Notam 4/2226 Comment
Posted: Thu Aug 22, 2024 10:15 amPosting in anticipation of pushback comments about flying PGs in Carpinteria in apparent “conflict” with the wording of Notam FDC 4/2226
A lot to unpack.
As a mid-teenager in South Florida (70s), President Nixon had a “compound” on the bay side of Key Biscayne. The smooth glassy waterskiing was prized due the protection of shallow flats and wind block, but there was a restricted area of about a mile, so no waterskiing near his compound.
Flying HGs locally in the 80s, President Ronald Regan had restricted airspace of about a mile around his ranch in the Santa Ynez mountains. Not really much of a factor for us.
In the current age of Social Media, former President Donald Trump was recently (in July) holding a rally at an uncongested (not densely populated) location in Pennsylvania. A shooter was on a roof-top about 155 yards away. The security team was not able to secure the circular area of about 16 acres surrounding the VIP. Now, President Biden is in the Santa Ynez Valley, so in a knee jerk social media driven reaction to the Donald Trump assignation attempt, our “national security” interest has set up a parameter of 30 NM (radius from the SB airport), or 3,744 square miles (unprecedented and grossly oversized)! If they couldn’t secure 16 acres how are they going to secure 3,700 square miles?
Rules and Laws are guidelines to assist in decision making that will align with community objectives. As a society we rely heavily on trust for our system to function. Without varying degrees of trust, there isn’t enough horsepower available to achieve our collective objectives through enforcement. The stated objective in the Notam is to restrict activity that is <quote> deemed to pose a credible safety or security threat to protected personnel <end quote>… https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_2226.html
Really? Does the scope of the Notam align with the objective? Have we abandoned common sense to appease social media driven political correctness? How is someone flying a kite in Carpinteria posing a “credible safety or security threat” to a VIP 30 plus miles upwind in another valley separated by a tall mountain range (the parameter of the security zone reaches SE past the Ventura pier)?
Our founding fathers did not establish a democracy. They deliberately chose to structure a republic rather than a democracy for many reasons, including problems associated with “mob rule”. They didn't want to entrust complicated decision making to the whims of our mob?
I grew up in the 60s. Civil Disobedience was considered a patriotic activity. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. We sometimes benefit collectively when citizens object to the inclination of well-meaning governing entities evolving toward government for the government.
And it should be noted that there is “settled” law that has been affirmed by the courts and “unsettled” law (not "yet” affirmed). There is a plausible argument that the scope of the notam is excessive and in conflict with the 5th amendment to the US Constitution that addresses taking of private property for public use. Plus, there are likely a host of other legal arguments that might be considered.
Most of us don’t have the bandwidth to directly challenge institutional weight, so personally, I’ll simply strive to stay out of sight and under the radar while adhering to the objectives if not the letter of the notam text.
A lot to unpack.
As a mid-teenager in South Florida (70s), President Nixon had a “compound” on the bay side of Key Biscayne. The smooth glassy waterskiing was prized due the protection of shallow flats and wind block, but there was a restricted area of about a mile, so no waterskiing near his compound.
Flying HGs locally in the 80s, President Ronald Regan had restricted airspace of about a mile around his ranch in the Santa Ynez mountains. Not really much of a factor for us.
In the current age of Social Media, former President Donald Trump was recently (in July) holding a rally at an uncongested (not densely populated) location in Pennsylvania. A shooter was on a roof-top about 155 yards away. The security team was not able to secure the circular area of about 16 acres surrounding the VIP. Now, President Biden is in the Santa Ynez Valley, so in a knee jerk social media driven reaction to the Donald Trump assignation attempt, our “national security” interest has set up a parameter of 30 NM (radius from the SB airport), or 3,744 square miles (unprecedented and grossly oversized)! If they couldn’t secure 16 acres how are they going to secure 3,700 square miles?
Rules and Laws are guidelines to assist in decision making that will align with community objectives. As a society we rely heavily on trust for our system to function. Without varying degrees of trust, there isn’t enough horsepower available to achieve our collective objectives through enforcement. The stated objective in the Notam is to restrict activity that is <quote> deemed to pose a credible safety or security threat to protected personnel <end quote>… https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_4_2226.html
Really? Does the scope of the Notam align with the objective? Have we abandoned common sense to appease social media driven political correctness? How is someone flying a kite in Carpinteria posing a “credible safety or security threat” to a VIP 30 plus miles upwind in another valley separated by a tall mountain range (the parameter of the security zone reaches SE past the Ventura pier)?
Our founding fathers did not establish a democracy. They deliberately chose to structure a republic rather than a democracy for many reasons, including problems associated with “mob rule”. They didn't want to entrust complicated decision making to the whims of our mob?
I grew up in the 60s. Civil Disobedience was considered a patriotic activity. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. We sometimes benefit collectively when citizens object to the inclination of well-meaning governing entities evolving toward government for the government.
And it should be noted that there is “settled” law that has been affirmed by the courts and “unsettled” law (not "yet” affirmed). There is a plausible argument that the scope of the notam is excessive and in conflict with the 5th amendment to the US Constitution that addresses taking of private property for public use. Plus, there are likely a host of other legal arguments that might be considered.
Most of us don’t have the bandwidth to directly challenge institutional weight, so personally, I’ll simply strive to stay out of sight and under the radar while adhering to the objectives if not the letter of the notam text.