Special bonus round! We're putting a brand new GoPro 10 in a random order placed today. And like always, every $5 spent gets you one entry to win the Parajet Maverick and training with Aviator Paramotor. - tuckergott.com/
It's interesting, but somebody had responded to me on that video that is under question. They were complaining to me that you were making alot of noise and disturbing people on the ground. Makes me wonder if that is the person that reported it.
I talked to a cop one time and got arrested for a crime I didn't commit. Turns out if I had just sat there quietly I could have saved a year and half of my life and thousands of dollars in lawyers fees on getting the case thrown out. Apparently video proof that exonerates you still isn't enough for the courts to let you leave. Maybe protecting themselves from me suing them? I still don't know. I'm sorry to say I lost a lot of respect for police and our entire justice system after that experience. My heart still races everytime I'm approached by a police officer or if I think they're about to speak to me. Sucks.
This is very true, however, he did a pretty good job at answering the questions with plausible deniability. Most of his important answers were "i dont know", which is the perfect answer if you are going to willingly answer questions from law enforcement. The officer himself sorta messed up by saying several times that the video evidence didn't provide enough clarity, and when Tucker didn't confirm the important details, it heavily damaged the officer's investigation.
Step 1: Get a lawyer Step 2: Never answer questions, better yet don't speak at all Step 3: If you really feel like a chatty Cathy, do so with a lawyer present and consulting you You're playing with fire doing it the way you did it lol
Any time you get a call like this, standard response is; stay polite and provide an email address for them to forward their questions to. Say you have a poor line, an appointment whatever, but don't get sucked into answering on the spot. That way you can read through everything and consider your answers before responding. You may also consider whether you want to answer any or all the questions and it avoids the awkwardness of explaining why you are or are not answering. Officialdom is not your friend and they are not just calling for a chat, every single word you utter can have consequences. They know what they're fishing for and you most likely do not.
I also like "My girlfriend is a Civil Rights Lawyer, and if I answer any questions, I will be sleeping alone and on the couch!" "My lawyer can answer all your questions!"
Hey Tucker, I think the questions about the risks associated with paramotoring were him trying to gather evidence to pursue a charge relating to 'reckless' behavior. There are many laws in various places that relate to 'recklessly creating a risk to life'. This guy was absolutely gunning for you as hard as he could. That's why he called back and asked a different set of questions it was his new strategy to 'get you'.
Yes, this. In hindsight, you will almost always be able to tell the difference between someone just filling out a report and someone trying to ask questions that will help you self-incriminate or that they can use to push a "ban" agenda. Either way, it's ALMOST NEVER in your best interest to talk about it. Cooperation, although 'friendly', is evidence and WILL be used against you. "Close calls", "Dangerous", and "Risky" are all key words they're trying to get you to admit to so they can ban paramotoring or fine you. Also them asking you if you'd touched down would have been the easiest thing to prosecute. I know Tucker comes at it from the perspective of "educating them about Paramotoring", but unfortunately that's not what this call was about even though the guy was cordial.
@@TuckerGott based on what you shared here I think he was stretching to make that work. I’m no lawyer but I don’t see “reckless” in your flying. The problem is always that the general public might - simply because what you do is extraordinary in their minds.
Curious what the statute of limitations would be related to the case they'd be trying to build. Whatever he was looking into could at most be misdemeanor charges from over a year and a half ago and there's victim seeking reparations. Any reasonable judge should throw that out.
My advice to clients is always: Do not talk to law enforcement. Ever. Under any circumstances. While most cops are honest, perhaps the one you are dealing with is not. You don’t know, that’s why you only talk with an attorney present.
Tucker. You should have responded : " I don't respond to anonymous complaints." You are answering all sorts of leading questions that he could hang you with. Particularly the questions about risk.
if he knows all the laws, and knows factually, that he is following them, then there is not anything he can say that incriminates himself. You do not have to be scared of the NPS especially, when you didn't do anything illegal. Nothing wrong with clearing up a complaint from some clown who has no idea what they are saying.
After spending 15 years in law enforcement (ran away from that foolishness) I can confidently say he was fishing and trying to get you to incriminate yourself and/or others. Park Rangers have some crazy laws granting all sorts of authority and qualified immunity to boot. No warrant, no lawyer, no talk!
As far as I've seen, Tucker has yet to get into a situation with police where him cooperating backfired, and I think it's giving him confidence he really shouldn't have. He's familiar with the laws that generally govern his flights in most situations, but that knowledge isn't going to protect him from the NPS using some obscure rule to slam him with a fine. He really should not have answered a single question. It's been two months, so perhaps they didn't pursue it. But that's pure luck on his part. Eventually his cooperative attitude is going to bite him in the ass.
Absolutely. The officer asked for a date and time. They need that to file legal action against him. The FAA can only revoke your pilot's license and there is no license to revoke under Part 103. The NPS does not fuck around and will absolutely go after you.
@@peteranderson037 They should not let anonymous people report trivial things. If the person had to give his name, address and phone number, they wouldn't call in reports like this and only lagit issues would be reported.
@@DAS-Videos You're assuming that the NPS agent was telling the truth when he said it was an anonymous report. Cops can lie to you when they question you. Banning paramotoring from National Parks could very well be an NPS internal directive. The whole "anonymous report" thing could be just an excuse to cold call some high profile paramotorist and get them to accidentally admit to doing something that they can be charged with to make an example out of him.
@@TheTransporter007 they don't control the airspace there is nothing to make an example out of. because they have no justidiction of the air space above the park end of story there is nothing they can charge him with. but agree that agent was fishing here and tucker needs to hire legal councile to handle these frivlious reports
You should NEVER give out personal information like that to a random caller. You should ask him for his number and department tell him you will call him back after you make sure he is legit.
This reminds me of an article I read a while back. Guy was flying a glider over a lake beside a nuclear plant. He was circling trying to catch a thermal, as gliders regularly did over that lake, and he scarred the right people and the police were called. At one point Barney Fife seriously talked about shooting him out of the sky. The pilot spent the night in jail before the district attorney realized that they don't have the authority and no laws were broken.
That was Robin Fleming and he was arrested for 'Breach of Peace' and he was forced to sign a waiver that in exchange for dropping the charges he would not sue Darlington County or the Sherrif's office. He was worried a jury might convict him regardless of the facts (juries can be funny like that) (as this was a post 9/11 world). So he took the deal. But he did try to sue them later for violating his rights, Darlington County, The Sherrif's office, and the cops personally that arrested him. He also sued the Energy Company he flew around. But sadly he died in 2013 of cancer. His estate carried on the case but I'm not sure if they won or not.
You should just start referring these people to your attorney instead of potentially getting yourself in trouble. This guy was clearly on a fishing expedition. Don't put yourself at risk.
It's like the sage advice "Never talk to law enforcement, without representation." 1. Anything [incriminating] you say can be used against you. 2. Anything exonerating you say is inadmissible, because it is considered 'hearsay'. So, there is zero upside, and the potential downside is huge. Plus, if they question you again later, and you recall differently, your story is 'changing', and that raises suspicions and looks horrible to a jury.
I was going to say the same thing. Always an ignorant choice to talk to ANY government official. Lawyer up. You are wealthy enough now that you should have an attorney on retainer.
Yeah, we got those power mongering enviro- mental nut job control freaks being nasty to us and chasing us outta the 5,000 acre practically deserted county park when we ride our bicycles on the deserted trails. ( a totally healthy and peaceful activity btw)They'd rather us get killed on the roads I guess and cause accidents. And outta the other side of their mouths they're saying teach tolerance and share. USA is rampant with hypocrisy.
I would be very careful answering questions from out of the blue phone calls like this. Refer them to the FAA regarding airspace rule questions they have or to your attorney for anything else. Protect yourself.
to make them go away, say you can not verify any information over the phone, nor do you accept contract offers or commercial benefits an privileges/rights on the phone.
Some thoughts. How did the guy get your number? Why did he ask for your number if he had already rung it? How did he identify himself? Dude be careful responding to unsolicited calls. Could be a scammer, or nutter, or anybody. If a genuine complaint was made, it seems more likely you would receive something in the post, and make contact from there.
Yeah, I would ask for his extension and then call the number on their website and ask for that extension. Then you know you are actually talking to someone at that agency.
@@GreyGirl999 every law enforcement officer has access to a data center that has everyone's information... As long as he is doing a legitimate investigation he is legally allowed to use the information from the database. He can't just willy nilly look people up, that is a crime. His RU-vid channel is his name.. his name has his address, phone number, vehicles, etc in the database.
this is all to prove a contract, you must show consent to the offer. only a man stands up for himself and property, a person/human/slave/monster only agrees and fears punishment
Always ask for their office number and extension. Tell them you will call them right back. If they can't do that, and you can't quickly verify who they are by the number (especially a government office) then do not talk to them. Although, you do not have to talk to anyone anyways.
I asked a county sheriff while at the West Yellowstone "new" airport last summer, if he had ever heard of anyone landing at the old airport right by town, inactive since the mid '50's or so. I had, 4 times over a 6 year period, with no problems until the last time when i came back from breakfast, a ranger gave me a friendly warning not to do it again. Back to the sheriff:to my surprise, he answered "yes, I've landed my para glider there, also my Kitfox. Turns out, he had a long talk with the rangers, two separate LEO agencies almost butting heads, and convinced them as it was outside the park boundries, and snowmachines run there all winter, the rare aircraft was OK. My light plane is ski equipped, and I still may make in there this winter, to test his advice.
Hi Tucker, lodge a F. o. I. Request on the “complaint” including any tape of the complaining call. So many Karen’s think they can control the actions of others and use the coercive force of government to enforce their will. Get them out for public scrutiny, the fresh air and sunshine will usually drive them into the sewers where they belong.
Ehh I don't think doxxing the person is a great idea. If it was a threat maybe, but just annoying people isn't really a crime worthy of that response in my opinion.
Don’t ever give info out to anyone that calls you. They could even be scammers and collecting data for social engineering. That would be bad. Turn on all your 2FA!
In 1973 we flew hang gliders off of Dantes View in Death Valley National Park. Later in camp we got a visit from the Park Service and they told us not to do it again. They were friendly. We didn't do it again and switched to flying at the sand dunes in the park. Still flying within the park, but back then flying within national parks was still fairly unregulated. Freedoms are always decreased, never increased.
"Freedoms are always decreased, never increased". Is this a reference to something else? Because taken at face value it seems idiotic and easily proven false. For example, in some states weed is now legal, that's an increase in freedom. See also alcohol prohibition, slavery abolishment, universal suffrage, legal abortions, gay and mixed race marriage legalization and countless others. In many of these cases it was legal before it was illegal and then became legal again.
Be careful getting advice from people that have no clue what they are talking about. Law enforcement officer investigating possible crime or infraction has literally all the authority to ask all kind of questions. That’s why we have Rangers and that’s why our National Parks are protected land. Try to learn how to respect authorities and elders.
We visited Horseshoe Bend a couple months ago and it's GORGEOUS! In listening to the conversation you were having with the NPS agent he was DEFINITELY searching for information that would have been used against you. Since you were operating within the FAA guidelines and didn't violate any FAR's or touch the ground within their jurisdiction you were fine. You were actually very lucky they didn't try to pull some crap on you. In the future just refer them to your attorney, don't assist with their investigation and have your attorney do the same.
Acrobatic flight would be my only concern when flying over a National Park. Altitude wise, pilots are only "requested" to use a 2000' minimum altitude over National Parks.
IMO he is trying to build a case to present to someone to have paramotors restricted from the area once again. In cases like these give as little information as possible, once they get something they can get there teeth on they don’t stop until the mission is completed.
It’s a trap ! There might be some regulations regarding altitude of vehicles aircraft or operational limits inside the park .. but could be fuzzy or unenforceable if overlapping with FAA. He was definitely fishing with loaded bait.
Always very professional with how you handle those complaints. Seeing this video today reminded me of just how epic those videos at Horseshoe Canyon were. Definitely rewatching those. Keep doing what you do Tucker. Love the videos! T-Shirt Ordered, and will be back later in the week for more.
Keep doing what you love doing, for me, as retired Law Enforcement, I would not have been so anxious to answer his questions, no doubt he was recording your conversation as it is legal to do so in most every State. Hoping they do not show up at your door step with a Search Warrant and an Arrest Warrant.
Interesting idea. Would it be worth engaging with the FAA and/or National Parks and do a video with them to help them better understand the sport and also promote fun but safe practices in their relevant area? Almost worth seeing if anyone from the National Parks would be "up" for a tandem flight on your trike for a 1:1 chat on video and experience the parks in a new way that they might not have done so before?
I dunno. To me, this seems like a case where what I like to call "the moronic frat boy rule" applies. It's perfectly safe for someone trained and experienced to do these things on a PPG, and that's all well and good, but if it's accessible to Tucker Gott, it's accessible to the moronic frat boy, whose judgment may not be so impeccable. Thus, government authorities have to consider that if they allow Tucker to do these things, they are also opening the door to the frat boy. That's why so many places are gunning for this sport. And let me tell you, if such an individual does have an incident that harms people on the ground (or one where a lack of harm was only due to incredible luck), the freedom that paramotor pilots enjoy right now to fly in so many locations will be seriously threatened. I know how bureaucrats think, and fear that "extreme" sports (lol...I wouldn't call this extreme, but they would) like this will get regulated out of existence by the risk-averse.
“Did your feet touch the water?” He asks in such a nice, ‘I’m just gathering information’ tone. If you had said yes to this and said that you were aware of aerial delivery, they would be sending you a court summons. Classic cop move. Act like it’s no big deal and they’re just collecting info, and then charge you if you admit to anything. Good thing you didn’t touch. $5000 toe drag.
I am so sick of people who are afraid to go out and enjoy their own life so they go around trying to stop other people from enjoying theirs. I've never flown a paramotor (though you make me want to) but I am a fixed wing GA pilot. One day were were practicing crosswind landings so we were using a different runway than the one other plane in the pattern. We timed it so we were on the ground when they were on downwind, and vice versa. We were never closer than a mile. Some Karen had purchased a radio to monitor traffic and called the airport to complain that two planes on crossing runways sounded pretty dangerous to them. The FBO manager had to get on the radio to ask if both pilots felt safe. Knowing that Karen could hear us we explained the timing and distance between aircraft and then we let loose over the radio saying what a no-life loser they must be, with the pilot on the active runway joining in. I bet steam was blowing out of Karen's ears. :D
Also, remember that over some wildlife refuges, there are recommended altitudes that the FAA ask aircraft to stay above to avoid disturbing wildlife. I would recommend checking the sectionals ahead of time to be cognizant of where those are. Even when there are no recommended floors, make sure that nothing you do could be perceived as detrimental to, or harassing wildlife, even inadvertently. I’m sure you’re already doing that, but that is one more thing to stay mindful of now so it doesn’t become a limiting factor, or a tool in the arsenal of regulation later.
I think you handled it well and it was good that you alerted others to the potential issues of flying there. The guy almost started ticking me off, sounding to much like the Gestapo. You have more patience than I do.
Hi Tucker, Just viewed your beautiful video on the Horseshoe bend. Just a little info, there are two Horse shoe bend locations here in the state of Utah. One is referred to as the Dead Horse Point State Park and is probably the most photographed of the bend canyons in the area...It is not located in the Canyonlands National Park and is located on the Colorado River about 30 miles away from the other. It is a state park thus the NPS has no jurisdiction. The other is referred to as the Horseshoe Canyon unit of the Canyonlands National Park located on the Green River. Interesting thing is I believe only one side is considered within the parks boundary. As a result, I believe the only thing the NPS should have jurisdiction over would have been if you flew over the Green River side and landed in park boundaries. We Utah residents have to put up with many out of stater's that believe that creating any sort of noise in the entire state is a violation of the law. If you ever get a chance, come see the Cedar Breaks National Monument area close to Cedar City where on a clear day you can observe the Grand Staircase stepping all the way to the Grand Canyon 75 miles away.
Number one rule: NEVER voluntarily answer questions of government or law enforcement. Your statements are admissible and can be used in a court to charge you with some crime that your innocuous answer is used to incriminate you.
Great vid Tucker!! I was there in October’22 and went to the park ranger office to seek clarity on the legal aspects of flying HB. The ranger told me not to dip below the rim and doing so is illegal. As a new pilot 5 months out of training I was compliant but I quietly questioned his interpretation of the law in regards to airspace. When I go back I will dip down into the canyon, winds permitting. Thanks again for sharing your experience!!
FAA Advisory Circular 91-36D Visual Flight Rules (VFR) All aircraft are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above the surface of lands and waters administered by the NPS, UFWS, or USFS Wilderness areas.
The advisory circular from the FAA actually States the altitude limit when flying over national Park service or wilderness areas, managed by u.s. Forest service Everyone also needs to understand that this is a new recreational activity that can and will affect their operations. Everyone needs to think for a second what they have to deal with you go down, for whatever reason inside the park boundary, and Park law enforcement, search and rescue, helicopter EMS get involved trying to get you out That is a lot of time and resources, from both inside and outside the park boundary, having to come get you out of the predicament you got yourself into. They're not trying to build a case as much as having to rewrite their own operational orders for situations like this., That's why he was asking you questions those answers May determine how they handle a crash situation in the park in the near future.
Just want to point out Horseshoe Bend is in the Glen Canyon national recreation area and AC 91-36 recommends flight not below 2,000 AGL. Advisory Circulars are not law (not saying you broke any) but if enough people abuse that gray area, it will become forbidden.
I think he's gathering info so that they can make stricter paramotoring laws in national parks. I would be surprised if they passed a law forbidding aerial maneuvers because that's "considered high risk by the paramotoring community" or something like that. You did well not to say too much.
They don't have any authority over the airspace. For example when they have fires over national parks and need to restrict the airspace for fire fighting. It's the FAA that does that not the park service.
The thing I've learned from your videos... If I ever get a paramotor and am unsure about the rules. I can just file an anonymous complaint and you will make an excellent video explaining all the rules!
It sounds like they were gathering information in order to create some regulations or rules regarding paramotors, although if they aren't in charge of the airspace, I don't see how that would be possible.
I've had two people paramotoring low enough over Paria Canyon I could make out the patterns on their canopies early in the morning. One benefit of being in wilderness (where motorized vehicles are banned) is that you don't have to listen to droning motors echoing off of canyon walls for minutes on end. It's bizarre that someone can paramotor a couple hundred feet off the ground but drones are banned. At the very least there should be a pretty generous minimum altitude limit.
Canyon flying in the park - ie "stunt flying" with a higher than minimal risk of contact, damage, debris - is not allowed without park permission. The national parks CAN regulate flight within their borders. That the FAA doesn't list any doesn't negate the parks establishing rules. Right now and for the last few years drones have been completely illegal, however you can fly sporting kites with camera equipment on them. They may establish Backcountry permits for paramotors that require you to list your itinerary. A paramotor would be illegal under CFR Title 36 2.12 § 2.12 Audio disturbances. (a) The following are prohibited: (1) Operating motorized equipment or machinery such as an electric generating plant, motor vehicle, motorized toy, or an audio device, such as a radio, television set, tape deck or musical instrument, in a manner: (i) That exceeds a noise level of 60 decibels measured on the A-weighted scale at 50 feet; or, if below that level, nevertheless; (ii) makes noise which is unreasonable, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, purpose for which the area was established, impact on park users, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. So basically if a person on the ground can hear your motor, you're officially in the park.
You didn’t do anything illegal. But it sounded like that might will change in the future. His initial questions regarding risk, and your answers of personal responsibility and risk assessment seem to be major red flags for government officials. We love to call ourselves the “land of the free” but thousands of unelected bureaucrats can’t sleep at night knowing people might be out there making decisions without their permission!
It's like flying drones. They can regulate what you yourself do on their property but can't regulate the drone itself in the airspace. But they can nail you for taking off, operating and landing on their property.
Hey Tucker, I’ve been following you for a while now. IMHO, you’ve done very well in promoting paramotoring. Your emphasis on safety and training is impeccable. I’m a career pilot having flown hang gliders to jets, and am impressed with your sense of professionalism. Keep the good work, and don’t let the trolls get to you. 👍
Look Tucker, if I flew low over a national park like you did, I would be fined. It's really that simple. How, in your mind, do you really think that's okay?
"Name, Rank, Badge Number, Commanding Officer Name Rank and badge number, Department address" "am I under arrest? For what crime? Is that a felony or a misdemeanor?" "pound salt" "I won't answer any questions without my lawyer present" "kick rocks"
@@evandotpro at this point I’d bet that Tucker has quality legal counsel. If the NPS has hard evidence that he did do something, the call to his attorney would do better than self incrimination. Which they attempted.
I’ll just say you answered way too many questions and gave them too much personal information. For starters, you have no proof he is an official individual. Could be an extreme stalker.
the word "in" doesn't mean over, around, on, etc. In government, In house, in contract, in the ground, etc is what it means. just like in the bounds of? now the burden of proof of jurisdiction lies with them. Jurisduction can not be assumed, it must be consented by contract. So in a national park means you are employed or contracted or elected, or owned by. a national park has a founding document and it does not restricted the people only commercial activities. When you read, you learn.
What you can go thru at times will be totally stupid. I got into a verbal fight with a DNR jerk because I was using chicken for catfishing and they said I didn't buy it from a bait shop so it wasn't legal. The judge threw it out.
Always remember your 5th amendment and 6th amendment rights. 5th amendment states that you can just say "I don't answer questions." to anything he says. The 6th, you can add "I don't answer questions without legal counsel present." You do not have to speak to gov't officials. The Constitution gives you that right to tell them to go kick rocks. Love your videos Tucker!!!!! I watch every single one! Just bought the blueprint shirt! Been wanting that one for a while.
On the sectional chart horseshoe bend appears to be in a special conservation area (Blue dotted line inside a solid blue line) Inside these areas pilots are "requested" to maintain 2000' agl. I'm not sure if you could hang an argument on "requested vs. required"???
We The People also created a bunch of stupid laws and regulations making it almost impossible to do anything without breaking the law and being reported by someone.
I wonder if you can get an OHV sticker for national parks, that way if you do touch down for any reason, you are less likely to get in trouble. Especially if you check in that day as if you were there to hike. That way it would cover you and your gear. Just an idea, I honestly have no idea if it's viable.
I don't think an aircraft legally constitutes as an OHV as per their definition in the CFRs. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air 14 CFR 1.1 General Definitions. Off-road vehicle means any motorized vehicle (including the standard automobile) designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or natural terrain 43 CFR 420.5 Due to the lack of specific inclusion of aircraft as potentially being an OHV it may be open to determination on a case by case basis perhaps. As far as I can see it seems only unmanned aircraft and commercial air tours seem to be prohibited, but I'll have to do some deeper digging into part 136.
Tucker, you rhetorically, ask, “I don’t know why he was asking me these questions?“ in the most simple terms, he is asking you to give him evidence of some crime or misdemeanor that you have committed. If you should ever encounter this kind of investigation again, I want to suggest that you treat them with all due respect, as you certainly do, but to state very clearly that you have the right, not to say anything that could tend to incriminate you in anyway shape or form, and that you were going to exercise all your rights under the law. You can follow through by saying if you have anything that you would like to ask me, please write to me, put it into writing, and I will reply, but I must protect the record and my rights. No, he was calling you out of the blue so he must have someway to get a hold of you and I would not even give them my mailing address. I would just wait for them to make the next move, but I would not tell them anything. If in fact they were to write you, I would again repeat, in writing that I have the right to protect the record and my rights, and that I don’t have anything to tell them. Period.
I am terrified of heights and will most likely never fly a paramotor, but if I ever did Tucker would be my inspiration! He is full of info about this stuff and the videos, especially the flight videos are top notch!
Thanks for this vid. I'm 48 in Australia. Most govvie types are here to help, within the lines they're made to walk. I've mostly gone to them but even when they're coming at me for something, it's been rare to strike one going beyond whatever laws they're working within.
Tucker handled that interaction well. Doesn’t sound like there was any wrongdoing, and that the ranger was just following up on a complaint. There will always be Karen’s and trolls.Be safe out there to those that touch the skies with paramotors. If I was younger, I would definitely get into it. I would love the adrenaline rush.
This video can be summed up like this: some random guy called me and I proceeded to give him all my personal details despite my gut feelings. No wonder people get scammed!😂
Tucker, again, as I said 2 days ago (below), do not talk to them. Period. I've even told you how to courteously handle them and I've had 53 years in this field. William O. Douglas' dissenting opinion in the case of Osborn v. United States (1966), said: "Who would believe that, ironically, the one who relies most on his constitutional rights, the one who is stigmatized by society and alienated because of the suspicion and distrust he arouses, fares much better than the one who relies less on the protection of constitutional rights." In this case, Justice Douglas was expressing his concern about the use of illegal wiretapping by the government and the negative impact it could have on individual rights and freedoms. The quote highlights the paradoxical situation where those who assert their constitutional rights are often viewed with suspicion and mistrust, even though the Constitution is intended to protect these rights. USE THEM OR LOSE THEM.
As someone looking to get into the sport *eventually*, this video is great simply for talking about risk mitigation and how certain activities are higher risk to newer pilots. Coming from the scuba community, the shared dangers to us all in higher risk hobbies are more about the "unknown unknowns"; a newer pilot learning to handle turbulence/stress in typical conditions could EASILY make the mistake of overestimating how their abilities translate to situations like this canyon run. The tunnel (or canyon) vision of getting that awesome experience can overwhelm the senses even during the planning phase and prevent them from asking the questions of "what unique challenges does this flight present?". Without having a trusted instructor to learn from and ease into more advanced flights, interviews like this equip the parks with knowledge and awareness to warn and advise the public of such dangers with the resources at their disposal. Simply adding warning signage at desirable launch sites can potentially be enough to save lives, definitely keep interacting with these kinds of groups wherever possible to give them the resources they may not know they need. At risk of sounding like a snitch apologist; while the report may be a hassle to you directly, I'd view the big picture of keeping the public and community at large safer as a morally justifiable pain if they take positive action in response. It does sound like they plan to based on that interview!
How many national parks, states, counties, and municipalities do you think have tried to illegally restrict access to airspace over the years. It’s amazing how many governing bodies are clueless about their own jurisdictions.
Great video and info Tucker. It’s nice to learn the inns and outs from you rather than go out and make potential mistakes because of my lack of knowledge.
The second phone call was probably the agents personal interest. It would be a good assets for the parks department to have a couple paramotor paramedic's
AIM 7-4-6, “Flights Over Charted U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas” reads, in part: Pilots 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.
