luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Google "natural structures" If they wanna get ya, I'm sure they will say "it don't say nuthin about man made, just structure."I think it was wording about structures. 91.119.c
that natural bridge is probably fine.
Google "natural structures" If they wanna get ya, I'm sure they will say "it don't say nuthin about man made, just structure."I think it was wording about structures. 91.119.c
that natural bridge is probably fine.
I have seen the FAA come up with some pretty non-obvious interpretations over the years.I think it was wording about structures. 91.119.c
that natural bridge is probably fine.
Great minds think alike!Google "natural structures" If they wanna get ya, I'm sure they will say "it don't say nuthin about man made, just structure."
It's not "the" issue, but it is "an" issue, because the standard increases to "1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft," which would eliminate flying under anything if the FAA deems it a congested area.How congested it is ain't really the issue. All it takes is one person, vessel or vehicle to invoke the 500' thang
With helicopters, there's no problem to be solved, because 91.119(d) exempts them from 91.119(b) and (c).Helicopter solves the problem.
Do you mean this one? If so, the dam would create a little obstacle.
View attachment 98398
View attachment 98399
Hasn't the FAA considered bridges to be congested areas in some cases?
Where's that?Foresthill huh? Wow, that's really close....and tempting!
Google “bikini bridge”….. who here would like to fly under?….Google "natural structures" If they wanna get ya, I'm sure they will say "it don't say nuthin about man made, just structure."
Me, me. And I ain’t even googled it yetGoogle “bikini bridge”….. who here would like to fly under?….
Beware the egg-slicer powerlines between bridge and dam.As I previously stated, 7 of them don't violate FAA min altitude rules.
Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge...