![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Our runway is being bulldozed! | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 28 | July 23rd 06 03:02 AM |
"Cleared Straight-In Runway X; Report Y Miles Final" | Jim Cummiskey | Piloting | 86 | August 16th 04 06:23 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Owning | 114 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Piloting | 114 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
FA: WEATHER FLYING: A PRACTICAL BOOK ON FLYING | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 5th 03 12:07 AM |