QUESTION ON INTERP OF MINIMUM LEGAL ALTS.

Narrative

THE SUBJECT OF THIS RPT WAS A WATERFOWL SURVEY FLT OVER A NUMBER OF LAKES IN THE VICINITY OF RALEIGH; DURHAM AND ROXBORO; NC. THE FLT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF A NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST WHO WAS THE OBSERVER FOR THE FLT. THE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE COMMISSION SPONSORS THE SAME SURVEY FLT 4 TIMES PER YR BTWN NOV AND JAN. IT WAS MY FIRST EXPERIENCE DOING THIS SURVEY OR FLYING IN THE AREA TO BE SURVEYED. AFTER SEEING THE AREA SURROUNDING EACH LAKE I FELT THE AREAS WERE 'OTHER THAN CONGESTED' AND OUTSIDE OF TOWN OR CITY LIMITS. THERE WERE ABUNDANT FIELDS OR FORESTED AREAS AROUND EACH LAKE AS WELL AS THE WATER WHICH OFFERED SAFE EMER LNDG SITES AS PER 91.119(A). ON LARGER LAKES I FLEW OVER THE WATER ALONG THE SHORELINE. ON THE SMALLER LAKES I MADE 1 OR 2 PASSES OVER THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE; WITH ENTRY AND EXIT POINTS PLANNED SO AS TO AVOID FLYING DIRECTLY OVER STRUCTURES ON THE SHORELINES OR ADJACENT AREAS. THE FLYING WAS MOSTLY STRAIGHT AND LEVEL WITH GENTLE CLBS; BANKS; AND DSCNTS AS MY PAX HAD A TENDENCY FOR AIRSICKNESS. THE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT AND I FELT I HAD FLOWN SAFELY AND LEGALLY. HOWEVER; SHORTLY AFTERWARDS I READ AN ARTICLE WHICH ALARMED ME AND PROMPTED ME TO FILE THIS RPT. THE ARTICLE IN FLT TRAINING MAGAZINE ADDRESSED HOW MINIMUM SAFE ALTS (FAR 91.119) TERMS HAD BEEN INTERPRETED IN VIOLATION CASES. I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY RPTS OF MY FLYING TOO LOW; HOWEVER; IF THERE WERE I WOULD NOW BE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE AUTHS' INTERP OF 'CONGESTED' OTHER THAN 'CONGESTED AND SPARSELY POPULATED' MIGHT DIFFER FROM MY INTERP. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A DEFINITION OF THE TERMS IN AVIATION SOURCE BOOKS. APPARENTLY THEY ARE DEFINED BY THE AUTHS (BOARDS; ETC) ON AN INDIVIDUAL CASE BASIS. SO I FIND MYSELF IN THE UNCOMFORTABLE POS OF POSSIBLY HAVING A LOT AT STAKE BASED UPON DEFINITION OF TERMS WHICH MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE SAME. MY BUSINESS OF FLT INSTRUCTION; AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND SURVEY FLYING; MY STUDENTS; AND MY FAMILY COULD ALL BE HURT SERIOUSLY IF MY INTERP WAS DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN IN ERROR. I CONSIDER MYSELF A SAFE PROFESSIONAL PLT; WHO TRIES TO EXEMPLIFY AND TEACH SAFE FLYING AND CONSIDERATION; AND COURTESY FOR THOSE WHO WE FLY OVER. I WOULD HATE TO BE JUDGED OTHERWISE BECAUSE OF A MISUNDERSTANDING. I HAVE BELIEVED THAT 91.119(A) IS THE MOST IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT IN DETERMINING MINIMUM SAFE ALTS; FOR EVEN 1000 FT OVER A LARGE CONGESTED AREA MAY NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT GLIDING DISTANCE TO A SAFE EMER LNDG SITE. I WOULD SUGGEST A REVISION OF 91.119 IN THE ORDER OF 'ALWAYS AT AN ALT FROM WHICH YOU COULD MAKE AN EMER LNDG WITH A COMPLETE ENG FAILURE WITHOUT UNDUE HAZARD TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY ON THE SURFACE AND NOT OPERATING AN ACFT CLOSER THAN 500 FT TO ANY PERSON; VESSEL; VEHICLE OR STRUCTURE EXCEPT WHEN NECESSARY FOR TKOF OR LNDG.' THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY CONCERNS WITH YOU AND HOPEFULLY PROVIDE SOME SUPPORT FOR CLEARER FARS.