Bridges You'd Like to Fly Under - But Won't

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."
 
Google "natural structures" If they wanna get ya, I'm sure they will say "it don't say nuthin about man made, just structure."
Great minds think alike!
 
How congested it is ain't really the issue. All it takes is one person, vessel or vehicle to invoke the 500' thang
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.
 
Believe me, if the FAA wants to get you, they always have 91.13 they can pull out.
 
Google "natural structures" If they wanna get ya, I'm sure they will say "it don't say nuthin about man made, just structure."
Google “bikini bridge”….. who here would like to fly under?….
 
As I previously stated, 7 of them don't violate FAA min altitude rules.
Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge...
Beware the egg-slicer powerlines between bridge and dam.
 
I've always wanted to do the Aurora Bridge in Seattle.

 
Back
Top