Flight over densely populated areas

[JK]

I have been planning to build my own airplane for quite a while, but I have
a nagging question that I never see addressed. FAR Part 91.319 (c) appears
to prohibit flight of experimental aircraft over "densely populated areas"
(whatever that means).

The entire text is: "Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in
special operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an
experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested
airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for
particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over a
densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with terms
and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of safety in
air commerce."

How do the rest of you deal with this? Does the "Unless otherwise
authorized ..." part help somehow? Do you avoid densely populated areas?

Thanks
John

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

JK asks:

> ..... Does the "Unless otherwise
> authorized ..." part help somehow?

Yup. The operating limitations you get when you get your airworthiness
certificate will allow you to fly anywhere you want (in essense, remove
the restriction) after you finish your 25 or 40 hour restricted Phase I
period.

>....Do you avoid densely populated areas?

Nope. Don't have to.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

[Kyle Boatright]

"JK" > wrote in message
link.net...
>I have been planning to build my own airplane for quite a while, but I have
> a nagging question that I never see addressed. FAR Part 91.319 (c)
> appears
> to prohibit flight of experimental aircraft over "densely populated areas"
> (whatever that means).
>
> The entire text is: "Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in
> special operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has
> an
> experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested
> airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for
> particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over a
> densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with terms
> and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of safety in
> air commerce."
>
> How do the rest of you deal with this? Does the "Unless otherwise
> authorized ..." part help somehow? Do you avoid densely populated areas?
>
> Thanks
> John

This limitation is only in effect during "Phase 1" testing - the first 25 or
40 hours of flight. After that, your experimental can fly anywhere a
certified ship can.

Five years or more ago, the rule was as you quoted in your post, but it (or
the interpretation) has changed. Older homebuilts may still carry the
restriction in their operating limitations. However, the Feds will update
those "old" operating restrictions if the owner requests.

KB

[abripl]

The typical newer operating limitations have two parts relating to
that.
(5) Except for takeoffs and landings, this aircraft may not be operated
over densely populated areas or in congested airways.
(6) This aircraft is prohibited from operating in congested airways or
over densely populated aras unless directed by Air Traffic Control, or
unless sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency
landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons
or property on the surface.

It still has a statement relating to such flights but it really affords
a way out. (5) allows you to go into/outoff airports. (6) allows you to
go over any densely populated area if directed by ATC (all you need is
flight following, or permit to transgress the airspace (normal for any
GA)) and it allows you to go over the area if you are high enough with
gliding distance to a "safe landing". With a gliding ratio of 10 you
should be able to glide to a non populated area if you are at 10K feet
easily in most cases.

Some limitations place (5) into phase one only. But think about it: (5)
allows to fly without ATC guidance into/outoff populated area airports.

Does anybody have operating limitations without either (5) or (6)?

JK wrote:
> I have been planning to build my own airplane for quite a while, but
I have
> a nagging question that I never see addressed. FAR Part 91.319 (c)
appears
> to prohibit flight of experimental aircraft over "densely populated
areas"
> (whatever that means).
>
> The entire text is: "Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator
in
> special operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that
has an
> experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a
congested
> airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for
> particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted
over a
> densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with
terms
> and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of
safety in
> air commerce."
>
> How do the rest of you deal with this? Does the "Unless otherwise
> authorized ..." part help somehow? Do you avoid densely populated
areas?
>
> Thanks
> John

[L.D.]

abripl wrote:

>The typical newer operating limitations have two parts relating to
>that.
>(5) Except for takeoffs and landings, this aircraft may not be operated
>over densely populated areas or in congested airways.
>(6) This aircraft is prohibited from operating in congested airways or
>over densely populated aras unless directed by Air Traffic Control, or
>unless sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency
>landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons
>or property on the surface.
>
>It still has a statement relating to such flights but it really affords
>a way out. (5) allows you to go into/outoff airports. (6) allows you to
>go over any densely populated area if directed by ATC (all you need is
>flight following, or permit to transgress the airspace (normal for any
>GA)) and it allows you to go over the area if you are high enough with
>gliding distance to a "safe landing". With a gliding ratio of 10 you
>should be able to glide to a non populated area if you are at 10K feet
>easily in most cases.
>
>Some limitations place (5) into phase one only. But think about it: (5)
>allows to fly without ATC guidance into/outoff populated area airports.
>
>Does anybody have operating limitations without either (5) or (6)?
>
>JK wrote:
>
>
>>I have been planning to build my own airplane for quite a while, but
>>
>>
>I have
>
>
>>a nagging question that I never see addressed. FAR Part 91.319 (c)
>>
>>
>appears
>
>
>>to prohibit flight of experimental aircraft over "densely populated
>>
>>
>areas"
>
>
>>(whatever that means).
>>
>>The entire text is: "Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator
>>
>>
>in
>
>
>>special operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that
>>
>>
>has an
>
>
>>experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a
>>
>>
>congested
>
>
>>airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for
>>particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted
>>
>>
>over a
>
>
>>densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with
>>
>>
>terms
>
>
>>and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of
>>
>>
>safety in
>
>
>>air commerce."
>>
>>How do the rest of you deal with this? Does the "Unless otherwise
>>authorized ..." part help somehow? Do you avoid densely populated
>>
>>
>areas?
>
>
>>Thanks
>>John
>>
>>
>
>
>
About 10 years ago I got my hands slapped for flying over a congested
area. I ask them what a congested area is. They said if more than 1
building was in a sq. mile, it is congested. I said show me in the regs
and they couldn't. When they said if I agree to a letter of instruction
in my records that would be removed in 2 years if no other violations of
this type occurred , I agreed to that.

[Montblack]

(L.D. wrote)
> About 10 years ago I got my hands slapped for flying over a congested
> area. I ask them what a congested area is. They said if more than 1
> building was in a sq. mile, it is congested. I said show me in the regs
> and they couldn't. When they said if I agree to a letter of instruction
> in my records that would be removed in 2 years if no other violations of
> this type occurred , I agreed to that.


Did they replace the Letter of Instruction in your file with a form stating
that a Letter of Instruction had been expunged from you records? <g>

BTW, you are now on double-secret-probation for not trimming your post :-)


Montblack

[abripl]

Amazing that you even agreed. One building per sqare mile is hardly a
farm house per farm section. Don't count the barn. Thats crazy.
There is hardly any place you could fly in US with that definition.

L.D. wrote:
> About 10 years ago I got my hands slapped for flying over a congested

> area. I ask them what a congested area is. They said if more than 1
> building was in a sq. mile, it is congested. I said show me in the
regs
> and they couldn't. When they said if I agree to a letter of
instruction
> in my records that would be removed in 2 years if no other violations
of
> this type occurred , I agreed to that.

[Morgans]

> BTW, you are now on double-secret-probation for not trimming your post
:-)

AND for not posting in plain text. That post showed up so big, I had to
scroll back and forth to read it, which I didn't. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> AND for not posting in plain text. That post showed up so big, I had to
> scroll back and forth to read it, which I didn't. <g>


His post showed up in plain text on this end - and I will, from time to
time, get posts where I must scroll back and forth to read them - but his
looked 100% normal here.

I'm using Outllok Express 6.0 ...still (I gave up on T-bird for newsgroups.
I tried all of the suggestions. In the end I stuck with OE as my newsreader)


Montblack

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote > His post showed up
in plain text on this end - and I will, from time to
> time, get posts where I must scroll back and forth to read them - but his
> looked 100% normal here.
>
> I'm using Outllok Express 6.0 ...still (I gave up on T-bird for
newsgroups.
> I tried all of the suggestions. In the end I stuck with OE as my
newsreader)
>
>
> Montblack
>
O.K., I'm puzzled. I also am using OE 6.0, and his font was about 2 times
the size of normal, on my end. Any ideas on what I am doing, or what
feature I am missing?
--
Jim in NC

[LCT Paintball]

> O.K., I'm puzzled. I also am using OE 6.0, and his font was about 2 times
> the size of normal, on my end. Any ideas on what I am doing, or what
> feature I am missing?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

It came out funny on mine too. (outhouse express)

[L.D.]

abripl wrote:

>Amazing that you even agreed. One building per sqare mile is hardly a
>farm house per farm section. Don't count the barn. Thats crazy.
>There is hardly any place you could fly in US with that definition.
>
>L.D. wrote:
>
>
>>About 10 years ago I got my hands slapped for flying over a congested
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>area. I ask them what a congested area is. They said if more than 1
>>building was in a sq. mile, it is congested. I said show me in the
>>
>>
>regs
>
>
>>and they couldn't. When they said if I agree to a letter of
>>
>>
>instruction
>
>
>>in my records that would be removed in 2 years if no other violations
>>
>>
>of
>
>
>>this type occurred , I agreed to that.
>>
>>
>
>
>
Montblack, what do you mean by me not trimming my posts? Is it is
because some of the folks say the font is large? Some of the folks say
the font looks normal. Some of the folks say they have to scroll back
and forth to see it all and others say it is normal. On my machine my
post looks normal to me. What can I do to help prevent this? Looks to me
like the problem might be some of the others machine. Oh my, I just
looked in mail and NG settings and mine is set to compose in HTML and I
just changed it. Maybe that was the problem although it should have been
the same on everyones machine. I did or thought I had it to compose in
plain text and if a message came to me in HTML to ask me how to compose
it, which in that case I always said send in both plain text and html. I
don't know how it changed. Again tell me how to set it to make reading
easier.

Yes, I agreed when there was no fine of suspension. I know that the 1
building to Sq. mile is ridiculous and it wasn't even in the regs. I
have heard horror stories about what has happened to to people with the
ridiculous violations. I was happy to agree and get it behind me. And
no. I never did even check to to see if they purged it or what kind of
file they put in place if any. It has been so long now if something else
happened I would think it really wouldn't make any difference. I do
still have copy of the letter where they said it would be purged.

L.D.

[UltraJohn]

Ok, Using Knode under Linux here and everything looks normal here. Maybe
your OE 6 doesn't support the font he's using (I'm not even sure which one
your referencing, I looked back over the whole thread and they all looked
fine!). Windows has been known to do some strange things with fonts
especially if they are not windoze generated fonts!
John

I just wish knode would handle multi-part's!




Morgans wrote:

>>>
> O.K., I'm puzzled. I also am using OE 6.0, and his font was about 2 times
> the size of normal, on my end. Any ideas on what I am doing, or what
> feature I am missing?

[UltraJohn]

L.D. wrote:



LD
What part of the country were/are you in?
John

[Morgans]

"LCT Paintball" > wrote in message
> It came out funny on mine too. (outhouse express)

I found under the tools-options-read, check the read in plain text box, and
everything is better, except the line wrap. That still sucks. So the moral
of the story for everyone is POST IN PLAIN TEXT, if you want your post to be
read by everyone.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Carriere]

L.D. wrote:
> don't know how it changed. Again tell me how to set it to make reading
> easier.

In your reply, you simply delete as much or little of the earlier
posts that are not relevant to your answer.

By the way, in about ten years on newsgroups, it's exceedingly rare
for someone, such as you, who has been called out for not trimming
posts, to respond so politely and intelligently rather than getting
defensive. I have to say- you da man!

[Morgans]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote

> By the way, in about ten years on newsgroups, it's exceedingly rare
> for someone, such as you, who has been called out for not trimming
> posts, to respond so politely and intelligently rather than getting
> defensive. I have to say- you da man!

Yeah, way to go. You might be at least, educateable! <g>

I usually trim all of the posters except the last one, and then, only leave
the part of the last post that I am replying to. If someone wants to see
earlier comments, they can back up a couple of posts.

My goal is to make it so the next reader can read my post without scrolling.
Of course, that is not possible, when I ramble on, too long. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Jim Carriere" wrote)
> By the way, in about ten years on newsgroups, it's exceedingly rare for
> someone, such as you, who has been called out for not trimming posts, to
> respond so politely and intelligently rather than getting defensive. I
> have to say- you da man!


I wholeheartedly second what Jim says above.

I got nudged on trimming my posts about 7 years ago. I've been nailed on any
number of other things since then. <g>


Montblack