappropriate to me.
>
> >> Oh, you think? And how does one inadvertently violate a TFR if they
> >> have gotten a briefing?
>
> >> This administration is out of control. Of course we knew that a long
> >> time ago. If the killing of hundreds of thousands in an illegimate
> >> war was not enough to warn us, criminalizing common flying habits
> >> might be the clue some need.
> >> --
> >> Religion, comprises a system of wishful illusions together with a
> >> disavowal of reality, such as we find in an isolated form nowhere
> >> else but in amentia, in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion.
> >> ~ Sigmund Freud
>
> > I recall one morning after Katrina when I was in the local pattern in
> > Mobile,AL (KBFM). The USCG uses KMOB/KBFM for a lot of training and
> > one of their helicopters called for his clearance back to KGPT
> > (Gulfport) and the tower asked if they knew they were not going to
> > make it back before the TFR time. Slight pause..."WHAT TFR are you
> > talking about?" says the shocked coastie. Well, after Katrina, all the
> > politicians in the world were trying to make the TV news and someone
> > decided to visit on a spur of the moment and a TFR was pushed into
> > place. The coasties had done a very complete pre-flight and nothing
> > was mentioned until the tower advised them. So ......the problem still
> > exists about how to know if you are going to penetrate a TFR if there
> > is no information disseminated in a timely fashion. I suspect the same
> > will happen, as it does each year about this same time, for the
> > Santana winds in CA. Those same freaking winds have been blowing at
> > the same time frame every year since I began flying in SOCal the 50's.
> > Difference is now they can put a TFR in place within hours of a new
> > fire and a pilot who got a complete briefing only hours before can
> > blunder smack into one and never know it until he gets the ass chewing
> > followed by a letter and giant Excedrin headaches.
> > Ahhh lets hear it for the ever more protective government who know
> > what is best for us misguided children......
>
> Oh, come on, guys, let's get into the sport of it all!
>
> Driving the wrong way on one way streets can be criminalized and the
> directional signs put on programmable billboard-type signs. Drivers would
> have to call the local authorities every morning to find out which
> direction the streets between home and work are going, but there is always
> the possibility that they'll changed en-route.
>
> Neil- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And if you drive the wrong way, a Humvee will show up and point a 50
caliber machine gun at you until you pull over...

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ol Shy & Bashful > posted:

> On Oct 22, 10:34 am, Bob Fry > wrote:
>>>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>>
>>> While I believe those airmen who fail to get a briefing
>>> immediately before departing,... or otherwise display wanton
>>> negligence and disregard for FAA regulations may deserve
>>> criminal prosecution,
>>
>> So a pilot who simply fails to get a briefing--something hundreds or
>> thousands of pilots do every day--"may deserve criminal prosecution".
>>
>>> criminal charges against a pilot whose
>>> inadvertent violation of a TFR results in no harm nor hazard
>>> to persons nor property seems inappropriate to me.
>>
>> Oh, you think? And how does one inadvertently violate a TFR if they
>> have gotten a briefing?
>>
>> This administration is out of control. Of course we knew that a long
>> time ago. If the killing of hundreds of thousands in an illegimate
>> war was not enough to warn us, criminalizing common flying habits
>> might be the clue some need.
>> --
>> Religion, comprises a system of wishful illusions together with a
>> disavowal of reality, such as we find in an isolated form nowhere
>> else but in amentia, in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion.
>> ~ Sigmund Freud
>
> I recall one morning after Katrina when I was in the local pattern in
> Mobile,AL (KBFM). The USCG uses KMOB/KBFM for a lot of training and
> one of their helicopters called for his clearance back to KGPT
> (Gulfport) and the tower asked if they knew they were not going to
> make it back before the TFR time. Slight pause..."WHAT TFR are you
> talking about?" says the shocked coastie. Well, after Katrina, all the
> politicians in the world were trying to make the TV news and someone
> decided to visit on a spur of the moment and a TFR was pushed into
> place. The coasties had done a very complete pre-flight and nothing
> was mentioned until the tower advised them. So ......the problem still
> exists about how to know if you are going to penetrate a TFR if there
> is no information disseminated in a timely fashion. I suspect the same
> will happen, as it does each year about this same time, for the
> Santana winds in CA. Those same freaking winds have been blowing at
> the same time frame every year since I began flying in SOCal the 50's.
> Difference is now they can put a TFR in place within hours of a new
> fire and a pilot who got a complete briefing only hours before can
> blunder smack into one and never know it until he gets the ass chewing
> followed by a letter and giant Excedrin headaches.
> Ahhh lets hear it for the ever more protective government who know
> what is best for us misguided children......
>
Oh, come on, guys, let's get into the sport of it all!

Driving the wrong way on one way streets can be criminalized and the
directional signs put on programmable billboard-type signs. Drivers would
have to call the local authorities every morning to find out which
direction the streets between home and work are going, but there is always
the possibility that they'll changed en-route.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:34:34 -0700, Bob Fry >
wrote in >:

>>>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>
> LD> While I believe those airmen who fail to get a briefing
> LD> immediately before departing,... or otherwise display wanton
> LD> negligence and disregard for FAA regulations may deserve
> LD> criminal prosecution,
>
>So a pilot who simply fails to get a briefing--something hundreds or
>thousands of pilots do every day--"may deserve criminal prosecution".

Are you familiar with CFR Title 14, Part 91, § 91.103 Preflight
action:

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become
familiar with all available information concerning that flight....
>
> LD> criminal charges against a pilot whose
> LD> inadvertent violation of a TFR results in no harm nor hazard
> LD> to persons nor property seems inappropriate to me.
>
>Oh, you think? And how does one inadvertently violate a TFR if they
>have gotten a briefing?

Let me count the ways:

The TFR pops-up after the pilot departs and is not in radio contact
with ATC.

A complete electrical system failure, large geomagnetic
disturbance, failed chronograph, and chart departs through an
unlatched door in flight.

Loss of situational awareness due to mitigating circumstances.

A large change in barometric pressure occurred without PICs
knowledge.

An emergency situation forced a decision to violate the TFR.

...

>This administration is out of control. Of course we knew that a long
>time ago.

It's becoming more and more evident daily.

>If the killing of hundreds of thousands in an illegimate war
>was not enough to warn us, criminalizing common flying habits might be
>the clue some need.

It is my understanding that the FAA has had the authority to press
criminal charges prior to president Gilligan's term.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-22 08:34:34 -0700, Bob Fry > said:
>
>
> This administration is out of control. Of course we knew that a long
> time ago. If the killing of hundreds of thousands in an illegimate war
> was not enough to warn us, criminalizing common flying habits might be
> the clue some need.

What is out of control are some of the reactions to this. If you want
to know what AOPA really said, go to their web site. AOPA is not
opposed to criminal penalties for pilots who willfully and repeatedly
violate TFRs.

The language of the FAA notam is this: "Any person who knowingly or
willfully violates the rules concerning operations in this airspace is
subject to certain criminal penalties under 49 USC 46307."

I think that is clear enough. You had to know you were violating the
TFR and deliberately did it anyway to face a criminal penalty.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> An emergency situation forced a decision to violate the TFR.
>

In an emergency, there is no violation of the TFR. The PIC has the
authority to devitate....

Been there, done that, and the FAA didn't even mention the TFR.
>
>It is my understanding that the FAA has had the authority to press
>criminal charges prior to president Gilligan's term.

Technically, the FBI and the US Attorney would be the ones to prosecute
under Federal criminal statutes. The FAA has no criminal enforcement powers.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:

>Difference is now they can put a TFR in place within hours of a new
>fire and a pilot who got a complete briefing only hours before can
>blunder smack into one and never know it until he gets the ass chewing
>followed by a letter and giant Excedrin headaches.
>Ahhh lets hear it for the ever more protective government who know
>what is best for us misguided children......

I encountered this several times over the summer, while flying in Western
MT and Centeral ID. Fire TFRs don't carry the same enforcement as the
political/"security" types. The crews that are fighting the fire are well
aware that the FAA is dismally slow at disseminating info about fire TFRs. I
encountered one fire in eastern Idaho that had no TFR when I took off 2 hrs.
earlier. There were firebombers and lead aircraft working the fire as I
passed by. The TFR finally showed up in the FAA system 36 hrs. later.
Conversely, on my way back to AZ through UT, I had to skirt a TFR that had
been very active a week prior. When I landed nearby for fuel, I found out
that the fire had been extinguished and the crews had been gone for 3 days.

Generally speaking, if you avoid flying over areas that are actively on
fire and producing smoke, no one will bother you.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[Ron Natalie]

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> An emergency situation forced a decision to violate the TFR.
>>
>
> In an emergency, there is no violation of the TFR. The PIC has the
> authority to devitate....

>
I wouldn't bet my skin, tin, or ticket on that one.
The fact you are in distress isn't going to keep the guys in the
black helicopters or F-16's from trying to intercept you.
The FAA's track record on emergency authority isn't as iron clad
as you would like. The FAA has decided that if you get into the
emergency by your own screw up then they will still blast you for
the resulting deviations.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-10-24 04:19:56 -0700, Ron Natalie > said:

> JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> An emergency situation forced a decision to violate the TFR.
>>>
>>
>> In an emergency, there is no violation of the TFR. The PIC has the
>> authority to devitate....
>
>>
> I wouldn't bet my skin, tin, or ticket on that one.
> The fact you are in distress isn't going to keep the guys in the
> black helicopters or F-16's from trying to intercept you.
> The FAA's track record on emergency authority isn't as iron clad
> as you would like. The FAA has decided that if you get into the
> emergency by your own screw up then they will still blast you for
> the resulting deviations.

No one has been shot down by black helicopters or F-16s. Imagine the
fallout if someone were. "FAMILY OF FOUR SHOT DOWN BY F-16. A family of
four in a Cessna were forced to descend into a temporarily restricted
area when the engine on their airplane quit for unknown reasons.
Although the pilot broadcast his emergency on the radio, the F-16s were
not equipped with civilian frequencies and opened fire without warning."

Nope. Don't see it happening. Heads would roll and it would be the end
of the TFR system as we know it.

This is not something new. The FAA has always had the authority to
press criminal charges against pilots the willfully violate restricted
areas. It is not surprising that they have had to publicly re-assert
this authority in view of the numerous pilots violating flight
restrictions.

But fear of getting shot down or charged with criminal activity are
poor excuses for staying out of TFRs. Fear of getting slammed by a
DC-10 full of fire retardant, crashing and starting yet another fire
ought to be foremost in your mind.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> I wouldn't bet my skin, tin, or ticket on that one.

If you have an emergency, all of Part 91 can be suspended for the purpose of
ensuring safety.

> The fact you are in distress isn't going to keep the guys in the
> black helicopters or F-16's from trying to intercept you.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with the legality of doing so.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> I wouldn't bet my skin, tin, or ticket on that one.
>
> If you have an emergency, all of Part 91 can be suspended for the
> purpose of ensuring safety.
>
>> The fact you are in distress isn't going to keep the guys in the
>> black helicopters or F-16's from trying to intercept you.
>
> Maybe, but that has nothing to do with the legality of doing so.
>


God you're fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Judah]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

>
> Is this new change TFR wording the result of our new Administrator
> who, unlike the previous one, holds an airmens certificate?
>
> While I believe those airmen who fail to get a briefing immediately
> before departing, or who fail to concern themselves with current
> airspace information published on Sectional Charts, or otherwise
> display wanton negligence and disregard for FAA regulations may
> deserve criminal prosecution, such criminal charges against a pilot
> whose inadvertent violation of a TFR results in no harm nor hazard to
> persons nor property seems inappropriate to me.


The very nature of a TFR makes this ludicrous. It's a TEMPORARY flight
restriction. Prior to 9/11, they were used for things like giving rescue
crews room to do their job after an accident or emergency (keeping
newscopters and other rubberneckers out of their way).

Aside from the new post-9/11 TFRs (ie: President beacons and sporting
events, etc) TFRs cannot be predicted preflight in many circumstances. To
prosecute for violating them is insane.

The result will be that pilots will be so afraid to violate a TFR that they
will always call for briefings every time they get in the plane (even if
it's a return trip from a $200 hamburger and they already had weather from
an hour before), and they will always use ATC services (flight following,
etc.).

The inevitable result of course is that our ATC and FSS systems will get so
intensely congested that flight delays will be blamed on unavailability of
services, and airlines will want to create laws to force all pilots to pay
for the services that they now are forced to abuse.

Oh, wait. Maybe we're already here.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:30:55 GMT, Judah > wrote in
>:

>The result will be that pilots will be so afraid to violate a TFR that they
>will always call for briefings every time they get in the plane (even if
>it's a return trip from a $200 hamburger and they already had weather from
>an hour before),...

The way I read it, CFR Title 14, Part 91, § 91.103 requires exactly
that.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

JGalban wrote:
>
> Generally speaking, if you avoid flying over areas that are actively on
>fire and producing smoke, no one will bother you.
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

*glider guy suit on*

Dang,
In our inverted summer sky in NCal valley, thems the only spots we can find
lift. : /

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[Judah]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:30:55 GMT, Judah > wrote in
> >:
>
>>The result will be that pilots will be so afraid to violate a TFR that
>>they will always call for briefings every time they get in the plane
>>(even if it's a return trip from a $200 hamburger and they already had
>>weather from an hour before),...
>
> The way I read it, CFR Title 14, Part 91, § 91.103 requires exactly
> that.

Yeah. It's a joke.

It's self-destructing, like almost everything else in public policy in this
country these days.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>I wouldn't bet my skin, tin, or ticket on that one.
>The fact you are in distress isn't going to keep the guys in the
>black helicopters or F-16's from trying to intercept you.
>The FAA's track record on emergency authority isn't as iron clad
>as you would like. The FAA has decided that if you get into the
>emergency by your own screw up then they will still blast you for
>the resulting deviations.

No arguement there. You're going to be held responsible if you screw up.
That's nothing new. Once you have the emergency, I think the presence of a
TFR is going to be a non-issue. I think the FAA would have a hard time
pressing the case that you deliberately violated a TFR if you'd declared an
emergency beforehand. The criminal violation that we're talking about refers
to a deliberate violation. If you did something dumb like run out of fuel
and were forced to come down in a TFR, I have a hard time seeing criminal
charges being pressed (although I'll agree that it's not out of the realm of
possibility).

As I said, I dropped smack into the middle of a TFR (not a political /
security one) after an engine failure and the FAA didn't even mention the TFR.
It's not like I could have gone somewhere else.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200710/1

[Jim Logajan]

C J Campbell > wrote:
> No one has been shot down by black helicopters or F-16s. Imagine the
> fallout if someone were.

Not in the U.S. - yet. This incident happened in 2001 in Peru and the
CIA allegedly was involved:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_15_118/ai_75089670
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405E6DF1F30F930A15757C0A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

"Peru's air force denied April 23 that it did anything wrong in an
incident that led to the death of a missionary and her daughter when
their plane was shot down April 20 in the South American country. But
friends and relatives of the missionaries said they were fired on
without warning.

A pontoon-equipped single-engine Cessna carrying missionaries affiliated
with the Pennsylvania-based association of Baptists for World Evangelism
was forced to crash-land in the Amazon River after a Peruvian fighter
jet opened fire on the plane, which it mistakenly thought was
transporting illegal drugs. Missionary Veronica Bowers and her
seven-month-old daughter, Charity, were killed. Pilot Kevin Donaldson
underwent surgery after being seriously wounded in both legs in the
incident. Reportedly, the jet strafed the survivors as they clung to the
plane's burning wreckage in the river."

Here's a followup story some months later of the investigation findings:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0108/02/se.02.html

[PPL-A (Canada)]

On Oct 22, 11:34 am, Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>> "LD" == Larry Dighera > writes:
>

> So a pilot who simply fails to get a briefing--something hundreds or
> thousands of pilots do every day--"may deserve criminal prosecution".
> ... This administration is out of control ... criminalizing common flying habits might be
> the clue some need.

I have noticed a distinct tone, or mode of thinking one could say, of
a portion of the readers and contributers to this group. The last
time I encountered it was in a discussion of the overflight of "built-
up" or populated areas at unsafe and low altitudes while not in the
process of taking-off or landing. In that discussion a similar
rationale was offered as you offer, Mr. Fry, ... common habit. That
writer first proposed that this activity was common habit, and as long
as nothing happened on a particular flight where the regs were
ignored, then the regs were irrelevant. When I pushed the discussion
further the notion of "freedom" was invoked (implying somehow that
Canadians are less "free" than our friends in the U.S. because we
don't make a habit of buzzing beaches and scud-running over cities and
towns and thereby disregarding our aviation regulations) as an
explanation for why regulations put in place in an attempt to find a
balance between the safety of pilots, those people they fly over, and
the privileges afforded those with pilot certificates were unnecessary
and were trumped by these notions of common practice and so-called
"freedom".

While I can understand the frustration at the existence of an
unpredictable and moving "TFR", don't you agree that your ire would
better be directed at the source of the frustration and make efforts
to lower the level of paranoia and fear overwhelming your nation,
especially around aviation, instead of making the ridiculous argument
that your "common habit" somehow justifies the disregard of
regulations (it sounds like you are in the habit of flying without
getting briefings and checking NOTAMS) by everyone. The pilot buzzing
a beach in Florida in the name of "freedom" and the pilot who makes a
habit of taking off without even a cursory briefing and checking of
NOTAMS are the true hazards to the public and other aviators, not
regulations.

If you really believe this particular regulation goes too far why not
organize your local aviation enthusiasts and professionals and
vocalize to your local representation in government your
dissatisfaction with your federal government and its organizations.
Your so-called "common habit" is a rather poor form of rebellion that
will only reflect poorly on yourself and others that think likewise.