First U.S. Pilot Jailed For A Domestic Aircraft Accident

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:51:03 -0400, John Smith wrote
in :

The problem is that the FAA has deliberately refused to define
"congested" so as to apply the term at their descretion in legal
matters. This case seems to be an example of that.

From the chart and satellite image at the links below, how would you,
or any other reader, class the area where this mishap occurred,
uncontested? Congested?

Here's a chart centered on Alexander Field South Wood County (ISW):
http://skyvector.com/perl/code?id=KISW&scale=1

Here's a satellite image:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...91231&t=h&z=13


It's unclear to me on exactly which part of the river this mishap
occurred, but personally, I would class the areas north, east, and
southwest of the field as congested. Obviously the green wetlands to
the south and west of the field are only congested with vegetation.

John Smith writes:

The problem is that the FAA has deliberately refused to define
"congested" so as to apply the term at their descretion in legal
matters. This case seems to be an example of that.

Since the pilot hit power lines and killed someone in the process in this
case, I'd tend to agree with the FAA here.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Smith writes:

The problem is that the FAA has deliberately refused to define
"congested" so as to apply the term at their descretion in legal
matters. This case seems to be an example of that.

Since the pilot hit power lines and killed someone in the process in this
case, I'd tend to agree with the FAA here.


You are a total asshole when it comes to aviation Anthony.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:40:14 -0400, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in
:

Sounds like an unfortunate accident caused by just flying to damn low.

I wonder if those power lines are charted or NOTAMed.

Here's a chart centered on Alexander Field South Wood County (ISW):
http://skyvector.com/perl/code?id=KISW&scale=1

Here's a satellite image:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...91231&t=h&z=13

Current NOTAMs:
https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/geo/ica...=KISW&radius=2

I don't find any mention of power lines across the river. How is a
pilot to know they are there?

Perhaps there is some culpability on the part of the owner of the
presumably unmarked power lines that cross the river:


The key word in the AC below is in a.1. "extensive." Is one set of wires
considered extensive?


Here's the Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1K Obstruction Marking and
Lighting:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/b993dcdfc37fcdc486257251005c4e21/$FILE/AC70_7460_1K.pdf
a. Spherical Markers. Spherical markers are used
to identify overhead wires. Markers may be of
another shape, i.e., cylindrical, provided the projected
area of such markers will not be less than that
presented by a spherical marker.

1. Size and Color.
The diameter of the markers used on extensive
catenary wires across canyons, lakes, rivers, etc.,
should be not less than 36 inches (91cm). Smaller
20-inch (51cm) spheres are permitted on less
extensive power lines or on power lines below 50 feet
(15m) above the ground and within 1,500 feet (458m)
of an airport runway end. Each marker should be a
solid color such as aviation orange, white, or yellow.

2. Installations.
(a) Spacing. Markers should be spaced
equally along the wire at intervals of approximately
200 feet (61m) or a fraction thereof. Intervals
between markers should be less in critical areas near
runway ends (i.e., 30 to 50 feet (10m to 15m)). They
should be displayed on the highest wire or by another
means at the same height as the highest wire. Where
there is more than one wire at the highest point, the
markers may be installed alternately along each wire
if the distance between adjacent markers meets the
spacing standard. This method allows the weight and
wind loading factors to be distributed.

(b) Pattern. An alternating color scheme
provides the most conspicuity against...



Operating an aircraft without adequate preflight planning is ALWAYS a
bad idea. In this case, it's not clear if there was adequate
information available to the pilot about the hazard of wires strung
across the river.

Then he should not have been site seeing with a passenger there until he
knew what was there.

When I got my helicopter rating I was taught to assume wires were every
where.

On Jun 20, 3:40*pm, "Darkwing" theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:

Sounds like an unfortunate accident caused by just flying to damn low.
Unfortunately if you screw around it can bite you, whether you're flying an
airplane or driving a car.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When I started flying, my CFI said that safe flight is found by
staying away from the edges: don't go too high or too low, don't go
too fast or too slow, keep the CG in the middle, stay away from the
clouds and don't ever take off too heavy. There is no mission
important enough to risk your and your passengers' lives to complete.
If you want to push the edges learn aerobatic flight but for the
normal GA pilot "Moderation in all things" is the key.

on 6/21/2008 4:25 PM Buster Hymen said the following:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Smith writes:

The problem is that the FAA has deliberately refused to define
"congested" so as to apply the term at their descretion in legal
matters. This case seems to be an example of that.
Since the pilot hit power lines and killed someone in the process in this
case, I'd tend to agree with the FAA here.


You are a total asshole when it comes to aviation Anthony.

Give him more credit than that - he's a total asshole at everything.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:13:34 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

When I got my helicopter rating I was taught to assume wires were every
where.

Exactly.