![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |