Mxsmanic wrote:
Three feet would make me uncomfortable, but to each his own.

It also wouldn't be legal, since it violates 91.119(a), although in
Texas I suppose there isn't anyone around to watch and enforce.

You are mistaken for one of two mutually exclusive reasons:

First reason:
He said he could have landed in the event of engine failure and there was
no persons or property at risk.

Second reason:
Applicability. Actually this is the second time you would have made this
particular mistake. Read section 91.1 and then read part 103 (it's a pretty
short read, as FARs go!). What type of plane do think Danny could have been
flying?

(In a previous thread the OP had specifically stated he was flying an
ultralight and you asserted he had been in violation of 91.119. Part 91 is
not applicable to ultralights.)