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.

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. ...

"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.

On May 2, 1:16*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text -


Sorry to interrupt, but aren't the relevant FARs 91.111a; 91.13a and
91.11 ?

Cheers

"WingFlaps" wrote in message
...
On May 2, 1:16 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

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


Sorry to interrupt, but aren't the relevant FARs 91.111a; 91.13a and 91.11
?


91.11? Prohibition on interference with crewmembers.?

91.111 is clearly relevant to operating near other aircraft, 91.13 could
possibly be relevant, and 91.119 completely irrelevant.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"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.


Larry, it would seem that you are incapable of providing a reasoned
response to my statements. If you see fallacy in them, define it. If
you are incapable of that, perhaps it is because there is none.

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

"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.

Larry, are you unable to address the issues raised?

On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:30:42 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


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

"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.

Larry, are you unable to address the issues raised?


To what issue do you refer?

Your interpretation of the FAR is not incorrect. Mine could be
reasonably expected to be employed by an attorney. Surely, you must
agree that there is room for differing interpretations among the FARS.

We've both expressed our views on this subject. I see no reason for
further discussion; nothing will change.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:30:42 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:GcWdnW_sPKM6X4TVnZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@earthlink. com...

"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.

Larry, are you unable to address the issues raised?


To what issue do you refer?


The sentences above that end with a question mark.



Your interpretation of the FAR is not incorrect. Mine could be
reasonably expected to be employed by an attorney.


Your misinterpretation of the FAR could not reasonably be expected to be
employed by anyone regardless of profession.



Surely, you must
agree that there is room for differing interpretations among the FARS.


Among those discussed here there is room for interpretation only on what
constitutes a sparsely populated area. If you find another person that
shares your interpretation of altitude you have found a fellow idiot.



We've both expressed our views on this subject. I see no reason for
further discussion; nothing will change.


It's not a matter of opinion.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:04:10 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 May 2008 07:30:42 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news:GcWdnW_sPKM6X4TVnZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@earthlink .com...

"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.

Larry, are you unable to address the issues raised?


To what issue do you refer?


The sentences above that end with a question mark.



Your interpretation of the FAR is not incorrect. Mine could be
reasonably expected to be employed by an attorney.


Your misinterpretation of the FAR could not reasonably be expected to be
employed by anyone regardless of profession.



Surely, you must
agree that there is room for differing interpretations among the FARS.


Among those discussed here there is room for interpretation only on what
constitutes a sparsely populated area. If you find another person that
shares your interpretation of altitude you have found a fellow idiot.



We've both expressed our views on this subject. I see no reason for
further discussion; nothing will change.


It's not a matter of opinion.


How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?