A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

We can all agree -- THIS is a great aviation video...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #24  
Old July 7th 06, 08:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Macklin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,070
Default We can all agree -- THIS is a great aviation video...

The FAA has been much more safety minded since they killed
Vince Morrow. Lots of risks can be accepted. But some
risks should not be taken or encouraged.


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

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:l8trg.62919$ZW3.30020@dukeread04...
| Don't confuse normal airport traffic near a runway with
boat
| traffic on a lake or harbor. On a lake, a take-off or
landing
| may come closer than 500 feet to a boat, but it should
NEVER
| be aimed at that boat.
|
| Certainly not without the boat occupants' competent
cooperation; that would
| be reckless. But in this case (assuming the scene was even
real), the stunt
| performers in the boat *were* cooperating, and presumably
had the expertise
| to do so safely.
|
| Your assertion that 91.119 prohibits the takeoff can't be
correct, because
| otherwise 91.119 would also forbid you to take off or land
whenever doing so
| would bring you within 500' of a person or vehicle.
There's nothing in the
| wording of 91.119 that addresses whether or not you are
"aimed at" the
| object you come close to.
|
| --Gary
|
| "Gary Drescher" wrote in
message
| . ..
| | "Jim Macklin"
wrote
| in message
| | news:Bmirg.62828$ZW3.25169@dukeread04...
| | Note that just because you are taking off, you
still
| must
| | comply with the regulations.
| |
| | Huh? According to the beginning of 91.119, parts a,
b,
| and c *do not
| | apply*
| | during takeoff or landing. If they did apply, then
it
| would be illegal
| | for
| | you to land on a runway whenever another plane is
| holding short less than
| | 500' from your flight path!
| |
| | key word, necessary... or was the take-off
necessary.
| |
| | No, that's not a sensible parsing of the qualifier
"Except
| when necessary
| | for takeoff or landing".
| |
| | A takeoff is virtually never necessary. So if 91.119
meant
| what you think it
| | does, then you'd be forbidden to take off from a
runway if
| your flight path
| | would bring you within 500' of another aircraft that's
on
| the ground near
| | the runway (on a parallel taxiway, for example). Is
that
| really the rule you
| | follow when you fly?
| |
| | --Gary
| |
| |
|
|
|
|


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
8 days around the Great Lakes Jay Honeck Piloting 20 June 28th 06 05:19 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
ADV: GREAT AVIATION T-SHIRTS & HEAD GEAR Kates Saloon and Knife Emporium Aviation Marketplace 0 December 30th 03 11:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.