USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

"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?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?


None.

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

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.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?


Over the years, I've argued more than a couple of dozen I'd reckon. I
win about half of them.


You must have had a slam dunk case each time. Why do you have so much
trouble with the law?



Because the lateral distance between aircraft in flight is not an altitude


But that FAR is not strictly limited to regulating altitude, as it
specifies a hemispherical distance. After 45 degrees the 500'
limitation is more lateral than vertical. Altitude is a vertical
distance, not a lateral distance, but 91.119(c) also contains a
lateral restriction by implication, so it is obviously not limited
exclusively to governing altitude.


FAR 91.119 IS strictly limited to regulating altitude. FAR 91.119(c) simply
states that a pilot may not descend below 500 AGL if doing so would be
within 500 feet of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.



and is covered by another regulation.


To which particular regulation(s) that addresses lateral distance
between aircraft are you referring?


FAR 91.111.



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


My question was more socratic than literal.

Further, in the above instance you requested my explanation; you did
not ask a question; notice the lack of a question mark at the end of
your sentence.


So a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to get
information in reply, is not a question unless it ends with a question mark?

You've ignored many interrogatives that DID end with question marks in this
thread.



If you truly desire to debate the issue, I will continue to indulge
you. But if your desire is to attack me personally, or attempt to
feign a sincere interest in the subject as a thinly masked veil to
conceal your attempt to establish your superiority, or some other
nonsense, you will not find my future responses forthcoming.


Indulge me, I have no desire to attack anyone personally. I don't have time
for such nonsense.



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


So you believe the grounds for the hemispherical distance restriction
imposed by FAA regulation are not valid nor applicable to lateral
distance restriction?


The hemispherical distance restriction of FAR 91.119(c) applies between an
aircraft and a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure on the surface. It
does not apply between aircraft and persons, vessels, vehicles, or
structures at altitude.



If not, why not?


Because the anti-gravity technology necessary to support these things at
altitude has yet to be invented.



Clearly, 91.229(c) implies a lateral distance, does it not?


There is no FAR 91.229.



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.


Huh?


Amnesia? On 4/23/2008 you posted:


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. ...


And I responded with:


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.



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


No.


For reference, here is 91.119(c):

(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.

Clearly, the last sentence of (c) implies a lateral component, as
there is no altitude restriction over open water and sparsely
populated areas, and a pilot may fly as low as he pleases there.


As long as he is not within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, yes.



Presumably there was a reason the FAA chose to implement a 500'
proximity limit in 91.119(c). But you believe that that reason or
justification for that restriction is inapplicable to two aircraft in
flight?


I don't believe I said anything about any reason or justification for
anything.



I'm not referring to the jurisdiction of FAR 91,119(c); I'm
referring to the _justification_ for the distance limitation contained
in it.


What of it?

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

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

How much experience have you had arguing cases in court?


Over the years, I've argued more than a couple of dozen I'd reckon. I
win about half of them.


You must have had a slam dunk case each time. Why do you have so much
trouble with the law?



Because the lateral distance between aircraft in flight is not an
altitude


But that FAR is not strictly limited to regulating altitude, as it
specifies a hemispherical distance. After 45 degrees the 500'
limitation is more lateral than vertical. Altitude is a vertical
distance, not a lateral distance, but 91.119(c) also contains a
lateral restriction by implication, so it is obviously not limited
exclusively to governing altitude.


FAR 91.119 IS strictly limited to regulating altitude. FAR 91.119(c)
simply states that a pilot may not descend below 500 AGL if doing so would
be within 500 feet of a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.



and is covered by another regulation.


To which particular regulation(s) that addresses lateral distance
between aircraft are you referring?


FAR 91.111.



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


My question was more socratic than literal.

Further, in the above instance you requested my explanation; you did
not ask a question; notice the lack of a question mark at the end of
your sentence.


So a sentence in an interrogative form, addressed to someone in order to
get information in reply, is not a question unless it ends with a question
mark?

You've ignored many interrogatives that DID end with question marks in
this thread.



If you truly desire to debate the issue, I will continue to indulge
you. But if your desire is to attack me personally, or attempt to
feign a sincere interest in the subject as a thinly masked veil to
conceal your attempt to establish your superiority, or some other
nonsense, you will not find my future responses forthcoming.


Indulge me, I have no desire to attack anyone personally. I don't have
time for such nonsense.



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


So you believe the grounds for the hemispherical distance restriction
imposed by FAA regulation are not valid nor applicable to lateral
distance restriction?


The hemispherical distance restriction of FAR 91.119(c) applies between an
aircraft and a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure on the surface. It
does not apply between aircraft and persons, vessels, vehicles, or
structures at altitude.



If not, why not?


Because the anti-gravity technology necessary to support these things at
altitude has yet to be invented.



Clearly, 91.229(c) implies a lateral distance, does it not?


There is no FAR 91.229.



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.


Huh?


Amnesia? On 4/23/2008 you posted:


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. ...


And I responded with:


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.



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


No.


For reference, here is 91.119(c):

(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.

Clearly, the last sentence of (c) implies a lateral component, as
there is no altitude restriction over open water and sparsely
populated areas, and a pilot may fly as low as he pleases there.


As long as he is not within 500' of any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure, yes.



Presumably there was a reason the FAA chose to implement a 500'
proximity limit in 91.119(c). But you believe that that reason or
justification for that restriction is inapplicable to two aircraft in
flight?


I don't believe I said anything about any reason or justification for
anything.



I'm not referring to the jurisdiction of FAR 91,119(c); I'm
referring to the _justification_ for the distance limitation contained
in it.


What of it?

Larry, if you find these questions are too difficult please say so. I'll
try to rephrase them using smaller words.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Larry, if you find these questions are too difficult please say so. I'll
try to rephrase them using smaller words.



I think something shiny must have caught his eye.