Part 103 "congested" & Part 91?

[Elyse]

Everyone has daydreamed about flying over traffic during rush hour. A couple months ago, I started looking into how that could be possible.

I was very excited when I discovered ultralight aviation, and that I could actually afford a Mosquito XEL helicopter in a couple years! (I'm in college)
Through I would mostly use it recreationally, I would like to be able to use it for transportation too when I could. But I'm not sure how the FAA works or the specifics of what I can and cannot do.

For one,
§ 103.15 Operations over congested areas.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.

On another thread, someone wrote that "congested" is about 10 houses clustered together or a school. Do different districts have their own definition of what is "congested"? I found distances that one must be from a congested area in a fixed-wing aircraft, but there seems to be no limit for helicopters. "Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums [...] if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface." So, how close is too close? Is 103.15 a moot point so long as I prevent violation of § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.?

And what kind of fines could I expect if I was reported?

Particularly, how wise is it to land on water retention ponds or vacant lots? Is it ok to cross two-lane or four-lane bridges or highways (at higher altitudes)? What if I got the permission of the owner to land on their roof or property, but it's near a parking lot/residential area?

Thanks!

[Dana]

This subject comes up pretty regularly, and a search of the forums here and at homebuiltairplanes.com will turn up lots of discussion about it. Bottom line is a "congested area" is anything the FAA says it is, which pretty much means whatever you're flying over when you annoy somebody. Even though there's no altitude limit (you can't fly over a congested area at any altitude) you're much less likely to annoy somebody and get reported if you're at 500' vs. 5000'.

Part 91, including 91.13, does not apply-- at all-- to ultralights. However 103 has:


§103.9 Hazardous operations.

(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property.

which is almost the same thing.

FAA fines run to $1500 per violation.

Where you can land depends on how much room there is, what's around it, whether the landowner allows it, and local zoning. Near residential areas... see above about annoying people. And ultralights are the kind of thing that to a non pilot is cool the first time, boring the second time, and annoying thereafter.

Realistically, ultralights just aren't a viable method of routine transportation. You can go places in them, but the low speed and weather dependence limit them to primarily fun flying.

Dana

[Sam Buchanan]

Realistically, ultralights just aren't a viable method of routine transportation. You can go places in them, but the low speed and weather dependence limit them to primarily fun flying.

Dana

Very True. I've often told hangar visitors my Legal Eagle is a totally useless aircraft. By that I mean it is too uncomfortable, slow, limited on fuel, and light for transportation. But it serves its intended purpose very nicely, as in watching a gorgeous sunset over Wheeler Lake this evening. :)

Resist the urge to force an ultralight vehicle into a role for which it wasn't intended. Enjoy it as an inexpensive way to experience simple aviation without the regulatory restrictions of heavier aircraft.

[dougbush]

You go for it, Elyse!

Look up your town on vfrmap.com to see what class of airspace you have. Then, look on the satellite view to see if you can get from A to B without flying directly over homes, schools, and such.

I wouldn't worry about crossing highways and bridges, but can't imagine anyone letting you land on their roof. All those vacant lots belong to someone. You'd need permission and a large area to land. And check local laws--my county doesn't allow ultralights to take off or land in certain areas.

But flying where it is safe should be your main concern. If the engine quit unexpectedly, could you auto-rotate to an empty field?

[Ken Finney]

To add some "fuel to the fire" (so to speak), a VERY unofficial definition of congested is what is colored yellow on the sectional maps (you can view your local one at www.skyvector.com).

[Elyse]

Thanks y'all! :D

[martymayes]

For one,
§ 103.15 Operations over congested areas.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.

On another thread, someone wrote that "congested" is about 10 houses clustered together or a school. Do different districts have their own definition of what is "congested"?

"Congested area" has never been formally defined by the FAA. In an enforcement case, it is evaluated and defined on a case-by-case basis. So any "definition" cited in another case was only applicable to that case. It may or more likely, may not be applied equally in other cases.

I would use common sense. If at all possible, avoid flying over people/structures on the ground unless absolutely necessary, and then keep it as minimal as possible. In most of the 'congested area' enforcement actions, the pilot is hardly innocent and the locals will report 'they saw it coming'

[Dana]

To add some "fuel to the fire" (so to speak), a VERY unofficial definition of congested is what is colored yellow on the sectional maps (you can view your local one at www.skyvector.com).

The yellow areas on the charts indicate lit up areas of towns for night navigation. Most likely they'd be considered "congested", but so would lots of other areas that aren't yellow on the chart.

[mrbarry]

i saw a guy flying what i think was a r22 out of a +rural king+ [ farm supply ] parking lot on a hot day in a congested area. surprised me. , he had to pull straight up .
kinda seems like a dicey thing landing one of those overgrown weed wackers in a wal-mart equivalent parking lot. but i rekon it was a rich rancher .

one could build experimental and get an +N+ number, but that would require a rotary wing endorsement ,
i really dont know but i have the idea that rotary wing is a wee bit more tricky than a fixed wing ..and one will want to log some good dual time
are those +really+ flying part 103
4048

40K dolla

http://www.composite-fx.com/Compfx/Comparison.html

[WLIU]

Helicopters, because of their capabilities, are given some more leeway in where they land and takeoff in the FARs. But Experimental category helicopters are likely to have restrictions as part of their operating limitations that take away some of the flexibility. Go find a Rotorway owner and ask to see what the operating limitations say.

I have to say that I know three individuals who have assembled E-AB helicopters. I regret that i have to report that all eventually crashed their machines, fortunately without serious injuries. But all of that time and $$ purchased less fun and utility than hoped for. Food for thought.

I will mention that I have been involved in a few discussions with FAA FSDO staff about "congested areas" on behalf of members of the aerobatic community. FAA is now using Google Earth images as part of the discussion. You will get the argument that a cluster of houses (say 10) visible on Google Earth or a school, which typically has a neighborhood around it, is a "congested area".

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Dana]

FWIW, here are some notes I made on the subject while researching the subject some years ago after a similar discussion on the PPG list:


from http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/8700/8700_vol2/2_102_00.pdf:
(CHAPTER 102. EVALUATE A PART 133 CONGESTED AREA PLAN (CAP))


(a) Congested Area. The congested nature
of an area is defined by what exists on the surface, not
the size of the area. While the presence of the nonparticipating
public is the most important determination
of congested, the area may also be congested with
structures or objects. An area considered congested for
airplane operations could be equally congested for
helicopters. If an airplane flying over a congested area
at less than 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL) is in
violation of 14 CFR § 91.119(b), the area may also be
a congested area for a helicopter conducting externalload
operations. However, the most important word in
this concept is over. Helicopters can operate over relatively
small uncongested areas because of their maneuvering
abilities.


from http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4188.PDF:
NTSB Order No. EA-4188, about low flying over a highway:

...The deputy sheriff riding in the passenger seat
testified that the aircraft operated over the freeway for at
least 30 seconds, at an altitude of 75-100 feet....
...In the Board's view, even if Interstate 5, a major
California freeway, is not "bumper to bumper" on a late Saturday
afternoon, moderate traffic in every lane still renders it
"congested," for purposes of the regulation. See also
Administrator v. Dutton, NTSB Order No. EA-3204 (1990)(Moderate
traffic on a highway at 12:55 p.m. is a congested area for
purposes of the minimum safe altitude regulation).9

from http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3646.PDF
...the Shepard Mesa subdivision -- comprised of a minimum of
20 houses, in an area approximately .5 mi. x .66 mi.7 -- would
qualify as a congested area.... "the aircraft flew at least as low as
300 feet."
DMH note: .33 square miles = 211 acres, average 10 acre lots (!)

from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI568Y2001.html
IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY (RULES OF THE AIR) ORDER, 2001
"congested area" means in relation to a city, town or settlement, an area substantially used for residential, commercial or recreational purposes without adequate safe forced landing areas"
DMH note: Not U.S., but interesting that other countries DO define it.

from http://www.faa.gov/programs/en/ane/noise/submit.cfm:
There is no regulatory definition of 'congested area'. Administrative case law has determined what is congested on a case-by-case basis. [Case references are available on request]). The public should be aware that an area does not have to be completely free of persons or properties to be considered noncongested. Additionally, it is possible that small, noncongested areas as small as an acre or two may allow aerobatics to be performed without violating 91.303's stipulations.

from http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=1200&file=1200jar.htm, a discussion of prposed new European regulations:
"Hostile environments," as defined under JAR-OPS 3.480, include areas where "a safe forced landing cannot be accomplished because the surface is inadequate"; where there is "an unacceptable risk of endangering persons or property on the ground"; and "those parts of a congested area without adequate safe forced landing areas."...

"Congested areas," as defined in JAR-OPS 3, are essentially any densely populated town or city where no open spaces exist to permit a safe emergency landing in the event of an engine failure.

At The Hague meeting, industry and regulatory representatives agreed that the "congested area" concept is made redundant by the distinction between "hostile" and "non-hostile" environments...

Another concept created by JAR-OPS 3 was that of "exposure times." Performance Class 1, Category A helicopters can fly over hostile and congested areas, but JAR-OPS 3 allows Performance 2, Category A helicopters to fly over hostile, non-congested areas with an exposure time, the length of which depends on a target engine failure probability of 5 x 10-8, according to Jim Lyons, secretary of the JAA’s Helicopter Subcommittee and a CAA official in Britain.

This translates, in practical terms, to exposures ranging from a few seconds to several minutes.

* * * * *

Unfortunately, the phrase "congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons" has not yet been specifically defined by the FAA. The FAA has stated in a 1979 Legal Opinion that it will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Below is a copy of the Opinion--note the FAR references have changed.

__________________________

"In response to your letter dated August 28, 1979, and subsequent telephone conversation, we offer the following answers to your three questions. The facts on which our interpretations are based are as follows:
A fixed wing aircraft operating at an altitude of 600 feet flew directly over a populated subdivision of Prince William County, Virginia. The subdivision consisted of at least 40 residential homes on one acre lots. While operating in this area, the aircraft made a number of steep turns over one of these houses.
1. What is the interpretation of the term "congested area of a city, town or settlement" as that term is used in Section 91.79(b) of the FARs?
The meaning of the term "congested area" is determined on a case-by-case basis. It first appeared in the Air Commerce Regulations of 1926. No abstract regulatory definition has yet been developed. However, the following guidelines indicate the interpretations of the Civil Aeronautics board (now National Transportation Safety Board) in attempting to give meaning to the term.
a. The purpose of the rule is to provide minimum safe altitudes for flight and to provide adequate protection to persons on the ground. Thus, it distinguishes flight over sparsely settled areas as well as large metropolitan areas from low flying aircraft. Thus, size of the area is not controlling, and violations of the rule have been sustained for operation of aircraft: (i) over a small congested area consisting of approximately 10 houses and a school (Allman, 5 C.A.B. 8 (1940)); (ii) over campus of a university (Tobin, 5 C.A.B. 162, 164(1941); (iii) over a beach area along a highway, and (iv) over a boy's camp where there were numerous people on the docks and children at play on shore.
b. The presence of people is important to the determination of whether a particular area is "congested." Thus, no violation was found in the case of a flight over a large shop building and four one-family dwellings because, in the words of the CAB examiner, "it is not known (to the court) whether the dwellings were occupied." In that case, the area surrounding the buildings was open, flat and semiarid.
c. The term has been interpreted to prohibit overflights that cut the corners of large, heavily congested residential areas.
As made clear in FAR 91.79, the congested area must be an area of a city, town, or settlement.
2. What is the interpretation of the term "sparsely populated areas" as contained in Section 91.79(c)?
While this term is not expressly defined, we can conclude that it is something other than a congested area under Section 91.79(a). A subdivision of at least 40 occupied residential homes on adjacent one acre lots in Price William County, VA, would not be considered a sparsely populated area. Such a subdivision would well constitute a "settlement" under the rule.

Please feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

EDWARD P. FABERMAN
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulation and Enforcement Division
Office of the Chief Counsel"

[Ken Finney]

Thank you for compiling this. In many ways, it boils down to "don't be a showoff, an idiot, and/or an ass".

[Sam Buchanan]

Thank you for compiling this. In many ways, it boils down to "don't be a showoff, an idiot, and/or an ass".

And that is the bottom line when it comes to ULs coexisting with "real" aircraft and the general public (and the FAA!!).

Act like an aviator, fly like an aviator, know the regs like an aviator, sound like an aviator on a radio when flying near an airport......and we will be considered as aviators. :)

We continue to pay the price for the sins of a minority of UL drivers. Ultralight aircraft have never been the source of the "ultralight problem", most folks think they are kinda cool. But when a few fools make a nuisance of themselves while driving ULs all that goodwill evaporates.

[mrbarry]

look the part , act the part , be the part

it helps if one can maneuver and land with a wee bit of elegance

[Bill Berson]

If you land a helicopter off airport where people can see it, they will usually call 911 to report.
I know a helicopter owner that calls the local 911 first to report his landing activity location. He has an ongoing relation with the sheriff to help them with search and rescue when needed. I guess that helps.
But in general, landing around people is problematic.

[Dana]

Yes, I've had people call 911 several times when I was flying my PPG from a new location. In all cases the cops that showed up were friendly and even interested once I explained what I was doing and that it was legal.

[aeroschmitz]

Well said!

[Mike Switzer]

i saw a guy flying what i think was a r22 out of a +rural king+ [ farm supply ] parking lot on a hot day in a congested area.

RK owns a R22, they use it to visit the stores around here a lot. They also have a King Air & something else I cant remember right now.

[choppergirl]

I would argue, if nobody is hurt by you flying any distance away from anything, no crime has been commited. Anyone can write you a fine or charge you with anything, but it's a jury that decides, not the law, nor FAA wording in any paragraph anywhere.

A semi truck going 55mph in the opposite direction in the other lane from you on any two lane highway, while you are going 55mph and buckled in (or like me, on a motorbike), is about 100x more dangerous and a threat to the nebulous idea of "public safety" than someone flying 500 feet at 35mph over a school yard full of children. A 110 mph net aggregate collision with anything will kill you instantly; an engine out in an ultralight over a school yard and you glide to a safe landing with a non-spinning propellor in an empty baseball field, with no harm done to anyone but egg on your own face.

Semi-trucks and other cars pass each other a thousand times a second around the world.... it's that common.... and for the most part, without incident.... on public roads, for all the public to enjoy (the public being an interesting legal concept all unto its own - you don't even have to be a citizen to be the public... foreigners can use them just as well (as you can you use roads when you are in foreign countries), and public things (such as roads or public buildings or lands) are not "owned" the state, contrary to popular opinon, but by an almost undefined construct called "the public" that probably goes back to Roman times or older.... "for the use and benefit of all humanity"). The sky is the same... unless and until you run into something, or be a totally annoying douche... (for example, driving the wrong way in traffic on a road) then no harm, no foul. Even those yellow lines on the road, the stop sign, the traffic light... they are there as a helpful guide for everyone, not an absolute brick wall you can't cross, or drive through, when your out in the desert and there is absolutely no other traffic around.

The skies are a commons for everyone to enjoy. Let's keep it that way. Stop penciling imaginary absolutist lines in the sky, or yellow splotches on maps, and creating crimes where they do not exist. Unless (or until) you hurt someone, no crime has been committed. I'm on the jury and I determine what's right or wrong, not a law or paragraph written by anybody anywhere.

My great grandfather flew P-39's, P-47's, and P-38s and got shot up to defend freedom (or I prefer to think, he chose it because it was the lesser of two evils at the time), and it's sad that people just do not care about sticking up for freedom at all anymore, but are extremely compliant and will bend over backwards to live in fear and blindly obey anything they are told by anyone or read anywhere.

My own personal anecdote:

I remember when I was a little kid, I must of been in 7th grade. I went to a school which was very polarized... you had the snotty kids clic and then you had everyone else. I was one of the "everyone else". Anyway, one day one of the snotty boys told a girl who was not one of the clic that she couldn't play on the monkey bars, they were for "them only". I stood up for the girl and stood my ground, and told him flatly, the monkey bars were for everyone to enjoy.

Well, we kept arguing at it, this back and forth, he wouldn't back down, nor would I, and a huge crowd gathered around us egging us on for a fight which just escalated the situation that much further. I don't think either one of us had a clue how to fight, and I am sure I was scared as hell as was he, but there was no way I was backing down. I was in the right. I didn't know it at the time, but I was sticking up for what is know as the "commons". Fortunately, the bell for the end of recess rang, and saved both of us from a thunderdome brawl, but for several weeks after that, I watched my back. Not watching for him, but rather the whole dangerous snotty kids gang.

I didn't know it at the time, but I earned a boat-ton of respect from a bunch of the kids "not in the clic". Suddenly, I was their champion. They and the monkey bars are all gone now, but you want to know the best part? Decades later I still remember it, and I am still fiercely proud of it. Some silly moment in 2nd grade.

I wish more people would have the simple courage I had as a 2nd grader, and defend the commons. They belong to you. They belong to me. They belong to everyone. I didn't know it at the time, but that little moment changed my life, and it wouldn't be the last time I drew a line in the dirt against bullies and stood up for freedom against bullies. Just because someone tells you you have to do something or obey, does not mean it's in your or everyone's best interest to do so. They usually have some less than savory agenda.

Be smart, enjoy the skies, use common sense while flying, but don't live in fear of a bunch of hallway monitors and bullies. You'll be running around trying to appease them for the rest of your life if you do so... Just ask the Germans about WW2, and how bending backwards to follow the rules and appease the bullies and the ruling gang in power worked out for them...

[jedi]

I would argue, if nobody is hurt by you flying any distance away from anything, no crime has been commited. Anyone can write you a fine or charge you with anything, but it's a jury that decides, not the law, nor FAA wording in any paragraph anywhere.

...

Good post but in my experience it is not a jury that decides. It is an administrative law judge that assumes you must be guilty regardless of what you and witnesses say. 90 day suspension for a good friend. Not justified. Long live 103, great break for the commons. Lets hope that it holds.

[WLIU]

Very good point. Many aviators do not understand that what we colloquially call the "Federal Air Regulations" is really volume 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The process is administrative law, not civil or criminal. Completely different rules. The FAA staff that writes the violation is presumptively an expert and treated as such by the Administrative Law Judge. An offending pilot must provide factual evidence, such as ATC data, FAA approved operating limitations, or other "hard" information. Friends don't count.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[FlyingRon]

To add some "fuel to the fire" (so to speak), a VERY unofficial definition of congested is what is colored yellow on the sectional maps (you can view your local one at www.skyvector.com (http://www.skyvector.com)).

It's so unofficial because it is wrong. The charters only call that Large Cities. Smaller areas can indeed be populated and even congested without a chart depiction. The real reason the yellow blob is on the chart is to show you where "the lights of the city" are at night.

[WLIU]

I get to do FAA paperwork about this on a regular basis. The "definition" of "congested" is actually derived from administrative enforcement actions. The internal FAA guidance gives the FSDO staff great latitude in making determinations of what areas are "congested". The precedent includes 10 houses being grouped together is "congested". A school makes an area "congested". Google Earth is a better resource for evaluating "congested" than a sectional chart.

The criteria is not whether someone got hurt. That is a post-accident assertion. The criteria is whether someone could get hurt if a flight does not go as planned. Extremely conservative risk management. Risk == no fly.

Flying over "congested" areas is a topic best not discussed on a public internet forum.

All of that said, if you happen to be near Ottawa Canada on Canada Day, the rules there are different. Watching the Snowbirds fly through the city is a treat.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS