USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:05:21 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

[snip]


Lacking that, I believe § 91.119 to be applicable in this case.


How do you interpret the intent of this sentence?

In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500
feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

I infer 'closer' to include laterally as well as vertically. If
that's not correct, then the word 'above' or 'over' would have been
used.


Yeah, but you also believe six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet,
so your beliefs carry little weight.

I believe that 20% is a significant difference. In this case it
provides a cushion that arguably places the military aircraft far
enough beyond the 500 foot limit of 91.119(b), that there is little
chance of the AF incriminating themselves.

Why do you believe that 20% diminishes the weight of my belief? What
distance do you believe would be adequate to overcome your disregard
for my belief?


I infer it to mean there is a hemisphere of 500' radius centered on any
person, vessel, or structure on the surface within which an aircraft may not
be flown.


That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.