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

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...
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...?

Clearly the FAA doesn't consider the Hudson congested (despite Manhattan's
proximity), since they carved out an exclusion from the Class B to allow
pilots to fly up and down the river in Class E, even though there's no way
to stay 1000' above the GWB in the Class E. (Even the obligatory 500'
distance requires maneuvering to avoid passing directly over the bridge's
support towers.)

--Gary

Who are you quoting when you write "minimum altitude over dense
metropolitan areas". The FARs refer to "congested area".

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

They decide it case-by-case to be whatever they need to bust someone.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:16:16 GMT, 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.

No it's not. The yellow is what the town would look like at night,
lighted.

Now one could logically deduce that where there were more lights,
that's a more heavily populated area than where there are less,
or no lights. But using logic while arguing with the FAA doesn't
work very well

Bela P. Havasreti

"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

This is a RANT read at your own risk.

This thread starter shows you how most of today's society are skull ****ed
by the public indoctrination system public school & news media to be tattle
tales (AKA Rat's or Nark's). People should be aware of their own
surroundings and mind their own ****ing business. It makes me sick seeing
all these people out there rating each other out so stupid **** that don't
hurt anyone. Ohh that's right they keep building more prisons and find new
way to fine us well you know that makes us a commodity. Prisons are full of
people that are there because they did not pay a fine because some one
ratted on them for riding their bike through a park at night.

Prisons then contract with large corporations to build their products no we
are not talking about license plates we are talking about consumer
electronics and other household items??? The corporations get charged very
little for the works space and pay the prisoners min wage per hour no
benefits. The prisons get 80% of this wage and the prisoner is taxed on the
full amount. Thus only receiving about 3% of that money. Sounds like modern
day slavery to me hum lots of hard work for little or no money come on guys
open your eye's.

Point of this rant is don't support the system don't be a mind controlled
rat mind your own ****ing business and stay out of others unless invited.

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.

The yellow section on charts is the area that's lit up at night. Basically, it's an
area in which every street has street lights.

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

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.

"NW_PILOT" wrote in message
...
This is a RANT read at your own risk.

This thread starter shows you how most of today's society are skull ****ed
by the public indoctrination system public school & news media to be
tattle
tales (AKA Rat's or Nark's). People should be aware of their own
surroundings and mind their own ****ing business.

You're pretty funny. You call it a rant, but you have so many made-up
"facts" in your post, it looks a lot more like a parody of a rant.

It makes me sick seeing
all these people out there rating each other out so stupid **** that don't
hurt anyone.

We're not talking about a harmless action here. It's not "stupid **** that
don't hurt anyone", it's an action that endangers innocent bystanders on the
ground, as well as the general health of the aviation industry.

Ohh that's right they keep building more prisons and find new
way to fine us well you know that makes us a commodity.

No one can make you a commodity, unless you allow them to. Or something
like that.

Prisons are full of
people that are there because they did not pay a fine because some one
ratted on them for riding their bike through a park at night.

Bull****. I doubt there's even a single person in prison because of that,
but for sure there's no prison that's literally full of people who are in
prison because of that.

Prisons then contract with large corporations to build their products no
we
are not talking about license plates we are talking about consumer
electronics and other household items???

Such as? All of my electronics and nearly all of my other manufactured
goods were made overseas. Some of the stuff was assembled here in the US.
What do I own that was made by prisoners? And why should I care anyway?

The corporations get charged very
little for the works space and pay the prisoners min wage per hour no
benefits.

No benefits? They get free room and board. And at least they are getting
paid for their labor.

The prisons get 80% of this wage and the prisoner is taxed on the
full amount.

Bull****. I can't believe you seriously expect anyone to believe that.

Thus only receiving about 3% of that money. Sounds like modern
day slavery to me hum lots of hard work for little or no money come on
guys
open your eye's.

Open my eye's what?

Point of this rant is don't support the system don't be a mind controlled
rat mind your own ****ing business and stay out of others unless invited.

A pilot flying dangerously low IS our business. All of ours. None of your
rant would be applicable, even if it were true; the fact that it's not
simply makes it even less likely that anyone cares what you might think
about the matter.

Pete