Flying over the runway is illegal?

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And
it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation.

Yup. As I mentioned earlier, technically speaking such operations are
illegal under 91.119. However, as I also mentioned earlier, clearly the FAA
sets aside that technicality for such operations, since they not only allow
them, they encourage them.

But that doesn't mean that any random low approach is legal, especially if
not done for some FAA-sanctioned purpose.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Which makes the case posted earlier interesting. Granted, one could argue
the pilot lied about the go-around, but even so....interesting.

And in fact, the FAA basically tried to argue that the pilot did lie.
Fortunately, the NTSB found that the pilot's story was more plausible than
the FAA's.


Almost gives you the warm and fuzzies, don't it?

Your Congressman sets the FAA budget every two years. The
FAA has to answer Congress' requests on demand. Call your
Congressman and I'll can mine and raise the issue. I know
my Congressman personally and have his phone number
memorized and call his staff by first name. Let's start a
movement, everybody call your Congressman about stupid FAA
rules and interpretations.

There is an election November 7, they will listen to you now
and they will be "home" looking to talk face to face.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
| Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO
is
| insane.
|
| Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.
|
| However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the
FARs, and the NTSB has
| found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's
interpretation is the one
| that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to
"common definition"
| (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of "sparsely"
is even more
| vague than any official definition...can you tell me
exactly how "widely
| spaced" the intervals between population need to be in
order to qualify as
| "sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring,
growing, or settled at
| widely spaced intervals"?).
|
| The FAA publications teach missed approaches, low
approaches
| and all manner of low flight.
|
| Beyond missed approaches, low approaches, takeoffs, and
landings, what
| flight below 500' does the FAA teach? More specifically,
what low flight
| that cannot be accomplished at an airport does the FAA
teach?
|
| If you are OVER a town, it
| can be identified and a pilot knows what altitude he is
| expect to fly. When over open range, trees, water or an
| area with no concentration of houses or buildings, that
| constitutes "sparsely" by common definition.
|
| And yet, there's at least one pilot who was found in
violation of 91.119
| while flying below 500' in "an area with no concentration
of houses or
| buildings".
|
| I don't agree with the interpretation, but given the broad
latitude the FAA
| is granted in enforcing their regulations, it's important
for every pilot to
| understand the precedents.
|
| [...]
| The FAA interpretation you say the FAA enforces in your
| region is nonsense and since they have brought cases, it
is
| open to challenge, Congressional over-sight, and public
| demonstration.
|
| I agree it would have been more informative had this pilot
contested the
| violation. As it happens, he was let off without so much
as a suspension,
| and so he was happy to not make waves. However, I am not
so naive as to
| think that he would have had an open and shut case in
contesting the action.
|
| [...] But any
| pilot expects to be able to fly a low approach and do a
| go-around.
|
| Again, completely irrelevant to the question of "sparsely
populated".
|
| Many CFIs have their students fly along and just
| a few feet above the runway, planning not to land, even
| though the speed is right ay 1.3 Vso. Some times we do
have
| tire contact, but it wasn't planned.
|
| Yes, I know. I even benefited from this practice, and
I've never heard of
| anyone being cited because of it. However, still
completely irrelevant to
| the question of "sparsely populated".
|
| If an agent of the Administrator asks you to do
something or
| clears you to do some something, that is approval by the
| Administrator.
|
| Again, completely irrelevant.
|
| The FAA has many agents, some like airplanes and some
still
| think they are a Col. in the USAF. If you take a NASA
night
| photo of the area and it is dark, it is sparsely
populated.
|
| A relevant claim, but unfounded in this context. I'm
aware of no FAA
| interpretation that describes "sparsely populated" in that
manner.
|
| [...]
| But just because you say it, I say it, the FAA says it
or
| even an NTSB law judge says it, it may not be correct.
| Congress and the US Supreme Court are the final say.
|
| Well, if you're aware of such a case in which the FAA
opinion was overruled,
| I'm all ears. If not, then your own interpretation of
"sparsely populated"
| (which I generally agree with) carries no weight
whatsoever.
|
| Pete
|
|

The root problem is that many FAA Inspectors are mindless
authoritarians. The bureaucrats band together to defend
their turf. The NTSB has too many political appointees with
no aviation experience. The result is stupid application of
the rules.

Phone, write and email the FAA and your Congressman.
Contact the AOPA and EAA, demand some changes, demand
sanity.

Just a quick sample from Google...land use map sparsely
populated 826,000 pages

[PDF] T. Kit 9-12/TG.1'99 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
View as HTML
the size of each state is not related to the size of
the land area. ... the cartogram to the standard US map. 7.
Name a sparsely populated state other ...
www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/912ch1.pdf - Similar pages


SIZE IT UP(Map Literacy) Grades 9-10 Skills and Objectives
.... Use the two maps on page 5 (the US Population Cartogram
and the Standard US Map) to answer the ... Name a sparsely
populated state other than Montana. 8. ...
www.census.gov/dmd/www/text/9-12b.txt - 16k -
Cached - Similar pages


Web Sites Powered by ESRI Internet Solutions ... land use
information, historical maps, and more. The Atlas has a
powerful search function capable of finding locations even
in sparsely populated areas. ...
www.esri.com/software/internetmaps/index.html - 24k -
Cached - Similar pages


Zoning, CDFS-1265-99 He/she must have a thorough knowledge
of the zoning text and map and use these ... Another
reality, especially in sparsely populated areas, is staffing
and ...
ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1265.html - 17k - Cached -
Similar pages


Land Use Debate Land use research materials; Maps (Local,
regional, global) ... Have the students determine the common
factors of the sparsely populated areas. ...
http://www.wested.org/werc/earthsyst...y/landuse.html
- 10k - Cached - Similar pages

So the US government in the form of the Census Bureau
and the USDA and probably the Interior Department and
Defense Department all can provide maps that
define sparsely populated areas.

The FAA can be forced to follow established
definitions.




"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
| Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine.
And
| it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a
violation.
|
| Yup. As I mentioned earlier, technically speaking such
operations are
| illegal under 91.119. However, as I also mentioned
earlier, clearly the FAA
| sets aside that technicality for such operations, since
they not only allow
| them, they encourage them.
|
| But that doesn't mean that any random low approach is
legal, especially if
| not done for some FAA-sanctioned purpose.
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And
it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation.

I'll bet the FAA was hacked off (not that I agree) because the low pass was
down on the deck, at WOT. Ya' think? g
--
Jim in NC

In the case of the first posted report, two inspectors were
at a remote airport. One inspector heard an airplane that
didn't sound like it was being flown properly. The other
inspector said he didn't see anything.

Sounds can be useful, like when you hear a Bonanza or C210
with the prop at low pitch[ hi rpm] on climb out and the
tips are going supersonic because (a.) The pilot doesn't
know enough to pull the prop back 50-100 rpm and (b.)
because the governor is set too fast because the tach isn't
properly calibrated.

But I suspect the inspectors were missing a ball game and
wanted to be at a big, concrete airport. So they decided to
punish somebody.

The FAA gets into a mood [or is it mode] where they start
looking for somebody to violate because that makes a paper
trail that will get them noticed by the higher-ups.
One day I took a charter from Wichita to MKC [Kansas City
Downtown]. It was scheduled IFR in the Duchess because the
customer wanted to spend as little as possible. It was
scheduled for a 7 AM departure. It was also in the spring
so IFR conditions and ice were a certain possibility. I
began calling the FSS [the Internet did not yet exist] about
5 AM. I got a full briefing and filed IFR. I called back
several times for updates and asked for PIREPS each time,
the last time about 5 minutes before engine start. The
weather was 1,000 overcast and tops were reported by many
pilots as being at 3,000, a layer about 800 feet thick. It
was clear above and the PIREPS indicated temps above
freezing, NO ICING on climb out. When I departed I saw no
ice on the Duchess and the sky was clear above the layer.
When I got back that afternoon there was a message to call
the FSDO and speak to my friend Warren.
I called Warren and he asked me why I was flying in icing
conditions. Seems the Feds had been renting the King Air
for some practice and had been making multiple IFR
approaches, for about an hour. They had just landed as I
was taxiing out and a lineboy told them I was on a charter
to Kansas City,
I of course said I was not flying in ice, had seen no ice
all day and recounted the details of my flight. BUT there
were lawyers from the Kansas City FAA office on that King
Air and they had seen a Beech Duchess [BE-76] with nothing
but carb heat and a heated pitot depart IFR.
They had been getting ice while being vectored in the top of
the layer at 3,000 for an hour. Anyway, the local FSDO was
ordered [I was told] to begin action against me. I prepared
my case for an informal meeting and the feds came in with
stacks of paper, every telephone call I'd made, all the
radio calls, the ATIS tapes and transcripts. It was during
this meeting that my boos, who as Director of Operations
also attended, and I learned that the feds had been getting
ice in the pattern doing a dozen or so ILS and VOR
approaches in the layer.
The feds noted that I had made many phone calls and updated
the weather. They noted that I had requested all PIREPS for
the local airport and enroute, nobody had reported any
icing. In the end they decided to drop the case, but the KC
lawyers insisted I write a new page for our OPS manual on
ICING. I did and put in exactly what I did, including that
lack of PIREPS or PIREPS that reported ice, confirming a
forecast required a switch to an ice approved aircraft, a
delay or even a cancellation. The FAA approved that
revision with no changes.

I then asked the feds why they didn't report the ice during
the hour they were flying, wasn't reporting ice a required
report and were they going to violate the PIC of that King
Air?

It actually was fun.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.



"Morgans" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
| Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine.
And
| it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a
violation.
|
| I'll bet the FAA was hacked off (not that I agree) because
the low pass was
| down on the deck, at WOT. Ya' think? g
| --
| Jim in NC
|

The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow. If it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco...FR_Symbols.pdf



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
: "Jim Macklin" wrote in message
: news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
: Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO is
: insane.
:
: Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.
:
: However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the FARs, and the NTSB has
: found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's interpretation is the one
: that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to "common definition"
: (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of "sparsely" is even more
: vague than any official definition...can you tell me exactly how "widely
: spaced" the intervals between population need to be in order to qualify as
: "sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring, growing, or settled at
: widely spaced intervals"?).
:

Actually, the yellow area is a representation of the way a
city looks at night, the pattern of the lights.

see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
and then browse to find useful info. For instance Greeley
Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.



".Blueskies." wrote in
message
. com...
| The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow. If
it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'?
|
|
http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco...FR_Symbols.pdf
|
|
|
| "Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| : "Jim Macklin"
wrote in message
| : news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
| : Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your
FSDO is
| : insane.
| :
| : Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.
| :
| : However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the
FARs, and the NTSB has
| : found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's
interpretation is the one
| : that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to
"common definition"
| : (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of
"sparsely" is even more
| : vague than any official definition...can you tell me
exactly how "widely
| : spaced" the intervals between population need to be in
order to qualify as
| : "sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring,
growing, or settled at
| : widely spaced intervals"?).
| :
|
|

According to the naco link below, these are populated areas. I know I always thought it was the outline of lights also,
but I cannot find that defined anywhere...

Those census facts are interesting - scary for my area, Kalamazoo, MI, but still interesting...



"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news:3Fnyg.84443$ZW3.22903@dukeread04...
: Actually, the yellow area is a representation of the way a
: city looks at night, the pattern of the lights.
:
: see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
: and then browse to find useful info. For instance Greeley
: Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.
:
:
:
: ".Blueskies." wrote in
: message
: . com...
: | The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow. If
: it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'?
: |
: |
: http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco...FR_Symbols.pdf
: |
: |
: |
: | "Peter Duniho" wrote in
: message ...
: | : "Jim Macklin"
: wrote in message
: | : news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
: | : Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your
: FSDO is
: | : insane.
: | :
: | : Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.
: | :
: | : However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the
: FARs, and the NTSB has
: | : found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's
: interpretation is the one
: | : that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to
: "common definition"
: | : (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of
: "sparsely" is even more
: | : vague than any official definition...can you tell me
: exactly how "widely
: | : spaced" the intervals between population need to be in
: order to qualify as
: | : "sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring,
: growing, or settled at
: | : widely spaced intervals"?).
: | :
: |
: |
:
:

The first thing you'll notice is the big yellow blot that is
Houston. Contrary to popular belief among pilots, the yellow
does NOT signify the boundaries of the city. After all, what
good would a city boundary do for a pilot in the air? The
yellow indicates the approximate light pattern at night of
populated area from the air, which is much more useful
information. If you're flying at night, these patterns may
be the only thing you can see from, say, 8,000 feet in the
air, so looking at a recognizable pattern may be a big help
in determining where you are.

This was just a page I found on the Internet. I know that
somewhere I have a government handbook, perhaps the USAF
Navigators handbook, that gave the answer.





".Blueskies." wrote in
message
y.net...
| According to the naco link below, these are populated
areas. I know I always thought it was the outline of lights
also,
| but I cannot find that defined anywhere...
|
| Those census facts are interesting - scary for my area,
Kalamazoo, MI, but still interesting...
|
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message news:3Fnyg.84443$ZW3.22903@dukeread04...
| : Actually, the yellow area is a representation of the way
a
| : city looks at night, the pattern of the lights.
| :
| : see
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
| : and then browse to find useful info. For instance
Greeley
| : Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.
| :
| :
| :
| : ".Blueskies." wrote in
| : message
| : . com...
| : | The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow.
If
| : it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'?
| : |
| : |
| :
http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco...FR_Symbols.pdf
| : |
| : |
| : |
| : | "Peter Duniho" wrote in
| : message ...
| : | : "Jim Macklin"
| : wrote in message
| : | : news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
| : | : Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your
| : FSDO is
| : | : insane.
| : | :
| : | : Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest
otherwise.
| : | :
| : | : However, be that as it may, they are interpreting
the
| : FARs, and the NTSB has
| : | : found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's
| : interpretation is the one
| : | : that is used, even if that interpretation is
contrary to
| : "common definition"
| : | : (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of
| : "sparsely" is even more
| : | : vague than any official definition...can you tell me
| : exactly how "widely
| : | : spaced" the intervals between population need to be
in
| : order to qualify as
| : | : "sparsely" under the common definition of
"Occurring,
| : growing, or settled at
| : | : widely spaced intervals"?).
| : | :
| : |
| : |
| :
| :
|
|