USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

Six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet:


Uhh, no it isn't. Six hundred feet is more than 500 feet.



§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet
above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle,
or structure.


I fail to see the connection between minimum safe altitudes and lateral
separation between aircraft.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:18:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

Six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet:


Uhh, no it isn't. Six hundred feet is more than 500 feet.



§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet
above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle,
or structure.


I fail to see the connection between minimum safe altitudes and lateral
separation between aircraft.


Perhaps you know of other separation criteria that may have applied in
the situation under discussion.

Lacking that, I believe § 91.119 to be applicable in this case.


How do you interpret the intent of this sentence?

In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500
feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

I infer 'closer' to include laterally as well as vertically. If
that's not correct, then the word 'above' or 'over' would have been
used.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:18:04 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

Six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet:


Uhh, no it isn't. Six hundred feet is more than 500 feet.



§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet
above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle,
or structure.


I fail to see the connection between minimum safe altitudes and lateral
separation between aircraft.


Perhaps you know of other separation criteria that may have applied in
the situation under discussion.


There are none. FAR 91.111(a) says only, "No person may operate an aircraft
so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard." FAR
91.111(b) says, "No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight
except by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.", but to my knowledge there is no definition of "formation
flight" in 14 CFR Part 1.



Lacking that, I believe § 91.119 to be applicable in this case.


How do you interpret the intent of this sentence?

In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500
feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

I infer 'closer' to include laterally as well as vertically. If
that's not correct, then the word 'above' or 'over' would have been
used.


Yeah, but you also believe six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet,
so your beliefs carry little weight.

I infer it to mean there is a hemisphere of 500' radius centered on any
person, vessel, or structure on the surface within which an aircraft may not
be flown.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:05:21 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

[snip]


Lacking that, I believe § 91.119 to be applicable in this case.


How do you interpret the intent of this sentence?

In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500
feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

I infer 'closer' to include laterally as well as vertically. If
that's not correct, then the word 'above' or 'over' would have been
used.


Yeah, but you also believe six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet,
so your beliefs carry little weight.

I believe that 20% is a significant difference. In this case it
provides a cushion that arguably places the military aircraft far
enough beyond the 500 foot limit of 91.119(b), that there is little
chance of the AF incriminating themselves.

Why do you believe that 20% diminishes the weight of my belief? What
distance do you believe would be adequate to overcome your disregard
for my belief?


I infer it to mean there is a hemisphere of 500' radius centered on any
person, vessel, or structure on the surface within which an aircraft may not
be flown.


That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I believe that 20% is a significant difference. In this case it
provides a cushion that arguably places the military aircraft far
enough beyond the 500 foot limit of 91.119(b), that there is little
chance of the AF incriminating themselves.


Ya think? Please explain how you determined 600 feet is 20% less than 500
feet. I wanna see your math.



Why do you believe that 20% diminishes the weight of my belief? What
distance do you believe would be adequate to overcome your disregard
for my belief?


The fact that you believe six hundred feet is markedly less than 500 feet is
what diminishes the weight of your belief.



That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.


Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:03:47 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Please explain how you determined 600 feet is 20% less than 500
feet. I wanna see your math.


Oops! Thanks for pointing out my error.




That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.


Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.


Altitude isn't mentioned in that sentence. The word used is "closer."

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

That is also a reasonable and non-contradictory interpretation. Your
inference may be implicit in the "In those cases, the aircraft may not
be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure." wording of 91.119(b), but it's not explicit.


Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.


Altitude isn't mentioned in that sentence. The word used is "closer."


Larry, if you'd pull your head out of your ass and took a look at the title
of FAR 91.119 you'd find altitude mentioned there.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...



Altitude is explicitly a distance upward, not laterally.

Or in the case of a pilot, downward.



Least important a
The altitude above me
The runway behind me
The gas in the fuel truck
and 1 second ago...

Al G