(5) interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft;
www.law.cornell.edu
This myth needs to be squashed as it leads to misinformation and that hurts all of us.
I disagree. That clause is so vague it could easily be construed to include gratuitous, distracting input from persons on the ground. 'Reckless disregard' is the clincher. If the interrupting person does not know that what they're doing is potentially dangerous, and they were to trigger an accident, they would have to argue that as a defense. Otherwise they could be in breach, depending on what side of the bed the judge got out of that morning. It's a badly worded clause. And yes, of course I know what they
think they're trying to say, it just needs a complete rewrite!
Fortunately, where I fly, I can stay well away from uninvited input. Threads like this confirm my lack of desire to trigger such individuals. I know how they feel though. I'm the same when a bunch of guys turn up on my property on the first day of deer hunting season.
Them: "But, but, I've hunted here since I was a child..." (and other such statements designed to demonstrate their entitlement that I know to be inaccurate).
Me: "It's my land, not yours. If I say yes to you I'll have fifty people up there blazing away tomorrow. I'M TRYING TO CREATE A NATURE RESERVE HERE PEOPLE!!!"
They might continue arguing for a while. If so I offer to sell them the title to the land. They invariably give up at that point.
They might sneak up there anyway but word gets around. I like deer more than I like some people, apparently.
Just trying to demonstrate the psychologies and emotions in play. And apologies to the hunters here. I'm not taking aim at hunting in general, just on my property.