USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:28:03 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?


None.


That's why you don't understand my position.

Please explain your conclusion that altitude is a lateral distance by
disclosing your analysis.


Of course, that is your inference, not my conclusion.

If one regulation prohibits an aircraft from approaching closer than
500' to a person or structure located on the ground (that distance
includes laterally as well as vertically), why do you believe that
that distance would not be applicable to aircraft in flight? If the
FAA had grounds for the former, why wouldn't they be applicable in the
latter? Do the reasons for the prohibition against "getting too
close" to people or structures located on the ground not apply in
flight? If not, why not?



Just as an aside to provide an example of how the court and the NTSB's
interpretations may differ, I offer the court's recent decision (see
my article on that subject) in the Torrance helo crashes. The NTSB
found the pilot to be the cause of the mishap, but the court found the
controllers culpable. Who's right? Who's likely to collect damages
from whom? Courts can be capricious. A successful attorney knows
that, and uses it to his advantage.