Experimental Certificate Granted UAV If MAC "Extremely Improbable"!

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


...and within gliding distance of a landing site.

Which regulation are you quoting here?

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.3.10&idno=14
CFE Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91-GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Your entire quote was: "Human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000' feet above
congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing site."

Your justification for that was a description of minimum altitudes, not a
restriction to be withing gliding distance of a landing site.

Is there another reg stipulating such a restriction?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:11:05 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


...and within gliding distance of a landing site.

Which regulation are you quoting here?

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.3.10&idno=14
CFE Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91-GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Your entire quote was: "Human piloted aircraft must remain 1,000' feet above
congested areas, and within gliding distance of a landing site."

Your justification for that was a description of minimum altitudes, not a
restriction to be withing gliding distance of a landing site.


Well, when I fly low over Los Angeles, I take gliding distance into
consideration, but you've managed to find a nit. If that is the only
one you found, is it safe to assume you agreed with the remainder of
my follow up article?

Is there another reg stipulating such a restriction?

I'm not sure.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Well, when I fly low over Los Angeles, I take gliding distance into
consideration, but you've managed to find a nit. If that is the only
one you found, is it safe to assume you agreed with the remainder of
my follow up article?

Not in the least. However, it does demonstrate you haven't formed a logical
opinion, but rather attempted to back up an emotional response. There's
nothing inherently wrong with emotion, but it does tend to fly in the face
of logic.

Is there another reg stipulating such a restriction?

I'm not sure.

I submit you should be before stating otherwise.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________