Congested Area?

Dallas wrote:
On 10 Jul 2008 12:09:47 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:

Just to not confuse those that don't know, the yellow on the
sectional chart indicates the area that could be expected to be
illuminated at night by street lights, lights in buildings, etc. It
is an aid to night visual navigation.

I found a reference which doesn't state it that way. Mine you, this
reference just comes from a post in another forum, but he claims to
quote the map makers:

"The "yellow" area on the charts is supposed to correspond to
developed urbanized areas. The only significant change regarding
charting in these "yellow" areas involves the depiction of
obstructions. Generally, obstructions 201' and higher above the
ground are depicted on the charts. However in these "yellow" areas,
only obstructions 300' and higher above the ground are depicted.


Seems to me the developed urbanized areas are the areas that could be
expected to be illuminated at night by street lights, lights in buildings,
etc.

Dallas wrote:
What's your opinion, is this a congested area or not?



For me, that is a congested area. Why? Just because I have a strong
feeling that if I were to do something bad in that airspace, the FAA
would consider it so. Basically, there are a lot of people down there,
and those oil tanks would up the ante.

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:15:11 -0500, Dallas
wrote:


What's your opinion, is this a congested area or not?

http://tinyurl.com/3okuon

My take is that this is an "other than congested area", but a recent
article in AOPA magazine discussing an FAA ruling gives congested area a
pretty broad definition.

I've been assuming "congested area" = pretty much wall to wall development
with streets being the best option for emergency landing.

"Other that congested area" = I took to mean that there are at least
several open areas at most times that you could bring an airplane down into
without hitting any person or property.

The FAA does not define "congested area". If the FAA wants you, any
area that you are flying over will be congested, if it advances their
cause. Didn't they define an area of ocean off of the Hawaiian shore
(not over the beach), as a congested area sometime in the past year?
RNR

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:57:13 -0400, rnruss52 wrote:

Didn't they define an area of ocean off of the Hawaiian shore
(not over the beach), as a congested area sometime in the past year?

That's the exact article I was talking about. They suspended a Gulfstream
pilot for 150 days for making low passes while filming a production.

The first 2 passes were offshore along a beach. The FAA called the beach a
congested area because they considered it an "open air assembly of
persons". - I don't have a big problem with that as there were surfers
down below when he did it.

The second pass gives me some heartburn. The pilot made a gear down, flaps
down low pass over the runway (with permission of the airport manager) and
the FAA board implicitly held that the airfield was a congested area. -

If they call an airport a congested area then my definition of a congested
area is completely invalid.

--
Dallas

Dallas wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:57:13 -0400, rnruss52 wrote:

Didn't they define an area of ocean off of the Hawaiian shore
(not over the beach), as a congested area sometime in the past year?

That's the exact article I was talking about. They suspended a Gulfstream
pilot for 150 days for making low passes while filming a production.

The first 2 passes were offshore along a beach. The FAA called the beach a
congested area because they considered it an "open air assembly of
persons". - I don't have a big problem with that as there were surfers
down below when he did it.

The second pass gives me some heartburn. The pilot made a gear down, flaps
down low pass over the runway (with permission of the airport manager) and
the FAA board implicitly held that the airfield was a congested area. -

If they call an airport a congested area then my definition of a congested
area is completely invalid.


And so is everyone else's. It just shows that the FAA will use this
particular reg as a gotcha. The plus side to this is that sooner or
later they might get a administrative judge that thinks them doing so is
the complete bull$h!t that it is an rule against them.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote in
:

Dallas wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:57:13 -0400, rnruss52 wrote:

Didn't they define an area of ocean off of the Hawaiian shore
(not over the beach), as a congested area sometime in the past year?

That's the exact article I was talking about. They suspended a
Gulfstream pilot for 150 days for making low passes while filming a
production.

The first 2 passes were offshore along a beach. The FAA called the
beach a congested area because they considered it an "open air
assembly of persons". - I don't have a big problem with that as
there were surfers down below when he did it.

The second pass gives me some heartburn. The pilot made a gear down,
flaps down low pass over the runway (with permission of the airport
manager) and the FAA board implicitly held that the airfield was a
congested area. -

If they call an airport a congested area then my definition of a
congested area is completely invalid.


And so is everyone else's. It just shows that the FAA will use this
particular reg as a gotcha. The plus side to this is that sooner or
later they might get a administrative judge that thinks them doing so
is the complete bull$h!t that it is an rule against them.


And until then, the pilot who the FAA victimizes with this bull$h!t gets to
spends many, many thousands of dollars in legal fees and expenses to fight
it.