As far as I can tell Part 77 prescribes, "Standards for Determining Obstructions to Air Navigation or Navigational Aids or Facilities". For example, you cannot construct a tall apartment building right at the end of a runway. And you cannot construct a tall building if it hides or obstructs any navigational beacons, etc.I don't know if it's in CFR Part 77 but it's in FAA documents. I'll give you a hint... it has to do with "obstacles"
Part 77 makes frequent reference to "obstructions to air navigation", and permanent or temporary "construction or alteration". Part 77.13 lists many different types of potential "obstructions", including but not limited to "structures".
§77.13 Applicability.
This subpart describes the standards used for determining obstructions to air navigation, navigational aids, or navigational facilities. These standards apply to the following:
(a) Any object of natural growth [400' tall trees?], terrain [400' vertical cliffs?], or permanent or temporary construction or alteration, including equipment or materials used and any permanent or temporary apparatus.
(b) The alteration of any permanent or temporary existing structure by a change in its height, including appurtenances, or lateral dimensions, including equipment or material used therein.
You insisted that the word "Structures" was specifically and intentionally used in §107.51 for the extra 400' height and radius allowance for tower inspections. You say "Structures" are defined by the FAA to eliminate any grey area, yet cannot point to that definition.[...] the wording is very specific and intentional to state "Structures" and "Structures" are defined by the FAA as to not have any grey area.
So my question remains. Why does the FAA provide an extra operating space of 400' height and radius specifically and intentionally around only undefined "Structures", but not equally around other "obstructions to air navigation" like natural growth [400' tall trees], terrain [400" vertical cliffs]?
You wrote, manned aircraft are supposed to avoid proximity to "anything on the ground", "to fly at say 500' they would maintain that over anything protruding from the ground (house, trees, tower, etc.)"
If that airspace is supposedly clear of manned aircraft, what's the point of restricting recreational flyers to 400' AGL absolutely, and not allowing them to fly above a 400' tree, up a 400' vertical cliff, or over a 400' "structure"?