"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO is
insane.

Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.

However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the FARs, and the NTSB has
found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's interpretation is the one
that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to "common definition"
(and frankly, the actual "common definition" of "sparsely" is even more
vague than any official definition...can you tell me exactly how "widely
spaced" the intervals between population need to be in order to qualify as
"sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring, growing, or settled at
widely spaced intervals"?).

The FAA publications teach missed approaches, low approaches
and all manner of low flight.

Beyond missed approaches, low approaches, takeoffs, and landings, what
flight below 500' does the FAA teach? More specifically, what low flight
that cannot be accomplished at an airport does the FAA teach?

If you are OVER a town, it
can be identified and a pilot knows what altitude he is
expect to fly. When over open range, trees, water or an
area with no concentration of houses or buildings, that
constitutes "sparsely" by common definition.

And yet, there's at least one pilot who was found in violation of 91.119
while flying below 500' in "an area with no concentration of houses or
buildings".

I don't agree with the interpretation, but given the broad latitude the FAA
is granted in enforcing their regulations, it's important for every pilot to
understand the precedents.

[...]
The FAA interpretation you say the FAA enforces in your
region is nonsense and since they have brought cases, it is
open to challenge, Congressional over-sight, and public
demonstration.

I agree it would have been more informative had this pilot contested the
violation. As it happens, he was let off without so much as a suspension,
and so he was happy to not make waves. However, I am not so naive as to
think that he would have had an open and shut case in contesting the action.

[...] But any
pilot expects to be able to fly a low approach and do a
go-around.

Again, completely irrelevant to the question of "sparsely populated".

Many CFIs have their students fly along and just
a few feet above the runway, planning not to land, even
though the speed is right ay 1.3 Vso. Some times we do have
tire contact, but it wasn't planned.

Yes, I know. I even benefited from this practice, and I've never heard of
anyone being cited because of it. However, still completely irrelevant to
the question of "sparsely populated".

If an agent of the Administrator asks you to do something or
clears you to do some something, that is approval by the
Administrator.

Again, completely irrelevant.

The FAA has many agents, some like airplanes and some still
think they are a Col. in the USAF. If you take a NASA night
photo of the area and it is dark, it is sparsely populated.

A relevant claim, but unfounded in this context. I'm aware of no FAA
interpretation that describes "sparsely populated" in that manner.

[...]
But just because you say it, I say it, the FAA says it or
even an NTSB law judge says it, it may not be correct.
Congress and the US Supreme Court are the final say.

Well, if you're aware of such a case in which the FAA opinion was overruled,
I'm all ears. If not, then your own interpretation of "sparsely populated"
(which I generally agree with) carries no weight whatsoever.

Pete