That's correct. Believe me its fun and exciting to fly under bridges, and I remember it well as a younger pilot. I was based only a stone's throw from the Beo. Washington Bridge. One thing that also comes to mind is that the bridges are now very well maintained, a whole lot better than years ago. Usually the scaffolding lines are just hung down toward the water, and are extremely difficult to pick up when flying. If you don't care to think about the regs, think about those lines next time you're feeling like a wise ass!
Al Ed Burkhead wrote: > Stan Protigal wrote: > > > > I had been under the impression that it's illegal, but > > don't know what rule prohibits it. > > > > FAR 91.119 says "1000 ft. above obsticles." It says nothing > > about "under obsticles" or "clear of obsticles" but does state > > "An attitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency > > landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the > > surface" > > > > Aside from the question of why I would want to land if my > > intercom battery fails: > > > > 1. Most large bridges, where such a stunt would be safe, cross > > waterways. I don't watch X-Files and so I assume the rivers are > > pretty much unpopulated. > > > > 2. Many of the surfaces under bridges are fairly flat with few > > obstructions. Often these surfaces are bulldozed down to sea level. > > > > 3. The area surrounding bridges often contain hazards but it's > > quite legal to fly these areas. This is often done by sightseeing > > pilots who have for some reason avoided flying into adjacent > > powerlines, sailboat masts, etc. > > > > So: > > Is it illegal to fly under a bridge? > > Why is it illegal (meaning which rule says it's a no-no)? > > > Doesn't the FAR requiring 500' separation from any person, vehicle or > structure apply? How many bridges can you go under and be 500' under > the span? > > -- > Ed Burkhead > East Peoria, Ill. > N3802H, 415-D
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
