Flying over the runway is illegal?

"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

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
For that matter, going around would be considered a low approach.

Semantically speaking, sure. But that's not relevant here.

In the case of a true go-around, the low-altitude approach was made for the
purpose of landing, even if no landing actually occurred. No such claim
could be made for an intentional low approach.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
For that matter, going around would be considered a low approach.

Semantically speaking, sure. But that's not relevant here.

In the case of a true go-around, the low-altitude approach was made for the
purpose of landing, even if no landing actually occurred. No such claim
could be made for an intentional low approach.

Which makes the case posted earlier interesting. Granted, one could
argue the pilot lied about the go-around, but even so....interesting.

Morgans wrote:
"Terry" wrote

Then again, being 67 and all (about my age) this guy could have been in
the throes of some medical problem on each flyover (yeah yeah he did
stop and get gas but still could have been incapacitated somehow the
entire time) and thus the crash event.

My bet is that after the high speed pass, he slowed a bit to land, turned
too steeply, and did a high speed stall.

Does make sense ...

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
|
|

come on out west.. I'll show you a municipal airport in a sparsely populated
area.. there are no homes within 7 miles, and only two hotels and a prison,
all more than 1000ft from the runway

B

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
".Blueskies." wrote in message
. com...
: I presume this may be due to 91.119, which would probably require at
least
: 500 feet AGL if there is no intent to land?

That is 500' from persons or 'property'.

Unless you are flying over a sparsely populated area, it's *at least* 500'
AGL. I think it's safe to say that anywhere that there's a "municipal
airstrip", the FAA isn't going to consider "sparsely populated".

Pete

Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And
it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation.




"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Emily" wrote in message
| . ..
| For that matter, going around would be considered a low
approach.
|
| Semantically speaking, sure. But that's not relevant
here.
|
| In the case of a true go-around, the low-altitude approach
was made for the
| purpose of landing, even if no landing actually occurred.
No such claim
| could be made for an intentional low approach.
|
|

"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:6zeyg.16263$6w.7083@fed1read11...
come on out west.. I'll show you a municipal airport in a sparsely
populated area.. there are no homes within 7 miles, and only two hotels
and a prison, all more than 1000ft from the runway

I am "out west". And you are missing the point. There's no way that the
FAA inspectors here would consider any airport with a hotel and prison
nearby to be in a "sparsely populated area".

And why no actual airport name in your post? You could actually "show" me
the airport right here. Even if I wasn't already "out west", the Internet
makes it easy.

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

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Which makes the case posted earlier interesting. Granted, one could argue
the pilot lied about the go-around, but even so....interesting.

And in fact, the FAA basically tried to argue that the pilot did lie.
Fortunately, the NTSB found that the pilot's story was more plausible than
the FAA's.