Re: Pietenpol-List: Low level flying

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:45 am

Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:06 am

Original Posted By: Dan Yocum

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:29 am

Original Posted By: Jim Ash

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:29 am

Original Posted By: Oscar Zuniga
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Low level flying So as long as I don't shake hands with the locomotive engineer, I'll be fine. Jim -----Original Message----- >From: Dan Yocum >Sent: Apr 28, 2010 8:06 AM >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Low level flying > > >The FAA regulations are intentionally non-specific so that one can >interpret them and remain within "The Letter of the Law." > >So, yes. > >:-) > >dan > >On 04/28/2010 06:45 AM, helspersew(at)aol.com wrote: >> >> 91.119c "the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to >> any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." >> >> Does this mean I can swoop down and do low-level tree-top stuff, as long >> as there is no person, vessel, or structure? One year I got a great ride >> like that from a Bi-plane guy. What a thrill! In and out of the trees. >> >> Dan Helsper >> Poplar Grove, IL. >> >> * >> >> >> * > >-- >Dan Yocum >Fermilab 630.840.6509 >yocum@fnal.gov, http://fermigrid.fnal.gov >"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." > > > >________________________________________________________________________________

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:45 am

Original Posted By: Jim Ash
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Low level flyingI'm pretty sure the FAA has the same fine print in their low flying regs as wedo here in Canada. Flying below 500 above the highest obstacle is prohibited for purposes other thantake off, landing. A practise forced approach or precautionary approach is an exception to the above.One might find a suiteable field to practice over that happens to be running parallelto a railroad track.... All within the law... Scott Knowlton Slow builder in Burlington-----Original Message-----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:52 am

Original Posted By: Jeff Boatright

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:53 am

Original Posted By: Ben Charvet

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:38 pm

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Ben, I considered that before putting the 30" numbers on my wing, but Ifigured if someone told the FAA "It was an open cockpit parasol wingmonoplane with wire wheels" the Feds would know where to look with orwithout registration numbers.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:52 pm

Original Posted By: Frank Metcalfe

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:30 pm

Original Posted By:> >>> Dan Yocum Who says those big three foot high numbers you paint on the top > and bottom> of your wings have to be your N number? Assuming you have your > real N number> in the proper size and location on the tail.> > rick> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Ben Charvet > >> > When I was deciding my paint layout, I considered the large registration> > numbers on the wings. I like to fly low over the river and beach, and very> > seldom go lower than 500 feet. I've been cruising down the beach at 200 ft> > and come across some surfers that would technically cause a violation. One> > of the beauties of the Pietenpol is your registration numbers only need to> > be I think 2 inches tall, I made mine slightly bigger than that, but I left> > the large "There goes Ben" numbers off of the wing.> >> > Ben> > On 4/28/2010 8:29 AM, Jim Ash wrote:> >> >> --> Pietenpol-List message posted by: Jim Ash >>> >> So as long as I don't shake hands with the locomotive engineer, I'll be> >> fine.> >>> >> Jim> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message-----> >>> >>

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:28 pm

Original Posted By: John Franklin

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:33 pm

Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Low level flying

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:35 pm

Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Low level flyingCouple of weekends ago I saw a Bell Huey at a military reenactment. It had themilitary numbers and the N number was done in a "weathered" look so that it didnot stand out from the military numbers. It was privately owned and there aspart of a historical presentation on the Vietnam war. It sure has a distinctive "Wop Wop" Sound. I said "that is a Huey" long beforewe saw it coming. Blue Skies, Steve D----- Original Message -----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:48 am

Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Hmmmm...You mean, like, Yankee Echo, Echo, Hotel, Alpha, Whiskey ??Clif"I am a child who is getting on." (Marc Chagall) "It takes a very long time to become young." (Pablo Picasso) ----- Original Message -----

matronics · Post by **matronics** » Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:21 am

Original Posted By: Ben Charvet

Brodhead Pietenpol Association