'They want to ban recreational flying...'

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:11:26 -0700, "David Brooks"
wrote:

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
.. .
Small planes at 500 feet over populated areas are already in violation
of the FARs unless taking off and landing.

It all depends on what the meaning of the word "congested" is. If I
thought
of Duvall, WA as congested, I wouldn't have moved there.

Doesn't really matter...congested or not the rule is a 1000 over and
2000 laterally.

Sorry, Roger, but I think you are in direct contradiction of 91.119 here. To
strip it down a little:

Wellll...not in direct cradiction...I just had the altitudes wrong for
other than congested.

Fly over some ones house hidden in the trees at tree top level and you
are still in violation...OTOH it's highly unlikely they will get your
number even if it's painted phosphorescent orange and illuminated.

(b) Over congested areas. ...1000, 2000.
(c) Over other than congested areas... 500 above the surface except
over...sparsely populated areas (where the "500ft from objects" rule works).

So there are three types of terrain: congested, not congested, and sparsely

If the town has the normal block and house spacing it's probably
considered congested. (over a small area):-))

populated. I assert my small town falls into the second group, although we
treat the nearby valley as a sparsely populated area.

I can go out and skim the tree tops (in sparsely populated areas), but
if I discover I just flew over some ones house out there, I violated
the FARs.

But you only need to get 500ft above them, according to your "(in sparsely
populated areas)". Common courtesy would suggest more, but not the
regulations.

Don't fly low over towns, or rural subdivisions ... which would be
classed as congested areas, but that doesn't relieve the pilot from
not flying low over some ones home.

As I implied with the Clintonian reference, it depends whether rural
subdivisions are defined as congested (is there a federal definition of the
word?). If they are, you have a point, but I think you still made a logical
slip in the first statement.

Nahhh...never happen :-))
Not long ago (within the last couple of years) one of the aviation
mags had an article on this topic as to what defines the categories.


Again, we're just arguing regs here. I try to stay 1000ft above my neighbors
no matter where they live.

It helps for good relations, but even being able to see, or hear a
small plane is too close for some.

Have you ever gone over to alt.activism.noise.polution? Now there you
will find some extreme views. There are even a few with justifiable
complaints. There are also some that fall into the lunatic fringe
that propose extreme measures for the elimination of noise..

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

-- David Brooks