A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Flying over the runway is illegal?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 28th 06, 04:04 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default Flying over the runway is illegal?

"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


  #2  
Old July 28th 06, 04:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Macklin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,070
Default Flying over the runway is illegal?

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
|
|


  #3  
Old July 28th 06, 01:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
.Blueskies.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default Flying over the runway is illegal?

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"?).
:


  #4  
Old July 28th 06, 01:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Macklin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,070
Default Flying over the runway is illegal?

Actually, the yellow area is a representation of the way a
city looks at night, the pattern of the lights.

see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
and then browse to find useful info. For instance Greeley
Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.



".Blueskies." wrote in
message
. com...
| 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"?).
| :
|
|


  #5  
Old July 28th 06, 02:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
.Blueskies.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default Flying over the runway is illegal?

According to the naco link below, these are populated areas. I know I always thought it was the outline of lights also,
but I cannot find that defined anywhere...

Those census facts are interesting - scary for my area, Kalamazoo, MI, but still interesting...



"Jim Macklin" wrote in message news:3Fnyg.84443$ZW3.22903@dukeread04...
: Actually, the yellow area is a representation of the way a
: city looks at night, the pattern of the lights.
:
: see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
: and then browse to find useful info. For instance Greeley
: Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.
:
:
:
: ".Blueskies." wrote in
: message
: . com...
: | The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow. If
: it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'?
: |
: |
: http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco...FR_Symbols.pdf
: |
: |
: |
: | "Peter Duniho" wrote in
: message ...
: | : "Jim Macklin"
: wrote in message
: | : news:bAeyg.84402$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"?).
: | :
: |
: |
:
:


  #6  
Old July 28th 06, 03:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Macklin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,070
Default Flying over the runway is illegal?

The first thing you'll notice is the big yellow blot that is
Houston. Contrary to popular belief among pilots, the yellow
does NOT signify the boundaries of the city. After all, what
good would a city boundary do for a pilot in the air? The
yellow indicates the approximate light pattern at night of
populated area from the air, which is much more useful
information. If you're flying at night, these patterns may
be the only thing you can see from, say, 8,000 feet in the
air, so looking at a recognizable pattern may be a big help
in determining where you are.

This was just a page I found on the Internet. I know that
somewhere I have a government handbook, perhaps the USAF
Navigators handbook, that gave the answer.





".Blueskies." wrote in
message
y.net...
| According to the naco link below, these are populated
areas. I know I always thought it was the outline of lights
also,
| but I cannot find that defined anywhere...
|
| Those census facts are interesting - scary for my area,
Kalamazoo, MI, but still interesting...
|
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message news:3Fnyg.84443$ZW3.22903@dukeread04...
| : Actually, the yellow area is a representation of the way
a
| : city looks at night, the pattern of the lights.
| :
| : see
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
| : and then browse to find useful info. For instance
Greeley
| : Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.
| :
| :
| :
| : ".Blueskies." wrote in
| : message
| : . com...
| : | The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow.
If
| : it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'?
| : |
| : |
| :
http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco...FR_Symbols.pdf
| : |
| : |
| : |
| : | "Peter Duniho" wrote in
| : message ...
| : | : "Jim Macklin"
| : wrote in message
| : | : news:bAeyg.84402$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"?).
| : | :
| : |
| : |
| :
| :
|
|


  #7  
Old July 28th 06, 04:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default Flying over the runway is illegal?

".Blueskies." wrote in message
y.net...
According to the naco link below, these are populated areas. I know I
always thought it was the outline of lights also,
but I cannot find that defined anywhere...


They are not defined to be "well lit areas", but they aren't an official
depiction of "non-sparsely populated areas", and as a matter of mapping
expedience, I don't doubt that the area is based upon the general nighttime
view of a region.

The most important thing to be aware of is that the VFR charts are *not*
useful for determining where you are with respect to 91.119.

Pete


  #8  
Old July 28th 06, 05:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
.Blueskies.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default Flying over the runway is illegal?


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
: ".Blueskies." wrote in message
: y.net...
: According to the naco link below, these are populated areas. I know I
: always thought it was the outline of lights also,
: but I cannot find that defined anywhere...
:
: They are not defined to be "well lit areas", but they aren't an official
: depiction of "non-sparsely populated areas", and as a matter of mapping
: expedience, I don't doubt that the area is based upon the general nighttime
: view of a region.
:
: The most important thing to be aware of is that the VFR charts are *not*
: useful for determining where you are with respect to 91.119.
:
: Pete
:
:

Do you have any references for that? The only thing I have been able to find is the NACO defined 'populated area' for
the yellow areas....

http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=nac...ary/aero_guide
http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/aero_guide

....


  #9  
Old July 29th 06, 06:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default Flying over the runway is illegal?

".Blueskies." wrote in message
. com...
Do you have any references for that?


Any references for what?

The only thing I have been able to find is the NACO defined
'populated area' for the yellow areas....


That is correct.


  #10  
Old July 28th 06, 06:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Neil Gould
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 723
Default Flying over the runway is illegal?

Recently, Jim Macklin posted:

see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
and then browse to find useful info. For instance Greeley
Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.

Well, if the county is 1,000 square miles, and all 500 people reside in a
two block neighborhood, then some areas will be densely populated! ;-)

Neil




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Our runway is being bulldozed! Jay Honeck Piloting 28 July 23rd 06 03:02 AM
"Cleared Straight-In Runway X; Report Y Miles Final" Jim Cummiskey Piloting 86 August 16th 04 06:23 PM
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep C J Campbell Owning 114 July 22nd 04 05:40 PM
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep C J Campbell Piloting 114 July 22nd 04 05:40 PM
FA: WEATHER FLYING: A PRACTICAL BOOK ON FLYING The Ink Company Aviation Marketplace 0 November 5th 03 12:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.