Saw a low-flying rental... let the FBO know?

[Yossarian]

Driving home today I saw a 172 that I've flown many times heading toward me
slowly at about 500'. This is in SoCal, so it's obviously a densely packed
urban area. In fact I pulled over and turned my car off so I could hear if
the Cessna was having engine trouble.

I'm debating whether to inform the FBO that someone was flying one of their
planes well below the legal limit. I know exactly which plane it was
because it has a distinctive paint job, patterned after the state flag of
Texas. Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
hazard that they should know about?

[BTIZ]

how is 500ft AGL so low as to be below any limit? unless you are using the
"minimum altitude over dense metropolitan areas"

but there is also a flight school here that has aircraft painted in Texas
State colors... are you sure it was your FBO's plane? could you read the
n-number?

check out www.westairaviation.com

BT

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
> Driving home today I saw a 172 that I've flown many times heading toward
me
> slowly at about 500'. This is in SoCal, so it's obviously a densely
packed
> urban area. In fact I pulled over and turned my car off so I could hear
if
> the Cessna was having engine trouble.
>
> I'm debating whether to inform the FBO that someone was flying one of
their
> planes well below the legal limit. I know exactly which plane it was
> because it has a distinctive paint job, patterned after the state flag of
> Texas. Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
> hazard that they should know about?

[Jim Fisher]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
> hazard that they should know about?

The ability to guess at a plane's altitude form the ground is notoriously
inaccurate. There is no way you can tell unless you see him flying under a
bridge or into a radio tower.

"Let it go, Louie."

--
Jim Fisher

[Peter Duniho]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:4Hr5d.113516$yh.45140@fed1read05...
> how is 500ft AGL so low as to be below any limit? unless you are using the
> "minimum altitude over dense metropolitan areas"

Who are you quoting when you write "minimum altitude over dense metropolitan
areas". The FARs refer to "congested area".

In any case, whatever you call it, I thought he was pretty obvious in his
post that he was referring to the "congested areas" clause in the FARs. I
don't see how you failed to pick up on that.

As far as whether to report the pilot to the FBO or anyone else goes, it's
hard to say without knowing more specifics. I'm generally in favor of
reporting dangerous pilots to the FSDO, but altitude can be difficult to
estimate, and it's not clear why the original poster is so sure of the
altitude, or if the pilot was otherwise behaving dangerously.

One had better be 100% sure of what they saw before they go around making
trouble for someone else.

Pete

[Scott D.]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:31:39 -0500, Yossarian >
wrote:

>Driving home today I saw a 172 that I've flown many times heading toward me
>slowly at about 500'. This is in SoCal, so it's obviously a densely packed
>urban area. In fact I pulled over and turned my car off so I could hear if
>the Cessna was having engine trouble.
>
>I'm debating whether to inform the FBO that someone was flying one of their
>planes well below the legal limit. I know exactly which plane it was
>because it has a distinctive paint job, patterned after the state flag of
>Texas. Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
>hazard that they should know about?


Another thing to think about is, could they have been practicing a
simulated engine out and setting up for an emergency landing, then
recovering at 500 agl. Altitude is so hard to judge unless you have
some way of verifying it.


Scott D.

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:31:39 -0500, Yossarian >
wrote:

>I'm debating whether to inform the FBO that someone was flying one of their
>planes well below the legal limit

I would probably make the complaint, perhaps fudging a bit. ("He
SEEMED low to me.") I know that George would take him aside and give
him a sweet but fierce lecture, but unless there had been previous
infractions it wouldn't result in his being banned.

(I know, because George gave me one of those sweet but fierce lectures
when I propped the Cub solo in front of the airport cafe deck!)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
>> how is 500ft AGL so low as to be below any limit? unless you are
>> using the
>> "minimum altitude over dense metropolitan areas"
>
> Who are you quoting when you write "minimum altitude over dense
> metropolitan areas". The FARs refer to "congested area".

Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
never seen it.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>::

>Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
>never seen it.

It's depicted in yellow on charts.

[NW_PILOT]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
> Driving home today I saw a 172 that I've flown many times heading toward
me
> slowly at about 500'. This is in SoCal, so it's obviously a densely
packed
> urban area. In fact I pulled over and turned my car off so I could hear
if
> the Cessna was having engine trouble.
>
> I'm debating whether to inform the FBO that someone was flying one of
their
> planes well below the legal limit. I know exactly which plane it was
> because it has a distinctive paint job, patterned after the state flag of
> Texas. Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
> hazard that they should know about?


I'd call you a RAT How could you really tell how high he was? Was he
bothering you?

[Ryan Ferguson]

Yossarian wrote:

> Driving home today I saw a 172 that I've flown many times heading toward me
> slowly at about 500'. This is in SoCal, so it's obviously a densely packed
> urban area. In fact I pulled over and turned my car off so I could hear if
> the Cessna was having engine trouble.
>
> I'm debating whether to inform the FBO that someone was flying one of their
> planes well below the legal limit. I know exactly which plane it was
> because it has a distinctive paint job, patterned after the state flag of
> Texas. Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
> hazard that they should know about?

I'll take groundborne rodents for $400, Alex.

It probably wasn't a violation in the first place; you probably weren't
in a position to properly judge the airplane's altitude, anyway; and no
person was hurt or ever at risk of being hurt. Why even give it a
second thought?

"Mind your own beeswax, Johnny."

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
t...
> "Yossarian" > wrote in message
> Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
>> hazard that they should know about?
>
> The ability to guess at a plane's altitude form the ground is notoriously
> inaccurate. There is no way you can tell unless you see him flying under
> a bridge or into a radio tower.

If you have a camera with you (in your cell phone, for example), you can
take a picture from which the plane's altitude might be derived.

--Gary

> "Let it go, Louie."
>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>

[Gary Drescher]

<Scott D.> wrote in message
...
> Another thing to think about is, could they have been practicing a
> simulated engine out and setting up for an emergency landing, then
> recovering at 500 agl.

I don't see how that would be legal in a congested area. Unless you intend
to land, you're not allowed below 1000' AGL. (Flying a low approach over a
runway appears to be an unwritten exception to this rule, however.)

--Gary

[Andrew Gideon]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
>>never seen it.
>
> It's depicted in yellow on charts.

Yes? Where is that stated?

One bit of puzzlement I've always had was whether the flight down the Hudson
past Manhatten was considered over a congested area. It's not yellow, and
it's obviously over water. But with Jersey City on one side and Manhatten
on the other...?

- Andrew

[BTIZ]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
> >never seen it.
>
> It's depicted in yellow on charts.

Well.. around here.. the city is growing so fast.. the "yellow on the
charts" is only for the area for about 10 years ago..

BT

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
> never seen it.

Nope. It's a common misconception that it coincides with the yellow area on
VFR charts, but in truth there's no documentation to that effect either.
(The yellow area is simply there to provide some indication as to how the
area looks at night...and the official description is simply "Populated
Places Outlined").

However, as always, past interpretations offer guidance as to what the
"definition" might be, and one can be assured that any built-up urban area
such as the one the original poster describes would be considered
"congested".

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:3CB5d.162328$3l3.128083@attbi_s03...
> If you have a camera with you (in your cell phone, for example), you can
> take a picture from which the plane's altitude might be derived.

Might, but probably not. Most of the time, if the airplane is close enough
to provide a good distance reference based on apparent size, the photo won't
be able to include any ground reference with which to correlate and
determine an angle.

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
>
> Would I just be a rat or do you think it's a legitimate safety
> hazard that they should know about?

I would not report it.

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> ... the photo won't
> be able to include any ground reference with which to correlate and
> determine an angle.

Oh, you can add those easily with Photoshop...

Stefan

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:3CB5d.162328$3l3.128083@attbi_s03...
>> If you have a camera with you (in your cell phone, for example), you can
>> take a picture from which the plane's altitude might be derived.
>
> Might, but probably not. Most of the time, if the airplane is close
> enough to provide a good distance reference based on apparent size, the
> photo won't be able to include any ground reference with which to
> correlate and determine an angle.

True, but 1) the photographer can look at the camera and provide a
reasonable estimate of its angle (since we're not talking here about the
photograph as a source of proof that the photographer didn't lie; rather,
we're just concerned with the possibility of an erroneous impression of
distance); and 2) if a plane is really passing nearby at 500' AGL, then its
distance from the camera will be less than 1000' AGL over a wide range of
angles. Hence, the distance alone may be enough to establish that the plane
was flying illegally low, irrespective of the angle.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:fcE5d.162720$3l3.118386@attbi_s03...
> distance); and 2) if a plane is really passing nearby at 500' AGL, then
> its distance from the camera will be less than 1000' AGL over a wide range
> of angles.

Oops, that should just say 1000', not 1000' AGL.

--Gary

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
>> Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
>> never seen it.
>
> Nope. It's a common misconception that it coincides with the yellow
> area on VFR charts, but in truth there's no documentation to that
> effect either. (The yellow area is simply there to provide some
> indication as to how the area looks at night...and the official
> description is simply "Populated Places Outlined").
>
> However, as always, past interpretations offer guidance as to what the
> "definition" might be, and one can be assured that any built-up urban
> area such as the one the original poster describes would be considered
> "congested".

Well, yeah, sometimes it's obvious. But how about a residential area -
is that "congested?" I thought about that last week when I flew home
from Houston and did a hurricane damage survey of my neighborhood before
landing. I stayed above 1,000' simply because I wasn't sure.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Gary Drescher]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" wrote:
>>> Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
>>> never seen it.
>>
>> Nope. It's a common misconception that it coincides with the yellow area
>> on VFR charts, but in truth there's no documentation to that effect
>> either. (The yellow area is simply there to provide some indication as to
>> how the area looks at night...and the official description is simply
>> "Populated Places Outlined").
>>
>> However, as always, past interpretations offer guidance as to what the
>> "definition" might be, and one can be assured that any built-up urban
>> area such as the one the original poster describes would be considered
>> "congested".
>
> Well, yeah, sometimes it's obvious. But how about a residential area -
> is that "congested?" I thought about that last week when I flew home from
> Houston and did a hurricane damage survey of my neighborhood before
> landing. I stayed above 1,000' simply because I wasn't sure.

The rule of thumb I use is: in the event of engine failure, is the area
below me such that I could land there without coming dangerously close to
any people, vehicles, or buildings? If not, then it's congested.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
gonline.com...
> One bit of puzzlement I've always had was whether the flight down the
> Hudson
> past Manhatten was considered over a congested area. It's not yellow, and
> it's obviously over water. But with Jersey City on one side and Manhatten
> on the other...?

Clearly the FAA doesn't consider the Hudson congested (despite Manhattan's
proximity), since they carved out an exclusion from the Class B to allow
pilots to fly up and down the river in Class E, even though there's no way
to stay 1000' above the GWB in the Class E. (Even the obligatory 500'
distance requires maneuvering to avoid passing directly over the bridge's
support towers.)

--Gary

[Bob Martin]

> > Who are you quoting when you write "minimum altitude over dense
> > metropolitan areas". The FARs refer to "congested area".
>
> Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
> never seen it.

They decide it case-by-case to be whatever they need to bust someone.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:16:16 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>::
>
>>Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
>>never seen it.
>
>It's depicted in yellow on charts.

No it's not. The yellow is what the town would look like at night,
lighted.

Now one could logically deduce that where there were more lights,
that's a more heavily populated area than where there are less,
or no lights. But using logic while arguing with the FAA doesn't
work very well

Bela P. Havasreti

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Well, yeah, sometimes it's obvious. But how about a residential area -
> is that "congested?" I thought about that last week when I flew home from
> Houston and did a hurricane damage survey of my neighborhood before
> landing. I stayed above 1,000' simply because I wasn't sure.

Gary's rule of thumb is fine, IMHO. The one I use is to consider whether I
can remain 2000' laterally from a man-made structure. Any residential
neighborhood would not qualify, and this is probably more conservative than
the FAA would require. That is, a "residential area" where the properties
are on large lots (acreage) may not be considered "congested" by the FAA,
but would be by my rule (unless the acreage was REALLY large, like 30-40
acres per residence).

But since it brings to mind the other minimum altitude rule (about remaining
500' above any structure within 2000'), I find it fits well in the existing
rules, and it also is conservative enough to not require any exceptions
(Gary's rule doesn't work in an urban area in which there are still large
sports fields, golf courses, that sort of thing...you can safely land there
in an emergency, but the area is still congested).

Pete

[NW_PILOT]

This is a RANT read at your own risk.

This thread starter shows you how most of today's society are skull ****ed
by the public indoctrination system public school & news media to be tattle
tales (AKA Rat's or Nark's). People should be aware of their own
surroundings and mind their own ****ing business. It makes me sick seeing
all these people out there rating each other out so stupid **** that don't
hurt anyone. Ohh that's right they keep building more prisons and find new
way to fine us well you know that makes us a commodity. Prisons are full of
people that are there because they did not pay a fine because some one
ratted on them for riding their bike through a park at night.

Prisons then contract with large corporations to build their products no we
are not talking about license plates we are talking about consumer
electronics and other household items??? The corporations get charged very
little for the works space and pay the prisoners min wage per hour no
benefits. The prisons get 80% of this wage and the prisoner is taxed on the
full amount. Thus only receiving about 3% of that money. Sounds like modern
day slavery to me hum lots of hard work for little or no money come on guys
open your eye's.

Point of this rant is don't support the system don't be a mind controlled
rat mind your own ****ing business and stay out of others unless invited.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:34:05 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
> >never seen it.
>
> It's depicted in yellow on charts.

The yellow section on charts is the area that's lit up at night. Basically, it's an
area in which every street has street lights.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> The rule of thumb I use is: in the event of engine failure, is the area
> below me such that I could land there without coming dangerously close to
> any people, vehicles, or buildings? If not, then it's congested.

Sounds like a good idea to me -- I would bet that's the original idea behind the
regulation.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Peter Duniho]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> This is a RANT read at your own risk.
>
> This thread starter shows you how most of today's society are skull ****ed
> by the public indoctrination system public school & news media to be
> tattle
> tales (AKA Rat's or Nark's). People should be aware of their own
> surroundings and mind their own ****ing business.

You're pretty funny. You call it a rant, but you have so many made-up
"facts" in your post, it looks a lot more like a parody of a rant.

> It makes me sick seeing
> all these people out there rating each other out so stupid **** that don't
> hurt anyone.

We're not talking about a harmless action here. It's not "stupid **** that
don't hurt anyone", it's an action that endangers innocent bystanders on the
ground, as well as the general health of the aviation industry.

> Ohh that's right they keep building more prisons and find new
> way to fine us well you know that makes us a commodity.

No one can make you a commodity, unless you allow them to. Or something
like that.

> Prisons are full of
> people that are there because they did not pay a fine because some one
> ratted on them for riding their bike through a park at night.

Bull****. I doubt there's even a single person in prison because of that,
but for sure there's no prison that's literally full of people who are in
prison because of that.

> Prisons then contract with large corporations to build their products no
> we
> are not talking about license plates we are talking about consumer
> electronics and other household items???

Such as? All of my electronics and nearly all of my other manufactured
goods were made overseas. Some of the stuff was assembled here in the US.
What do I own that was made by prisoners? And why should I care anyway?

> The corporations get charged very
> little for the works space and pay the prisoners min wage per hour no
> benefits.

No benefits? They get free room and board. And at least they are getting
paid for their labor.

> The prisons get 80% of this wage and the prisoner is taxed on the
> full amount.

Bull****. I can't believe you seriously expect anyone to believe that.

> Thus only receiving about 3% of that money. Sounds like modern
> day slavery to me hum lots of hard work for little or no money come on
> guys
> open your eye's.

Open my eye's what?

> Point of this rant is don't support the system don't be a mind controlled
> rat mind your own ****ing business and stay out of others unless invited.

A pilot flying dangerously low IS our business. All of ours. None of your
rant would be applicable, even if it were true; the fact that it's not
simply makes it even less likely that anyone cares what you might think
about the matter.

Pete

[NW_PILOT]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This is a RANT read at your own risk.
> >
> > This thread starter shows you how most of today's society are skull
****ed
> > by the public indoctrination system public school & news media to be
> > tattle
> > tales (AKA Rat's or Nark's). People should be aware of their own
> > surroundings and mind their own ****ing business.
>
> You're pretty funny. You call it a rant, but you have so many made-up
> "facts" in your post, it looks a lot more like a parody of a rant.

Look again bud, do a google search on what you call made up facts.

>
> > It makes me sick seeing
> > all these people out there rating each other out so stupid **** that
don't
> > hurt anyone.
>
> We're not talking about a harmless action here. It's not "stupid ****
that
> don't hurt anyone", it's an action that endangers innocent bystanders on
the
> ground, as well as the general health of the aviation industry.
>
> > Ohh that's right they keep building more prisons and find new
> > way to fine us well you know that makes us a commodity.
>
> No one can make you a commodity, unless you allow them to. Or something
> like that.

The U.S. Has already made you a commodity you just cannot see it your blind
to the real world.

>
> > Prisons are full of
> > people that are there because they did not pay a fine because some one
> > ratted on them for riding their bike through a park at night.
>
> Bull****. I doubt there's even a single person in prison because of that,
> but for sure there's no prison that's literally full of people who are in
> prison because of that.

Ok then what about the transient that gets fined for sleeping on a park
bench after hours. He is not bothering anyone he gets picked up taken to
jail for trespassing or some other lame excuse. Then a heafty fine when he
goes infront of the judge. What happens when he cannot pay the fine
(remember not everyone is in your tax bracket!!) he has to sit it off or
work it off picking up trash on the streets while it collect intrest at the
maxomum allowd by law whats that a 28% APR. Oh I forgot he dont have any
transportation to go to work crew and cannot afford $1.50 for a bus ride to
the work center 15 miles away so he cannot show up now he has an escape
charge for not showing up to work crew. Yes this happens your just to self
involved to see it. Ever go sit in your local court room and watch what is
happening that is not being reported by the news media, probably not.

>
> > Prisons then contract with large corporations to build their products no
> > we
> > are not talking about license plates we are talking about consumer
> > electronics and other household items???
>
> Such as? All of my electronics and nearly all of my other manufactured
> goods were made overseas. Some of the stuff was assembled here in the US.
> What do I own that was made by prisoners? And why should I care anyway?


Here is one.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/6985870.htm


here is another site with a lot more info:

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,8867,00.html

look at the last thing under Product/service:

State: New Hampshire.
Company: GFS Manufacturing.
Product/service: Making output chokes, devices that conduct electricity in
circuit boards and used for power-supply units for a range of gadgets:
computers, telephone switching equipment, medical equipment, and avionics
equipment.
Company clients: Texas Instruments, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Siemens.

Who is Honeywell? Bendix/King

and another

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/03/0301.html


and another

http://baltimorechronicle.com/prison_labor_jun00.html

Ill stop there point proven.

why should you care? I guess you like slavery and loss of a job's that can
go to that transient sleeping on the park bench. When your employer and
industry start contracting with prisons and give your job to a person that
will do it for less money in prison then you then you will care.

Oh who else uses prison labor to build products CHINA and they are not
allowed to be exported to the united states because it is considered forced
labor. dont belive me do a google search!!!!!

>
> > The corporations get charged very
> > little for the works space and pay the prisoners min wage per hour no
> > benefits.
>
> No benefits? They get free room and board. And at least they are getting
> paid for their labor.

Wow, you must really be blind to the world that we all live in!!!!!! I would
not call being locked up in prison a benefit i'd call it being locked up to
fill a bed that makes the prison money. benefits = health care ect. Just
becuse they are in prision dose not mean that they get free health care Nope
they have to pay for it just like you and I.

>
> > The prisons get 80% of this wage and the prisoner is taxed on the
> > full amount.
>
> Bull****. I can't believe you seriously expect anyone to believe that.

Again See http://baltimorechronicle.com/prison_labor_jun00.html

>
> > Thus only receiving about 3% of that money. Sounds like modern
> > day slavery to me hum lots of hard work for little or no money come on
> > guys
> > open your eye's.
>
> Open my eye's what?

The world you are blind to and the world of rats that are being created to
make you a commodity

>
> > Point of this rant is don't support the system don't be a mind
controlled
> > rat mind your own ****ing business and stay out of others unless
invited.
>
> A pilot flying dangerously low IS our business. All of ours. None of
your
> rant would be applicable, even if it were true; the fact that it's not
> simply makes it even less likely that anyone cares what you might think
> about the matter.

Ok if you think of it that way then find out who it was and confront the
person don't be a Nark be a decent person and talk with the person about it.
There are easier ways to resolve problem's with out reporting them to big
brother. oh yes most of my rant is applicable it is how being a NARK can
lead to destroying someone's life. Well they are my thoughts and I have the
right to express them you have the right not to read them or respond to
them.

>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> Look again bud, do a google search on what you call made up facts.

Done. Found nothing.

> The U.S. Has already made you a commodity you just cannot see it your
> blind
> to the real world.

Sorry...I guess paraphrasing Eleanor Roosevelt is lost on you.

> Ok then what about the transient that gets fined for sleeping on a park
> bench after hours.

Hey, where you take your naps is not my problem.

In any case, I accept your apology for posting such a blatantly false claim
as "Prisons are full of people that are there because they did not pay a
fine because some one ratted on them for riding their bike through a park at
night".

> Ill stop there point proven.

What point? I never said prisoners weren't manufacturing things. I just
wanted to know what they were. In any case, from the resources you've
provided, it's pretty obvious that very little (and probably nothing) of
what I own was manufactured in a prison.

> why should you care? I guess you like slavery and loss of a job's that can
> go to that transient sleeping on the park bench.

No one is forcing prisoners to work. In fact, if you had taken the time to
read the links you provided, you'd have noted that the only article that
provides any information on what the *inmates* think about the concept, they
are very much in favor of it, and *compete* for the jobs.

As for the prisoners taking a job from the transient, it's highly unlikely
that transient would have been doing the job the workers in prison are
doing. If it's not being done in a prison here, it's much more likely being
done overseas. The job is already gone. Get over it.

> When your employer and
> industry start contracting with prisons and give your job to a person that
> will do it for less money in prison then you then you will care.

Again, if you'd read the articles to which you provided links, you'd have
realized that just because the prisoners are working for low wages, that
doesn't mean that the labor is cheap. There's a LOT more overhead
manufacturing in a prison, due to the security issues.

Jobs in prisons is more about prisoner rehabilitation than it is about
getting cheap labor.

> Oh who else uses prison labor to build products CHINA and they are not
> allowed to be exported to the united states because it is considered
> forced
> labor. dont belive me do a google search!!!!!

Again, read the articles. Prison labor in the US is not forced labor. None
of the articles suggest it is.

> Wow, you must really be blind to the world that we all live in!!!!!!

Nope, just blind to the world in which you live, where the government
apparently makes up excuses to imprison people, just so that they can force
them to work for essentially nothing. Thankfully, the rest of us don't
actually live in that world.

> I would
> not call being locked up in prison a benefit i'd call it being locked up
> to
> fill a bed that makes the prison money.

See what I mean? Honestly, if the government were just going around locking
people up for the free labor, don't you think you'd be in jail by now?

> benefits = health care ect.

Prisoners get free health care. The prison system is not permitted to just
let prisoners die under their care.

> Just
> becuse they are in prision dose not mean that they get free health care
> Nope
> they have to pay for it just like you and I.

Wait...if you and I are paying for health care (and for the record, I
am...dunno about you), then why do you consider that "benefits"? Please, at
least keep your own book on the same page, will you?

>> > The prisons get 80% of this wage and the prisoner is taxed on the
>> > full amount.
>>
>> Bull****. I can't believe you seriously expect anyone to believe that.
>
> Again See http://baltimorechronicle.com/prison_labor_jun00.html

And again (I'm getting a little tired of saying this), read the article
yourself. The *maximum* charge to the prisoner is 80%, and is as low as
40%, and furthermore (and most importantly), that is calculated from the
AFTER-TAX amount. I *wish* my living expenses only got calculated after I
had paid all my taxes, and that I was guaranteed to retain at least 20% of
my wages.

And may I remind you, once again, that the prison work force is voluntary.
Perhaps you'd prefer we return to the days of chain gangs building roads and
digging ditches?

>> Open my eye's what?
>
> The world you are blind to and the world of rats that are being created to
> make you a commodity

I didn't know my eye had one of those. How does it fit a whole world in
such a tiny package?

> Ok if you think of it that way then find out who it was and confront the
> person don't be a Nark be a decent person and talk with the person about
> it.

You claim not to like "big brother", and yet in our society we have privacy
laws that protect us against "big brother" as well as prevent us from
knowing who is flying the airplane in question. In any case, not everyone
is as willing to open their big mouth as you are (even if those other people
might actually have a clue) to a complete stranger.

> There are easier ways to resolve problem's with out reporting them to big
> brother.

Easier? I don't think so. What's easier than phoning the FSDO and letting
them take care of it?

> oh yes most of my rant is applicable it is how being a NARK can
> lead to destroying someone's life.

If someone's life winds up destroyed because they got reported for flying
too low, then they have been doing a lot more wrong than flying too low.
I'm guessing you think it's a travesty when a bank robber gets pulled over
and tossed into jail for 20 to life (or whatever the sentence is) after a
concerned citizen reports him for speeding?

By the way, it's "narc". As it, "narcotics officer".

> Well they are my thoughts and I have the
> right to express them you have the right not to read them or respond to
> them.

Wow, you really went off on a tangent there. Who said anything about your
rights to express your thoughts, however asinine they might be? Mainly, I'd
just be happy if you'd stop posting false information. You're welcome to
your own opinion, and you're welcome to spew them wherever you like, but you
ought to at least get your facts straight.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:19:16 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>But how about a residential area -
>is that "congested?" I thought about that last week when I flew home
>from Houston and did a hurricane damage survey of my neighborhood before
>landing. I stayed above 1,000' simply because I wasn't sure.

I regard any community as congested and subject to the 1,000-ft rule.
If I can't put down in a field or in the trees, then it's congested.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[NW_PILOT]

Whatever Ignore filter placed later.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Look again bud, do a google search on what you call made up facts.
>
> Done. Found nothing.
>
> > The U.S. Has already made you a commodity you just cannot see it your
> > blind
> > to the real world.
>
> Sorry...I guess paraphrasing Eleanor Roosevelt is lost on you.
>
> > Ok then what about the transient that gets fined for sleeping on a park
> > bench after hours.
>
> Hey, where you take your naps is not my problem.
>
> In any case, I accept your apology for posting such a blatantly false
claim
> as "Prisons are full of people that are there because they did not pay a
> fine because some one ratted on them for riding their bike through a park
at
> night".
>
> > Ill stop there point proven.
>
> What point? I never said prisoners weren't manufacturing things. I just
> wanted to know what they were. In any case, from the resources you've
> provided, it's pretty obvious that very little (and probably nothing) of
> what I own was manufactured in a prison.
>
> > why should you care? I guess you like slavery and loss of a job's that
can
> > go to that transient sleeping on the park bench.
>
> No one is forcing prisoners to work. In fact, if you had taken the time
to
> read the links you provided, you'd have noted that the only article that
> provides any information on what the *inmates* think about the concept,
they
> are very much in favor of it, and *compete* for the jobs.
>
> As for the prisoners taking a job from the transient, it's highly unlikely
> that transient would have been doing the job the workers in prison are
> doing. If it's not being done in a prison here, it's much more likely
being
> done overseas. The job is already gone. Get over it.
>
> > When your employer and
> > industry start contracting with prisons and give your job to a person
that
> > will do it for less money in prison then you then you will care.
>
> Again, if you'd read the articles to which you provided links, you'd have
> realized that just because the prisoners are working for low wages, that
> doesn't mean that the labor is cheap. There's a LOT more overhead
> manufacturing in a prison, due to the security issues.
>
> Jobs in prisons is more about prisoner rehabilitation than it is about
> getting cheap labor.
>
> > Oh who else uses prison labor to build products CHINA and they are not
> > allowed to be exported to the united states because it is considered
> > forced
> > labor. dont belive me do a google search!!!!!
>
> Again, read the articles. Prison labor in the US is not forced labor.
None
> of the articles suggest it is.
>
> > Wow, you must really be blind to the world that we all live in!!!!!!
>
> Nope, just blind to the world in which you live, where the government
> apparently makes up excuses to imprison people, just so that they can
force
> them to work for essentially nothing. Thankfully, the rest of us don't
> actually live in that world.
>
> > I would
> > not call being locked up in prison a benefit i'd call it being locked up
> > to
> > fill a bed that makes the prison money.
>
> See what I mean? Honestly, if the government were just going around
locking
> people up for the free labor, don't you think you'd be in jail by now?
>
> > benefits = health care ect.
>
> Prisoners get free health care. The prison system is not permitted to
just
> let prisoners die under their care.
>
> > Just
> > becuse they are in prision dose not mean that they get free health care
> > Nope
> > they have to pay for it just like you and I.
>
> Wait...if you and I are paying for health care (and for the record, I
> am...dunno about you), then why do you consider that "benefits"? Please,
at
> least keep your own book on the same page, will you?
>
> >> > The prisons get 80% of this wage and the prisoner is taxed on the
> >> > full amount.
> >>
> >> Bull****. I can't believe you seriously expect anyone to believe that.
> >
> > Again See http://baltimorechronicle.com/prison_labor_jun00.html
>
> And again (I'm getting a little tired of saying this), read the article
> yourself. The *maximum* charge to the prisoner is 80%, and is as low as
> 40%, and furthermore (and most importantly), that is calculated from the
> AFTER-TAX amount. I *wish* my living expenses only got calculated after I
> had paid all my taxes, and that I was guaranteed to retain at least 20% of
> my wages.
>
> And may I remind you, once again, that the prison work force is voluntary.
> Perhaps you'd prefer we return to the days of chain gangs building roads
and
> digging ditches?
>
> >> Open my eye's what?
> >
> > The world you are blind to and the world of rats that are being created
to
> > make you a commodity
>
> I didn't know my eye had one of those. How does it fit a whole world in
> such a tiny package?
>
> > Ok if you think of it that way then find out who it was and confront the
> > person don't be a Nark be a decent person and talk with the person about
> > it.
>
> You claim not to like "big brother", and yet in our society we have
privacy
> laws that protect us against "big brother" as well as prevent us from
> knowing who is flying the airplane in question. In any case, not everyone
> is as willing to open their big mouth as you are (even if those other
people
> might actually have a clue) to a complete stranger.
>
> > There are easier ways to resolve problem's with out reporting them to
big
> > brother.
>
> Easier? I don't think so. What's easier than phoning the FSDO and
letting
> them take care of it?
>
> > oh yes most of my rant is applicable it is how being a NARK can
> > lead to destroying someone's life.
>
> If someone's life winds up destroyed because they got reported for flying
> too low, then they have been doing a lot more wrong than flying too low.
> I'm guessing you think it's a travesty when a bank robber gets pulled over
> and tossed into jail for 20 to life (or whatever the sentence is) after a
> concerned citizen reports him for speeding?
>
> By the way, it's "narc". As it, "narcotics officer".
>
> > Well they are my thoughts and I have the
> > right to express them you have the right not to read them or respond to
> > them.
>
> Wow, you really went off on a tangent there. Who said anything about your
> rights to express your thoughts, however asinine they might be? Mainly,
I'd
> just be happy if you'd stop posting false information. You're welcome to
> your own opinion, and you're welcome to spew them wherever you like, but
you
> ought to at least get your facts straight.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

NW_PILOT wrote:

> This thread starter shows you how most of today's society are skull ****ed
> by the public indoctrination system public school & news media to be
> tattle tales (AKA Rat's or Nark's). People should be aware of their own
> surroundings and mind their own ****ing business. It makes me sick seeing
> all these people out there rating each other out so stupid **** that don't
> hurt anyone.

The irony is that just last night I read the article in AOPA Pilot about the
crash which involved two "below average" charter pilots. Numerous people
saw problems with their flying, but nobody wanted to report it. These
included incidents where the other pilot had to take over for one reason or
another.

So when the dice rolled the two together on a "problematic" flight, they
died...along with passengers.

It's too bad more people didn't go beyond the selfish little "mind their own
business" perspective in this case. It would have involved making waves,
which is never comfortable, but lives may have been saved.

- Andrew

[C J Campbell]

My my. We never were allowed to use such language when I was in school. Is
this what schools are turning out now?

[Andrew Gideon]

C J Campbell wrote:

> My my. We never were allowed to use such language when I was in school. Is
> this what schools are turning out now?

Look at the rest of his text (in this and other notes). English is his
second (or Nth) language. I suspect he picked up a lot from the movies we
impose upon ourselves and the rest of the world.

[Well, either that or CPAN's playback of Cheney visting the Senate <sigh>.]

His English is quite a bit better than my German (my "second" language...or
perhaps my 1.3th <grin>), so...

- Andrew

[NW_PILOT]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> NW_PILOT wrote:
>
> > This thread starter shows you how most of today's society are skull
****ed
> > by the public indoctrination system public school & news media to be
> > tattle tales (AKA Rat's or Nark's). People should be aware of their own
> > surroundings and mind their own ****ing business. It makes me sick
seeing
> > all these people out there rating each other out so stupid **** that
don't
> > hurt anyone.
>
> The irony is that just last night I read the article in AOPA Pilot about
the
> crash which involved two "below average" charter pilots. Numerous people
> saw problems with their flying, but nobody wanted to report it. These
> included incidents where the other pilot had to take over for one reason
or
> another.
>
> So when the dice rolled the two together on a "problematic" flight, they
> died...along with passengers.
>
> It's too bad more people didn't go beyond the selfish little "mind their
own
> business" perspective in this case. It would have involved making waves,
> which is never comfortable, but lives may have been saved.
>
> - Andrew
>

Wonder if the numerous people that saw problems with their flying confronted
the 2 pilots. Don't they have a neutral FAA safety counselor or something
for people to refer to other pilots? Thought I herd of somthing like this
from a CFI.

[Andrew Gideon]

NW_PILOT wrote:

> Wonder if the numerous people that saw problems with their flying
> confronted the 2 pilots.

Taking the controls away from a pilot that's botching an approach can be
considered "confrontation" of a sort, but I assume you're asking whether
anything beyond this was done.

I don't believe the article stated this one way or the other, but the
charter operation's chief pilot was (from my recollection of the article)
not brought into any such discussion. But you might want to check the
article yourself, as I could have missed details in my casual weekend
reading.

- Andrew

[Rick Durden]

Dan,

I think you were very wise to stay above 1,000 feet on that flight.
The FAA has never published a definition of a "congested area" so you
have to read the NTSB cases (enforcement actions against pilots) to
determine what the FAA considers to be a congested area. In the past
pilots have been violated for flying below 1000 feet above the highest
obstruction within 2,000 feet horizontally over an area that has at
least four houses within a half mile; a busy highway; a big group of
people (estimates were over 100) standing on an airport ramp (pilot
made a low pass down a runway that was less than 1,000 feet away); a
subdivision consisting of about 10 houses.

In general, the cases indicate that unless you are in a rural area
with only a very few farmhouses or that a highway has little traffic
on it, the FAA can and will consider it a congested area if the pilot
makes someone angry (or frightens someone...which is the most common
thing) and calls it in. The cases also make it clear that the
administrative law judge will believe the complainant about the height
of the airplane and not the pilot, because the pilot is an "interested
party". The FAA attorneys have figured out that the best way to get a
conviction is to have the person tesifying estimate the height in
"number of telephone poles high". It's effective testimony, whether
it is accurate or not, and it's nailed a number of pilots.

The best defense for the pilot is to get the radar data from the
nearest FAA radar so that he can use the hits on his airplane to show
that he was above 1,000 feet AGL. FAA almost invariably drops those
cases because that is hard data that overrules the person on the
ground making an estimate. Shortly after 9/11 I was called about a
guy who circled his town for about a half hour near sunset. Police
were waiting for him when he landed. He was silly enough to fly
around with the prop at 2,700 rpm in a Cessna 185, making all sorts of
noise, and he scared the locals so badly they flooded the emergency
number with calls. Radar data had him at 1,500 agl the entire time,
so the FAA did nothing. In talking with him I found that he was just
enjoying the sunset, loved his town and wanted to fly over it, but
didn't even think about the prop rpm and noise.

Since 9/11 there are a LOT of very frightened people out there and a
low flying airplane not only scares them, but helps make more enemies
of general aviation. A lot of pilots don't realize this and fly low
without thinking. A chat with them usually solves the problem, but
not always.

We pilots are a VERY small political group (and fragmented, for
example we can't even agree on whether or not to vote for a
presidential candidate that is an active general aviation pilot and
loves to fly) and we don't have much power against the nonpilot
majority. As a result, one low flying event can **** off enough
people that they vote to close an airport, or will swing enough votes
in that direction.

Bottom line, my suggestion is to let the FBO know and see if they will
counsel the pilot, or have a safety counselor get in touch with the
man or woman to just talk it over.

All the best,
Rick

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter Duniho" wrote:
> >> Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
> >> never seen it.
> >
> > Nope. It's a common misconception that it coincides with the yellow
> > area on VFR charts, but in truth there's no documentation to that
> > effect either. (The yellow area is simply there to provide some
> > indication as to how the area looks at night...and the official
> > description is simply "Populated Places Outlined").
> >
> > However, as always, past interpretations offer guidance as to what the
> > "definition" might be, and one can be assured that any built-up urban
> > area such as the one the original poster describes would be considered
> > "congested".
>
> Well, yeah, sometimes it's obvious. But how about a residential area -
> is that "congested?" I thought about that last week when I flew home
> from Houston and did a hurricane damage survey of my neighborhood before
> landing. I stayed above 1,000' simply because I wasn't sure.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Look at the rest of his text (in this and other notes). English is his
> second (or Nth) language.

I doubt that. I suspect English is his first language, possibly his only
one. Most non-native English speakers are MUCH more literate than he is,
especially those that post to Usenet.

[Andrew Gideon]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>> Look at the rest of his text (in this and other notes). English is his
>> second (or Nth) language.
>
> I doubt that. I suspect English is his first language, possibly his only
> one. Most non-native English speakers are MUCH more literate than he is,
> especially those that post to Usenet.

I see a fair bit of traffic on the more techie USENET groups with the broken
English of non-native speakers, so I'm not quite ready to go with your
"most non-native ..." assertion. These are often people at least somewhat
knowledgeable in the field under discussion (networking, programming,
etc.), but for whom English is a bit of a stretch.

But these rec.aviation.* groups do tend to maintain a higher level of
literacy. I'm not sure why that is.

- Andrew

[G.R. Patterson III]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> But these rec.aviation.* groups do tend to maintain a higher level of
> literacy. I'm not sure why that is.

I would guess that it's because most people who earn enough to be involved in both
aviation and usenet needed a fair amount of education to get to that point.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> I see a fair bit of traffic on the more techie USENET groups with the
> broken
> English of non-native speakers, so I'm not quite ready to go with your
> "most non-native ..." assertion. These are often people at least somewhat
> knowledgeable in the field under discussion (networking, programming,
> etc.), but for whom English is a bit of a stretch.

I suppose that depends on the techie newsgroup you're talking about. But
the two that I follow most closely are populated almost entirely by people
for whom English is not their native language. They all write better than
the person in question here (and some are pretty hard to understand).

In any case, like I said...I think it's a pretty good bet the guy's first
language is English. Non-natives don't get their panties in such a twist
over perceived conspiracies like the one he's ranting about, and his utter
lack of facility with the English language in no way rules out that language
being his first (and only).

Pete

[Andrew Gideon]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>>
>> But these rec.aviation.* groups do tend to maintain a higher level of
>> literacy. I'm not sure why that is.
>
> I would guess that it's because most people who earn enough to be involved
> in both aviation and usenet needed a fair amount of education to get to
> that point.

USENET is cheap (take that however you wish <grin>), but your point about
aviation is a good one. That may be it.

- Andrew

[Morgans]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> This is a RANT read at your own risk.
>
> This thread starter shows you how most of today's society are skull ****ed
> by the public indoctrination system public school & news media to be
tattle
> tales (AKA Rat's or Nark's). People should be aware of their own
> surroundings and mind their own ****ing business. It makes me sick seeing
> all these people out there rating each other out so stupid **** that don't
> hurt anyone. Ohh that's right they keep building more prisons and find new
> way to fine us well you know that makes us a commodity. Prisons are full
of
> people that are there because they did not pay a fine because some one
> ratted on them for riding their bike through a park at night.
>
> Prisons then contract with large corporations to build their products no
we
> are not talking about license plates we are talking about consumer
> electronics and other household items??? The corporations get charged very
> little for the works space and pay the prisoners min wage per hour no
> benefits. The prisons get 80% of this wage and the prisoner is taxed on
the
> full amount. Thus only receiving about 3% of that money. Sounds like
modern
> day slavery to me hum lots of hard work for little or no money come on
guys
> open your eye's.
>
> Point of this rant is don't support the system don't be a mind controlled
> rat mind your own ****ing business and stay out of others unless invited.

OH, NOW YOU ****ED ME OFF!

Let me see if I have this right. Don't tell on someone who is doing
something that will , in the end, result in freedom you now enjoy, being
taken away. Is that it?

Sounds pretty stupid, when it is put that way, doesn't it? If no, then keep
your attitude, and you will end up with more permanent flight restricted
areas that you will be able to keep up with. Perhaps we will all end up
having to park our little toys.

My guess is that you are under 30. Your attitude I see in our youth today.
It is counter productive. It hurts yourself. Your free and unnecessary use
of the F word gives you away too.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.770 / Virus Database: 517 - Release Date: 9/28/2004

[John Gaquin]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> This is a RANT read at your own risk.
>
> This thread starter shows you how most of today's society are skull ****ed


So..... really enjoyed that grammar class, huh?

[Jim Rosinski]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote

> > > open your eye's.
> >
> > Open my eye's what?
>
> The world you are blind to and the world of rats that are being created to
> make you a commodity

I like this humor-based approach to prodding the grammar-impaired to
clean up their act. Interesting that the target doesn't even recognize
that he's being made fun of.

Kind of a shame, since the topic is an interesting one. And I tend to
side with NW_PILOT that in general it's best to MYOB, unless someone
is being put into obvious danger by the pilot's actions. Whether it's
the socialist public schools that are at fault for engendering a "narc
on your neighbor" ethic I don't know. I do think the socialist public
schools are at fault for not teaching people how to write.

Jim Rosinski

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:45:24 -0400, "Bob Martin"
> wrote:

>> > Who are you quoting when you write "minimum altitude over dense
>> > metropolitan areas". The FARs refer to "congested area".
>>
>> Have you ever found the FAA's definition of a "congested area?" I've
>> never seen it.
>
>They decide it case-by-case to be whatever they need to bust someone.

Allow me the privilege of awarding you a "virtual" gold star for
hitting the old nail square on the head.

Bela P. Havasreti