by Andrew Gideon Jun 21, 2006 at 01:15 PM


On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:52:21 -0400, Skylune wrote:

That would be the FAA type response. There is no enforcement...

There have been cases of people reporting low-flying aircraft to the FAA,
and at least one with which I'm familiar resulted in an enforcement
action. Therefore, your statement is factually incorrect.

But perhaps some local FSDO staffer provided you with bad information
when
you called. You did call the FSDO, right? Or are you just guessing?

I was in a field, attending a high school commencement. The
plane was
flying low. I can judge distances.

What model plane? After all, a 210 might look like 152 but appear closer
than reality.

Or were you judging distance against visual cues like sidewalk or street
distance or buildings in the background (ie. appearing behind the
aircraft)?

Or can you judge 300' (vs., for example, 500') through pure stereopsis?

Or are you just guessing?

- Andrew



OK. "No enforcement" is an overstatement. There is rare enforcement,
usually a high profile event like the idiot who buzzed the beach in Calif
last year.

As you know, when you call the FAA they need an N#. Difficult to see on
the ground. Aha, goes the argument, therefore the plane must have been
above 1000 feet. Wrong. Very difficult to catch a small N number on a
low flying, fast moving object. Try reading the license plate number off
a moving car.

And even if you get the N# (and I have), the FAA will want proof, to their
standards. Virtually impossible.

All the (honest) pilots out there know there are some who routinely bust
minimums.