This came in an email from another Org. that i am in, have deleted a couple of names. Thought I would pass it on, sounds like another government takeover !!!!

Hi,
bad news again.
Some time ago I wrote about this NOAA NPRM. I called and I was assured it was known, being watched and would be fought. Sadly Now it actually did happen! -Soon we will see this BS right here in AK because of the Beluga Wales -BS ...(excuse my language, but its bad, this is REAL Bad... they will hand out $100K fines, and the areas are not on any map)
In my humble opinion:
This is the beginning of the worst BS ever! NOAA has their own Law Enforcement officiers, "NOAA Enforcement" with guns, badges and all. They also have their own judges, rules etc, they determine the fines and rule angainst people. NO DUE PROCESS whatsoever. Remember: "NOAA Enforcement" had their own Booth at the last FedEx-Hangar AK-Airmen-show in May 2011 !
NOAA also gets to keep the fines for their general funds. Its a unique, non-constitutional mess of Buerocracy!
see all below, EAA 's polite letter as a link, too.
Regards,


http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-02-23_marine.asp

http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/AOPA-EAA_letter_NOAA.pdf

EAA, AOPA Say NOAA Overstepped Line in Taking Airspace Authority Over Pacific Marine Sanctuaries

Final rule leads to confusion, possible unintended violations for pilots

February 23, 2012 - A new rule by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) usurps the FAA's authority to regulate airspace and could leave pilots unintentionally violating a restricted zone that does not appear on any current aeronautical charts. In response, EAA and AOPA have jointly sent a letter to the two federal agencies urging no enforcement action will be taken until proper coordination and education with the aviation community is completed.

NOAA's new rule, which amends overflight regulations for the Channel Islands, Monterey Bay, Gulf of the Farallones, and Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuaries off the coast of northern California, is not officially an airspace restriction, according to NOAA and FAA. However, EAA and AOPA maintain that NOAA established the overflight rule in violation of federal law, which states that FAA is the sole U.S. airspace authority.

In their letter, EAA and AOPA maintain the NOAA action "sets a hazardous precedent for other government agencies to follow" because it allows those agencies to establish flight rules without coordination with the FAA through its usual rulemaking procedures.

"The NOAA rule does not align with the existing charted sanctuary boundaries, nor does it mirror FAA's guidance found in the FAA Advisory Circular 91-36D, Visual Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Sensitive Areas," wrote EAA and AOPA in their letter, which was signed by Sean Elliott, EAA's vice president of advocacy and safety, and Heidi Williams, AOPA vice president of air traffic services and modernization.

EAA and AOPA also note that NOAA has provided no resources to educate the aviation community about the change and will rely on the FAA to do so. NOAA had adequate time to coordinate its efforts with the FAA to ensure compliance by aviators. NOAA also did not share the boundaries of the sanctuary with EAA and AOPA when requested to do so. As written, the NOAA rule imposes the same operational restrictions and civil penalties as FAA-issued restrictions.

"Pilots are now facing fines of up to $100,000 for violating a regulation where details of the boundaries have been withheld graphically until a later date when the agencies can collaborate," the EAA/AOPA letter noted.

"AOPA and EAA remain committed to educating and ensuring members adopt 'flying friendly' procedures over any noise sensitive areas," the letter continued. However, flight safety concerns must take priority and agencies without jurisdiction over flight safety – such as NOAA – should not impose restrictions that are not in alignment with the FAA, the agency tasked with flight safety and airspace regulation.

Once again, Guilty until proven innocent. Quote from another article:

" Once NOAA advises that an operator has violated “their airspace,” pilots would be forced to prove wildlife was not disturbed to escape sanction"

Think I will take off the 3" numbers and put on 2".

Tim

avi8ter wrote:..." Once NOAA advises that an operator has violated “their airspace,” pilots would be forced to prove wildlife was not disturbed to escape sanction"

How do you prove a negative, esp after any time has passed. Better keep those in-flight vido cams on & aimed down, & save the footage.

Well, NOAA has been carrying badges and guns for a long time now. Back in the 80's I was a NOAA Corps Officer. Spent lots of time in Alaska as the "Fish Police." I left in disgust after 3 years. NOAA, really stands for No Organization At All, or the National Organization for the Advancement of Alcoholics. It was a group made up of largely incompetents and parasites. I came on as the safety officer, as I had graduated from the Naval Postgraduate School with that background, was a Geologist and came from the NAVY AEDO community (test & Engineering) to boot. So I could fly anything they had, manage MMS projects and do something about the appalling accident rate. The year before I got there they had 12 accidents, with only 18 pilots active! There was a load of causes, mostly arrogance. Some was a syndrome where a stupid or untrainable pilot was swept along and continued due to "political correctness" or influence.

The group is very lazy, myself and two other pilots flew 75% of the hours, with the other 15 making up the last 25%. To say they where out of currency is an understatement. However they actually didn't need pilot's licenses to fly, NOAA aircraft are "Public Use." Therefore they are locally licensed, not by the FAA. NOAA was and still is soooooo bad the FAA finally removed their Public Use designation. They neglect to do AD's for decades, put equipment in the aircraft in manners that would scare the most oblivious of pilots. Then they break rules on airspace and Airworthiness continuously, like flying experimental aircraft (due to un-engineered mods) over densely populated areas.

So their pilots are incompetent twits, so what! Well the science they engage in is usually so badly conceived to be worthless. The Hurricane Research Aircraft, the über expensive WP3D's they have. Well for nearly 10 years all the data they collected was rendered useless due to crappy software written by mathematically challenged scientists, so all the data was useless due to improper execution of basic math, like temp & humidity data. The old saying that those that can't do; teach. Well with NOAA, they can't teach either (the decent scientists went back to the universities in the 80's). All the funding is "Soft Money" now, so they have to write up politically correct grant proposals and fudge the data to match, so they get continuing funding.

So what should you do, write your congressman/woman to discontinue the NOAA Corps as a redundant and largely useless branch of the Uniformed Services. They almost did it in the 90's, and if the TWA 747 hadn't blown up and the NOAA vessel hadn't snagged a piece of it, they would have been history. So start writing letter now, we need the money for other things, besides training golf pros. The Air Force does most of the Hurricane flying, and the research part, as I pointed out is worthless. The Navy and Cost Guard do most of the marine charting, the FAA took back over the approaches and most of the charting. Most of the important jobs are done, competently , by contractors.

So I may sound bitter, but I'm not. I look back on some of the coolest flying I ever did in the bush (outside of Africa). But going back to the main center was sickening. A lot of us left over a 3 year period. My trigger was when I went into the Captains office and found him with his face in a pool of vomit on his desk, drunk. Others had similar discouraging experiences. We all left and became very successful in private life. I ended up with more aircraft and personnel than all of NOAA in my operation, others run all the decompression chambers all up and down the east coast or have other activities related to what we would have liked NOAA to be, but never was. The NOAA Corps loves guns and badges, but they are largely untrained and trying to justify their own existence. That way they can get back to high paying, early retiring, drinking and tennis/golf activities, at your expense.

I have already started the charge against the Corps by bringing Congressman Westmoreland into the picture. He has already reamed them on a few hearings, but other congressmen need to become involved, form both sides of the aisle. Use examples, of how NOAA shuns US providers to do their aircraft maintenance offshore, even though the US providers are cheaper. Just so they can enjoy skiing holidays in Banth. They compete against legitimate service providers and operator in the aircraft field who are cheaper and safer. They skew their numbers by not including the crew pay, since they are direct funded by the Corps. Then they don't actually perform and waste money since their aircraft are down from poor maintenance. Even though they have full time high paid mechanics with each aircraft!

Write....

DogPilot
So don't hold back and keep your inner thoughts from us!!
Thanks for stepping up and speaking!
By the way I'm an old retired pilot, Not very good at flying, Lazy, Love guns, but I might not fit as pretty much a tea teetotaler now, and hate Badges, who do look to to find one of these cush jobs your speaking off?
I'm in AK 1/2 of the year anyway!

The NOAA Corps loves guns and badges, but they are largely untrained and trying to justify their own existence. That way they can get back to high paying, early retiring, drinking and tennis/golf activities, at your expense.

GT

The next step: http://www.calpilots.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2466%3Aopen-letter-to-congressman-issa-on-noaas-west-coast-wild-life-airspace-change&catid=43%3Aaviation-regulation&Itemid=78&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CaliforniaPilotsAssociation+%28California+Pilots+Association%29&utm_content=FaceBook

Actually, what we should be asking AOPA and EAA is where THEY were when this was in the NPRM stage.

THAT was the time those orbs SHOULD have been raising hell with Congress.

Instead, wait till its done and whine loudly.

And, where was the FAA??

MTV

I commented during the comment period, and I recall reading comments from AOPA and other aviation groups as well. NOAA basically ignored the comments by claiming that a) the new regulation did not actually change the law (which is very questionable--if there was no change, why did NOAA consider it necessary to change the reg so they could enforce it?) or b) pilots who need to approach or depart coastal airports can get the ratings and equipment necessary to do so. Everyone should be instrument rated and fly a FIKI-certified aircraft. Let them eat cake.

The FAA totally abdicated its responsibility, but it's not the first time. Grand Canyon was an awful precedent. I don't know what happened behind the scenes. Perhaps the alphabet groups underestimated NOAA's resolve and overestimated the FAA's commitment to support and defend access to airspace. Hard to believe that either one should have come as a surprise. It does seem like there was not a sufficient sense of alarm/urgency about this.

In any case, the agencies are hopeless. Congressional action is required if this is going to change. Until the recent success of the Pilot's Bill of Rights, I wasn't very optimistic. Maybe democracy can work here.

CAVU