"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