Aerobatics Server ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: Section 91.303 [International Aerobatic Club] [Communications] [Aerobatics Images] Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion.

[Usage Statistics]

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: Section 91.303

Thread: [Acro] Re: Section 91.303

Message: [Acro] Re: Section 91.303

Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)

From: John Cornwell <jwcornwell at usa.net>

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:22:52 UTC

Message:

  Why give the FAA a chance to say no?  A waivered box doesn't give you any
protection anyway.  Arguably, the NOTAM which you will be required to file
every time you fly in your box will compromise safety by attracting common
bozos to the scene.  If there are houses (or even 1 house) under your practice
area, the FAA will, and should, say no to your waiver request.  Then, you KNOW
it is illegal to fly acro there.  What do you do then?  I think you would be
much better off if you could charm that 1 homeowner and then fly when you want
to and shut up about it.

I have been flying aerobatics in an unwaivered practice area in metropolitan
NY for 20 years.  I have been careful to be inconspicuous -- I don't know of a
single noise complaint and nobody knows who I am or what I'm doing.  I like it
that way.

Greg Dungan" <dungangd at hotmail.com> wrote:
Contact your local FSDO and get a waiver for your proposed practice area and 
then you won't have to worry about the definition of "congested" as used in 
91.303.  When the FSDO approves the box (contact Bill Finagin at 
WFinagin at compuserve.com if you have troubles), then the "FAA" has authorized 
you to perform aerobatics in that area, as long as you use it IAW the 
waiver.

10's,
Greg Dungan
IAC 16628, Ch 58
Pitts S-1S+, N16628
National Judge
Patuxent River, MD


>From: "Gibbons" <gibbons at cox-internet.com>
>Reply-To: <gibbons at cox-internet.com>
>To: <acro at gf24.de>
>Subject: [Acro] Section 91.303
>Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:08:39 -0600
>
>Regarding the FAR's for aerobatic flight:
>
>"No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight a) over any 
>congested
>area of a city, town, or settlement"
>How does the FAA define "congested?"  If there are a couple of houses
>outside town in the practice area is that "congested?"
>
>"Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway"
>Does this include Jet airways?  The letter of the rule implies that this is
>the case, but how much sense does that make?  I don't think that even I can
>screw up enough to put a Decathlon into the flight levels.
>
>I've found the PERFECT place to practice, but it's only 2 nm from a high
>altitude airway, and there is a single house just outside the boundary of
>the practice area.  Would you or wouldn't you?  Would you be legal if you
>did?
>
>Regards,
>
>Chip Gibbons
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.