![]() |
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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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$ZW3.76333@dukeread04... : Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO is : insane. : : Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise. : : However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the FARs, and the NTSB has : found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's interpretation is the one : that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to "common definition" : (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of "sparsely" is even more : vague than any official definition...can you tell me exactly how "widely : spaced" the intervals between population need to be in order to qualify as : "sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring, growing, or settled at : widely spaced intervals"?). : |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Actually, the yellow area is a representation of the way a
city looks at night, the pattern of the lights. see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html and then browse to find useful info. For instance Greeley Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile. ".Blueskies." wrote in message . com... | The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow. If it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'? | | http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco...FR_Symbols.pdf | | | | "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... | : "Jim Macklin" wrote in message | : news:bAeyg.84402$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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
".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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
".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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |