Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello
Personally, I devalue any post from anyone who presents themselves as knowledgeable if they do not at least identify themselves by real name(s) in some fashion. To me, it's "hiding behind the keyboard". Sad. Lots of folks don't like that, but I think folks who won't openly post with their identification included have eliminated any potential credibility they may have had with me, anyway. Does not apply if I know the person through other means, connections, or whatever.
Sport - you are SQUARELY in that bucket - I think it's regrettable that you post so much potentially useful information.....but....it seems you're incapable of writing otherwise. Too bad, I think.
Henceforth, I will give your posts the attention they truly deserve, and the matching credibility.
You all need to stop feeding the fish!!! Bob P. has stated some very correct points, and I'm not going to get into a credential thing except to assure you SP.. I know a WHOALMTY do on this matter. To your credit, you do argue correctly that "navigable" airspace is defined under the USC, but you argue incorrectly it applies "only" to full scale aircraft (no where in the code does it state "full scale" aircraft). Navigable airspace, by code as you like to reiterate constantly, is that airspace above the minimum safe altitudes "prescribed by regulation" including that needed for safe "take offs and landings." That same part also defines "aircraft" as "any contrivance
invented, used, or designed to navigate
, or fly
in, the air
" (please note the absence of FULL SCALE). Furthermore, if you would simply read all of the code and comprehend it, you' likely surprise yourself. The code, or law, does in fact allow the FAA (or any federal agency or administration) to modify or amend the regs it writes. In this case, it's clear, no interp needed if you understand the basics of our language and its construct, under USC 40103(b)(2) "shall.......... and assign
by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. (And here is where you fall of your Dino SP) The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest."
So, if required in the public interest it can and likely would be done (just as the USC allows).
Regarding AC 91.57, it wasn't bad, a mistake, or done in error, but it was a reasonable non interfering piece of governmental "advice" at that time given the technology in use.
Finally, as Bob P. stated and I have in the past, you often have potentially useful
information but you muddy it with truckloads of manure. Worst yet, you have no shame in doing that.
So why did I waste my time in posting this? It's Friday evening and I had a good day of flying and my oats have been sewed, spew forth SP!