USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:28:03 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?


None.


That's why you don't understand my position.

Please explain your conclusion that altitude is a lateral distance by
disclosing your analysis.


Of course, that is your inference, not my conclusion.

If one regulation prohibits an aircraft from approaching closer than
500' to a person or structure located on the ground (that distance
includes laterally as well as vertically), why do you believe that
that distance would not be applicable to aircraft in flight? If the
FAA had grounds for the former, why wouldn't they be applicable in the
latter? Do the reasons for the prohibition against "getting too
close" to people or structures located on the ground not apply in
flight? If not, why not?



Just as an aside to provide an example of how the court and the NTSB's
interpretations may differ, I offer the court's recent decision (see
my article on that subject) in the Torrance helo crashes. The NTSB
found the pilot to be the cause of the mishap, but the court found the
controllers culpable. Who's right? Who's likely to collect damages
from whom? Courts can be capricious. A successful attorney knows
that, and uses it to his advantage.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:28:03 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..

How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?


None.


That's why you don't understand my position.


How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?



Please explain your conclusion that altitude is a lateral distance by
disclosing your analysis.


Of course, that is your inference, not my conclusion.

If one regulation prohibits an aircraft from approaching closer than
500' to a person or structure located on the ground (that distance
includes laterally as well as vertically), why do you believe that
that distance would not be applicable to aircraft in flight?


Because the lateral distance between aircraft in flight is not an altitude
and is covered by another regulation.

Didn't you recently criticize someone for answering your question with
another question? Why don't you practice what you preach?



If the FAA had grounds for the former, why wouldn't they be applicable in
the latter?


Because the former applies to the surface and the latter applies in flight.

If you don't believe that the "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" of FAR
91.119 is limited to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures on the
surface, then please explain what persons that are not aboard aircraft,
airborne vessels, airborne vehicles other than aircraft, and airborne
structures that are covered by it.



Do the reasons for the prohibition against "getting too close" to people
or structures located
on the ground not apply in flight?


No.



Just as an aside to provide an example of how the court and the NTSB's
interpretations may differ, I offer the court's recent decision (see
my article on that subject) in the Torrance helo crashes. The NTSB
found the pilot to be the cause of the mishap, but the court found the
controllers culpable. Who's right? Who's likely to collect damages
from whom? Courts can be capricious. A successful attorney knows
that, and uses it to his advantage.


I didn't read it. If the aircraft were operating where ATC has
responsibility for separation the controllers were probably at fault. If
they were operating where the pilots were responsible for separation then at
least one of the pilots was probably at fault. Given that the NTSB tends to
have a better understanding of aviation than judges it's likely the NTSB's
finding is correct and the judge's is wrong.