Saw a low-flying rental... let the FBO know?

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
t...
"Yossarian" wrote in message
Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
hazard that they should know about?

The ability to guess at a plane's altitude form the ground is notoriously
inaccurate. There is no way you can tell unless you see him flying under
a bridge or into a radio tower.

If you have a camera with you (in your cell phone, for example), you can
take a picture from which the plane's altitude might be derived.

--Gary

"Let it go, Louie."

--
Jim Fisher

Scott D. wrote in message
...
Another thing to think about is, could they have been practicing a
simulated engine out and setting up for an emergency landing, then
recovering at 500 agl.

I don't see how that would be legal in a congested area. Unless you intend
to land, you're not allowed below 1000' AGL. (Flying a low approach over a
runway appears to be an unwritten exception to this rule, however.)

--Gary

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote in
::

Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
never seen it.

It's depicted in yellow on charts.

Yes? Where is that stated?

One bit of puzzlement I've always had was whether the flight down the Hudson
past Manhatten was considered over a congested area. It's not yellow, and
it's obviously over water. But with Jersey City on one side and Manhatten
on the other...?

- Andrew

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote in
::

Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
never seen it.

It's depicted in yellow on charts.

Well.. around here.. the city is growing so fast.. the "yellow on the
charts" is only for the area for about 10 years ago..

BT

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
never seen it.

Nope. It's a common misconception that it coincides with the yellow area on
VFR charts, but in truth there's no documentation to that effect either.
(The yellow area is simply there to provide some indication as to how the
area looks at night...and the official description is simply "Populated
Places Outlined").

However, as always, past interpretations offer guidance as to what the
"definition" might be, and one can be assured that any built-up urban area
such as the one the original poster describes would be considered
"congested".

Pete

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:3CB5d.162328$3l3.128083@attbi_s03...
If you have a camera with you (in your cell phone, for example), you can
take a picture from which the plane's altitude might be derived.

Might, but probably not. Most of the time, if the airplane is close enough
to provide a good distance reference based on apparent size, the photo won't
be able to include any ground reference with which to correlate and
determine an angle.

Pete

"Yossarian" wrote in message
. 97.142...

Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
hazard that they should know about?

I would not report it.

Peter Duniho wrote:

... the photo won't
be able to include any ground reference with which to correlate and
determine an angle.

Oh, you can add those easily with Photoshop...

Stefan

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:3CB5d.162328$3l3.128083@attbi_s03...
If you have a camera with you (in your cell phone, for example), you can
take a picture from which the plane's altitude might be derived.

Might, but probably not. Most of the time, if the airplane is close
enough to provide a good distance reference based on apparent size, the
photo won't be able to include any ground reference with which to
correlate and determine an angle.

True, but 1) the photographer can look at the camera and provide a
reasonable estimate of its angle (since we're not talking here about the
photograph as a source of proof that the photographer didn't lie; rather,
we're just concerned with the possibility of an erroneous impression of
distance); and 2) if a plane is really passing nearby at 500' AGL, then its
distance from the camera will be less than 1000' AGL over a wide range of
angles. Hence, the distance alone may be enough to establish that the plane
was flying illegally low, irrespective of the angle.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:fcE5d.162720$3l3.118386@attbi_s03...
distance); and 2) if a plane is really passing nearby at 500' AGL, then
its distance from the camera will be less than 1000' AGL over a wide range
of angles.

Oops, that should just say 1000', not 1000' AGL.

--Gary