USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

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.