FAA Is Not The Sole Flight Regulatory Authority

[Larry Dighera]

Okay. You're planning a sightseeing flight off the coast, and you
think you've checked "all available information" per Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) section 91.103. But are the FARs
the only place a PIC needs to check for federal flight regulations?

Apparently other government agencies in addition to FAA rule the skies
also:


http://www.faa.gov/news/aviation_news/2008/media/mayjun2008.pdf

Although people like to go whale watching, pilots need to maintain
the proper minimum altitude over whales to avoid disturbing them.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission photo

Whale Watching

Even if you live near the ocean, it’s a safe
bet that you will never have to worry about
whales invading your airplane. Whales, on the
other hand, sometimes have to worry about having
their space invaded—illegally—by aerial sightseers
in general aviation aircraft. Since the beginning
of the year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has documented several
private aircraft off the coasts of Georgia and Florida
circling in close proximity to right whales, which are
a critically endangered species in the baleen whale
family.

Here’s the rule. We pilots aren’t keen on having
wildlife invade our space, and the law requires
us to return the favor when it comes to operating
in the vicinity of certain animals. You are probably
already aware of the requirement to fly at least 2,000
feet above ground level (AGL) over wildlife preserves
depicted on sectional aeronautical charts. What you may
not know, though, is that if you fly near any place
that right whales are known to live, the law (Title 50
Code of Federal Regulations section 224.103(c)) prohibits
you from approaching within 1,500 feet (500
yards) of these creatures, unless you have a permit
from the National Marine Fisheries Service. If you
do not have such authorization, the law requires that
you establish a course away from any right whale and
immediately depart the area at a constant airspeed,
unless compliance would create an “imminent and
serious threat” to a person, vessel, or aircraft.

So keep a sharp lookout, and do your part to
“fly friendly” wherever you happen to be.


Susan Parson is a special assistant in the FAA’s General Aviation
and Commercial Division. She holds an ATP certificate with an
airplane multiengine land rating and commercial privileges for
airplane single-engine land. She also holds advanced and
instrument ground instructor certificates and a flight instructor
certificate with ratings for airplane single and multiengine
land and instrument airplane.


Who knew?

Apparently the author of the above article that appeared on page 28 of
FAAAviation News May/June 2008, Ms. Susan Parson, overlooked Title 50
Code of Federal Regulations section 224.103(c))(iv):

(iv) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply to
an aircraft unless the aircraft is conducting whale watch
activities.

Is there a formal definition of "whale watch" activities?


Here's the federal regulation:

---------------------------------------------------------
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=0e8e3fcd48de8c78b78d96f5f0fbcbef&rgn=div8&view=text&node=50:7.0.1.3.6.0.13.3&idno=50
e-CFR Data is current as of May 1, 2008

Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries
PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES

§ 224.103 Special prohibitions for endangered marine mammals.
(a) Approaching humpback whales in Hawaii. Except as provided in part
222, subpart C, of this chapter (General Permit Procedures), it is
unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit,
or to cause to be committed, within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of
the Islands of Hawaii, any of the following acts with respect to
humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ):

(1) Operate any aircraft within 1,000 feet (300 m) of any humpback
whale;

(2) Approach, by any means, within 100 yard (90 m) of any humpback
whale;

(3) Cause a vessel or other object to approach within 100 yd (90 m) of
a humpback whale; or

(4) Disrupt the normal behavior or prior activity of a whale by any
other act or omission. A disruption of normal behavior may be
manifested by, among other actions on the part of the whale, a rapid
change in direction or speed; escape tactics such as prolonged diving,
underwater course changes, underwater exhalation, or evasive swimming
patterns; interruptions of breeding, nursing, or resting activities,
attempts by a whale to shield a calf from a vessel or human observer
by tail swishing or by other protective movement; or the abandonment
of a previously frequented area.

(b) Approaching humpback whales in Alaska —(1) Prohibitions. Except as
provided under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, it is unlawful for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to cause to be
committed, within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of Alaska, or within
inland waters of the state, any of the acts in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
through (b)(1)(iii) of this section with respect to humpback whales (
Megaptera novaeangliae ):

(i) Approach, by any means, including by interception (i.e., placing a
vessel in the path of an oncoming humpback whale so that the whale
surfaces within 100 yards (91.4 m) of the vessel), within 100 yards
(91.4 m) of any humpback whale;

(ii) Cause a vessel or other object to approach within 100 yards (91.4
m) of a humpback whale; or

(iii) Disrupt the normal behavior or prior activity of a whale by any
other act or omission, as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this
section.

(2) Exceptions. The following exceptions apply to this paragraph (b),
but any person who claims the applicability of an exception has the
burden of proving that the exception applies:

(i) Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply if an approach is
authorized by the National Marine Fisheries Service through a permit
issued under part 222, subpart C, of this chapter (General Permit
Procedures) or through a similar authorization.

(ii) Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply to the extent
that a vessel is restricted in her ability to maneuver and, because of
the restriction, cannot comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(iii) Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply to commercial
fishing vessels lawfully engaged in actively setting, retrieving or
closely tending commercial fishing gear. For purposes of this
paragraph (b), commercial fishing means taking or harvesting fish or
fishery resources to sell, barter, or trade. Commercial fishing does
not include commercial passenger fishing operations (i.e. charter
operations or sport fishing activities).

(iv) Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply to state, local,
or Federal government vessels operating in the course of official
duty.

(v) Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not affect the rights of
Alaska Natives under 16 U.S.C. 1539(e).

(vi) These regulations shall not take precedence over any more
restrictive conflicting Federal regulation pertaining to humpback
whales, including the regulations at 36 CFR 13.65 that pertain
specifically to the waters of Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.

(3) General measures. Notwithstanding the prohibitions and exceptions
in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, to avoid collisions with
humpback whales, vessels must operate at a slow, safe speed when near
a humpback whale. “Safe speed” has the same meaning as the term is
defined in 33 U.S.C. 2006 and the International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (see 33 U.S.C. 1602), with respect
to avoiding collisions with humpback whales.

(c) Approaching right whales —(1) Prohibitions. Except as provided
under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, it is unlawful for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, attempt to
commit, to solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed any of
the following acts:

(i) Approach (including by interception) within 500 yards (460 m) of a
right whale by vessel, aircraft, or any other means;

(ii) Fail to undertake required right whale avoidance measures
specified under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(2) Right whale avoidance measures. Except as provided under paragraph
(c)(3) of this section, the following avoidance measures must be taken
if within 500 yards (460 m) of a right whale:

(i) If underway, a vessel must steer a course away from the right
whale and immediately leave the area at a slow safe speed.

(ii) An aircraft must take a course away from the right whale and
immediately leave the area at a constant airspeed.

(3) Exceptions. The following exceptions apply to this section, but
any person who claims the applicability of an exception has the burden
of proving that the exception applies:

(i) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply if a
right whale approach is authorized by the National Marine Fisheries
Service through a permit issued under part 222, subpart C, of this
chapter (General Permit Procedures) or through a similar
authorization.

(ii) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply where
compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person,
vessel, or aircraft.

(iii) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply when
approaching to investigate a right whale entanglement or injury, or to
assist in the disentanglement or rescue of a right whale, provided
that permission is received from the National Marine Fisheries Service
or designee prior to the approach.

(iv) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply to an
aircraft unless the aircraft is conducting whale watch activities.

(v) Paragraph (c)(2) of this section does not apply to the extent that
a vessel is restricted in her ability to maneuver and, because of the
restriction, cannot comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(d) Special prohibitions relating to endangered Steller sea lion
protection. The regulatory provisions set forth in part 223 of this
chapter, which govern threatened Steller sea lions, shall also apply
to the western population of Steller sea lions, which consists of all
Steller sea lions from breeding colonies located west of 144° W. long.

[64 FR 14066, Mar. 23, 1999, as amended at 66 FR 29509, May 31, 2001;
69 FR 69537, Nov. 30, 2004; 70 FR 1832, Jan. 11, 2005]
---------------------------------------------------------



So, where are right whales found?

http://whale.wheelock.edu/whalenet-stuff/reportsRW_NE/
NOAA, and NMFS
Right Whale Sighting Advisory System (SAS)
and
The Division of Marine Fisheries
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
REPORTS & DATA: 2008




http://whale.wheelock.edu/whalenet-stuff/reports/
New England Aquarium
EARLY WARNING SYSTEM
Surveys For Right Whales in the Florida/Georgia area.
Maps, Data, and Reports



http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/Whalenet?q=right+whales&sa=Google+Search&domains=whale.wheelock.edu&sitesearch=whale.wheelock.edu

[WingFlaps]

On May 6, 5:27*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> § 224.103 * Special prohibitions for endangered marine mammals.
> (a) Approaching humpback whales in Hawaii. Except as provided in part
> 222, subpart C, of this chapter (General Permit Procedures), it is
> unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
> States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit,
> or to cause to be committed, within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of
> the Islands of Hawaii, any of the following acts with respect to
> humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ):
>
> (1) Operate any aircraft within 1,000 feet (300 m) of any humpback
> whale;
>

I wonder, is there evidence that a whale is aware of a flying
aircraft?

Hmmm.

Cheers

[Peter Dohm]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
>On May 6, 5:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>> § 224.103 Special prohibitions for endangered marine mammals.
>> (a) Approaching humpback whales in Hawaii. Except as provided in part
>> 222, subpart C, of this chapter (General Permit Procedures), it is
>> unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
>> States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit,
>> or to cause to be committed, within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of
>> the Islands of Hawaii, any of the following acts with respect to
>> humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ):
>>
>> (1) Operate any aircraft within 1,000 feet (300 m) of any humpback
>> whale;
>>
>
>I wonder, is there evidence that a whale is aware of a flying
>aircraft?
>
>Hmmm.
>
>Cheers
>
Or that whales give a damn, even if they are aware.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On May 6, 5:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>> § 224.103 Special prohibitions for endangered marine mammals.
>>> (a) Approaching humpback whales in Hawaii. Except as provided in part
>>> 222, subpart C, of this chapter (General Permit Procedures), it is
>>> unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
>>> States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit,
>>> or to cause to be committed, within 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) of
>>> the Islands of Hawaii, any of the following acts with respect to
>>> humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ):
>>>
>>> (1) Operate any aircraft within 1,000 feet (300 m) of any humpback
>>> whale;
>>>
>> I wonder, is there evidence that a whale is aware of a flying
>> aircraft?
>>
>> Hmmm.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
> Or that whales give a damn, even if they are aware.
>
>
>
>
>

Who knows, they might enjoy seeing airplanes fly by.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
<...>
>
> Who knows, they might enjoy seeing airplanes fly by.

My dog seems to.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[WingFlaps]

On May 6, 10:11*am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in messagenews:KqidncTlxPWQ8oLVnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@super news.com...
> <...>
>
>
>
> > Who knows, they might enjoy seeing airplanes fly by.
>
> My dog seems to.

Smart dog.

Cheers

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
On May 6, 10:11 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in
> messagenews:KqidncTlxPWQ8oLVnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@super news.com...
> <...>
>
>
>
> > Who knows, they might enjoy seeing airplanes fly by.
>
> My dog seems to.

Smart dog.


Smarter than some "people" who post here...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:01:31 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
>:

>"WingFlaps" > wrote in message
...
>On May 6, 10:11 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
>D0t C0m> wrote:
>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in
>> messagenews:KqidncTlxPWQ8oLVnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@super news.com...
>> <...>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Who knows, they might enjoy seeing airplanes fly by.
>>
>> My dog seems to.
>
>Smart dog.
>
>
>Smarter than some "people" who post here...

And smarter than some government agencies:

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/14976065/detail.html
Court Orders Navy To Protect Whales From Sonar
NRDC Says They Are Satisfied With Ruling

POSTED: 9:47 pm PST January 3, 2008
UPDATED: 6:14 am PST January 4, 2008
LOS ANGELES -- A U.S. District Court on Thursday ordered the Navy
to adopt a series of measures to lessen the impact of sonar on
whales and other marine life during exercises off Southern
California.

The preliminary injunction said the Navy must:
Create a 12-nautical-mile no-sonar zone along the coast.
Have trained lookouts watch for marine mammals starting 60 minutes
before and then during exercises.
Shut down sonar when mammals are spotted within 2,200 yards.

District Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper also barred the Navy
from employing sonar in the Catalina Basin, an area that is home
to what she called "a high density of marine mammals." This area
extends from Santa Catalina Island south to San Clemente Island.

"We are aware of the court's decision and we are reviewing it,"
said Lt. Cmdr. Cindy Moore, a Navy spokeswoman.

The Natural Resources Defense Council filed the lawsuit to force
the Navy to lessen the harm of its sonar exercises.

Joel Reynolds, director of the NRDC's Marine Mammal Protection
Project, said he was pleased with the decision.

"Although the Court's order recognizes the Navy's need to train
with sonar for our national defense, this is the most significant
environmental mitigation that a federal court has ever ordered the
U.S. Navy to adopt in its training with mid-frequency sonar,"
Reynolds said.

The council's lawsuit alleges the Navy's sonar interrupts foraging
and mating of whales and other marine mammals and can cause them
to beach themselves. In 2000, naval sonar contributed to 16 whales
and two dolphins being beached in the Bahamas, according to a
federal study.

According to Thursday's court order, the Navy has used or planned
to use MFA sonar during 14 large-scale exercises off the Southern
California coast between February 2007 and January of 2009.

The Navy's assessment was that approximately 170,000 marine
mammals would be exposed to sonar in these exercises, with more
than 450 instances of permanent injury to some whales, the court
order said. ...



http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/14976065/detail.html
Blue Whale Requiem
Mystery reigns as sonar tests pit military training against
beloved Southland pods

By JUDITH LEWIS
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 5:00 pm
None of the whales seemed to have been killed by sonar. Scientists
who examined two of them found no blood in their ear canals, nor
hemorrhaging in their brains, as was the case with seven whales
that became stranded and died in the Bahamas after Navy midrange
sonar testing in 2000. The blue whales did not come ashore in
groups, like 37 pilot whales that beached in North Carolina after
midrange sonar testing there. Nor did anyone find gas bubbles in
the blue whales’ tissue, which could indicate they had surfaced
too quickly out of fear, then died from the bends. All the blue
whales died with broken bones and blunt-force injuries, meaning
they died because they were hit by ships.




http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-sonar4jan04,1,5472074.story
She noted that the Navy's own study concluded that upcoming
exercises off Southern California "will cause widespread harm to
nearly 30 species of marine mammals, including five species of
endangered whales and may cause permanent injury and death."

Because scientists have chronicled panicked responses from marine
mammals as far as 40 kilometers away, Cooper said the 2,200-yard
shutdown requirement "represents a minimal imposition of the
Navy's training exercises" while preventing the harshest
sonar-related consequences.

[Andrew Sarangan]

From the posted article, the main point against this injunction seems
to be that no whales have died from sonar. But why is death considered
the only proof of harm?

[[email protected]]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> From the posted article, the main point against this injunction seems
> to be that no whales have died from sonar. But why is death considered
> the only proof of harm?

Its kind of hard to get sworn testimony of lost sleep, harassment, etc.
from a whale.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>> From the posted article, the main point against this injunction seems
>> to be that no whales have died from sonar. But why is death considered
>> the only proof of harm?
>
> Its kind of hard to get sworn testimony of lost sleep, harassment, etc.
> from a whale.

Iiiiii speeeeaaaaak whaaaaaaaale!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4SURhza6_s

Anyway, whales are known to be notorious liars - I mean, have you ever seen
one who did not have a big tale?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:01:31 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
> Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
> >:
>
>> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On May 6, 10:11 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
>> D0t C0m> wrote:
>>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in
>>> messagenews:KqidncTlxPWQ8oLVnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@super news.com...
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Who knows, they might enjoy seeing airplanes fly by.
>>> My dog seems to.
>> Smart dog.
>>
>>
>> Smarter than some "people" who post here...
>
> And smarter than some government agencies:
>
> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/14976065/detail.html
> Court Orders Navy To Protect Whales From Sonar
> NRDC Says They Are Satisfied With Ruling
>

I'm not an environmentalist and I'm also not against harming an animal
or two if human progress requires it. BUT, I was Scuba diving off the
cost of Hawaii a few years back and there was a Destroyer off several
miles when I was down and it started pinging its sonar. This was not
comfortable at all. The sound was below my personal pain threshold but
not that of a few of the folks I was diving with and if I had been a
whale trying to get me a little something, something with a hot whale
babe it would have been quite the cock block.

So if the Navy doesn't have to use their active sonar where whales
happen to be hanging out it probably isn't a bad thing.

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 1:16*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:01:31 -0400, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
> > Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
> > >:
>
> >> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> ....
> >> On May 6, 10:11 am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
> >> D0t C0m> wrote:
> >>> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in
> >>> messagenews:KqidncTlxPWQ8oLVnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@super news.com...
> >>> <...>
>
> >>>> Who knows, they might enjoy seeing airplanes fly by.
> >>> My dog seems to.
> >> Smart dog.
>
> >> Smarter than some "people" who post here...
>
> > And smarter than some government agencies:
>
> > * *http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/14976065/detail.html
> > * * Court Orders Navy To Protect Whales From Sonar
> > * * NRDC Says They Are Satisfied With Ruling
>
> I'm not an environmentalist and I'm also not against harming an animal
> or two if human progress requires it. BUT, I was Scuba diving off the
> cost of Hawaii a few years back and there was a Destroyer off several
> miles when I was down and it started pinging its sonar. This was not
> comfortable at all. The sound was below my personal pain threshold but
> not that of a few of the folks I was diving with >


What did it sound like? I've logged over 500 dives but never heard
sonar.

Cheers

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

WingFlaps wrote:

>> I'm not an environmentalist and I'm also not against harming an animal
>> or two if human progress requires it. BUT, I was Scuba diving off the
>> cost of Hawaii a few years back and there was a Destroyer off several
>> miles when I was down and it started pinging its sonar. This was not
>> comfortable at all. The sound was below my personal pain threshold but
>> not that of a few of the folks I was diving with >
>
>
> What did it sound like? I've logged over 500 dives but never heard
> sonar.
>
> Cheers

Pretty much like it did in "Hunt For Red October". You didn't so much
hear it as feel it inside your head.

I was told by the dive master, an old Navy Man, that what we heard was
the the search not the targeting sonar. He said had it been the
targeting and aimed in our directions that we would have been deaf.

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 6:09*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> >> I'm not an environmentalist and I'm also not against harming an animal
> >> or two if human progress requires it. BUT, I was Scuba diving off the
> >> cost of Hawaii a few years back and there was a Destroyer off several
> >> miles when I was down and it started pinging its sonar. This was not
> >> comfortable at all. The sound was below my personal pain threshold but
> >> not that of a few of the folks I was diving with >
>
> > What did it sound like? I've logged over 500 dives but never heard
> > sonar.
>
> > Cheers
>
> Pretty much like it did in "Hunt For Red October". You didn't so much
> hear it as feel it inside your head.
>
> I was told by the dive master, an old Navy Man, that what we heard was
> the the search not the targeting sonar. He said had it been the
> targeting and aimed in our directions that we would have been deaf.

I didn't know there was any difference between search and "targeting"
sonar. I know there is a big difference between passive and active
though.

Cheers

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On May 7, 6:09 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>> I'm not an environmentalist and I'm also not against harming an animal
>>>> or two if human progress requires it. BUT, I was Scuba diving off the
>>>> cost of Hawaii a few years back and there was a Destroyer off several
>>>> miles when I was down and it started pinging its sonar. This was not
>>>> comfortable at all. The sound was below my personal pain threshold but
>>>> not that of a few of the folks I was diving with >
>>> What did it sound like? I've logged over 500 dives but never heard
>>> sonar.
>>> Cheers
>> Pretty much like it did in "Hunt For Red October". You didn't so much
>> hear it as feel it inside your head.
>>
>> I was told by the dive master, an old Navy Man, that what we heard was
>> the the search not the targeting sonar. He said had it been the
>> targeting and aimed in our directions that we would have been deaf.
>
> I didn't know there was any difference between search and "targeting"
> sonar. I know there is a big difference between passive and active
> though.
>
> Cheers

From my understanding that they can put out X power and in search mode
that power is spread around the ship either equally or a certain angle.
They do have the ability to pump all the power down a single, narrow
beam and they can get more distance.

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Since the beginning
> of the year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
> Administration (NOAA) has documented several
> private aircraft off the coasts of Georgia and Florida
> circling in close proximity to right whales, which are
> a critically endangered species in the baleen whale
> family.
> ...
>
> Apparently the author of the above article that appeared on page 28 of
> FAAAviation News May/June 2008, Ms. Susan Parson, overlooked Title 50
> Code of Federal Regulations section 224.103(c))(iv):
>
> (iv) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply to
> an aircraft unless the aircraft is conducting whale watch
> activities.

I don't think what she said is contrary to the exception you listed. The
exception applies to folks unaware or uninterested that the whale is below
them.

> Is there a formal definition of "whale watch" activities?

Sure. If the only reason you're in the area or loitering in the area is to
see the whale, you're "whale watching". (See the NOAA reference above.) What
else would you call it?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 6 May 2008 20:30:35 -0400, "John T"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> Since the beginning
>> of the year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
>> Administration (NOAA) has documented several
>> private aircraft off the coasts of Georgia and Florida
>> circling in close proximity to right whales, which are
>> a critically endangered species in the baleen whale
>> family.
>> ...
>>
>> Apparently the author of the above article that appeared on page 28 of
>> FAAAviation News May/June 2008, Ms. Susan Parson, overlooked Title 50
>> Code of Federal Regulations section 224.103(c))(iv):
>>
>> (iv) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply to
>> an aircraft unless the aircraft is conducting whale watch
>> activities.
>
>I don't think what she said is contrary to the exception you listed. The
>exception applies to folks unaware or uninterested that the whale is below
>them.
>

I wrote and asked her about the published exception in the regulation
she cited, but has not yet received a response from her.

We obviously differ in our inference of the meaning of the exception
cited in (iv) above. I see no mention of "unaware or uninterested
that the whale is below them." anywhere in the entire regulation Title
50 Code of Federal Regulations section 224.103, so I'm wondering how
you reached your conclusion.

Do you simply read the exclusion as a get-out-of-jail-free card for
those pilots who _inadvertently_ violate Paragraphs (c)(1) and/or
(c)(2), so that innocents are exempted from culpability?

>> Is there a formal definition of "whale watch" activities?
>
>Sure. If the only reason you're in the area or loitering in the area is to
>see the whale, you're "whale watching". (See the NOAA reference above.) What
>else would you call it?

If you personally drafted that definition of "whale watch," it is not
quite _formal_ enough for me. I'm inquiring if there exists a
definition published in government literature similar to the those
contained in Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 Chapter 1,
Subchapter A, Part 1 of the FARs:
<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=2d9fce5358b7231ece0f29dfff0b574e&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr1_main_02.tpl>

It is the wording "whale watch" as opposed to 'whale watching' that
leads me to believe there may be a formal definition of the term, or a
formal permitting process to which it refers.

[WingFlaps]

On May 7, 10:02*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On May 7, 6:09 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps wrote:
> >>>> I'm not an environmentalist and I'm also not against harming an animal
> >>>> or two if human progress requires it. BUT, I was Scuba diving off the
> >>>> cost of Hawaii a few years back and there was a Destroyer off several
> >>>> miles when I was down and it started pinging its sonar. This was not
> >>>> comfortable at all. The sound was below my personal pain threshold but
> >>>> not that of a few of the folks I was diving with >
> >>> What did it sound like? I've logged over 500 dives but never heard
> >>> sonar.
> >>> Cheers
> >> Pretty much like it did in "Hunt For Red October". You didn't so much
> >> hear it as feel it inside your head.
>
> >> I was told by the dive master, an old Navy Man, that what we heard was
> >> the the search not the targeting sonar. He said had it been the
> >> targeting and aimed in our directions that we would have been deaf.
>
> > I didn't know there was any difference between search and "targeting"
> > sonar. I know there is a big difference between passive and active
> > though.
>
> > Cheers
>
> *From my understanding that they can put out X power and in search mode
> that power is spread around the ship either equally or a certain angle.
> They do have the ability to pump all the power down a single, narrow
> beam and they can get more distance.- Hide quoted text -
>

I'm puzzled, how would you know where to direct the high power
targeting beam if the search beam had not already identified a target?

Cheers

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

WingFlaps wrote:

>
> I'm puzzled, how would you know where to direct the high power
> targeting beam if the search beam had not already identified a target?
>
> Cheers
>
>

Sorry you have surpassed my knowledge of underwater warfare. But I would
assume that the higher power targeting sonar gives a finer bearing to
the target.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 07 May 2008 23:32:01 -0700, Airbus > wrote in
>:

>
>
>You are probably
> already aware of the requirement to fly at least 2,000
> feet above ground level (AGL) over wildlife preserves
> depicted on sectional aeronautical charts.
>
>I thought this was a "recommendation" not a requirement.
>Has this changed, or is the expert author very out of touch with her purported
>specialty?

That is an excellent question. The same thought crossed my mind when
I read that excerpt from the story also.

I find on reference to 'wild' nor 'preserve' in Part 91:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=6e24ef070b382e73f656eb5deeb357d6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14

Below is some research information. Perhaps there is enough there for
you to find the answer to your question.


The note on the charts reads thus:

REGULATION REGARDING FLIGHTS OVER CHARTED NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
AREAS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AREAS, AND U.S. FOREST
SERVICE AREAS

The landing of aircraft is prohibited on lands or waters
administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service or U.S. Forest Service without authorization from the
respective agency. Exceptions include: 1) when forced to land due
to an emergency beyond the control of the operator, 2) at
officially designated landing sites, or 3) on approved official
business of the Federal Government.

All aircraft are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000
feet above the surface of the following: National Parks,
Monuments, Seashores, Lakeshores, Recreation Areas and Scenic
Riverways administered by the National Park Service; National
wildlife Refuges, Big Game Refuges, Game Ranges and Wildlife
Ranges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
Wilderness and Primitive areas administered by the U.S. Forest
Service. FAA advisory Circular (AC) 91-36, "Visual Flight Rules
(VFR) flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas," defines the surface as:
The highest terrain within 2,000 feet laterally of the route of
flight, or the upper-most rim of a canyon or valley.

Federal regulations also prohibit airdrops by parachute or other
means of persons, cargo, or objects from aircraft on lands
administered by the three agencies without authorization from the
respective agency. Exceptions include: 1) emergencies involving
the safety of human life, or 2) threat of serious property loss.



Here is the Advisory Circular mentioned above:


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAdvisoryCircul ar.nsf/0/208330D7EFAD2BF9862570650070769F?OpenDocument
Advisory Circular Information

AC Number: AC 91-36D
Date: 09/17/2004

Subject: Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive
Areas

Related Regulation(s):
Part 91 Section Number(s): Unknown Section

Cancels: AC 91-36C
Initiating Office: ATO-R


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/208330d7efad2bf9862570650070769f/$FILE/AC91-36d.pdf
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Date: September 17, 2004
AC No: 91-36D
Subject: VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) FLIGHT NEAR NOISE-SENSITIVE
AREAS
Initiated by: ATO-R
ADVISORY CIRCULAR

1. PURPOSE. This Advisory Circular (AC) encourages pilots making
VFR flights near noise-sensitive areas to fly at altitudes higher
than the minimum permitted by regulation and on flight paths that
will reduce aircraft noise in such areas.

2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This advisory circular is effective on
September 17, 2004.

3. CANCELLATION. Advisory Circular 91-36C, Visual Flight Rules
(VFR) Flight Near Noise Sensitive Areas, dated October 19, 1984,
is cancelled.

4. AUTHORITY. The FAA has authority to formulate policy regarding
use of the navigable airspace (Title 49 United States Code,
Section 40103).

5. EXPLANATION OF CHANGES. This AC has been updated to include a
definition of “noise-sensitive” area and add references to Public
Law 100-91; the FAA Noise Policy for Management of Airspace Over
Federally Managed Lands, dated November 1996; and the National
Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, with other minor wording
changes.

6. BACKGROUND.

a. Excessive aircraft noise can result in annoyance,
inconvenience, or interference with the uses and enjoyment of
property, and can adversely affect wildlife. It is particularly
undesirable in areas where it interferes with normal activities
associated with the area’s use, including residential,
educational, health, and religious structures and sites, and
parks, recreational areas (including areas with wilderness
characteristics), wildlife refuges, and cultural and historical
sites where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or
attribute. Moreover, the FAA recognizes that there are locations
in National Parks and other federally managed areas that have
unique noise-sensitive values. The Noise Policy for Management of
Airspace Over Federally Managed Areas, issued November 8, 1996,
states that it is the policy of the FAA in its management of the
navigable airspace over these locations to exercise leadership in
achieving an appropriate balance between efficiency, technological
practicability, and environmental concerns, while maintaining the
highest level of safety.

b. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) receives complaints
concerning low flying aircraft over noise sensitive areas such as
National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, Waterfowl Production
Areas and Wilderness Areas. Congress addressed aircraft flights
over Grand Canyon National Park in Public Law 100-91 and
commercial air tour operations over other units of the National
Park System (and tribal lands within or abutting such units) in
the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000.

c. Increased emphasis on improving the quality of the environment
requires a continuing effort to provide relief and protection from
low flying aircraft noise.

d. Potential noise impacts to noise-sensitive areas from low
altitude aircraft flights can also be addressed through
application of the voluntary practices set forth in this AC.
Adherence to these practices is a practical indication of pilot
concern for the environment, which will build support for aviation
and alleviate the need for any additional statutory or regulatory
actions.

7. DEFINITION. For the purposes of this AC, an area is
“noise-sensitive” if noise interferes with normal activities
associated with the area’s use. Examples of noise-sensitive areas
include residential, educational, health, and religious structures
and sites, and parks, recreational areas (including areas with
wilderness characteristics), wildlife refuges, and cultural and
historical sites where a quiet setting is a generally recognized
feature or attribute.

8. VOLUNTARY PRACTICES.
a. Avoidance of noise-sensitive areas, if practical, is preferable
to overflight at relatively low altitudes.

b. Pilots operating noise producing aircraft (fixed-wing,
rotary-wing and hot air balloons) over noise-sensitive areas
should make every effort to fly not less than 2,000 feet above
ground level (AGL), weather permitting. For the purpose of this
AC, the ground level of noise-sensitive areas is defined to
include the highest terrain within 2,000 feet AGL laterally of the
route of flight, or the uppermost rim of a canyon or valley. The
intent of the 2,000 feet AGL recommendation is to reduce potential
interference with wildlife and complaints of noise disturbances
caused by low flying aircraft over noise-sensitive areas.

c. Departure from or arrival to an airport, climb after take-off,
and descent for landing should be made so as to avoid prolonged
flight at low altitudes near noise-sensitive areas.

d. This advisory does not apply where it would conflict with
Federal Aviation Regulations, air traffic control clearances or
instructions, or where an altitude of less than 2,000 feet AGL is
considered necessary by a pilot to operate safely.

9. COOPERATIVE ACTIONS. Aircraft operators, aviation associations,
airport managers, and others are asked to assist in voluntary
compliance with this AC by publicizing it and distributing
information regarding known noise-sensitive areas.

Signed
________________________________
Sabra W. Kaulia
Director of System Operations & Safety
Page 2



Advisory Circular Information Number: AC 91-36D mentions under 8.
VOLUNTARY PRACTICES those situations where voluntary compliance is
expected.

Here is Public Law 100-91 mentioned in the AC above under 5.
EXPLANATION OF CHANGES:

http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/upload/PL100-91.pdf
The National Parks Overflight Act of 1987
Public Law 100-91

SECTION 1. STUDY OF PARK OVERFLIGHTS.

(a) Study by Park Service.—The Secretary of the Interior
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Secretary’), acting through the
Director of the National Park Service, shall conduct a study to
determine the proper minimum altitude which should be maintained
by aircraft when flying over units of the National Park System.
The Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Administrator
of the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘Administrator’), shall provide technical assistance to the
Secretary in carrying out the study.

(b) General Requirements of Study.—The study shall identify any
problems associated with overflight by aircraft of units of the
National Park System and shall provide information regarding the
types of overflight which may be impacting on park unit resources.
The study shall distinguish between the impacts caused by
sightseeing aircraft, military aircraft, commercial aviation,
general aviation, and other forms of aircraft which affect such
units. The study shall identify those park system units, and
portions thereof, in which the most serious adverse impacts from
aircraft overflights exist.

(c) Specific Requirements.—The study under this section shall
include research at the following units of the National Park
System: Cumberland Island National Seashore, Yosemite National
Park, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Haleakala National Park,
Glacier National Park, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial, and
at no less than four additional units of the National Park System,
excluding all National Park System units in the State of Alaska.
The research at each such unit shall provide information and an
evaluation regarding each of the following:

(1) the impacts of aircraft noise on the safety of the park system
users, including hikers, rock-climbers, and boaters;

(2) the impairment of visitor enjoyment associated with flights
over such units of the National Park System;

(3) other injurious effects of overflights on the natural,
historical, and cultural resources for which such units were
established; and

(4) the values associated with aircraft flights over such units of
the National Park System in terms of visitor enjoyment, the
protection of persons or property, search and rescue operations
and firefighting.

Such research shall evaluate the impact of overflights by both
fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. The research shall include an
evaluation of the differences in noise levels within such units of
the National Park System which are associated with flight by
commonly used aircraft at different altitudes. The research shall
apply only to overflights and shall not apply to landing fields
within, or adjacent to, such units.

(d) Report to Congress.—The Secretary shall submit a report to the
Congress within 3 years after the enactment of this Act [Aug. 18,
1987] containing the results of the study carried out under this
section. Such report shall also contain recommendations for
legislative and regulatory action which could be taken regarding
the information gathered pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (4) of
subsection (c). Before submission to the Congress, the Secretary
shall provide a draft of the report and recommendations to the
Administrator for review. The Administrator shall review such
report and recommendations and notify the Secretary of any adverse
effects which the implementation of such recommendations would
have on the safety of aircraft operations. The Administrator shall
consult with the Secretary to resolve issues relating to such
adverse effects. The final report shall include a finding by the
Administrator that implementation of the recommendations of the
Secretary will not have adverse effects on the safety of aircraft
operations, or if the Administrator is unable to make such
finding, a statement by the Administrator of the reasons he
believes the Secretary’s recommendations will have an adverse
effect on the safety of aircraft operations.

(e) FAA Review of Rules.—The Administrator shall review current
rules and regulations pertaining to flights of aircraft over units
of the National Park System at which research is conducted under
subsection (c) and over any other such units at which such a
review is determined necessary by the Administrator or is
requested by the Secretary. In the review under this subsection,
the Administrator shall determine whether changes are needed in
such rules and regulations on the basis of aviation safety. Not
later than 180 days after the identification of the units of the
National Park System for which research is to be conducted under
subsection (c), the Administrator shall submit a report to
Congress containing the results of the review along with
recommendations for legislative and regulatory action which are
needed to implement any such changes.

(f) Authorization.—There are authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the studies and review under
this section.

SEC. 2. FLIGHTS OVER YOSEMITE AND HALEAKALA DURING STUDY AND
REVIEW.

(a) Yosemite National Park.—During the study and review periods
provided in subsection (c), it shall be unlawful for any fixed
wing aircraft or helicopter flying under visual flight rules to
fly at an altitude of less than 2,000 feet over the surface of
Yosemite National Park. For purposes of this subsection, the term
‘surface’ refers to the highest terrain within the park which is
within 2,000 feet laterally of the route of flight and with
respect to Yosemite Valley such term refers to the upper-most rim
of the valley.

(b) Haleakala National Park.—During the study and review periods
provided in subsection (c), it shall be unlawful for any fixed
wing aircraft or helicopter flying under visual flight rules to
fly at an altitude below 9,500 feet above mean sea level over the
surface of any of the following areas in Haleakala National Park:
Haleakala Crater, Crater Cabins, the Scientific Research Reserve,
Halemauu Trail, Kaupo Gap Trail, or any designated tourist
viewpoint.

(c) Study and Review Periods.—For purposes of subsections (a) and
(b), the study period shall be the period of the time after the
date of enactment of this Act [Aug. 18, 1987] and prior to the
submission of the report under section 1. The review period shall
comprise a 2-year period for Congressional review after the
submission of the report to Congress.

(d) Exceptions.—The prohibitions contained in subsections (a) and
(b) shall not apply to any of the following:

(1) emergency situations involving the protection of persons or
property, including aircraft;

(2) search and rescue operations;

(3) flights for purposes of firefighting or for required
administrative purposes; and

(4) compliance with instructions of an air traffic controller.

(e) Enforcement.—For purposes of enforcement, the prohibitions
contained in subsections (a) and (b) shall be treated as
requirements established pursuant to section 307 of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 [see 49 U.S.C. 40103 (b)]. To provide
information to pilots regarding the restrictions established under
this Act, the Administrator shall provide public notice of such
restrictions in appropriate Federal Aviation Administration
publications as soon as practicable after the enactment of this
Act [Aug. 18, 1987].

SEC. 3. GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK.

(a) Noise associated with aircraft overflights at the Grand Canyon
National Park is causing a significant adverse effect on the
natural quiet and experience of the park and current aircraft
operations at the Grand Canyon National Park have raised serious
concerns regarding public safety, including concerns regarding the
safety of park users.

(b) Recommendations.—

(1) Submission.—Within 30 days after the enactment of this Act
[Aug. 18, 1987], the Secretary shall submit to the Administrator
recommendations regarding actions necessary for the protection of
resources in the Grand Canyon from adverse impacts associated with
aircraft overflights. The recommendations shall provide for
substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the
park and protection of public health and safety from adverse
effects associated with aircraft overflight. Except as provided in
subsection (c), the recommendations shall contain provisions
prohibiting the flight of aircraft below the rim of the Canyon,
and shall designate flight free zones. Such zones shall be flight
free except for purposes of administration and for emergency
operations, including those required for the transportation of
persons and supplies to and from Supai Village and the lands of
the Havasupai Indian Tribe of Arizona. The Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary, shall define the rim of the
Canyon in a manner consistent with the purposes of this paragraph.

(2) Implementation.—Not later than 90 days after receipt of the
recommendations under paragraph (1) and after notice and
opportunity for hearing, the Administrator shall prepare and issue
a final plan for the management of air traffic in the air space
above the Grand Canyon. The plan shall, by appropriate regulation,
implement the recommendations of the Secretary without change
unless the Administrator determines that implementing the
recommendations would adversely affect aviation safety. If the
Administrator determines that implementing the recommendations
would adversely affect aviation safety, he shall, not later than
60 days after making such determination, in consultation with the
Secretary and after notice and opportunity for hearing, review the
recommendations consistent with the requirements of paragraph (1)
to eliminate the adverse effects on aviation safety and issue
regulations implementing the revised recommendations in the plan.
In addition to the Administrator’s authority to implement such
regulations under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 [see 49 U.S.C.
40101 et seq.], the Secretary may enforce the appropriate
requirements of the plan under such rules and regulations
applicable to the units of the National Park System as he deems
appropriate.

(3) Report.—Within 2 years after the effective date of the plan
required by subsection (b)(2), the Secretary shall submit to the
Congress a report discussing—

(A) whether the plan has succeeded in substantially restoring the
natural quiet in the park; and

(B) such other matters, including possible revisions in the plan,
as may be of interest.

The report shall include comments by the Administrator regarding
the effect of the plan’s implementation on aircraft safety.

(c) Helicopter Flights of River Runners.—Subsection (b) shall not
prohibit the flight of helicopters—

(1) which fly a direct route between a point on the north rim
outside of the Grand Canyon National Park and locations on the
Hualapai Indian Reservation (as designated by the Tribe); and

(2) whose sole purpose is transporting individuals to or from boat
trips on the Colorado River and any guide of such a trip.

SEC. 4. BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE AREA WILDERNESS.

The Administrator shall conduct surveillance of aircraft flights
over the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness as authorized by
the Act of October 21, 1978 (92 Stat. 1649–1659) for a period of
not less than 180 days beginning within 60 days of enactment of
this Act [Aug. 18, 1987]. In addition to any actions the
Administrator may take as a result of such surveillance, he shall
provide a report to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the United
States House of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the United States Senate. Such report is to be
submitted within 30 days of completion of the surveillance
activities. Such report shall include but not necessarily be
limited to information on the type and frequency of aircraft using
the airspace over the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

SEC. 5. ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM WILDERNESS
OVERFLIGHTS.

(a) Assessment by Forest Service.—The Chief of the Forest Service
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Chief’) shall conduct an
assessment to determine what, if any, adverse impacts to
wilderness resources are associated with overflights of National
Forest System wilderness areas. The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall provide technical assistance to the
Chief in carrying out the assessment. Such assessment shall apply
only to overflight of wilderness areas and shall not apply to
aircraft flights or landings adjacent to National Forest System
wilderness units. The assessment shall not apply to any National
Forest System wilderness units in the State of Alaska.

(b) Report to Congress.—The Chief shall submit a report to
Congress within 2 years after enactment of this Act [Aug. 18,
1987] containing the results of the assessments carried out under
this section.

(c) Authorization.—Effective October 1, 1987, there are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the
assessment under this section.

SEC. 6. CONSULTATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES.

In conducting the study and the assessment required by this Act,
the Secretary of the Interior and the Chief of the Forest Service
shall consult with other Federal agencies that are engaged in an
analysis of the impacts of aircraft overflights over
federally-owned land.”




Section 307 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 [see 49 U.S.C. 40103
(b)] is mentioned in Public Law 100-91 above:

http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title49/49usc40103.html
§ 40103. — Sovereignty and use of airspace.

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 7, 2003]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 7, 2003 and December 19, 2003]
[CITE: 49USC40103]


TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS

PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY

subpart i--general

CHAPTER 401--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.--(1) The United
States
Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary
of
Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a
regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a
significant
impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air
transportation for handicapped individuals.
(b) Use of Airspace.--(1) The Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of
the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an
assignment when required in the public interest.
(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on
the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for--
(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;
(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;
(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and
(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft
and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.

(3) To establish security provisions that will encourage and allow
maximum use of the navigable airspace by civil aircraft consistent
with national security, the Administrator, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, shall--
(A) establish areas in the airspace the Administrator decides
are necessary in the interest of national defense; and
(B) by regulation or order, restrict or prohibit flight of
civil aircraft that the Administrator cannot identify, locate, and
control with available facilities in those areas.

(4) Notwithstanding the military exception in section 553(a)(1) of
title 5, subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 applies to a regulation
prescribed under this subsection.
(c) Foreign Aircraft.--A foreign aircraft, not part of the armed
forces of a foreign country, may be navigated in the United States as
provided in section 41703 of this title.
(d) Aircraft of Armed Forces of Foreign Countries.--Aircraft of
the armed forces of a foreign country may be navigated in the United
States only when authorized by the Secretary of State.
(e) No Exclusive Rights at Certain Facilities.--A person does not
have an exclusive right to use an air navigation facility on which
Government money has been expended. However, providing services at an
airport by only one fixed-based operator is not an exclusive right
if--
(1) it is unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for
more than one fixed-based operator to provide the services; and
(2) allowing more than one fixed-based operator to provide the
services requires a reduction in space leased under an agreement
existing on September 3, 1982, between the operator and the
airport.

(Pub. L. 103-272, Sec. 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1101.)

Historical and Revision
Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Section Source (U.S. Code)
Source (Statutes at Large)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40103(a)(1)........................... 49 App.:1508(a) (1st
sentence). Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85-726, Secs.
307(a), (c), (d), 308(a) (3d
sentence), 1108(a), 1201, 1202, 72
Stat. 749, 750, 751, 798, 800.
40103(a)(2)........................... 49 App.:1304. Aug. 23, 1958,
Pub. L. 85-726, Sec.
104, 72 Stat. 740; Oct. 4, 1984, Pub.
L. 98-443, Sec. 14, 98 Stat. 1711.
49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E). Aug.
28, 1958, Pub. L. 85-726, 72 Stat.
731, Sec. 1601(b)(1)(E); added Oct.
4, 1984, Pub. L. 98-443, Sec. 3(e),
98 Stat. 1704.
40103(b)(1)........................... 49 App.:1348(a).
49 App.:1655(c)(1). Oct. 15,
1966, Pub. L. 89-670, Sec.
6(c)(1), 80 Stat. 938; Jan. 12, 1983,
Pub. L. 97-449, Sec. 7(b), 96 Stat.
2444.
40103(b)(2)........................... 49 App.:1348(c).
49 App.:1655(c)(1).
40103(b)(3)........................... 49 App.:1521.
49 App.:1522.
49 App.:1655(c)(1).
40103(b)(4)........................... 49 App.:1348(d).
40103(c).............................. (no source).
40103(d).............................. 49 App.:1508(a) (last
sentence).
40103(e).............................. 49 App.:1349(a) (3d sentence).
49 App.:1349(a) (last Aug. 23,
1958, Pub. L. 85-726, 72 Stat.
sentence). 731, Sec. 308(a)
(last sentence);
added Sept. 3, 1982, Pub. L. 97-248,
Sec. 524(a)(1), 96 Stat. 695.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In subsection (a)(1), the word ``has'' is substituted for ``is
declared to possess and exercise complete and'' to eliminate surplus
words. The word ``national'' is omitted as surplus. The text of 49
App.:1508(a) (1st sentence words after 1st comma) is omitted as
surplus.
In subsection (a)(2), the words ``of the United States'' are
omitted for consistency in the revised title and because of the
definition of ``navigable airspace'' in section 40102(a) of the
revised title. The words ``or amending'' are omitted as surplus.
In subsection (b), the word ``Administrator'' in section 307(a),
(c), and (d) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-726,
72 Stat. 749, 750) is retained on authority of 49:106(g).
In subsection (b)(1) and (3)(B), the word ``rule'' is omitted as
being synonymous with ``regulation''.
In subsection (b)(1), the words ``under such terms, conditions,
and limitations as he may deem'' are omitted as surplus. The words
``In the exercise of his authority under section 1348(a) of this
Appendix'' in 49 App.:1522 are omitted as unnecessary because of the
restatement.
In subsection (b)(2), before clause (A), the word ``shall'' is
substituted for ``is further authorized and directed'' for consistency
in the revised title and to eliminate unnecessary words.
In subsection (b)(3), before clause (A), the words ``In the
exercise of his authority under section 1348(a) of this Appendix'' in
49 App.:1522 are omitted as surplus. The word ``navigable'' is added
for clarity and consistency. In clause (A), the words ``such zones
or'' are omitted as surplus.
In subsection (b)(4), the words ``the military exception'' are
substituted for ``any exception relating to military or naval
functions'' to eliminate unnecessary words and because ``naval'' is
included in ``military''. The words ``applies to a regulation
prescribed under'' are substituted for ``In the exercise of the
rulemaking authority . . . the Secretary of Transportation shall be
subject to'' to eliminate unnecessary words and because ``rules'' and
``regulations'' are synonymous.
Subsection (c) is added for clarity.
In subsection (d), the words ``including the Canal Zone'' are
omitted because of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.
In subsection (e), before clause (1), the words ``any landing
area'' are omitted as being included in the definition of ``air
navigation facility'' in section 40102(a) of the revised title. The
word ``only'' is added for clarity. In clause (2), the words ``on
September 3, 1982'' are added for clarity.


Regulations

Pub. L. 85-726, title VI, Sec. 613(a), (b), as added by Pub.
L.101-508, title IX, Sec. 9124, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388-370,
provided that:
``(a) National Disaster Areas.--Before the 180th day following the
date of the enactment of this section [Nov. 5, 1990], the
Administrator, for safety and humanitarian reasons, shall issue such
regulations as may be necessary to prohibit or otherwise restrict
aircraft overflights of any inhabited area which has been declared a
national disaster area in the State of Hawaii.
``(b) Exceptions.--Regulations issued pursuant to subsection (a)
shall not be applicable in the case of aircraft overflights involving
an emergency or a ligitimate [sic] scientific purpose.''


National Airspace Redesign

Pub. L. 106-181, title VII, Sec. 736, Apr. 5, 2000, 114 Stat. 171,
provided that:
``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) The national airspace, comprising more than 29 million
square miles, handles more than 55,000 flights per day.
``(2) Almost 2,000,000 passengers per day traverse the United
States through 20 major en route centers, including more than 700
different sectors.
``(3) Redesign and review of the national airspace may produce
benefits for the travelling public by increasing the efficiency and
capacity of the air traffic control system and reducing delays.
``(4) Redesign of the national airspace should be a high
priority for the Federal Aviation Administration and the air
transportation industry.
``(b) Redesign.--The Administrator [of the Federal Aviation
Administration], with advice from the aviation industry and other
interested parties, shall conduct a comprehensive redesign of the
national airspace system.
``(c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2000, the Administrator
shall transmit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on the
Administrator's comprehensive national airspace redesign. The report
shall include projected milestones for completion of the redesign and
shall also include a date for completion.
``(d) Authorization.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
the Administrator to carry out this section $12,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002.''

Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in sections 106, 40106, 40109, 44101,
44502, 46301, 46307, 46316 of this title.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
WingFlaps > wrote:

> I'm puzzled, how would you know where to direct the high power
> targeting beam if the search beam had not already identified a target?

sonar bouy?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> I wrote and asked her about the published exception in the regulation
> she cited, but has not yet received a response from her.

I very much doubt you will.

> We obviously differ in our inference of the meaning of the exception
> cited in (iv) above. I see no mention of "unaware or uninterested
> that the whale is below them." anywhere in the entire regulation Title
> 50 Code of Federal Regulations section 224.103, so I'm wondering how
> you reached your conclusion.

Simple logic, Larry. The point of such restrictions is to limit the
disturbance to endangered animals. Flights hovering overhead or repeatedly
passing over the animals could stress them or cause them to take (perhaps
dangerous) evasive maneuvers attempting to get away. When you re-read the
exclusion you quoted you'll see the rules apply only to those aircraft
engaged in whale watching (or even your dreaded "whale watch") and I'm
pretty sure the pilot of a whale watch/watching flight would know he's on
such a mission.

> It is the wording "whale watch" as opposed to 'whale watching' that
> leads me to believe there may be a formal definition of the term, or a
> formal permitting process to which it refers.

See above. Your assumption only reinforces my point that folks on such
missions would know they're on such missions and the rules you cited would
apply to them - not to the transient pilot travelling from Point A to Point
B.

[Airbus[_4_]]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On Tue, 6 May 2008 20:30:35 -0400, "John T"
> wrote in
>:
>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>>
>>> Since the beginning
>>> of the year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
>>> Administration (NOAA) has documented several
>>> private aircraft off the coasts of Georgia and Florida
>>> circling in close proximity to right whales, which are
>>> a critically endangered species in the baleen whale
>>> family.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Apparently the author of the above article that appeared on page 28 of
>>> FAAAviation News May/June 2008, Ms. Susan Parson, overlooked Title 50
>>> Code of Federal Regulations section 224.103(c))(iv):
>>>
>>> (iv) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section do not apply to
>>> an aircraft unless the aircraft is conducting whale watch
>>> activities.
>>
>>I don't think what she said is contrary to the exception you listed. The
>>exception applies to folks unaware or uninterested that the whale is below
>>them.
>>
>
>I wrote and asked her about the published exception in the regulation
>she cited, but has not yet received a response from her.
>
>We obviously differ in our inference of the meaning of the exception
>cited in (iv) above. I see no mention of "unaware or uninterested
>that the whale is below them." anywhere in the entire regulation Title
>50 Code of Federal Regulations section 224.103, so I'm wondering how
>you reached your conclusion.
>



You are probably
already aware of the requirement to fly at least 2,000
feet above ground level (AGL) over wildlife preserves
depicted on sectional aeronautical charts.

I thought this was a "recommendation" not a requirement.
Has this changed, or is the expert author very out of touch with her purported
specialty?