"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
[...]
We went flying through some canyons and probably picked up 15 landings
just splashing down and taking off. We even got to fly under a bridge.
The FSDO guys often come out there just for the fun of flying under the
bridge, which is legal when taking off or landing.

Note that the reason your flight under the bridge was legal was the distance
from it, not the fact that you were taking off or landing. At least one
precedent case was even posted here recently, in the context of the
"low-pass legality" thread we had a few weeks ago. The NTSB review
specifically found that taking off or landing does not legalize flight under
a bridge.

In fact, a strict reading of the precedent precludes your own operation
being legal, as the regulation in question pertains to "minimum altitudes",
not distances from objects (even though distances are referred to). Going
below a bridge, even one thousands of feet above you, would technically be
illegal by that NTSB precedent since the regulation requires a minimum
altitude *above* the bridge.

More power to you if you know for a fact that the local FSDO condones such
flights, but it would be a mistake to think that their interpretation is
universally held by the FAA, and that their interpretation is based on and
supported by the "takeoff or landing" exclusion. The NTSB has already
agreed with the FAA's previous position that it's not.

Pete