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

USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 23rd 08, 07:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 721
Default USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs


"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.


  #2  
Old April 23rd 08, 07:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

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."
  #3  
Old April 23rd 08, 08:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 721
Default USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs


"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.


  #4  
Old April 23rd 08, 09:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:05:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"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.


Mr. McNicoll, if you're unable to keep a civil tongue in your head,
you'll force me to ignore you.

I am well aware of the title.

  #5  
Old April 23rd 08, 09:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 721
Default USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:05:35 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"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.


Mr. McNicoll, if you're unable to keep a civil tongue in your head,
you'll force me to ignore you.


So ignore me.



I am well aware of the title.


Then clearly, you do not understand what it means.


  #6  
Old April 23rd 08, 10:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,953
Default USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:15:57 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:



I am well aware of the title.


Then clearly, you do not understand what it means.


I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
too.

§ 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.


It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.

The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
from being applied at altitude, IMO.

In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case. I would say
you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...

  #7  
Old May 1st 08, 02:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 721
Default USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I understand what § 91.119(c) says. An attorney will understand it
too.


You only think that you understand it.



§ 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.


It says that over open water or sparsely populated areas an aircraft
may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure. Implicit in that statement is the lack of any
lower altitude limit, with the exception of being in the proximity of
a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. But there is some ambiguity.


The only ambiguity is in what constitutes a sparsely populated area.



The fact that the first sentence states that an aircraft may not be
operated below the following altitudes can not possibly apply to
operation laterally distant from a person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, because a lateral distance is not an altitude. If the
wording had included 'person, vessel, vehicle, or structure LOCATED ON
THE GROUND', perhaps it's intent would have been clearer, but the
language as written fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit
from being applied at altitude, IMO.



"Fails to restrict the implied 500' lateral limit from being applied at
altitude" from what? A person that is not in an aircraft? An airborne
vessel? An airborne vehicle other than an aircraft? An airborne structure?

What type of vessels are operated on the GROUND?



In the subject case (presumably over a sparsely populated area) the
F-16 was alleged to have been operated in less than 500' lateral
proximity to a vehicle, another aircraft in this case.


Ehhh? A lateral distance is not an altitude but an altitude is a lateral
distance?



I would say
you are naïve if you believe, that the attorney pilot will fail to
read § 91.119(c) the way I have? Most judges are attorneys. ...


No intelligent person will read § 91.119(c) the way you have. That is not
an opinion.


  #8  
Old April 23rd 08, 07:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Al G[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 328
Default USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs


"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


 




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
USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs Larry Dighera Piloting 39 April 8th 08 07:03 PM
US Military now wants more northern NY airspace to expand those MOAs Peter R. Piloting 7 June 14th 07 01:30 PM
Gliders, transponders, and MOAs Greg Arnold Soaring 2 May 26th 06 05:13 PM
There has _got_ to be a book that discusses 'practical welding' Mike Owning 2 April 16th 06 11:15 PM
Mayor Daley discusses airport on Today Show 2/26 Jenny Wrinkler Piloting 4 February 28th 04 05:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 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.