FAA Is Not The Sole Flight Regulatory Authority

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

"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)
____________________

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&tp l=/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.

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

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.