"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:06:57 -0400, Gary Drescher wrote:

I've long wondered about whether "congested area" applies when one is
over a river. That's not congested. It is next to a congested area,
but it itself is rather sparsely populated.

I've wondered about that too. But If it were construed to apply when
you're over a river, then flight up the Hudson VFR corridor would be
illegal--you can't get over the Verrazano or George Washington bridge
under the Class E ceiling without coming within 2000' horizontally of the
bridge towers, flying less than 1000' above the tower tops.

So you're suggesting that, even if the river weren't congested, the
bridges are? That's not a point I'd considered.

No, just the opposite--my point is that the river (including the bridge) is
not regarded as a congested area, or overflying the bridges in the VFR
corridor would be illegal (which obviously is not how it's construed).
Having to stay 500' from structures, though, applies everywhere.

What an overused term to not have a strict definition.

Yup.

--Gary