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

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
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".

Well, yeah, sometimes it's obvious. But how about a residential area -
is that "congested?" I thought about that last week when I flew home
from Houston and did a hurricane damage survey of my neighborhood before
landing. I stayed above 1,000' simply because I wasn't sure.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
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".

Well, yeah, sometimes it's obvious. But how about a residential area -
is that "congested?" I thought about that last week when I flew home from
Houston and did a hurricane damage survey of my neighborhood before
landing. I stayed above 1,000' simply because I wasn't sure.

The rule of thumb I use is: in the event of engine failure, is the area
below me such that I could land there without coming dangerously close to
any people, vehicles, or buildings? If not, then it's congested.

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

The rule of thumb I use is: in the event of engine failure, is the area
below me such that I could land there without coming dangerously close to
any people, vehicles, or buildings? If not, then it's congested.

Sounds like a good idea to me -- I would bet that's the original idea behind the
regulation.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
Well, yeah, sometimes it's obvious. But how about a residential area -
is that "congested?" I thought about that last week when I flew home from
Houston and did a hurricane damage survey of my neighborhood before
landing. I stayed above 1,000' simply because I wasn't sure.

Gary's rule of thumb is fine, IMHO. The one I use is to consider whether I
can remain 2000' laterally from a man-made structure. Any residential
neighborhood would not qualify, and this is probably more conservative than
the FAA would require. That is, a "residential area" where the properties
are on large lots (acreage) may not be considered "congested" by the FAA,
but would be by my rule (unless the acreage was REALLY large, like 30-40
acres per residence).

But since it brings to mind the other minimum altitude rule (about remaining
500' above any structure within 2000'), I find it fits well in the existing
rules, and it also is conservative enough to not require any exceptions
(Gary's rule doesn't work in an urban area in which there are still large
sports fields, golf courses, that sort of thing...you can safely land there
in an emergency, but the area is still congested).

Pete

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:19:16 -0500, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

But how about a residential area -
is that "congested?" I thought about that last week when I flew home
from Houston and did a hurricane damage survey of my neighborhood before
landing. I stayed above 1,000' simply because I wasn't sure.

I regard any community as congested and subject to the 1,000-ft rule.
If I can't put down in a field or in the trees, then it's congested.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

Dan,

I think you were very wise to stay above 1,000 feet on that flight.
The FAA has never published a definition of a "congested area" so you
have to read the NTSB cases (enforcement actions against pilots) to
determine what the FAA considers to be a congested area. In the past
pilots have been violated for flying below 1000 feet above the highest
obstruction within 2,000 feet horizontally over an area that has at
least four houses within a half mile; a busy highway; a big group of
people (estimates were over 100) standing on an airport ramp (pilot
made a low pass down a runway that was less than 1,000 feet away); a
subdivision consisting of about 10 houses.

In general, the cases indicate that unless you are in a rural area
with only a very few farmhouses or that a highway has little traffic
on it, the FAA can and will consider it a congested area if the pilot
makes someone angry (or frightens someone...which is the most common
thing) and calls it in. The cases also make it clear that the
administrative law judge will believe the complainant about the height
of the airplane and not the pilot, because the pilot is an "interested
party". The FAA attorneys have figured out that the best way to get a
conviction is to have the person tesifying estimate the height in
"number of telephone poles high". It's effective testimony, whether
it is accurate or not, and it's nailed a number of pilots.

The best defense for the pilot is to get the radar data from the
nearest FAA radar so that he can use the hits on his airplane to show
that he was above 1,000 feet AGL. FAA almost invariably drops those
cases because that is hard data that overrules the person on the
ground making an estimate. Shortly after 9/11 I was called about a
guy who circled his town for about a half hour near sunset. Police
were waiting for him when he landed. He was silly enough to fly
around with the prop at 2,700 rpm in a Cessna 185, making all sorts of
noise, and he scared the locals so badly they flooded the emergency
number with calls. Radar data had him at 1,500 agl the entire time,
so the FAA did nothing. In talking with him I found that he was just
enjoying the sunset, loved his town and wanted to fly over it, but
didn't even think about the prop rpm and noise.

Since 9/11 there are a LOT of very frightened people out there and a
low flying airplane not only scares them, but helps make more enemies
of general aviation. A lot of pilots don't realize this and fly low
without thinking. A chat with them usually solves the problem, but
not always.

We pilots are a VERY small political group (and fragmented, for
example we can't even agree on whether or not to vote for a
presidential candidate that is an active general aviation pilot and
loves to fly) and we don't have much power against the nonpilot
majority. As a result, one low flying event can **** off enough
people that they vote to close an airport, or will swing enough votes
in that direction.

Bottom line, my suggestion is to let the FBO know and see if they will
counsel the pilot, or have a safety counselor get in touch with the
man or woman to just talk it over.

All the best,
Rick

"Dan Luke" wrote in message ...
"Peter Duniho" wrote:
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".

Well, yeah, sometimes it's obvious. But how about a residential area -
is that "congested?" I thought about that last week when I flew home
from Houston and did a hurricane damage survey of my neighborhood before
landing. I stayed above 1,000' simply because I wasn't sure.