Congress Bans Banner Towers

[ShawnC]

Congress bans banner towers over major stadiums for one year
Feb. 19 — Congress last week banned banner towers and other aerial advertisers from flying above major sports events for one year. The ban was slipped into the omnibus appropriations bill that funds the federal government for the rest of the fiscal year. The legislation did address AOPA concerns about access to nearby airports, allowing aircraft flying normal traffic patterns to continue using airports near large stadiums.

The provision rescinds for a year all waivers to the notam prohibiting flights within three nm and 3,000 feet of major sporting events at stadiums seating more than 30,000. It prohibits reissuing waivers to aerial advertisers only for at least one year. However, aircraft providing broadcast coverage of the game and aircraft transporting officials and others to the event can still obtain waivers.

"This was a tough one to lose," said AOPA President Phil Boyer. "We had devoted considerable resources to the issue, working actively working with the banner towing community, security experts, the Transportation Security Administration, and our friends in Congress.

"It was particularly frustrating to see what was a commercial issue passed off as a security issue. The major league and collegiate sports interests paid big dollars to lobby for what they wanted."

Read AOPA's statement to the banner towing community.

03-1-082x

 

[ShawnC]

My question is why is Congress dealing with an FAA issue. This is something that the FAA should talk to a deal with the TSA and the office of Homeland Security.

Err this really sucks I know that Aerial Signs lost something like $20,000 just for missing the Daytona 500, and the company and pilots are willing to undergo any security procidure nessary.

 

[chawbein]

That rule is F*CKING BULLSH!T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is this the same instance where the govt. called general avaition an "arsenal of terror"? Get out your "Victory Cigarettes" and have a smoke while the "Ministry of Truth" makes reality seem like it always was.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

[GIVJoc]

The next attacks will not come from the air, they will come from such methods as suicide bombers, car bombs or the very terror we just endured around the DC area with the rogue sniper.

How will our sorely misguided politicians act then once Omar and Abdullah begin exploding in the food court of the local shopping mall or a truck full of astrolite takes out half a city block?

GIV

 

[LXApilot]

Government Just Dosen't Get It

Wow! I can't believe that the government is this stupid. Politicians aren't elected because they are smart- they are elected because they listen to their completely inept constituents. What business does Congress have regulating a sector of commerce that falls under the jurisdiction of the FAA and the TSA? Security can't be guranteed - and the more we tighten our grip, stripping Americans of their civil liberties and domestic piece of mind - the louder the laughter from Osama Bin laden and his buddies Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarra. The more we make an idol of security, the more we endanger looking past the real picture- identifying and stopping the clear and present dangers to American citizens in the United States. And you are right GIVJoc, when Mohammed blows up a suburban shopping mall what are they going to do? Ban my generation from crusing the parking lot, conduct unlawful searches and seizures of those entering and exiting the area, and restrict access for anyone who isn't planning on making a purchase? I am 100% behind good ol' Ben Franklin when he said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[JediNein]

A few thoughts before the men in dark coats drive up to my door in a black car and haul me off for speaking my opinion.

When Banner Tows cut these major sporting event organizers in for a piece of their action, flights will be allowed to resume.

This ban should include ALL aircraft, including blimps. #1 Piss off a major corporation (Goodyear). #2. Stop the aerial footage. If tows are dangerous so is the cameras. #3. Military, law enforcement, and lifeguard flights need to be banned, too. People need to die.

It's the only way to really have a loss that some bleeding-heart liberal starts an uproar over before things will change.

Did you write your congressmen?

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[ShawnC]

Did you write your congressmen?

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

Actually I did, in fact I made a forum post here a bunch of people thought I was worring too much, and not supporting our cause for homeland security.

 

[LR25]

a

 

[Pilotadjuster]

Feel good, do nothing

More feel good, do nothing constructive from congress! Just as in the military in the first part of the 20th century, congress is fighting the last terrorist attack as if it is the way they will attack us in the future.

Anyone else feel their freedoms slowly going away in this country, under the guise of "security"?

this legislation has nothing to do with security and EVERYTHING to do with $$$$$.

I wish all banner towing operators well in their new endeavors; congress has said they will not tolerate independent business and must only support the big guys. Maybe the banner companies could all buy camera-equipped blimps....

 

[Timebuilder]

While I was sitting here considering the silliness of banning these operations, another perspective occured to me.

Some official might be looking ahead a little to a possible scenario. Imagine:

You're at a football game, and a banner plane appears. The owner has just lost a court battle over "free speech" with a local muslim group beciase he didn't want to carry their "message" over a crowded stadium.

What message? Use your imagination. How would "DEATH TO AMERICA" make your kids feel?

No banners, no such problems.

 

[bunnyfufu]

and they can't do that anyway now that banner towing is illegal? it would be illegal either way...

 

[Timebuilder]

I'd be willing to bet that several supreme courts would say that it would be protected political speech.

 

[GVFlyer]

Aerial Sign

ShawnC

Is Jimmy Butler still running Aerial Sign and his ex-wife the helicopter school next door?

GV

 

[rightrudder]

Timebuilder:

Using your logic, the government should also ban all newspaper advertisements. Don't want to read something or look at something? TURN YOUR HEAD THE OTHER WAY!

 

[ShawnC]

Re: Aerial Sign

ShawnC

Is Jimmy Butler still running Aerial Sign and his ex-wife the helicopter school next door?

GV

Don't know any of the guys personally I just watch in awe from the hangers at Massy Ranch. But I feel for them, I know if they can outlaw their flying they can come after me.

 

[Timebuilder]

Simmer down, son.

I'm just suggesting a possible reason that the planes won't be towing ANY messages at all: to keep away those messages that might panic some folks who are already wary of attending a large public gathering, causing injury or death by that panic. Ever see panic in a soccer stadium?

Try to be critical within the framework of the post, ok?

 

[Timebuilder]

If you had the civics classes that you are asking about, you would know that there are many instances where speech has not been upheld as protected speech. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is one famous example. Telling an airline ticket agent that you hope there isn't a bomb on board is another. There are literally dozens of examples.

People can solicit business and businesses can refuse the same based on personal politics. I don't know too many towers in this country that would haul that banner. If this is all you have, I'd say this argument kinda sucks.

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I prefaced my "theory" by alluding to the ficticious banner operator having lost a court case challenging his right to refuse to carry the banner.


The example I am giving, which may have absolutely nothing to do with the grounding of banner towing aircraft, is just another perspective on the problem of terrorism.

Terrorism, you see, is in the mind of the terrrorized. If enough people are panicked by a message flown over a stadium, perhaps suggesting to them that they are about to be harmed, then you have a situation of true "terrorism".

You have only to look at what happened in a Chcago night club recently. Pepper spray isn't deadly, but if it makes people think that they are under a terror attack using chemical weapons, the result can be deadly.

So you see, a clear danger to public safety and well being is more than enough reason to legally restrict certain types of speech.

Understand?

 

[Pilotadjuster]

Terrorism

I agree Timebuilder; the problem we have now is that we are giving the terrorists exactly what they want. They wanted to destroy our economy. With Tom Ridge and company as well as congress running around telling everyone the sky is falling tomorrow, the economy is in the toilet and will remain there. To be free, we must accept some level of risk. A free people cannot remain free if we are governed so tightly to remove all risk to personal safety.

As Americans, we must accept some level of risk in return for our freedom. I do not know who said it, but it remains that "freedom is not free". That saying does not only go for those who put their necks on the line for us in the military.

 

[Timebuilder]

I agree.

The next time I see Mohammed heading for the cockpit carrying a banned nail clipper, I'll be on him like a cheap suit!

Seriously though, this is untrod territory for our government, and for us as a people. The economy is suffering from several ills that are not related to terrorism, and the total of these various elements has served to impede the recovery. It's coming. No business cycle stays down forever.

Imagine being Tom Ridge. How will history judge you if you do too little, or are afraid to face the realities of this threat in a forthright manner? Remember, he is privy to information that we are not, and there is massive amounts of info that must be sifted through daily. It's a daunting task.

Osama and his friends haven't won. I can chuckle at the duct tape flying off the shelves. So can you.

I just hope we made that duct tape HERE, in the USA.

 

[Pilotadjuster]

Duct tape

I chuckle a bit at that as well; I agree the economy had problems pre 9-11, but the terrorism fears are definitely impeading a recovery I think would have started a year ago...

On the serious side, I learned enough about NBC over 12 years (including ROTC) in the Army to not bother with plastic or duct tape....

I know Ridge has a tough job, but it seems like more then a little CYA goin on here. He doesn't want to be attacked as the CIA and FBI have been in congress since 9-11. Why is it that we seem more worried about blame than fixing problems....? oh well, I know you are right about business cycles; just waiting this one out with everyone else and getting impatient...

 

[Timebuilder]

Why do we worry about blame? That's easy.

If we don't worry about being blamed for not acting quicky enough or most effectively (Mrs. Clinton has already come out against the administration's handling of the terror attacks) then the media and the opposition will have a field day lambasting our efforts. Therefore, we must make every effort possible to inform and prepare the population.

Why is that possibility of being blamed a problem?

Imagine Dashle or Gephart or Madame Clinton as president, attempting to mollify and coddle and placate the evil in the world, in a Carter-esq show of weakness and unwillingness to defend the United States.

How would you feel about Osama making a "state visit" to the White House?

I find the image nauseating.

 

[rightrudder]

I'm not a simmering son, Timebuilder... I won't make any assumptions of who or what you are either.

But back to another example of yours, yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech. I agree with you there and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there are some limits on free speech, the fire example is taken directly from a ruling by the court.

But, the difference here is theater patrons are not gagged prior to entering the theater, just in case one of them might yell out.

They are punished if in fact, their actions or words result in harm.

Restricting speech in a preemptive manner is a serious threat to our civil liberties.

 

[Timebuilder]

You're right.

I'm making an assumption that you are perhaps more than 18 years younger than myself, and could be, by American tradition, addressed as "son". Judging by my own age, I am probably right.

No offense intended.

This is only a guess about the motives for banning the banner tows, and this thread is only a discussion.

Under normal circumstances, you might be right about "preemptive" barring of speech, but these are different times. And indeed, the supporters of our enemies have a very loud voice without our adding to it. Can you hear it? It has a French accent.

 

[rightrudder]

Timebuilder,

You are right unless you are eligible for the AARP...and if i've recently had my gender reclassified

I know we are no longer in "normal" circumstances, but the truth is that this may actually be what normal has become and will remain.

Our country has had a great history of permitting people to disagree, even with their own government. It would be a tragedy if we should lose that opportunity.

I'm afraid that we are headed down a slippery slope when we consider a persons words or thoughts to be dangerous.

 

[Timebuilder]

I DO get those darn AARP mailings. Most folks don't know that we are using our own tax dollars to fund this organization that lobbies congress for the retired! This may not be in YOUR best interest, or mine.

I had a 90% chance on the gender issue. My bad.

Actually, threats have been unprotected speech for a long time. What once was considered mere political rhetoric is now more threatening, becuase it can generate terror.