sterlingmossy
Pre-Flight
Quick question. If you are flying 2,000 agl above a national park and the cloud base is coming down forcing you to descend to 1,000 ft agl. Could you get in trouble?
thanks
thanks
Quick question. If you are flying 2,000 agl above a national park and the cloud base is coming down forcing you to descend to 1,000 ft agl. Could you get in trouble?
thanks
Yup...the “trouble” here isn’t with the FAA.But.... The FAA rules are not the only ones that may apply. Other agencies may also have a say.
I imagine so. It's your job to plant the flight so you can maintain cloud clearance and follow the guidelines stipulated for that area. That said I'd still do it. I'd rather a spanking from the FAA than Mr. Ground.
I don't recall how the NPS addresses this but those areas under NOAA do address that scenario as noted below. In my experience, the NOAA overflight rules are the most transparent and most complete. I've dealt with the NPS rules but they are difficult to find as there are general overflight/aircraft rules then each park could have more specific rules to include possible superintendent level policies. All are a beech to track down. However, as I recall the NPS, BLM. etc. are not as stringent as NOAA/USWLF rules as their rules usually involve wildlife effects. The biggest issue with these rules is that each agency can write their own specific rules for the wilderness areas they manage creating additional confusion.If you are flying 2,000 agl above a national park and the cloud base is coming down forcing you to descend to 1,000 ft agl. Could you get in trouble?
research please?
the idea is that you don't get in that situation in the first place. Look at weather, study the route, and if you're leaving such little margin between yourself and the ground and you *can't* go in the clouds (not IR) I'd question the overall judgment of doing the flight in the first place.Quick question. If you are flying 2,000 agl above a national park and the cloud base is coming down forcing you to descend to 1,000 ft agl. Could you get in trouble?
thanks
Me too.. if the weather dramatically changes from what I was expected and briefed on, then sure.. ideally I'll get an IFR clearance and not worry about it, but if that's not an option I'll stay under the clouds. Unless some hikers saw you, copied your number, and reported it, or the FAA was doing some ADSB hunting, I doubt you'd even get caught.. and as noted above I thought it was just a strong ask that you stay out of the sensitive areas, but not a hard exclusion like a restricted area/TFR/etcI imagine so. It's your job to plant the flight so you can maintain cloud clearance and follow the guidelines stipulated for that area. That said I'd still do it. I'd rather a spanking from the FAA than Mr. Ground.
I think the cut and dry part is don't fly into diminishing weather and reduce your margins. If you're having to scud run under a 2K ceiling you have potentially bigger things to worry about then a potential talking to by the FAA. Turn around, adjust your route, etc. You don't have to follow that magenta line, you have options.I guess it isn’t cut and dried
Amazing how differently people define scud running.If you're having to scud run under a 2K ceiling
The FAA might not even care about <2000' AGL over those areas, but will stand by and let other Federal mini-Napoleons flex their muscles. I don't remember if it was here or on another board, but someone posted a nasty letter to a pilot on the letterhead of an Arizona national monument (one that's not even depicted on the sectional chart), claiming violation of the <2000' AGL limit per ADS-B, and threatening legal action for repeated violation.If you're having to scud run under a 2K ceiling you have potentially bigger things to worry about then a potential talking to by the FAA.
Where I live there's terrain that readily rises so it's not the same as when I lived in Massachusetts.. 2500 ovc was no real issue there. Here you're getting mountain obscuration and all sorts of issuesAmazing how differently people define scud running.
Yes, because these wilderness overflight rules are not considered airspace violations. From what I’ve seen they don’t care unless there’s an existing SFAR, FAR like Part 136 or the offending aviator tries to use the “aircraft emergency” exemption to get out of the fine. Regardless, it appears more a turf war between the FAA and the wilderness agencies. Some agencies or sub-agencies do try to work with the FAA and the GA public as noted in the link below. But there are some that don’t and create rules on aircraft overflights that in some cases don’t even get a public notice. Heard of one rule in Hawaii I believe that prohibited flying less than 1000’ above a humpback whale that was issued under some law that one would never think could be connected to aviation or aircraft.The FAA might not even care about <2000' AGL over those areas, but will stand by and let other Federal mini-Napoleons flex their muscles.
..does this presume the whale is surfaced? What about a whale submerged 300' below and an aircraft at 500'?Hawaii I believe that prohibited flying less than 1000’ above a humpback whale
Where I live there's terrain that readily rises so it's not the same as when I lived in Massachusetts.. 2500 ovc was no real issue there. Here you're getting mountain obscuration and all sorts of issues
I guess it depends if you have an amphib or not.......does this presume the whale is surfaced? What about a whale submerged 300' below and an aircraft at 500'?