Howdy!

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2006-10-19, Bob Noel wrote:
my mistake, you didn't specify corridors only (even though you said "it went
on all the time in Houston. It's almost impossible to use the I-10 corridor
legally in any fixed wing plane much bigger than a Cessna 150."
You talked about flying over cities. So, my question is given that you
don't know what "undue hazard means", why do you say that everyone
flying over cities are in violation of the 91.119(a)?

We don't know for sure - but it's reasonable to assume that flying over
a place where the only outlanding options are densely populated with
people or people driving cars would, if your engine quit, cause an undue
hazard to these people.

Can you do better than that? Why is it reasonable to make that assumption?
Do the FARs speak to what they mean when they say "undue hazard"? Can
you back this up with citations?

yours,
Michael



--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix narrowwares
Bowie, MD, USA | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com
Proud member of the SCA Internet Whitewash Squad