Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Define Sparsely Populated Areas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Define Sparsely Populated Areas

    Originally posted by flyguy View Post
    Edit: by the way Bill, it sounds like you and that new -85 are having entirely too much fun.
    Entirely !!! That was the reason I called the feds in the first place, because I HAVE been having quite a bit of fun in the last week or so and would like to know mow much fun I can and cannot continue to have legally!

    Did you happen to know that on top of a certain grassy hill a couple of miles north of the town of Simi Valley, CA.... that there are two large oak trees that are almost exactly 2 Taylorcraft wingspans apart?
    Taylorcraft : Making Better Aviators for 75 Years... and Counting

    Bill Berle
    TF#693

    http://www.ezflaphandle.com
    http://www.grantstar.net
    N26451 (1940 BL(C)-65) 1988-90
    N47DN (Auster Autocrat) 1992-93
    N96121 (1946 BC-12D-85) 1998-99
    N29544 (1940 BL(C)-85) 2005-08

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Define Sparsely Populated Areas

      Originally posted by VictorBravo
      a telephone pole or power line is a "structure"
      Over here, it is accepted that a "structure" has to have volume. So a pole or wire or fence would not be classified as a structure (but I assume a haybale would, because it's manmade).

      An interesting conversation on SuperCubs here
      Last edited by Robert Lees; 07-03-2008, 00:19.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Define Sparsely Populated Areas

        Gents,

        The article in AOPA that I was refering to was in the Legal Counsel monthly note, and it was April '08. I also remember the one about the guy that hit the power line in the Stearman.

        In both articles, it infers that a telephone pole would indeed be considered a structure, that it is up to the pilot to assume that there are people on the ground, and finally (Richard..."Just land out in the desert every once in awhile. If someone says you are flying too low, you were looking for another landing spot....") that takeoffs and landings are not to be a cover for flying low.

        i.e. dragging the runway was considered too close to airport structures. And these are NEVER points that seem to be argued in our favor. The FAA and NTSB seem to be able to conjure up their own flavor of the rule and most of the time, the court on a challenge will uhold it.

        Bill, unfortunately in this new world, don't fly low.

        Jack D

        Comment

        Working...
        X