Reporting low altitude aircraft?

[overdrive148]

Unfortunately, neither the FAA nor the NTSB has ever provided airmen with a precise definition of what constitutes a "congested area." Rather, a "congested area" is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Your contention that he is likely to fly into a building is unsupported.

Then allow me. I see aircraft at pattern altitude around the airport all day at work, I'd like to believe that I can judge aircraft altitude near an airport on that basis.

The city has a population of ~35k, not sure what your definition of "congested" is but:

Unfortunately for the airmen, the ALJ agreed with the FAA. He concluded that the area over which the airmen had flown contained upwards of 30 homes, buildings, and structures and, as a result, was a "congested area."

http://www.aerolegalservices.com/Articles/Congested%20Areas%20Under%20FAR%2091-119%202008-08-28.shtml

I understand that it's a case by case basis, but there's a university full of students next to the airport that has that 400 foot chapel tower that he flew close to more than once. Your argument of 500 feet horizontally is technically true, but when you're directly over a town and an airport, that's 500 feet vertical no matter how you slice it.

That was from post #14, try to keep up.

 

[CharlieTango]

That was from post #14, try to keep up.

'500' vertical no matter how you slice it' but you said he was 500-600'.

Congested is determined at a later date if there is enforcement.

 

[overdrive148]

'500' vertical no matter how you slice it' but you said he was 500-600'.

Congested is determined at a later date if there is enforcement.

The whole 500' argument was in reply to MachFly's post about the 500 foot distance requirement not having to be vertical. My rebuttal was based on the fact that over a town, everything directly below you is something to be 500' away from, so that is the vertical separation requirement.

The tower is 400' AGL. Regs says 1000 above and 2000 away. Let's do some math. 1000' + 400' = 1400'. Even if he was at double the altitude I'm saying he was, he'd still be breaking regs.

Sure congestion is determined at a later date, but if you saw the area or the university it'd be pretty open and shut. Y'know, because thousands of college students with a few dorm buildings and a ton of other housing surrounding the university for miles in each direction definitely doesn't count as congested.

 

[acrophile]

Unfortunately, neither the FAA nor the NTSB has ever provided airmen with a precise definition of what constitutes a "congested area."

I agree that more-detailed guidance would be helpful. Still, this is not a borderline case. There is no doubt that this area is congested:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3517211,-96.9219347,1516m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[CharlieTango]

The whole 500' argument was in reply to MachFly's post about the 500 foot distance requirement not having to be vertical. My rebuttal was based on the fact that over a town, everything directly below you is something to be 500' away from, so that is the vertical separation requirement.

The tower is 400' AGL. Regs says 1000 above and 2000 away. Let's do some math. 1000' + 400' = 1400'. Even if he was at double the altitude I'm saying he was, he'd still be breaking regs.

Sure congestion is determined at a later date, but if you saw the area or the university it'd be pretty open and shut. Y'know, because thousands of college students with a few dorm buildings and a ton of other housing surrounding the university for miles in each direction definitely doesn't count as congested.

You are assuming you win on the congested space to be determined at a later date. The maths is simple but first the determination has to be made. The determination would likely support the preferred result.

Can I fly my experimental into North Las Vegas? Many say the congested area prevents it but they have not prevailed. Its not cut and dry.

 

[acrophile]

Can I fly my experimental into North Las Vegas? Many say the congested area prevents it but they have not prevailed. Its not cut and dry.

Aircraft are allowed to fly low when taking off and landing, so why would there be a problem flying into North Las Vegas? (Is it something specific to experimentals? I'm not familiar with the regulations for those aircraft.)

In any event, for the particular case at hand, it does look cut and dry. The map linked to above clearly shows a congested area.

 

[CharlieTango]

Aircraft are allowed to fly low when taking off and landing, so why would there be a problem flying into North Las Vegas? (Is it something specific to experimentals? I'm not familiar with the regulations for those aircraft.)

In any event, for the particular case at hand, it does look cut and dry. The map linked to above clearly shows a congested area.

In the "Phase 1" Test Flight Period the experimental's operating limitations are more restrictive in respect to congested areas. This is one of the basis for banning experimentals at North Las Vegas, thought it didn't prevail.

The yellow on the map is not an automatic 'congested area' it is decided on a case by case basis.

 

[acrophile]

From a different perspective, about 10 years ago I was reported to the FAA for landing at a non-controlled airport when the weather was below VFR minimums. [...] The nice FAA man thanked me for the information and I never heard from them again. [...]

Although this is a different situation, it illustrates how different perceptions and reality can be.

Interesting experience! But one key difference is that the person who reported you was being overzealous by presuming you were being reckless when there was a perfectly ordinary and obvious way you could have been (and in fact were) flying safely and legally.

In contrast, there is no plausible way that the observed flight here could have been legal if in fact the video confirms the OP's impression of the plane's altitude.

And in any event, the overzealous report in your case merely cost you a few minutes of inconvenience. That risk is hardly worth the apoplexy we're seeing in some of the posts here.

 

[acrophile]

In the "Phase 1" Test Flight Period the experimental's operating limitations are more restrictive in respect to congested areas.

Thanks, good to know.

The yellow on the map is not an automatic 'congested area'

No one here suggested it is. The map linked to above is not an aviation chart and has no yellow areas.

 

[overdrive148]

In the "Phase 1" Test Flight Period the experimental's operating limitations are more restrictive in respect to congested areas. This is one of the basis for banning experimentals at North Las Vegas, thought it didn't prevail.

The yellow on the map is not an automatic 'congested area' it is decided on a case by case basis.

Okay, fair enough. Does that mean that everyone should just not report obviously low flying aircraft over cities? I appreciate your input but it doesn't change the reasoning to report such behaviors.

 

[mudmaker]

I get a kick out of all the different opinions on this topic. It really has nothing to do with aviation, but more of how you deal with conflict in your life. I feel as though the OP is missing the point of people opposed to going straight to reporting this guy. Just talk to the guy!! You may not personally know him, but that is no excuse to hide behind. You said you looked up his hanger or something so you know how to contact him. Just confront him about it before you go further. This applies to more than just aviation! You never know you may actually get along with the guy. BTW, this should be the airport managers approach as well!!

 

[CharlieTango]

Okay, fair enough. Does that mean that everyone should just not report obviously low flying aircraft over cities? I appreciate your input but it doesn't change the reasoning to report such behaviors.

I would be sure of myself. You don't know what he was doing, perhaps he was broadcasting and you didn't hear him. There are unknowns, give him the benefit of the doubt and talk to him 1st.

Its not your job to enforce laws and FARs so if you do take this exceptional action be very sure of yourself. In this case it means talk to him first or let it go.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Something like that happened here about a week ago. High-powered plane rocketed down the approach and about 20 feet above the runway, going over 100, twice. Then he crossed over the field at pattern altitude and rocked his wings at us. Don't know what it was all about. Didn't get an N-Number. Did not like it.

 

[overdrive148]

I would be sure of myself. You don't know what he was doing, perhaps he was broadcasting and you didn't hear him. There are unknowns, give him the benefit of the doubt and talk to him 1st.

Its not your job to enforce laws and FARs so if you do take this exceptional action be very sure of yourself. In this case it means talk to him first or let it go.

The guy isn't based here. He was not broadcasting, I have a radio right next to me in the FBO for monitoring 122.7 working just fine. I took a handheld outside to listen for him while I was trying to get his tail number.

I don't see someone filing a report in the interest of safety as an "exceptional action". And even if it was, increasing safety and removing pilots who break the rules and fly recklessly is the goal of the reporting system. And as I've said at least 4 other times in the thread, who says he'd listen to me, who said he's not been asked not to do it before by people like me and refused, and what is there to lose by reporting it to the FSDO?

Something like that happened here about a week ago. High-powered plane rocketed down the approach and about 20 feet above the runway, going over 100, twice. Then he crossed over the field at pattern altitude and rocked his wings at us. Don't know what it was all about. Didn't get an N-Number. Did not like it.

Still probably nothing technically violating the FAR's but I'd probably venture to report it if it became a repeat occurence. Thank you for contributing

I get a kick out of all the different opinions on this topic. It really has nothing to do with aviation, but more of how you deal with conflict in your life. I feel as though the OP is missing the point of people opposed to going straight to reporting this guy. Just talk to the guy!! You may not personally know him, but that is no excuse to hide behind. You said you looked up his hanger or something so you know how to contact him. Just confront him about it before you go further. This applies to more than just aviation! You never know you may actually get along with the guy. BTW, this should be the airport managers approach as well!!

He's not on the field and I didnt get the chance to talk to him. What, should I stalk him down and find his number off the internet so I can be even more of a fanatical stalker that some are making me out to be just to poke him in the eye about something he probably doesn't care about from a person who he might not take seriously? It's the FSDO's job to do that, and inspectors have a less ignorable way of communicating the rules to people and determining if action is appropriate based on prior actions.

He went off towards the hangars after landing and then came back, fueled quickly, and took off again.

 

[CharlieTango]

The guy isn't based here. He was not broadcasting, I have a radio right next to me in the FBO for monitoring 122.7 working just fine..

I hear about one professional pilot calling Oakland Center on 122.8 about once per day. Ever broadcast on the wrong frequency? I have.

 

[overdrive148]

I hear a professional pilot calling Oakland Center on 122.8 about once per day. Every broadcast on the wrong frequency? I have.

He also didn't have a headset on while he was buzzing around, could tell from the binoculars. Open cockpit btw, in retrospect that sounds kind of pretentious.

And if, for example, a guy was flying through class C on the wrong frequency, you can bet he'd get in trouble for it (reported or not). Because its a safety hazard. Don't you think that it'd be acceptable for the tower or FSDO to grill a pilot for doing something like that in the interest of safety? Sure accidents happen with radio frequencies but accidents like that can lead to real accidents.

Even if he had a radio, there's no call that would excuse him for doing what he did. at least as far as I know.

 

[Lindberg]

Here's what I see. A recent college grad who's got the world figured out. Don't take it personally, because this isn't unique to you, but you really don't know **** from shinola. That's just reality, and the sooner you accept it, the sooner you'll get past it.

It's seems to me that you came here for an attaboy, not information on how to report violations (surely that was covered in one of your aviation-safety classes), and I'm sorry you didn't get it. But my suggestion to you is to forget this thread, forget this pilot, hell, forget PoA, and find a mentor. There's got to be someone at your airport or your school who's the kind of pilot/aviation professional you want to grow up to be. Ask that person if he/she will be your mentor. Your life guide. Your role model. You need folks IRL you can watch, study, model, and ask questions of. If you can find someone IRL who's the kind of person you want to become, he's the only one who can help you get there. Who cares what a bunch on folks on the Internet think?

 

[redtail]

What perplexes me is, why you feel the need to continue to justify to a bunch of people on the internet, what you obviously feel is the right thing to do.

You need to adopt the Japanese Bushido (code of ethics), and just do it.

Rod Machado taught me that.

Samurai Airmanship
http://studentpilot.com/main/articles/aviation-articles/samurai-airmanship-by-rod-machado/

"Over the years I’ve come across several pilots that stand out in my memory. Each had one thing in common: they conducted themselves by an aviation code of ethics. They knew what was safe to do and what was an unacceptable risk. These were aviators of strong conviction, refusing to breach their self-imposed limits and violate their personal code of conduct. When frequently spat upon by the enemy’s of safety–peer pressure, ego, pride–they followed their Bushido. In short, they were the safest of pilots"

 

[Mistake Not...]

Here's what I see. A bunch of pretentious Good Ole Boy know-it-alls pretending to represent the pilot population as a whole.

Ask that person if he/she will be your mentor. Your life guide. Your role model. You need folks IRL you can watch, study, model, and ask questions of. If you can find someone IRL who's the kind of person you want to become, he's the only one who can help you get there.

What a condescending load of crap. Keep asking questions, overdrive148. Just the fact that this one caused this kind of outrage means you're probably closer to right than wrong.

 

[KA550]

Here's what I see. A recent college grad who's got the world figured out. Don't take it personally, because this isn't unique to you, but you really don't know **** from shinola. That's just reality, and the sooner you accept it, the sooner you'll get past it.

It's seems to me that you came here for an attaboy, not information on how to report violations (surely that was covered in one of your aviation-safety classes), and I'm sorry you didn't get it. But my suggestion to you is to forget this thread, forget this pilot, hell, forget PoA, and find a mentor. There's got to be someone at your airport or your school who's the kind of pilot/aviation professional you want to grow up to be. Ask that person if he/she will be your mentor. Your life guide. Your role model. You need folks IRL you can watch, study, model, and ask questions of. If you can find someone IRL who's the kind of person you want to become, he's the only one who can help you get there. Who cares what a bunch on folks on the Internet think?

+1000, especially the first paragraph. Glad I have no trips in his vicinity anytime soon.

 

[overdrive148]

Here's what I see. A recent college grad who's got the world figured out. Don't take it personally, because this isn't unique to you, but you really don't know **** from shinola. That's just reality, and the sooner you accept it, the sooner you'll get past it.

It's seems to me that you came here for an attaboy, not information on how to report violations (surely that was covered in one of your aviation-safety classes), and I'm sorry you didn't get it. But my suggestion to you is to forget this thread, forget this pilot, hell, forget PoA, and find a mentor. There's got to be someone at your airport or your school who's the kind of pilot/aviation professional you want to grow up to be. Ask that person if he/she will be your mentor. Your life guide. Your role model. You need folks IRL you can watch, study, model, and ask questions of. If you can find someone IRL who's the kind of person you want to become, he's the only one who can help you get there. Who cares what a bunch on folks on the Internet think?

If you don't mind me asking, what don't I have "figured out" and what exactly is a shinola? I'm not exactly showing that I "know everything", I thought that was obvious by all of my posts in the thread. You know, debating with those who have opposing viewpoints. Maybe I haven't actually ever reported anyone and was asking for imformation's sake.

I didn't come here for an "attaboy", If you read the OP at all you'd see I didn't have any kind of intention of arguing with people whether to report or not.

Also, try assuming that you didn't know I was a fresh college graduate or a pilot with 95 hours. Instead act like I was some regular old joe, what would you say then? Or god forbid, if I was one of the older guys in the thread who agree and share my views on safety, what would you say then? I don't think that telling me (as a fresh college graduate) that I don't know anything is pretty ignorant. People can graduate from college at 15 or 50 or 80. Kind of condescending to just automatically slap that kind of label on someone don't you think? Thanks for your post.

 

[overdrive148]

+1000, especially the first paragraph. Glad I have no trips in his vicinity anytime soon.

If you aren't doing anything illegal or egregiously reckless, then you have no reason to avoid me or any other airport. Pretty immature to make that kind of statement.

Here's what I see. A bunch of pretentious Good Ole Boy know-it-alls pretending to represent the pilot population as a whole.


What a condescending load of crap. Keep asking questions, overdrive148. Just the fact that this one caused this kind of outrage means you're probably closer to right than wrong.

What perplexes me is, why you feel the need to continue to justify to a bunch of people on the internet, what you obviously feel is the right thing to do.

You need to adopt the Japanese Bushido (code of ethics), and just do it.

Rod Machado taught me that.

Samurai Airmanship
http://studentpilot.com/main/articles/aviation-articles/samurai-airmanship-by-rod-machado/

"Over the years I’ve come across several pilots that stand out in my memory. Each had one thing in common: they conducted themselves by an aviation code of ethics. They knew what was safe to do and what was an unacceptable risk. These were aviators of strong conviction, refusing to breach their self-imposed limits and violate their personal code of conduct. When frequently spat upon by the enemy’s of safety–peer pressure, ego, pride–they followed their Bushido. In short, they were the safest of pilots"

At this point I'm only participating because I find the topic interesting. I'm also shocked at the number of pilots in here who are blatantly fine with being unsafe and incredibly offended by the idea of calling people on things that are dangerous. Thank you for the link by the way, I'll read that tonight!

 

[acrophile]

Who cares what a bunch on folks on the Internet think?

It depends. Some of them offer sound arguments and solid evidence to justify their position. They can be a valuable resource.

Others just deploy stereotypes, cliches, and insults when their views are challenged. Those people can indeed be safely ignored.

 

[ChrisK]

If some jerk pilot is violating the FARs in such a way as to encourage anti-airplane people to lock down GA, I'll dial the phone for you.

At one point a pilot was doing low passes over a freeway west of Cleveland. A guy was on the side of the road with a camera. My wife called me and told me that the approaches were low enough that traffic was being disrupted (folks were swerving out of the way assuming that the guy was going to hit them). Their perception was probably crap, but clearly the dude was too low and was doing beauty passes for a photo op.

I considered this behavior a poor representation of a normally very compliant and friendly community. I called Cleveland Approach, identified myself as a pilot, stated my concerns, and asked them if they were in contact with the pilot. They said they saw the primary target but the pilot was not in the system. I suggested that if the aircraft entered the system it would be wise to advise them that they were causing issues for motorists.

In this case I didn't think it would help to call the FSDO or file a complaint. I just didn't want him to cause an accident on the ground, and I felt that a call to approach was sufficient.

 

[FastEddieB]

If you don't mind me asking...what exactly is a shinola?

Pretty sure you could tell the difference!

edited to add: in practicing my Google-Fu, I learned it's the name of a watch as well.

 

[ChrisK]

Pretty sure you could tell the difference!

edited to add: in practicing my Google-Fu, I learned it's the name of a watch as well.

Holy shiny black poop. I had no idea what that idiom meant until now.

 

[FastEddieB]

Oh, and I think overdrive148 has chosen a reasonable path.

There's no right or wrong here.

 

[1600vw]

Its too easy to just disregard a dangerous pilot by saying "well it's not me he's going to affect so it doesn't matter" or in your case, "the powers that be will handle it". That person that DOES get affected could be me, my girlfriend, my family. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let some reckless idiot go because I didn't want to "bother him" or "inconvenience him" or "get sued" over people who are important to me.

As I apparently have to keep bringing up, would you rather he crashed somewhere and took out a significant other or family member so that you could look back and wish that someone had prevented the crash?




Googling the tail number for the FAA registry also pulled up a post on yahoo where a PoA member did give him advice.

I'm on the fence - the only people who really need to see it is the FSDO and if it's not sufficient to show he was dangerous then that's the end of it. And I don't have much to prove to the thread by posting pics so that people can argue over that too (this whole thing started because I asked how to report it after all). Once I get a copy of the video I'll make a decision.


Thank you for your anecdote. The thing is, I don't know the pilot, I didn't get a chance to talk to him. In my view he was acting unsafely and in violation of the FAR's for minimum altitude over a congested area. I have a tail number and a video. As a few people in the thread have just discounted me as some greenhorn who doesn't know any better, who says the pilot won't have the same kind of response? How many people have told him that he's being unsafe that he may have blown off?

If I'm right, and the FSDO frowns upon his display of airmanship over a city at 500 feet, then he will have action taken against him. If they don't, then if anything, the worst that will happen is a phone call asking him about what happened and then he'll not hear from them again. If the phone call happens, then it achieves the same effect as if I went over and talked to the guy informally about what he did so that he knows and it goes on the record in case it becomes a repeat thing if it isn't already.

I don't see a downside to reporting him if it was someone based, sure I could go over there and talk with the guy but he's not from around here.

So because I believe these 4 airplanes came flying through my pattern I should become MR Cop and report them. They were in contact with ATC for these are transponder airplanes and they were 1 NM from class c airspace. But I should be MR Cop...I think not.

I do not need the aviation police to keep me safe. Why I use a TAS.

Tony






...

 

[poadeleted20]

182 posts in less than 24 hours? I certainly don't have the time to read that pile of slush, but even without doing so, I'll stick with the answer I gave in post #2 on how and to whom to report it if the OP feels it's appropriate to do so.

 

[overdrive148]

*snip picture of shinola*

Pretty sure you could tell the difference!

edited to add: in practicing my Google-Fu, I learned it's the name of a watch as well.

Thank you! I am now fully equipped and licensed to tell the difference between a **** and a shinola!

Oh, and I think overdrive148 has chosen a reasonable path.

There's no right or wrong here.

Holy shiny black poop. I had no idea what that idiom meant until now.

You and me both!

So because I believe these 4 airplanes came flying through my pattern I should become MR Cop and report them. They were in contact with ATC for these are transponder airplanes and they were 1 NM from class c airspace. But I should be MR Cop...I think not.

I do not need the aviation police to keep me safe. Why I use a TAS.

Tony

So 4 aircraft entered the pattern non-standard and began doing things that don't sound, to me, to be ATC approved. And these aircraft were not inside the airspace next door...I don't get your point? Were you in contact with ATC or were they for some reason authorizing people in your airspace to do something nonstandard without talking to you or advising you on the frequency? I don't understand.

I'm also curious as to why you didn't respond to:

Its too easy to just disregard a dangerous pilot by saying "well it's not me he's going to affect so it doesn't matter" or in your case, "the powers that be will handle it" etc etc, from that quote. I would love to hear about your position on that.

182 posts in less than 24 hours? I certainly don't have the time to read that pile of slush, but even without doing so, I'll stick with the answer I gave in post #2 on how and to whom to report it if the OP feels it's appropriate to do so.

The TL;DR of it is this. Apparently, a surprisingly number of pilots are vehemently opposed to a person like me reporting a reckless pilot breaking the FAR's. By their measure, I don't know what I'm talking about as a young college graduate, as a pilot in the judgement of the situation and altitude and area, and that I'm not man enough to talk to the guy first to avoid going to the FSDO.

A good number of pilots here are also greatly supportive and agree with my point of view on safety and reporting.

And some pilots brought out the heavy artillery by shooting insults and remarks as hard as they could in my general direction. I got called a douche!

 

[redtail]

At this point I'm only participating because I find the topic interesting. I'm also shocked at the number of pilots in here who are blatantly fine with being unsafe and incredibly offended by the idea of calling people on things that are dangerous. Thank you for the link by the way, I'll read that tonight!

You're welcome.

Yeah I've been a fan of Rod Machado for a long time. I was fortunate to see him years ago at a live Aviation Safety Seminar in Atlantic City, NJ.

He's a great teacher and I love his corny humor.
When you can, pick up some of his books and audios.

 

[Shepherd]

Since there are no altitude restrictions for landing, and my landing gear is always down, so I must always be landing.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[overdrive148]

From a different thread:

Careful. The Oklahoma Wonder Boy will be calling the FSDO about this on Monday morning as well. His vast experience will conclude that the arrival should not be allowed.

KA550, I'd appreciate if you didn't go off poisoning other threads with off-topic responses. Pretty uncalled for, and between you and me, it makes you look like I offended you or something.

 

[James331]

Did everyone not tell you that you were not going to be winning hearts and minds doing that crap.

Your posts shall live on in POA infamy.

 

[overdrive148]

Did everyone not tell you that you were not going to be winning hearts and minds doing that crap.

Your posts shall live on in POA infamy.

Obviously that's what I care most about, being popular! I'm totally one to just let people do as they please even if it's dangerous.

Although then again, you don't like raising any red flags yourself, even when they should be raised. Maybe you're the fly on the wall, since you're not "man" enough to stop the buck instead of letting it become someone elses problem. maybe your family members or kids if you're old enough.

 

[James331]

.... Maybe you're the fly on the wall, since you're not "man" enough to stop the buck instead of letting it become someone elses problem. maybe your family members or kids if you're old enough.

Well I would have had a word one on one with the sposed offender, thought I covered that a few times.

Hope you're not going to report me to the FSDO for hurting your feelings.

Good luck making it in aviation, remember networking gets you most jobs, or costs you a job.

 

[overdrive148]

Well I would have had a word one on one with the sposed offender, thought I covered that a few times.

Hope you're not going to report me to the FSDO for hurting your feelings.

Good luck making it in aviation, remember networking gets you most jobs, or costs you a job.

Pretty much all you've had to say so far is being up in arms for reporting someone who did something dangerous. Not like someone did something incredibly minor or frivolous. We're talking about something seriously dangerous here. Or do you think that flying too low over cities is something that has never been a problem? This isn't reporting to just report, get that out of your head. I am not some guy being a stickler for some minor offense.

Fair enough that networking makes or breaks jobs but honestly, if anyone was so incredibly offended by a young pilot discussing aviation safety and the topic of reporting dangerous pilots on an internet forum that they would tell other pilots about him and refuse to hire him, then I don't think I'd like to work for them anyway.

Besides, I'm pretty sure from what I've seen so far in the thread as well from my university that there are pilots and employers who truly value safety and believe that it is everyone's responsibility. I appreciate the wishes of good luck.

 

[JHW]

I get complaints about flying too low. Specifically, my mother says "do you have to go under the power lines like that?" BTW even when you're 45 years old your mother will still worry over you.

In addition, my low flying has caused the death of thousands, maybe millions, of innocent life forms on the ground. Somebody stop me before I kill again.

 

[overdrive148]

I get complaints about flying too low. Specifically, my mother says "do you have to go under the power lines like that?" BTW even when you're 45 years old your mother will still worry over you.

In addition, my low flying has caused the death of thousands, maybe millions, of innocent life forms on the ground. Somebody stop me before I kill again.

Yeah, obviously the aircraft I was talking about flying over a city was a crop duster

Come on, you can't be serious. For some reason, it's impossible to believe that I would be capable of recognizing a dangerous situation in which there is something reckless going on in a plane that's not supposed to be so low over a congested area.

 

[JHW]

Yeah, obviously the aircraft I was talking about flying over a city was a crop duster

Come on, you can't be serious. For some reason, it's impossible to believe that I would be capable of recognizing a dangerous situation in which there is something reckless going on in a plane that's not supposed to be so low over a congested area.

Yes I am serious. What you described sounds to me to be very ambiguous. The fact that you are so obsessed over it leads me to believe you are just out to make trouble.