Flying over the runway is illegal?

Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there is
nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach" will
only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon which
your aircraft can land.

I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for
best glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to
see if one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using the
procedures one is practicing.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for best
glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to see if
one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using the
procedures one is practicing.

FYI...

As it happens, I just flew with an instructor yesterday, doing my BFR.
During our ground discussion, he told me that he was involved in an incident
in which the FAA cited him for violating the minimum safe altitude
regulations. In his case, he was not doing engine-out practicing, but that
did come up, and here's what the local FAA inspector said...

* There is no "sparsely settled" area anywhere within the Puget Sound
region, even in locations where it is miles to the nearest structure. The
FAA does not provide any guidance as to what *is* a sparsely settled area,
but apparently if there's any settlement anywhere within some apparently
long distance, that's not "sparse".

* There is no exception to the minimum safe altitude rules for the purpose
of practicing engine-out procedures. If you are not over a sparsely settled
area (of which there are none around here, and by this interpretation there
would be none around ANY significantly populated region), then you may not
descend below 500', and that goes up to 1000' above the highest obstacle
within 2000' of the aircraft if the area is considered "congested" (note
that they don't restrict that to man-made obstacles...if there's a 100' tree
around, quite common here in the Northwest and elsewhere, your minimum
altitude is actually 1100' AGL, for example).

* The inspector readily admitted that there is no formal definition of the
terms, and declined to offer any formal definition of the terms. They are
playing by the rules set forth by the NTSB in past judgments, in that the
FAA is permitted to interpret their rules as they see fit, and are not
required to make any explicit statements about the specifics of the rules.
So, if they see a pilot flying lower than the FAA inspector thinks he should
be, and the altitude is below *some* minimum safe altitude specified, the
inspector need only describe the area as an area where a higher altitude is
required, and there's no defense that the pilot can mount against that.

So, as far your actual question goes...it depends on what you mean by "see
if one can actually make the field", but if that would require flight below
500' and you're not at an airport, then no, you can't do that practically
anywhere that people live. If you're flying in a congested area (and
remember, there's no formal definition of "congested area"), that minimum is
the 1000' given.

With a minimum altitude of 1000' above the highest obstacle within 2000',
I'd say it'd be pretty hard to know for sure that you've got the field made.
An experienced instructor could make a reasonably accurate judgment call,
but from that altitude, all sorts of things could screw up the glide.

Frankly, I think it's pretty lame for the FAA to have rules for which they
don't include definitions of the terms used. I'm not one to just broadly
paint the FAA as being bad, but this is certainly one area in which they
need some serious improvement.

Pete

Achtung, I'm from the FAA and I'm hear to define words the
way I want. Papers!


§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails,
an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or
property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city,
town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of
persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest
obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the
aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet
above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than
the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section if the operation is conducted without hazard to
persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person
operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or
altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the
Administrator.



Important words above... OVER Every place that isn't OVER a
town, city, settlement or crowd is by the above list
SPARSELY and I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of water.
Except for congested areas, a tree is not an item of
concern, the term structure can mean the outhouse or porta
potty or a tent, but a road sign along a vacant highway
doesn't count as a structure.







"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jose" wrote in message
| . com...
| I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out
procedures (trim for best
| glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the
practice is to see if
| one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by
using the
| procedures one is practicing.
|
| FYI...
|
| As it happens, I just flew with an instructor yesterday,
doing my BFR.
| During our ground discussion, he told me that he was
involved in an incident
| in which the FAA cited him for violating the minimum safe
altitude
| regulations. In his case, he was not doing engine-out
practicing, but that
| did come up, and here's what the local FAA inspector
said...
|
| * There is no "sparsely settled" area anywhere within the
Puget Sound
| region, even in locations where it is miles to the nearest
structure. The
| FAA does not provide any guidance as to what *is* a
sparsely settled area,
| but apparently if there's any settlement anywhere within
some apparently
| long distance, that's not "sparse".
|
| * There is no exception to the minimum safe altitude rules
for the purpose
| of practicing engine-out procedures. If you are not over
a sparsely settled
| area (of which there are none around here, and by this
interpretation there
| would be none around ANY significantly populated region),
then you may not
| descend below 500', and that goes up to 1000' above the
highest obstacle
| within 2000' of the aircraft if the area is considered
"congested" (note
| that they don't restrict that to man-made obstacles...if
there's a 100' tree
| around, quite common here in the Northwest and elsewhere,
your minimum
| altitude is actually 1100' AGL, for example).
|
| * The inspector readily admitted that there is no formal
definition of the
| terms, and declined to offer any formal definition of the
terms. They are
| playing by the rules set forth by the NTSB in past
judgments, in that the
| FAA is permitted to interpret their rules as they see fit,
and are not
| required to make any explicit statements about the
specifics of the rules.
| So, if they see a pilot flying lower than the FAA
inspector thinks he should
| be, and the altitude is below *some* minimum safe altitude
specified, the
| inspector need only describe the area as an area where a
higher altitude is
| required, and there's no defense that the pilot can mount
against that.
|
| So, as far your actual question goes...it depends on what
you mean by "see
| if one can actually make the field", but if that would
require flight below
| 500' and you're not at an airport, then no, you can't do
that practically
| anywhere that people live. If you're flying in a
congested area (and
| remember, there's no formal definition of "congested
area"), that minimum is
| the 1000' given.
|
| With a minimum altitude of 1000' above the highest
obstacle within 2000',
| I'd say it'd be pretty hard to know for sure that you've
got the field made.
| An experienced instructor could make a reasonably accurate
judgment call,
| but from that altitude, all sorts of things could screw up
the glide.
|
| Frankly, I think it's pretty lame for the FAA to have
rules for which they
| don't include definitions of the terms used. I'm not one
to just broadly
| paint the FAA as being bad, but this is certainly one area
in which they
| need some serious improvement.
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:rc9yg.84362$ZW3.50803@dukeread04...
[...]
Important words above... OVER Every place that isn't OVER a
town, city, settlement or crowd is by the above list
SPARSELY and I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of water.

Do you even bother to read the posts to which you reply? Or are you saying
that you don't believe what I wrote?

I specifically wrote exactly the interpretation that the FAA is using here,
and it isn't anywhere *close* to the interpretation you'd like it to be. In
particular, the person who was cited by the FAA for violation of 91.119 was
NOT over "a town, city, settlement, or crowd" and yet was found to NOT be
flying over a "sparsely populated area".

As far as "I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of water" goes, that's fine,
but nothing that I wrote pertained to flight over water. The question is
what constitutes a "sparsely populated area", and in the Puget Sound region,
there is NO place that meets that description, according to our local FSDO.

Pete

Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO is
insane.

If some FAA inspector told me what you are saying, I would
be in contact with my Congressman and FAA HQ.

The FAA publications teach missed approaches, low approaches
and all manner of low flight. If you are OVER a town, it
can be identified and a pilot knows what altitude he is
expect to fly. When over open range, trees, water or an
area with no concentration of houses or buildings, that
constitutes "sparsely" by common definition. Laws in order
to be enforced must be written so a common person can abide
by the words written in that law.

The FAA interpretation you say the FAA enforces in your
region is nonsense and since they have brought cases, it is
open to challenge, Congressional over-sight, and public
demonstration.

The FAA does issue waiver to these rules for airshows, some
times it is a blanket for the airport/event [Oshkosh] and
sometimes it is for the pilot and the airspace. But any
pilot expects to be able to fly a low approach and do a
go-around. Many CFIs have their students fly along and just
a few feet above the runway, planning not to land, even
though the speed is right ay 1.3 Vso. Some times we do have
tire contact, but it wasn't planned.

If an agent of the Administrator asks you to do something or
clears you to do some something, that is approval by the
Administrator.

The FAA has many agents, some like airplanes and some still
think they are a Col. in the USAF. If you take a NASA night
photo of the area and it is dark, it is sparsely populated.
If you are a mile away from a densely populated area and any
area of buildings, vehicles [that includes tractor and
trucks] structures [that includes tower and oil rigs] people
and that includes Mexicans walking over the border, stay 500
foot radius away.

But just because you say it, I say it, the FAA says it or
even an NTSB law judge says it, it may not be correct.
Congress and the US Supreme Court are the final say.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:rc9yg.84362$ZW3.50803@dukeread04...
| [...]
| Important words above... OVER Every place that isn't
OVER a
| town, city, settlement or crowd is by the above list
| SPARSELY and I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of
water.
|
| Do you even bother to read the posts to which you reply?
Or are you saying
| that you don't believe what I wrote?
|
| I specifically wrote exactly the interpretation that the
FAA is using here,
| and it isn't anywhere *close* to the interpretation you'd
like it to be. In
| particular, the person who was cited by the FAA for
violation of 91.119 was
| NOT over "a town, city, settlement, or crowd" and yet was
found to NOT be
| flying over a "sparsely populated area".
|
| As far as "I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of water"
goes, that's fine,
| but nothing that I wrote pertained to flight over water.
The question is
| what constitutes a "sparsely populated area", and in the
Puget Sound region,
| there is NO place that meets that description, according
to our local FSDO.
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO is
insane.

Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.

However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the FARs, and the NTSB has
found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's interpretation is the one
that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to "common definition"
(and frankly, the actual "common definition" of "sparsely" is even more
vague than any official definition...can you tell me exactly how "widely
spaced" the intervals between population need to be in order to qualify as
"sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring, growing, or settled at
widely spaced intervals"?).

The FAA publications teach missed approaches, low approaches
and all manner of low flight.

Beyond missed approaches, low approaches, takeoffs, and landings, what
flight below 500' does the FAA teach? More specifically, what low flight
that cannot be accomplished at an airport does the FAA teach?

If you are OVER a town, it
can be identified and a pilot knows what altitude he is
expect to fly. When over open range, trees, water or an
area with no concentration of houses or buildings, that
constitutes "sparsely" by common definition.

And yet, there's at least one pilot who was found in violation of 91.119
while flying below 500' in "an area with no concentration of houses or
buildings".

I don't agree with the interpretation, but given the broad latitude the FAA
is granted in enforcing their regulations, it's important for every pilot to
understand the precedents.

[...]
The FAA interpretation you say the FAA enforces in your
region is nonsense and since they have brought cases, it is
open to challenge, Congressional over-sight, and public
demonstration.

I agree it would have been more informative had this pilot contested the
violation. As it happens, he was let off without so much as a suspension,
and so he was happy to not make waves. However, I am not so naive as to
think that he would have had an open and shut case in contesting the action.

[...] But any
pilot expects to be able to fly a low approach and do a
go-around.

Again, completely irrelevant to the question of "sparsely populated".

Many CFIs have their students fly along and just
a few feet above the runway, planning not to land, even
though the speed is right ay 1.3 Vso. Some times we do have
tire contact, but it wasn't planned.

Yes, I know. I even benefited from this practice, and I've never heard of
anyone being cited because of it. However, still completely irrelevant to
the question of "sparsely populated".

If an agent of the Administrator asks you to do something or
clears you to do some something, that is approval by the
Administrator.

Again, completely irrelevant.

The FAA has many agents, some like airplanes and some still
think they are a Col. in the USAF. If you take a NASA night
photo of the area and it is dark, it is sparsely populated.

A relevant claim, but unfounded in this context. I'm aware of no FAA
interpretation that describes "sparsely populated" in that manner.

[...]
But just because you say it, I say it, the FAA says it or
even an NTSB law judge says it, it may not be correct.
Congress and the US Supreme Court are the final say.

Well, if you're aware of such a case in which the FAA opinion was overruled,
I'm all ears. If not, then your own interpretation of "sparsely populated"
(which I generally agree with) carries no weight whatsoever.

Pete

Your Congressman sets the FAA budget every two years. The
FAA has to answer Congress' requests on demand. Call your
Congressman and I'll can mine and raise the issue. I know
my Congressman personally and have his phone number
memorized and call his staff by first name. Let's start a
movement, everybody call your Congressman about stupid FAA
rules and interpretations.

There is an election November 7, they will listen to you now
and they will be "home" looking to talk face to face.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
| Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO
is
| insane.
|
| Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.
|
| However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the
FARs, and the NTSB has
| found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's
interpretation is the one
| that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to
"common definition"
| (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of "sparsely"
is even more
| vague than any official definition...can you tell me
exactly how "widely
| spaced" the intervals between population need to be in
order to qualify as
| "sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring,
growing, or settled at
| widely spaced intervals"?).
|
| The FAA publications teach missed approaches, low
approaches
| and all manner of low flight.
|
| Beyond missed approaches, low approaches, takeoffs, and
landings, what
| flight below 500' does the FAA teach? More specifically,
what low flight
| that cannot be accomplished at an airport does the FAA
teach?
|
| If you are OVER a town, it
| can be identified and a pilot knows what altitude he is
| expect to fly. When over open range, trees, water or an
| area with no concentration of houses or buildings, that
| constitutes "sparsely" by common definition.
|
| And yet, there's at least one pilot who was found in
violation of 91.119
| while flying below 500' in "an area with no concentration
of houses or
| buildings".
|
| I don't agree with the interpretation, but given the broad
latitude the FAA
| is granted in enforcing their regulations, it's important
for every pilot to
| understand the precedents.
|
| [...]
| The FAA interpretation you say the FAA enforces in your
| region is nonsense and since they have brought cases, it
is
| open to challenge, Congressional over-sight, and public
| demonstration.
|
| I agree it would have been more informative had this pilot
contested the
| violation. As it happens, he was let off without so much
as a suspension,
| and so he was happy to not make waves. However, I am not
so naive as to
| think that he would have had an open and shut case in
contesting the action.
|
| [...] But any
| pilot expects to be able to fly a low approach and do a
| go-around.
|
| Again, completely irrelevant to the question of "sparsely
populated".
|
| Many CFIs have their students fly along and just
| a few feet above the runway, planning not to land, even
| though the speed is right ay 1.3 Vso. Some times we do
have
| tire contact, but it wasn't planned.
|
| Yes, I know. I even benefited from this practice, and
I've never heard of
| anyone being cited because of it. However, still
completely irrelevant to
| the question of "sparsely populated".
|
| If an agent of the Administrator asks you to do
something or
| clears you to do some something, that is approval by the
| Administrator.
|
| Again, completely irrelevant.
|
| The FAA has many agents, some like airplanes and some
still
| think they are a Col. in the USAF. If you take a NASA
night
| photo of the area and it is dark, it is sparsely
populated.
|
| A relevant claim, but unfounded in this context. I'm
aware of no FAA
| interpretation that describes "sparsely populated" in that
manner.
|
| [...]
| But just because you say it, I say it, the FAA says it
or
| even an NTSB law judge says it, it may not be correct.
| Congress and the US Supreme Court are the final say.
|
| Well, if you're aware of such a case in which the FAA
opinion was overruled,
| I'm all ears. If not, then your own interpretation of
"sparsely populated"
| (which I generally agree with) carries no weight
whatsoever.
|
| Pete
|
|

The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow. If it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco...FR_Symbols.pdf



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
: "Jim Macklin" wrote in message
: news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
: Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO is
: insane.
:
: Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.
:
: However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the FARs, and the NTSB has
: found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's interpretation is the one
: that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to "common definition"
: (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of "sparsely" is even more
: vague than any official definition...can you tell me exactly how "widely
: spaced" the intervals between population need to be in order to qualify as
: "sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring, growing, or settled at
: widely spaced intervals"?).
:

In article ,
Jose wrote:
Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there is
nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach" will
only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon which
your aircraft can land.

I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for
best glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to
see if one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using the
procedures one is practicing.

Well, if you make it, you can land there.


JKG

Recently, Jose posted:

Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there
is nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach"
will only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon
which your aircraft can land.

I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for
best glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to
see if one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using
the procedures one is practicing.

Well, I don't need to be below 500' agl to know whether I've made the
field, and I don't practice engine outs at 600'. ;-)

Neil