Stearman in the Drink

Ed Haywood said:
One contributing factor to both these accidents may be a misunderstanding of the minimum altitude regulation. It is commonly described in internet discussions as " 500 feet ... except over water". But FAR 91.119 actually says "500 feet ... except over open water." (emphasis added)

Open water is not specifically defined in the FAR, but other FAA references such as the VFR sectional chart legend apply that term to large bodies of water such as oceans, bays, gulfs, and "exceptionally large lakes".
Click to expand...

That's a really good point. I hadn't really noticed the distinction about open water before. Good catch with the chart legend.

However, like a lot of FAR's, there may be other factors to consider. The actual full text of that sentance is:

An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas.

Anyone know if there is an official definition of "sparsely populated area? I suspect an argument could be made that a lake could constitute a "sparsely populated area".
 
jimhorner said:
That's a really good point. I hadn't really noticed the distinction about open water before. Good catch with the chart legend.

However, like a lot of FAR's, there may be other factors to consider. The actual full text of that sentance is:

An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas.

Anyone know if there is an official definition of "sparsely populated area? I suspect an argument could be made that a lake could constitute a "sparsely populated area".
Click to expand...

It's been noted many times that both "open water" and "sparsely populated" essentially have no definition by the FAA and is generally whatever they say it is depending on the situation. It's sparsely populated until an incident occurs that draws their attention to a pilot, and then the FAA deems it no longer "sparse", lol. How big is an "exceptionally large lake"? Any list of said lakes? We talking Lake Erie? Lake Powell? Texoma? What about the Mississippi River?

Obviously by the map legend the Great Lakes are "open water", but pretty much everything else inside the contiguous United States are "inland" and shaded as such. However, being considered to be in open water 1/4 mile off the southern coast versus being "not over open water" 1 mile off the coast of an inland lake seems a bit silly.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
One contributing factor to both these accidents may be a misunderstanding of the minimum altitude regulation. It is commonly described in internet discussions as " 500 feet ... except over water". But FAR 91.119 actually says "500 feet ... except over open water." (emphasis added)
Click to expand...
If you are going to quote the reg, quote the reg. Don't cherry pick to make a false point.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
Click to expand...
 
SoonerAviator said:
It's been noted many times that both "open water" and "sparsely populated" essentially have no definition by the FAA and is generally whatever they say it is depending on the situation. It's sparsely populated until an incident occurs that draws their attention to a pilot, and then the FAA deems it no longer "sparse", lol. How big is an "exceptionally large lake"? Any list of said lakes? We talking Lake Erie? Lake Powell? Texoma? What about the Mississippi River?

Obviously by the map legend the Great Lakes are "open water", but pretty much everything else inside the contiguous United States are "inland" and shaded as such. However, being considered to be in open water 1/4 mile off the southern coast versus being "not over open water" 1 mile off the coast of an inland lake seems a bit silly.
Click to expand...

Sure, but there have been numerous accidents and citations where the pilot was over very skinny bodies of water, and evidently believed they were perfectly legal because they were over "water", regardless of how small. A river is inherently not open water.

I'm comfortable with some ambiguity in the regs. Big boy rules apply. If you hit telephone wires and get a passenger hurt, then it was not open water or sparsely populated.
 
Last edited:
I never fly low over water less than 300 ft. Got friends who have flown under wires down rivers before. Not for for me.

 
Ed Haywood said:
Sure, but there have been numerous accidents and citations where the pilot was over very skinny bodies of water, and evidently believed they were perfectly legal because they were over "water", regardless of how small. A river is inherently not open water.

I'm comfortable with some ambiguity in the regs. Big boy rules apply. If you hit telephone wires and get a passenger hurt, then it was not open water or sparsely populated.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of the recent incident where someone calls the FAA about an aircraft flying low over an inland lake, and the FAA possibly taking a stance that the pilot was in violation because they decided it wasn't "open water" despite being over 500ft from any vessel/structure and generally harmless. I think that's where I have a bit of issue with the ambiguity since the FAA can decide at their own whim whether to ding the pilot.
 
Velocity173 said:
I never fly low over water less than 300 ft. Got friends who have flown under wires down rivers before. Not for for me.

Click to expand...

Seems he had engine trouble as it was not running correctly with all that cable caught in the rotor.

It also seems that flying low to cross a highway bridge with power poles in view might be a great place to suspect that the poles might be there to hold up some powerlines ...
 
SoonerAviator said:
I was thinking more along the lines of the recent incident where someone calls the FAA about an aircraft flying low over an inland lake, and the FAA possibly taking a stance that the pilot was in violation because they decided it wasn't "open water" despite being over 500ft from any vessel/structure and generally harmless. I think that's where I have a bit of issue with the ambiguity since the FAA can decide at their own whim whether to ding the pilot.
Click to expand...

I'll bet 9 times out of 10, that pilot thought he was good to go because he was over water, and did not know the reg says "open water".
 
B055AA1B-BC53-4A07-B9C8-DA0B5A9C6A99.jpeg It’s also not to difficult to find a definition of open water that includes lakes and rivers…

C3FCBA90-7F41-4758-81A3-87615DB930E6.jpeg
 
Half Fast said:
In other news, a 19-year-old young lady is looking for a new pilot/boyfriend and seems to prefer older men....

;)
Click to expand...
Yeah, but she can't figure out a seatbelt so I feel like the most of the dating will revolve around coloring books. :D
 
RyanShort1 said:
It’s also not to difficult to find a definition of open water that includes lakes and rivers…
Click to expand...

Open water is charted on VFR sectional charts, just like congested areas. Alternate dictionary definitions are not going to save someone cited for flying low.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Open water is charted on VFR sectional charts, just like congested areas. Alternate dictionary definitions are not going to save someone cited for flying low.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the VFR Sectional listing of that is not a legal definition or opinion. And most rivers and lakes are still sparsely populated even if not open water.
We already have to flirt with the rules to go find places to do stuff required for the Private Pilot and Commercial checkrides when we go down to say 6-700 feet for Eights on Pylons or the like, so I don't know why some pilots are in such a hurry to get negative definitions enacted. Did this guy do something dumb? Sure, and he almost got himself and his passenger kill't, but that does not mean that dumb and illegal are the same thing. You can be up at 2000' and completely legal and stall / spin and crash, too.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Sorry, but the VFR Sectional listing of that is not a legal definition or opinion. And most rivers and lakes are still sparsely populated even if not open water.
We already have to flirt with the rules to go find places to do stuff required for the Private Pilot and Commercial checkrides when we go down to say 6-700 feet for Eights on Pylons or the like, so I don't know why some pilots are in such a hurry to get negative definitions enacted. Did this guy do something dumb? Sure, and he almost got himself and his passenger kill't, but that does not mean that dumb and illegal are the same thing. You can be up at 2000' and completely legal and stall / spin and crash, too.
Click to expand...
He was 100% illegal…doesn’t matter what the “open water” definition is.
 
RyanShort1 said:
You can be up at 2000' and completely legal and stall / spin and crash, too.
Click to expand...

I don't have a monkey in this circus but just wanted to point out that while stalling and spinning at 2000' is possible, crashing is not, unless it is a mid-air ... :D
 
The FAA has not defined "congested area" either. They determine it on a case by case basis. And yet they enforce it successfully all the time. If you want to believe they will not consider their own charts in that determination, that's your call.
 
Daleandee said:
I don't have a monkey in this circus but just wanted to point out that while stalling and spinning at 2000' is possible, crashing is not, unless it is a mid-air ... :D
Click to expand...
They both usually share the same root cause.
 
Ed Haywood said:
The FAA has not defined "congested area" either. They determine it on a case by case basis. And yet they enforce it successfully all the time. If you want to believe they will not consider their own charts in that determination, that's your call.
Click to expand...
Sure they will. I think they will consider their own charts, then rule however they bloody well please regardless.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’ve had people who couldn’t figure out how to unbuckle a seatbelt sitting on the ramp. 20 seconds is pretty good under water.
Click to expand...
When I had my 'unscheduled off airport landing' in a Skycatcher, it landed upside down. The seats pivot forward so the interior geometry changes. I spent at least 30 seconds trying to reach the out of reach door handle then decided to unbuckle. Being upside down, the belt was under pressure so it didn't just release and it was a struggle to get loose. I then fell onto my head and managed to get the door open. If I'd landed in water or the plane had caught fire, I would have died.
 
Doug F said:
Being upside down, the belt was under pressure so it didn't just release and it was a struggle to get loose. I then fell onto my head
Click to expand...
FYI: you'd be surprised how many that survive an accident ending up inverted have died or become crippled from simply unfastening their seat belt.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: you'd be surprised how many that survive an accident ending up inverted have died or become crippled from simply unfastening their seat belt.
Click to expand...

I personally know one who cracked his vertebrae, and became permanently crippled.
 
Doug F said:
When I had my 'unscheduled off airport landing' in a Skycatcher, it landed upside down. The seats pivot forward so the interior geometry changes. I spent at least 30 seconds trying to reach the out of reach door handle then decided to unbuckle. Being upside down, the belt was under pressure so it didn't just release and it was a struggle to get loose. I then fell onto my head and managed to get the door open. If I'd landed in water or the plane had caught fire, I would have died.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not in water. Yes, you'd have the additional danger of the drowning, but some buoyancy may have made it easier to unbuckle and exit.

And yes, I personally know someone that broke 3 bones in the fall when getting out of the aircraft after an engine out landing in trees.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Never want your plane visible on a fish finder. Wonder if Lowrance supports ADS-B in?

View attachment 110049
Click to expand...
Can somebody help me find the stearman in that scan? I never was any good at reading scans, but I don't see an airplane anywhere in that picture.
 
Yeah, I guess it does. I guess I see the wing bent and the engine. I would have never said that from the scan alone though.
 
TCABM said:
I wonder if leaving the passenger to die was part of the calculus in the prosecution. Had she not survived, there would have been no conflicting story about what happened.
Click to expand...
I suppose involuntary manslaughter could still be pursued if they could establish he was violating FARs leading to the subsequent fatality.

Slight tangent: In all reality, it's the financial penalty of a civil wrongful death suit that would be of higher import to a retired airline pilot, vis a vis mickey mouse felony probation/1st time offender suspended stuff in non-working age. On the mil side, I've known field grade officers actually plead for confinement, over loss of retirement pay; that's how much these know what side their bread is buttered on. K-economy has made the line between relative largesse and destitution in this Country too narrow for comfort these days. The outcomes delta left and right of that line are very far apart from each other anymore. People intentionally kill for less. Digressing.


P.S. the avweb comment section is dumspter fuego right now. United pilots are getting ☢ on there. Guess guilt by association is alive and well :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top