"Why was a plane able to fly over New York?"

"John Theune" wrote in message
news:j5pZg.5298$Z46.4152@trndny05...

Since it appears that there are conflicting regulations at work here, I
wonder which one wins? 91.119 or the follow the airspace rules as defined
by the charts rule? Does 91.119 apply when you have altitude above you
but not if your restricted due to airspace? I'm going to guess that it
boils down to the phrase " Undue Hazard". It does say landing without
undue hazard it does not say must land without any damage to ground or
people.


How do you see conflicting regulations at work here?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"John Theune" wrote in message
news:j5pZg.5298$Z46.4152@trndny05...
Since it appears that there are conflicting regulations at work here, I
wonder which one wins? 91.119 or the follow the airspace rules as defined
by the charts rule? Does 91.119 apply when you have altitude above you
but not if your restricted due to airspace? I'm going to guess that it
boils down to the phrase " Undue Hazard". It does say landing without
undue hazard it does not say must land without any damage to ground or
people.


How do you see conflicting regulations at work here?


119 and it's requirement to be at a altitude that allows a landing
without undue risk to ground and the airspace restriction that says no
more then 1100 feet.

"John Theune" wrote in message
news:9oAZg.6125$qv6.4773@trnddc06...

119 and it's requirement to be at a altitude that allows a landing without
undue risk to ground and the airspace restriction that says no more then
1100 feet.


What airspace restriction says no more then 1100 feet?

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Problem is, the people who want to commit suicide by using airplanes
makes it rough on the rest of us.

Well, in this case, the problem is not the people who are wanting to commit
suicide by aircraft but rather the people who have a knee-jerk reaction to
it... Of course, these types of people have never been accused of rational
though anyway, so it's not very easy to reason with them...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"John Theune" wrote in message
news:9oAZg.6125$qv6.4773@trnddc06...
119 and it's requirement to be at a altitude that allows a landing without
undue risk to ground and the airspace restriction that says no more then
1100 feet.


What airspace restriction says no more then 1100 feet?


This discussion started on the East River flyway and also included the
Houston flyway.

On 2006-10-18, Bob Noel wrote:
But what does "undue hazard" mean? Surely it can't mean "any hazard",
so how much hazard is acceptable?

Sadly - we will only discover that when the FAA prosecutes someone.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

But what does "undue hazard" mean? Surely it can't mean "any hazard",
so how much hazard is acceptable?

Sadly - we will only discover that when the FAA prosecutes someone.

so why do you say that everyone using the corridors are in violation
of the FAR?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On 2006-10-19, Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:
Sadly - we will only discover that when the FAA prosecutes someone.

so why do you say that everyone using the corridors are in violation
of the FAR?

I didn't say that at all.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:

Sadly - we will only discover that when the FAA prosecutes someone.

so why do you say that everyone using the corridors are in violation
of the FAR?

I didn't say that at all.

my mistake, you didn't specify corridors only (even though you said "it went
on all the time in Houston. It's almost impossible to use the I-10 corridor
legally in any fixed wing plane much bigger than a Cessna 150."
You talked about flying over cities. So, my question is given that you
don't know what "undue hazard means", why do you say that everyone
flying over cities are in violation of the 91.119(a)?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On 2006-10-19, Bob Noel wrote:
my mistake, you didn't specify corridors only (even though you said "it went
on all the time in Houston. It's almost impossible to use the I-10 corridor
legally in any fixed wing plane much bigger than a Cessna 150."
You talked about flying over cities. So, my question is given that you
don't know what "undue hazard means", why do you say that everyone
flying over cities are in violation of the 91.119(a)?

We don't know for sure - but it's reasonable to assume that flying over
a place where the only outlanding options are densely populated with
people or people driving cars would, if your engine quit, cause an undue
hazard to these people.

What the FAA decides is ultimately very difficult to know. For some
violations, it attacks with zeal. For others, it simply turns a blind
eye even though it would be reasonable to argue that the reg was
violated.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de