FAA regs. for minimum altitudes over built-up areas

[PPL-A (Canada)]

Forgive me for not being aware of this, but I fly up in Canada, and in
our CARs (602.14 and 602.15), Canadian regs. very specifically prohibit
the operation of a fixedwing A/C over a built up area at less than 1000
feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally of the
A/C. The exception to this rule is if the A/C is conducting a
take-off, an approach, or landing.

As I have noticed in the discussion of the unforunate death of Cory
Lidle, the East River VFR corridor is about 2000 feet wide in many
places, yet fixed wing A/C are regularly flown there at altitudes as
low as 400 feet AGL, with many buildings along the shore-line up to
several hundred feet tall.

Considering that the ideal flight paths of A/C up and down this VFR
corridor are within a few hundred feet of the shoreline, this type of
flying would not be permitted in Canada.

In fact when I think about it, I spent a few weeks in Boca Raton,
Florida not too long ago and noticed that A/C are regularly flying up
and down the shore-line, well within 2000 ft horizontally of built up
areas and condos 200 - 300 feet tall, at altitudes as low as 300 feet
AGL. I know there's an airport nearby, but most of these planes were
not taking of, landing, or flying any kind of published approach. They
were, like most traffic in those NYC VFR corridors, sight-seeing.

I live, and got my training in (and above) Toronto, and this type of
low level flying isn't permitted, and rarely seen.

We have a very vocal anti-airport interest group here, and if this kind
of flying were permitted over Toronto, our downtown airport would be
under even more pressure than it aleady is to be shut down. I cannot
imagine what the reaction would be if if a private A/C actually crashed
into a building in the downtown area.

What's the FAA regs. on the matter? Is there some exception in place
for New York's VFR corridors (or Florida's beaches?)

PPL-A (Canada)

[Gary Drescher]

"PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Forgive me for not being aware of this, but I fly up in Canada, and in
> our CARs (602.14 and 602.15), Canadian regs. very specifically prohibit
> the operation of a fixedwing A/C over a built up area at less than 1000
> feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally of the
> A/C.

Same in the US, for "congested' areas.

> The exception to this rule is if the A/C is conducting a
> take-off, an approach, or landing.
>
> As I have noticed in the discussion of the unforunate death of Cory
> Lidle, the East River VFR corridor is about 2000 feet wide in many
> places, yet fixed wing A/C are regularly flown there at altitudes as
> low as 400 feet AGL, with many buildings along the shore-line up to
> several hundred feet tall.

Yup. In fact, the maximum permitted altitude in the corridor is 1100', which
is less than 1000' above nearby buildings. And the river is only about 2000'
wide, and has an island in the middle with some tall buildings. But
apparently, flying over the river isn't construed as flying over a congested
area.

--Gary

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:07:57 -0400, Gary Drescher wrote:

> But apparently, flying over the river isn't construed as flying
> over a congested area.

Though someone has pointed out that the bridges can be pretty congested.
I'm still trying to digest that one <laugh>.

- Andrew

[Bucky]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> apparently, flying over the river isn't construed as flying over a congested
> area.

Is there an FAA definition or example of what exactly is a "congested
area"? I had also heard of the 1000/2000 rule, so I was pretty
surprised to learn that the East River could be flown at under 1100
feet.

It seems that general aviationists are against against any kind of
restriction, and even Bloomberg used the analogy that just because we
have car accidents doesn't mean we shut down all the streets. But if
you have a fatal car accident at an uncontrolled intersection, it would
be pretty reasonable to make the intersection safer, maybe by adding a
stop sign or signal lights. The East River corridor is pretty crazy, a
narrow strip between 3 major airports. It doesn't seem like a bad idea
to shut it down.

[Gary Drescher]

"Bucky" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> It seems that general aviationists are against against any kind of
> restriction,

No, not if the restriction is necessary and reasonable.

> and even Bloomberg used the analogy that just because we
> have car accidents doesn't mean we shut down all the streets. But if
> you have a fatal car accident at an uncontrolled intersection, it would
> be pretty reasonable to make the intersection safer, maybe by adding a
> stop sign or signal lights.

Well, but not if there's just one accident in several decades of use, which
is the case here.

> The East River corridor is pretty crazy, a
> narrow strip between 3 major airports. It doesn't seem like a bad idea
> to shut it down.

New restrictions have in fact just gone into effect, but it's not as drastic
as shutting it down--more like installing a traffic light, to use your
analogy.

--Gary

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Considering the amount of traffic that uses the area, think again
> about the accident rate. How many people were killed in the last 50
> years by small airplanes in NYC vs. killed in ferry accidents?

or, how many people were killed in boating accidents?


> As I doubt you are a pilot, I challenge you to go to your local
> airport, spend $8 on a NY Terminal Area VFR chart, read the legend to
> understand what's on it, and go take a sightseeing flight and see the
> actual airspace from an actual aircraft. Then come back and tell us
> what kaos it really is.
>
> Busy does not automatically mean kaos.

Chaos?

(I 'm not busting your chops, just asking)

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

[Jim Macklin]

over water you can fly at just clear as long as you stay 500
feet from people, boats and suchlike.



"Bucky" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| Gary Drescher wrote:
| > apparently, flying over the river isn't construed as
flying over a congested
| > area.
|
| Is there an FAA definition or example of what exactly is a
"congested
| area"? I had also heard of the 1000/2000 rule, so I was
pretty
| surprised to learn that the East River could be flown at
under 1100
| feet.
|
| It seems that general aviationists are against against any
kind of
| restriction, and even Bloomberg used the analogy that just
because we
| have car accidents doesn't mean we shut down all the
streets. But if
| you have a fatal car accident at an uncontrolled
intersection, it would
| be pretty reasonable to make the intersection safer, maybe
by adding a
| stop sign or signal lights. The East River corridor is
pretty crazy, a
| narrow strip between 3 major airports. It doesn't seem
like a bad idea
| to shut it down.
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Bucky" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> apparently, flying over the river isn't construed as flying over a
>> congested
>> area.
>
> Is there an FAA definition or example of what exactly is a "congested
> area"? I had also heard of the 1000/2000 rule, so I was pretty
> surprised to learn that the East River could be flown at under 1100
> feet.

There is no official definition, no. In fact, here in the Puget Sound area,
the Seattle FSDO has cited at least one pilot I know of for flying too low
in a "congested area" even though he was over a river that was in an area
most of us would consider rural.

Obviously there is a difference of opinion among FAA inspectors as to what
is considered "congested area".

To further complicate things, a common enough operation around Seattle is to
orbit Elliott Bay to enjoy the view of the Seattle skyline. VFR traffic
over the bay is restricted above by the Seattle Class B airspace, and
there's no way anyone is more than 1000' above the buildings, even as they
may well get within 2000' of them.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the guy I know should have
fought harder against his violation. We see so many of these apparent
exceptions, all relating to flight over water. It does seem to me that the
wording of the regulation seems to exclude flight over water...I just don't
see any way to consider open water to be in any way a "congested area OF a
city" (emphasis mine).

As far as this specific accident goes, it does puzzle me that anyone would
choose to turn into the city. I'm not that familiar with the area, but it
seems to me that the west side of the river is much less obstructed (that
was my impression the couple of times I've been there). Oh well...

Pete

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article om>,
"Bucky" > wrote:

> Gary Drescher wrote:
> > apparently, flying over the river isn't construed as flying over a congested
> > area.
>
> Is there an FAA definition or example of what exactly is a "congested
> area"? I had also heard of the 1000/2000 rule, so I was pretty
> surprised to learn that the East River could be flown at under 1100
> feet.
>
> It seems that general aviationists are against against any kind of
> restriction, and even Bloomberg used the analogy that just because we
> have car accidents doesn't mean we shut down all the streets. But if
> you have a fatal car accident at an uncontrolled intersection, it would
> be pretty reasonable to make the intersection safer, maybe by adding a
> stop sign or signal lights. The East River corridor is pretty crazy, a
> narrow strip between 3 major airports. It doesn't seem like a bad idea
> to shut it down.

"It's the freedom, stupid!"

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:38:54 +0000, B A R R Y wrote:

>>Chaos?
>>
>>
> YES!!! THAT'S IT!!!

Too bad. I thought it was an amusing reference to "Get Smart".

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:57:46 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:

> over water you can fly at just clear as long as you stay 500 feet from
> people, boats and suchlike.

Wouldn't flight over an ocean liner constitute "congested"?

<Laugh>

- Andrew

[Jim Macklin]

Don't forget the United Network Command for Law Enforcement.
And Mr. Steed and Emma Peel investigated FOG and SMOG.


"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:38:54 +0000, B A R R Y wrote:
|
| >>Chaos?
| >>
| >>
| > YES!!! THAT'S IT!!!
|
| Too bad. I thought it was an amusing reference to "Get
Smart".
|
| - Andrew
|

[Jim Macklin]

No, but it is a structure. But if you're dropping life
jackets you are exempt.



"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:57:46 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > over water you can fly at just clear as long as you stay
500 feet from
| > people, boats and suchlike.
|
| Wouldn't flight over an ocean liner constitute
"congested"?
|
| <Laugh>
|
| - Andrew
|

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Considering that the ideal flight paths of A/C up and down this VFR
> corridor are within a few hundred feet of the shoreline, this type of
> flying would not be permitted in Canada.

Sounds like yet another reason not to live up in the frozen north, eh?

> In fact when I think about it, I spent a few weeks in Boca Raton,
> Florida not too long ago and noticed that A/C are regularly flying up
> and down the shore-line, well within 2000 ft horizontally of built up
> areas and condos 200 - 300 feet tall, at altitudes as low as 300 feet
> AGL. I know there's an airport nearby, but most of these planes were
> not taking of, landing, or flying any kind of published approach. They
> were, like most traffic in those NYC VFR corridors, sight-seeing.

And they weren't causing any problems... Imagine that, freedom to do
something as long as you're not causing problems... Radical concept, eh?

> I live, and got my training in (and above) Toronto, and this type of
> low level flying isn't permitted, and rarely seen.

More to your loss, eh?

> We have a very vocal anti-airport interest group here, and if this kind
> of flying were permitted over Toronto, our downtown airport would be
> under even more pressure than it aleady is to be shut down. I cannot
> imagine what the reaction would be if if a private A/C actually crashed
> into a building in the downtown area.

Well, as long as it doesn't destroy any of your cultural icons like a Tim
Hortons...

[Bucky]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Wouldn't flight over an ocean liner constitute "congested"?

What if the passengers all had stuffy noses?

[Jim Macklin]

Missed it by that much.



"B A R R Y" > wrote in
message ...
| On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:35:38 -0400, Andrew Gideon
>
| wrote:
|
|
| >Too bad. I thought it was an amusing reference to "Get
Smart".
| >
| > - Andrew
|
| I forgot all about "Get Smart". <G>

[PPL-A (Canada)]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "PPL-A (Canada)" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Considering that the ideal flight paths of A/C up and down this VFR
> > corridor are within a few hundred feet of the shoreline, this type of
> > flying would not be permitted in Canada.
>
> Sounds like yet another reason not to live up in the frozen north, eh?
>
> > In fact when I think about it, I spent a few weeks in Boca Raton,
> > Florida not too long ago and noticed that A/C are regularly flying up
> > and down the shore-line, well within 2000 ft horizontally of built up
> > areas and condos 200 - 300 feet tall, at altitudes as low as 300 feet
> > AGL. I know there's an airport nearby, but most of these planes were
> > not taking of, landing, or flying any kind of published approach. They
> > were, like most traffic in those NYC VFR corridors, sight-seeing.
>
> And they weren't causing any problems... Imagine that, freedom to do
> something as long as you're not causing problems... Radical concept, eh?
>
> > I live, and got my training in (and above) Toronto, and this type of
> > low level flying isn't permitted, and rarely seen.
>
> More to your loss, eh?
>
> > We have a very vocal anti-airport interest group here, and if this kind
> > of flying were permitted over Toronto, our downtown airport would be
> > under even more pressure than it aleady is to be shut down. I cannot
> > imagine what the reaction would be if if a private A/C actually crashed
> > into a building in the downtown area.
>
> Well, as long as it doesn't destroy any of your cultural icons like a Tim
> Hortons...


Nice post ... very nice, thoughtful, and helpful.

I would gladly give up this so-called cultural icon of ours if you down
there could but for a few years do without your most iconic franchises
.... arrogance, ignorance, and selfishness.

Have fun then, buzzing your beaches, roof-tops, and tree-tops in the
name of "freedom", until your number comes up ... hell the FAA ought to
give you a special suit to do it in with a cape and everything ...

PPL-A