 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dennis.Kirby(at)kirtland.
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:06 pm Post subject: Minimum allowable altitude |
 |
|
(NOTE – subject line changed, to reflect current topic. Formerly “registering an experimental aircraft.”)
"Frankd" wrote: << BTW, she told me there is no FAA definition of congested areas so I guess its up for interpretation.. (Loop hole!) >>
Frank, and Kolb Friends –
The reason a clear definition of “congested areas” is important to us is so we know when it’s necessary to keep 1000 feet above the ground, as dictated to us by the FARs. Due to a lack of a definitive definition for this term, the criteria I use is the yellow area on a sectional chart that depicts towns and cities. Many other pilots I know also use this as their interpretation of a “congested area.” If I’m not flying over yellow, I know it’s legal to be only 500 feet above the ground and man-made structures. And if it’s a remote area with no man-made structures (which is most of the state of New Mexico), the FARs allow us to fly as low as we wish, consistent with safety.
How could the FAA ever argue against THAT interpretation?
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3, 912ul in
Sandia Park, NM
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thom Riddle
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1597
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA (9G0)
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 1:32 pm Post subject: Re: Minimum allowable altitude |
|
|
"How could the FAA ever argue against THAT interpretation?
Dennis Kirby
Mark-3, 912ul in
Sandia Park, NM "
The FAA argues whatever it wants to argue and each case is taken in context of whatever else they can think of. There have been many cases (I can't quote them but have read about them) where the FAA ruled against pilot flying less than 1,000' over a group of three houses close together but a long way from any other buildings. If the FAA wants to rule against you they will with little reliance on logic.
The cynic in me says they refuse to quantitatively define a congested area for just that reason, as a catch all infraction. Because it is not quantified it is applied inconsistently and could probably be beat by a good expensive attorney. But even if you win, then you are on their "we don't like you" list. Once you are on that list, I suspect some FAA employees take great pleasure in making your life less fun than it should be.
Because of that I rarely fly below 1,000' AGL in western New York, which is nothing at all like New Mexico's outback. The only places in this part of the world that don't have communities fairly close together are the swamps, forests and of course the Great and Finger Lakes... and who wants a close to ground engine out over these areas?
If I lived in NM, I'd probably fly a lot lower a lot of the time.
| | - The Matronics Kolb-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kolb-List |
|
_________________
Thom Riddle
Buffalo, NY (9G0)
Don't worry about old age... it doesn't last very long.
- Anonymous |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
