View Single Post
  #119  
Old May 14th 08, 03:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 721
Default USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?


Over the years, I've argued more than a couple of dozen I'd reckon. I
win about half of them.


You must have had a slam dunk case each time. Why do you have so much
trouble with the law?



Because the lateral distance between aircraft in flight is not an
altitude


But that FAR is not strictly limited to regulating altitude, as it
specifies a hemispherical distance. After 45 degrees the 500'
limitation is more lateral than vertical. Altitude is a vertical
distance, not a lateral distance, but 91.119(c) also contains a
lateral restriction by implication, so it is obviously not limited
exclusively to governing altitude.


FAR 91.119 IS strictly limited to regulating altitude. FAR 91.119(c)
simply states that a pilot may not descend below 500 AGL if doing so would
be within 500 feet of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.



and is covered by another regulation.


To which particular regulation(s) that addresses lateral distance
between aircraft are you referring?


FAR 91.111.



Didn't you recently criticize someone for answering your question with
another question? Why don't you practice what you preach?


My question was more socratic than literal.

Further, in the above instance you requested my explanation; you did
not ask a question; notice the lack of a question mark at the end of
your sentence.


So a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to
get information in reply, is not a question unless it ends with a question
mark?

You've ignored many interrogatives that DID end with question marks in
this thread.



If you truly desire to debate the issue, I will continue to indulge
you. But if your desire is to attack me personally, or attempt to
feign a sincere interest in the subject as a thinly masked veil to
conceal your attempt to establish your superiority, or some other
nonsense, you will not find my future responses forthcoming.


Indulge me, I have no desire to attack anyone personally. I don't have
time for such nonsense.



Because the former applies to the surface and the latter applies in
flight.


So you believe the grounds for the hemispherical distance restriction
imposed by FAA regulation are not valid nor applicable to lateral
distance restriction?


The hemispherical distance restriction of FAR 91.119(c) applies between an
aircraft and a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure on the surface. It
does not apply between aircraft and persons, vessels, vehicles, or
structures at altitude.



If not, why not?


Because the anti-gravity technology necessary to support these things at
altitude has yet to be invented.



Clearly, 91.229(c) implies a lateral distance, does it not?


There is no FAR 91.229.



If you don't believe that the "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" of
FAR
91.119 is limited to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures on the
surface, then please explain what persons that are not aboard aircraft,
airborne vessels, airborne vehicles other than aircraft, and airborne
structures that are covered by it.


Huh?


Amnesia? On 4/23/2008 you posted:


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. ...


And I responded with:


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


You only think that you understand it.



§ 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 only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.



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.


"Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An airborne
vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An airborne
structure?

What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?



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.


Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a lateral
distance?



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. ...


No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is not
an opinion.



Do the reasons for the prohibition against "getting too close" to
people
or structures located on the ground not apply in flight?


No.


For reference, here is 91.119(c):

(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.

Clearly, the last sentence of (c) implies a lateral component, as
there is no altitude restriction over open water and sparsely
populated areas, and a pilot may fly as low as he pleases there.


As long as he is not within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, yes.



Presumably there was a reason the FAA chose to implement a 500'
proximity limit in 91.119(c). But you believe that that reason or
justification for that restriction is inapplicable to two aircraft in
flight?


I don't believe I said anything about any reason or justification for
anything.



I'm not referring to the jurisdiction of FAR 91,119(c); I'm
referring to the _justification_ for the distance limitation contained
in it.


What of it?


Larry, if you find these questions are too difficult please say so. I'll
try to rephrase them using smaller words.