X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:17:58 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.5) with ESMTP id 902623 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:48:31 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.36; envelope-from=MikeEasley@aol.com Received: from MikeEasley@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id q.92.345f9cf0 (48624) for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:47:40 -0500 (EST) From: MikeEasley@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <92.345f9cf0.30e29ffc@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:47:40 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Operating over congested areas X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1135691260" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5300 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1135691260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charlie, This is a small, but potentially significant, factor if someone were to lose an engine over a populated area and execute an off field landing, and cause property damage or worse. Standard DAR wording that you quoted: PHASE II (9) This aircraft is prohibited from operating in congested airways or over densely populated areas unless directed by Air Traffic Control, or unless sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property on the surface. But FAR 91.119 states: Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. My concern is the word "undue" that's included in the FARs. That sounds like an opening for the FAA to file some violation against us Experimental guys if we have an off airport landing in a populated area. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but that's the stuff lawyers make a living doing. Without the word "undue", we now have to insure we create "zero" hazard situation. I guess I wish I had the "undue" in my Operating Limitations. Mike Easley -------------------------------1135691260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Charlie,
 
This is a small, but potentially significant, factor if someone were to= =20 lose an engine over a populated area and execute an off field landing, and c= ause=20 property damage or worse.
 
Standard DAR wording that you quoted:
 PHASE II
 
  (9) This aircraft is prohibited f= rom=20 operating in congested airways or over
densely populated areas unless=20 directed by Air Traffic Control, or unless
sufficient altitude is=20 maintained to effect a safe emergency landing in the
event of a power u= nit=20 failure, without hazard to persons or property on=20 the
surface.
 
But FAR 91.119 states:
Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for tak= eoff=20 or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following=20 altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails,= an=20 emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the=20 surface.
 
My concern is the word "undue" that's included in the FARs.  That=20 sounds like an opening for the FAA to file some violation against us=20 Experimental guys if we have an off airport landing in a populated= =20 area.
 
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but that's the stuff lawyers make a living=20 doing.  Without the word "undue", we now have to insure we create "zero= "=20 hazard situation.
 
I guess I wish I had the "undue" in my Operating Limitations.
 
Mike Easley
 -------------------------------1135691260--