Is this even legal??

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...

It would be very difficult to put on any type of airshow without an
FAA waver. That's pretty much standard.


A waiver would explain why the area wasn't cleared.

A rock inside your head would explain why you're so stupid.

On 2007-12-18 09:23:04 -0800, "Steven P. McNicoll"
said:


"Gig601XLBuilder" wrote in message
...

The aircraft was in/over and area that had been cleared by both CG and
police boats.


Not according to the photos.

Long telephoto lenses compress perspective, making everything look a
lot closer together than it really is. The Blue Angels do this maneuver
every year and there is a very large area cleared of boats. You cannot
see this cleared area because of the low angle of the shot and the
telephoto compression, but it is obviously there if you know something
about photography. As for anyone on the boats being 'terrified,' I
doubt it. The reason the boats were there was to watch the show and
everyone knows what the Blue Angels do every year.

Wide angle lenses have the opposite effect, spreading things out so
that they look farther apart than they really are. This is why people
who use a wide angle lens to try to take pictures of, say, tulip fields
with Mt. Baker in the background are often disappointed. They get wide
spaces of dirt between the tulips and Mt. Baker appears as a little
white dot in the background. The wise photographer uses a telephoto for
such a "wide-angle" view, creating a sea of closely packed tulips with
Mt. Baker looming like giant ice cream cone in the background.

The principle is the same in this picture. The boats in this picture
are much further apart than they appear to be and the jet is well clear
of them and not flying directly toward any of them. If the photographer
had not used a long lens, you would barely be able to see the plane at
all.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"BT" wrote in message
news

Trust... it was cleared.. there is a "air show lane".. you just don't want
to see it.


I can't see it because there are boats in the way.

"Clark" wrote in message
...

Why the very nice corridor that is readily apparent in those photos. You
do
know how to look at a photo shot through a telephoto lense now don't you?


No. Why don't you look at it and tell me how wide that "very nice corridor
is"?



Why the edict specified space was cleared. That is obvious since the show
was conducted.


What was the edict specified space? Is it the infallability of government
employees that makes it obvious?



Really now Mister McNicoll, do you have some cognitive disability of which
folks should be aware or are just being obtuse?


No.

"john smith" wrote in message
...

Being a past IAC contest director, I have written the waiver requests for
aerobatic competitions and practice boxes. IIRC, the regs call for a
deadline 400 foot from the edge of the box for aircraft under 200 kts and
1000 (or 1200?) feet deadline from for aircraft 200 knots and above. The
same rules apply to airshows.


That would make the required corridor 2000 feet wide, which is nearly half
the distance between the supporting towers of the bridge.

"Clark" wrote in message
...

No. Why don't you look at it and tell me how wide that "very nice
corridor is"?

Because you obviously don't believe me. I would rather wrestle with a pig
than continue intercourse with your obtuse behavior.

I suggest you learn how to look at photos produced through telephoto
lenses.


In other words, you have no idea how wide that "very nice corridor is".

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
No. Why don't you look at it and tell me how wide that "very nice
corridor is"?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
I suggest you learn how to look at photos produced through telephoto
lenses.

In other words, you have no idea how wide that "very nice corridor is".

I was there. I saw it from a high vantage point. It appeared to be more than
500 - 800' or so.
It is the same every year.
Historically, vessel operators are pretty cooperative from my observations of
being on the water during these events.
The CG, FD and others enforce limits when necessary.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"Clark" wrote in message
...

In other words, you have no idea how wide that "very nice corridor is".


Mr. McNicoll, you do not speak for me. Do try to remember that.


Nobody is speaking for you, your messages make it clear you have no idea how
wide that corridor is.



As I said before, I suggest you learn how to look at photos produced
through
telephoto lenses.


Your messages also make it clear there is no benefit in following your
suggestions.

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote in message
news:7cfbe3564cb76@uwe...

I was there. I saw it from a high vantage point. It appeared to be more
than
500 - 800' or so.
It is the same every year.
Historically, vessel operators are pretty cooperative from my observations
of
being on the water during these events.
The CG, FD and others enforce limits when necessary.


Thank you. That's consistent with the estimate I made based on the number
of vertical cables and distance between them. 500 - 800' wide means they
were less than 500' from persons, vessels, and structure.

On Dec 20, 2:23 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" u33403@uwe wrote in messagenews:7cfbe3564cb76@uwe...



I was there. I saw it from a high vantage point. It appeared to be more
than
500 - 800' or so.
It is the same every year.
Historically, vessel operators are pretty cooperative from my observations
of
being on the water during these events.
The CG, FD and others enforce limits when necessary.

Thank you. That's consistent with the estimate I made based on the number
of vertical cables and distance between them. 500 - 800' wide means they
were less than 500' from persons, vessels, and structure.

The 500' rule only applies to you Steve, and for good reason.