Saw a low-flying rental... let the FBO know?

Driving home today I saw a 172 that I've flown many times heading toward me
slowly at about 500'. This is in SoCal, so it's obviously a densely packed
urban area. In fact I pulled over and turned my car off so I could hear if
the Cessna was having engine trouble.

I'm debating whether to inform the FBO that someone was flying one of their
planes well below the legal limit. I know exactly which plane it was
because it has a distinctive paint job, patterned after the state flag of
Texas. Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
hazard that they should know about?

how is 500ft AGL so low as to be below any limit? unless you are using the
"minimum altitude over dense metropolitan areas"

but there is also a flight school here that has aircraft painted in Texas
State colors... are you sure it was your FBO's plane? could you read the
n-number?

check out www.westairaviation.com

BT

"Yossarian" wrote in message
. 97.142...
Driving home today I saw a 172 that I've flown many times heading toward
me
slowly at about 500'. This is in SoCal, so it's obviously a densely
packed
urban area. In fact I pulled over and turned my car off so I could hear
if
the Cessna was having engine trouble.

I'm debating whether to inform the FBO that someone was flying one of
their
planes well below the legal limit. I know exactly which plane it was
because it has a distinctive paint job, patterned after the state flag of
Texas. Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
hazard that they should know about?

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:4Hr5d.113516$yh.45140@fed1read05...
how is 500ft AGL so low as to be below any limit? unless you are using the
"minimum altitude over dense metropolitan areas"

Who are you quoting when you write "minimum altitude over dense metropolitan
areas". The FARs refer to "congested area".

In any case, whatever you call it, I thought he was pretty obvious in his
post that he was referring to the "congested areas" clause in the FARs. I
don't see how you failed to pick up on that.

As far as whether to report the pilot to the FBO or anyone else goes, it's
hard to say without knowing more specifics. I'm generally in favor of
reporting dangerous pilots to the FSDO, but altitude can be difficult to
estimate, and it's not clear why the original poster is so sure of the
altitude, or if the pilot was otherwise behaving dangerously.

One had better be 100% sure of what they saw before they go around making
trouble for someone else.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
how is 500ft AGL so low as to be below any limit? unless you are
using the
"minimum altitude over dense metropolitan areas"

Who are you quoting when you write "minimum altitude over dense
metropolitan areas". The FARs refer to "congested area".

Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
never seen it.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote in
::

Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
never seen it.

It's depicted in yellow on charts.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote in
::

Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
never seen it.

It's depicted in yellow on charts.

Well.. around here.. the city is growing so fast.. the "yellow on the
charts" is only for the area for about 10 years ago..

BT

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote in
::

Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
never seen it.

It's depicted in yellow on charts.

Yes? Where is that stated?

One bit of puzzlement I've always had was whether the flight down the Hudson
past Manhatten was considered over a congested area. It's not yellow, and
it's obviously over water. But with Jersey City on one side and Manhatten
on the other...?

- Andrew

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:16:16 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote in
::

Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
never seen it.

It's depicted in yellow on charts.

No it's not. The yellow is what the town would look like at night,
lighted.

Now one could logically deduce that where there were more lights,
that's a more heavily populated area than where there are less,
or no lights. But using logic while arguing with the FAA doesn't
work very well

Bela P. Havasreti

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote in
::

Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
never seen it.

It's depicted in yellow on charts.

The yellow section on charts is the area that's lit up at night. Basically, it's an
area in which every street has street lights.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
never seen it.

Nope. It's a common misconception that it coincides with the yellow area on
VFR charts, but in truth there's no documentation to that effect either.
(The yellow area is simply there to provide some indication as to how the
area looks at night...and the official description is simply "Populated
Places Outlined").

However, as always, past interpretations offer guidance as to what the
"definition" might be, and one can be assured that any built-up urban area
such as the one the original poster describes would be considered
"congested".

Pete