Flying over the runway is illegal?

".Blueskies." wrote in message
y.net...
According to the naco link below, these are populated areas. I know I
always thought it was the outline of lights also,
but I cannot find that defined anywhere...

They are not defined to be "well lit areas", but they aren't an official
depiction of "non-sparsely populated areas", and as a matter of mapping
expedience, I don't doubt that the area is based upon the general nighttime
view of a region.

The most important thing to be aware of is that the VFR charts are *not*
useful for determining where you are with respect to 91.119.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
: ".Blueskies." wrote in message
: y.net...
: According to the naco link below, these are populated areas. I know I
: always thought it was the outline of lights also,
: but I cannot find that defined anywhere...
:
: They are not defined to be "well lit areas", but they aren't an official
: depiction of "non-sparsely populated areas", and as a matter of mapping
: expedience, I don't doubt that the area is based upon the general nighttime
: view of a region.
:
: The most important thing to be aware of is that the VFR charts are *not*
: useful for determining where you are with respect to 91.119.
:
: Pete
:
:

Do you have any references for that? The only thing I have been able to find is the NACO defined 'populated area' for
the yellow areas....

http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=nac...ary/aero_guide
http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/aero_guide

....

Recently, Jose posted:

Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there
is nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach"
will only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon
which your aircraft can land.

I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for
best glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to
see if one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using
the procedures one is practicing.

Well, I don't need to be below 500' agl to know whether I've made the
field, and I don't practice engine outs at 600'. ;-)

Neil

Recently, Jim Macklin posted:

see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
and then browse to find useful info. For instance Greeley
Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.

Well, if the county is 1,000 square miles, and all 500 people reside in a
two block neighborhood, then some areas will be densely populated! ;-)

Neil

and the rest is not populated at all.



"Neil Gould" wrote in message
y.net...
| Recently, Jim Macklin
posted:
|
| see
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
| and then browse to find useful info. For instance
Greeley
| Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.
|
| Well, if the county is 1,000 square miles, and all 500
people reside in a
| two block neighborhood, then some areas will be densely
populated! ;-)
|
| Neil
|
|
|
|

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
There is nothing in the FARs that would suggest that runway "fly overs"
are illegal.

If there is no intent to land, I'd say 91.119 certainly can be read as just
such a prohibition.


Please explain how an intent to land is a requirement of FAR 91.119?
FAR 91.119 (a) says that I may not fly below an altitude allowing a safe
emergency landing, irrespective of whether I intend to land or not. The
language, "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," provides me
with an exception to the rest of 91.119 as long as I am taking off or
landing. But, it does not indicate a violation for low-level flight as
long as I meet the requirement if paragraph (a) without violating
anything in paragraphs (b) or (c).

Aside from any other argument, it would be very difficult for anyone to
argue against an intent to land for someone performing a low-pass on an
open runway.



JKG

Please explain how an intent to land is a requirement of FAR 91.119?
FAR 91.119 (a) says that I may not fly below an altitude allowing a safe
emergency landing, irrespective of whether I intend to land or not. The
language, "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," provides me
with an exception to the rest of 91.119 as long as I am taking off or
landing.

That's not what my book says. The "except when necessary..." clause is
in front of everything. The (a) anywhe ... allowing a safe
landing... means ANYWHERE you fly, you must be albe to land without
undue hazard... IN ADDITION, even if you could land without undue
hazard, other restrictions apply (500', 1000', etc)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Please explain how an intent to land is a requirement of FAR 91.119?
FAR 91.119 (a) says that I may not fly below an altitude allowing a safe
emergency landing, irrespective of whether I intend to land or not. The
language, "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," provides me
with an exception to the rest of 91.119 as long as I am taking off or
landing.

That's not what my book says. The "except when necessary..." clause is
in front of everything. The (a) anywhe ... allowing a safe
landing... means ANYWHERE you fly, you must be albe to land without
undue hazard... IN ADDITION, even if you could land without undue
hazard, other restrictions apply (500', 1000', etc)

Jose

"Except when necessary for takeoff and landing" grants you an exception
to any other requirements in 91.119 for minimum altitudes. However, I
could fly along at 100 feet AGL over sparsely populated areas, as
permitted by 91.119(a) and (c). Last time I checked, an airport runway
was pretty sparsely populated, and I could certainly use it for an
emergency landing if I lost power.



JKG

Last time I checked, an airport runway
was pretty sparsely populated...

Oh, I don't know about that. There are probably airplanes around within
five hundred feet, and people in them or working on them. There may
also be structures.

I was at an FAA safety seminar in which the Hudson River was stated to
be "congested", as is the middle of Pennsylvania wherever there is a
highway. The context was flying the Hudson corridor. The presentor
said that the FAA granated a special document (I don't know what they
call them - memorandum of understanding?) in which they acknowledge that
it is not possible to fly over the George Washington Bridge while
remaining in the corridor (you must remain 1000 feet above it, which
puts you in class B), but they "promise not to prosecute" people who
violate the FARs by flying the corridor.

It looks like they are setting themselves up again to enforce anything
they want, by using this document as a precedent for anything being
considered "congested".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Last time I checked, an airport runway
was pretty sparsely populated...

Oh, I don't know about that. There are probably airplanes around within
five hundred feet, and people in them or working on them. There may
also be structures.

It depends on the airport and what's occurring on the surface. I would
venture to guess that most airports are rather sleepy most of the time,
and people and structures are beyond 500 feet from the runway.

Regardless, though, you'd have a tough time arguing that someone who
does low approaches, go arounds, or low passes down the runway didn't
initially intend to land.



JKG