On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:15:57 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:



I am well aware of the title.


Then clearly, you do not understand what it means.


I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
too.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet
above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle,
or structure.


It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.

The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
from being applied at altitude, IMO.

In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case. I would say
you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...