FAA regs. for minimum altitudes over built-up areas

Gary Drescher wrote:
apparently, flying over the river isn't construed as flying over a congested
area.

Is there an FAA definition or example of what exactly is a "congested
area"? I had also heard of the 1000/2000 rule, so I was pretty
surprised to learn that the East River could be flown at under 1100
feet.

It seems that general aviationists are against against any kind of
restriction, and even Bloomberg used the analogy that just because we
have car accidents doesn't mean we shut down all the streets. But if
you have a fatal car accident at an uncontrolled intersection, it would
be pretty reasonable to make the intersection safer, maybe by adding a
stop sign or signal lights. The East River corridor is pretty crazy, a
narrow strip between 3 major airports. It doesn't seem like a bad idea
to shut it down.

"Bucky" wrote in message
ups.com...
It seems that general aviationists are against against any kind of
restriction,

No, not if the restriction is necessary and reasonable.

and even Bloomberg used the analogy that just because we
have car accidents doesn't mean we shut down all the streets. But if
you have a fatal car accident at an uncontrolled intersection, it would
be pretty reasonable to make the intersection safer, maybe by adding a
stop sign or signal lights.

Well, but not if there's just one accident in several decades of use, which
is the case here.

The East River corridor is pretty crazy, a
narrow strip between 3 major airports. It doesn't seem like a bad idea
to shut it down.

New restrictions have in fact just gone into effect, but it's not as drastic
as shutting it down--more like installing a traffic light, to use your
analogy.

--Gary

over water you can fly at just clear as long as you stay 500
feet from people, boats and suchlike.



"Bucky" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Gary Drescher wrote:
| apparently, flying over the river isn't construed as
flying over a congested
| area.
|
| Is there an FAA definition or example of what exactly is a
"congested
| area"? I had also heard of the 1000/2000 rule, so I was
pretty
| surprised to learn that the East River could be flown at
under 1100
| feet.
|
| It seems that general aviationists are against against any
kind of
| restriction, and even Bloomberg used the analogy that just
because we
| have car accidents doesn't mean we shut down all the
streets. But if
| you have a fatal car accident at an uncontrolled
intersection, it would
| be pretty reasonable to make the intersection safer, maybe
by adding a
| stop sign or signal lights. The East River corridor is
pretty crazy, a
| narrow strip between 3 major airports. It doesn't seem
like a bad idea
| to shut it down.
|

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:57:46 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:

over water you can fly at just clear as long as you stay 500 feet from
people, boats and suchlike.

Wouldn't flight over an ocean liner constitute "congested"?

Laugh

- Andrew

No, but it is a structure. But if you're dropping life
jackets you are exempt.



"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news | On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:57:46 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| over water you can fly at just clear as long as you stay
500 feet from
| people, boats and suchlike.
|
| Wouldn't flight over an ocean liner constitute
"congested"?
|
| Laugh
|
| - Andrew
|

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Wouldn't flight over an ocean liner constitute "congested"?

What if the passengers all had stuffy noses?

"Bucky" wrote in message
ups.com...
Gary Drescher wrote:
apparently, flying over the river isn't construed as flying over a
congested
area.

Is there an FAA definition or example of what exactly is a "congested
area"? I had also heard of the 1000/2000 rule, so I was pretty
surprised to learn that the East River could be flown at under 1100
feet.

There is no official definition, no. In fact, here in the Puget Sound area,
the Seattle FSDO has cited at least one pilot I know of for flying too low
in a "congested area" even though he was over a river that was in an area
most of us would consider rural.

Obviously there is a difference of opinion among FAA inspectors as to what
is considered "congested area".

To further complicate things, a common enough operation around Seattle is to
orbit Elliott Bay to enjoy the view of the Seattle skyline. VFR traffic
over the bay is restricted above by the Seattle Class B airspace, and
there's no way anyone is more than 1000' above the buildings, even as they
may well get within 2000' of them.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the guy I know should have
fought harder against his violation. We see so many of these apparent
exceptions, all relating to flight over water. It does seem to me that the
wording of the regulation seems to exclude flight over water...I just don't
see any way to consider open water to be in any way a "congested area OF a
city" (emphasis mine).

As far as this specific accident goes, it does puzzle me that anyone would
choose to turn into the city. I'm not that familiar with the area, but it
seems to me that the west side of the river is much less obstructed (that
was my impression the couple of times I've been there). Oh well...

Pete

In article . com,
"Bucky" wrote:

Gary Drescher wrote:
apparently, flying over the river isn't construed as flying over a congested
area.

Is there an FAA definition or example of what exactly is a "congested
area"? I had also heard of the 1000/2000 rule, so I was pretty
surprised to learn that the East River could be flown at under 1100
feet.

It seems that general aviationists are against against any kind of
restriction, and even Bloomberg used the analogy that just because we
have car accidents doesn't mean we shut down all the streets. But if
you have a fatal car accident at an uncontrolled intersection, it would
be pretty reasonable to make the intersection safer, maybe by adding a
stop sign or signal lights. The East River corridor is pretty crazy, a
narrow strip between 3 major airports. It doesn't seem like a bad idea
to shut it down.

"It's the freedom, stupid!"