Correct me If I am wrong.

Alec Stelloh

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
21
Location
Franklin, WI
Display Name

Display name:
Alec
From what I remember If I want to fly down low over a lake or rive I can do it just as long as there are no people, vehicles, boats, buldings etc. nearby? Im an active youtube user and I see plenty of videos of people flying down low on the water of lakes and rivers. I believe its 500ft from the nears obstacle correct?

Thanks
 
I would also point out that there have been several enforcement actions taken over things posted on YouTube. And the actual rule is "500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure," and the FAA could say that someone's boat dock constitutes a "structure" or a raft in the middle of the lake constitutes a "vessel" whether occupied or not.
 
What's legal may not be smart. It's plenty of fun flying 750-1000 feet above a river, and the extra altitude may mean you make the shore.
 
I don't think he asked if it was smart or not. You are correct, but remember that if something happens and someone wants to go after you..91.13 is going to cover anything. :nono:
 
From what I remember If I want to fly down low over a lake or rive I can do it just as long as there are no people, vehicles, boats, buldings etc. nearby? Im an active youtube user and I see plenty of videos of people flying down low on the water of lakes and rivers. I believe its 500ft from the nears obstacle correct?

Thanks

Some of those videos are from ultralights. Ultralights are bound by Part 103, not Part 91, so for them only 103.9(a) and 103.15 are applicable for those kinds of low flying.

Note that the wording in 91.13(a) and 103.9(a) are slightly different - I have no idea what affect the difference may have on interpretation of any alleged infractions.
 
Yes, but always remember, what is legal and what is safe are often two entirely different things. Showboating low-level just isn't my thing.
 
I would also point out that there have been several enforcement actions taken over things posted on YouTube. And the actual rule is "500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure," and the FAA could say that someone's boat dock constitutes a "structure" or a raft in the middle of the lake constitutes a "vessel" whether occupied or not.

A bit of trivia. You know what the FAA considers a congested area? Atleast 3 houses in close proximity.:hairraise:
 
From some NTSB Orders on the subject:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3646.PDF
Respondents claim, to the contrary, that Shepard Mesa is not such an area. Although the Administrator's reply inexplicably fails to address this claim, it is without foundation in case law. See, e.g., Administrator v. Harkcom, 35 C.A.B. 934, 937 (1962), and cases cited there. Thus, the Shepard Mesa subdivision -- comprised of a minimum of 20 houses, in an area approximately .5 mi. x .66 mi. -- would qualify as a congested area.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3693.PDF
...you operated or caused to be operated N4709P, over a congested area of Malibu, namely Civic Center Way, at an altitude of 250 feet AGL [above ground level], descending over a Hughes Market and the Malibu Country Market, flaps down and slow speed, until it reached an altitude of about 100 feet AGL, headed toward a field just south of the Court House at 23525 Civic Center Way. When at an altitude of about 100 feet AGL over the Malibu Country Market, you began a climb out. There were many shoppers in the markets and adjacent parking lots.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4080.PDF
During the course of the above flight you made several low passes over a congested area, specifically the Pearce Ford Tower at Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky,...

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4188.PDF
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).

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4210.PDF
...respondent operated his Cessna 172 aircraft within 100-200 feet of the ground in the Revere-Saugus, MA area on July 11, 1992, in the vicinity of a large regatta (including "Tall Ships") commemorating the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage. The nearby ground and water areas were congested, and respondent would not have been able to make a safe emergency landing.

BTW, I think the first one cited (in which a clump of 20 houses is consdered a "congested area") is the strictest interpretation of the term "congested area" in that context, and one which should be weighed carefully by any pilot considering flight below 1000 AGL. If there's one involving three houses, I didn't find it.
 
Thanks for doing the leg work. I'd forgotten that the NTSB reorganized their site when I cut and pasted.
 
Yes, but always remember, what is legal and what is safe are often two entirely different things. Showboating low-level just isn't my thing.


Why is low level showboating? I have around 1000 hrs below 100' occupationally flying long cross countries following pipelines. I learned to be safe and comfortable down low. Coming back from OSH last summer on the Atlanta to Ft Lauderdale leg I made it through on the deck off the beach in perfectly safe weather conditions when airliners were waiting out the system. As for wires, as soon as you see horizon under them, forget about them, maintain your focus on the deck clearance and you'll fly under them. If you look at them, you'll hit them. Trying to climb over wires at the last moment will typically catch you in them, best to go under. A 152 for example will fit between the fence and the cable TV cable in most neighborhoods, concentrate on end point of the glide path that takes you across the fence, then pull out. This is the same technique Ag pilots are taught to fly under those wires all day.

It's only 'showboating' if you do it for that reason. If you have operational cause it's a viable tactic. If you do it for joy, well, that's valid in my book. BTW, I own a HP twin for a reason.
 
Last edited:
We need to teach low level flying in the PP syllabus. If teenagers have taught us anything it is that preaching abstinence just doesn't work.:rofl:
 
We need to teach low level flying in the PP syllabus. If teenagers have taught us anything it is that preaching abstinence just doesn't work.:rofl:


Telling me to stay away never worked, and I have the scars to prove it.;)
 
... A 152 for example will fit between the fence and the cable TV cable in most neighborhoods, concentrate on end point of the glide path that takes you across the fence, then pull out. .

I am not even gonna ask how you know that..:nonod::nonod::redface:
 
I am not even gonna ask how you know that..:nonod::nonod::redface:


Ag Pilot 101, seriously. If you buy the Aussie manual you take the test from they teach you this as the preferred technique for dealing with low wires at the end of a field, "As soon as you see horizon under them, never look at them again, concentrate on your swath height and the field and fly out the end. Trust that you will fit."

A Cessna 188 fits between the cable TV and fence, so will a 152.
 
Why is low level showboating? I have around 1000 hrs below 100' occupationally flying long cross countries following pipelines. I learned to be safe and comfortable down low. Coming back from OSH last summer on the Atlanta to Ft Lauderdale leg I made it through on the deck off the beach in perfectly safe weather conditions when airliners were waiting out the system. As for wires, as soon as you see horizon under them, forget about them, maintain your focus on the deck clearance and you'll fly under them. If you look at them, you'll hit them. Trying to climb over wires at the last moment will typically catch you in them, best to go under. A 152 for example will fit between the fence and the cable TV cable in most neighborhoods, concentrate on end point of the glide path that takes you across the fence, then pull out. This is the same technique Ag pilots are taught to fly under those wires all day.

It's only 'showboating' if you do it for that reason. If you have operational cause it's a viable tactic. If you do it for joy, well, that's valid in my book. BTW, I own a HP twin for a reason.
Flying low with good SA and for a good reason is not showboating and can be alot of fun. Mindlessly buzzing a lake is showboating and can get you killed
 
Flying low with good SA and for a good reason is not showboating and can be alot of fun. Mindlessly buzzing a lake is showboating and can get you killed


Mindlessly flying at 12,500' can get you killed just as quickly. It's not the flying or where the flying occurs that's the danger, it's the mindless operator.
 
If everything goes well you can pretty much fly wherever you want outside controlled airspace. Things go south, not so much. The FAA will happily declare an abandoned field in the middle of nowhere a congested area.

I think it a kind of bad idea because if anything does go south, the pilot will have very little time to take any sort of action. Most of the aircraft we fly will promptly flip over after landing in water. Trying to get out of a submerged vehicle inverted is just not on my big list of things to do.
 
Most of the aircraft we fly will promptly flip over after landing in water. Trying to get out of a submerged vehicle inverted is just not on my big list of things to do.
While I agree that trying to get out of a flipped plane isn't something I really want to need to do, I question your statement that most of the aircraft we fly will flip.

http://www.aopa.org/summit/news/2011/110923preparation-key-to-ditching-survival.html
http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm
http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183010-1.html
 
While I agree that trying to get out of a flipped plane isn't something I really want to need to do, I question your statement that most of the aircraft we fly will flip.

http://www.aopa.org/summit/news/2011/110923preparation-key-to-ditching-survival.html
http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm
http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183010-1.html

Any of the ones with fixed gear will, as will many retractables. I have been told this by those who teach emergency egress from submerged aircraft, and could not back it up in any way. Still seems like a big honking risk just to get a better view. Those who so wish to look at the ground should perhaps remain upon it.
 
I've been through the dunker several times, not as bad going out upside underwater as you think.
 
Any of the ones with fixed gear will, as will many retractables. I have been told this by those who teach emergency egress from submerged aircraft, and could not back it up in any way. Still seems like a big honking risk just to get a better view. Those who so wish to look at the ground should perhaps remain upon it.
The NTSB findings that Paul Bertorelli pored through seem to disagree with that statement.
 
The NTSB findings that Paul Bertorelli pored through seem to disagree with that statement.

Seems like the first thing to hit the drink will be the gear, which will suddenly encounter loads of drag before any other part of the aircraft. Thus the gear will decelerate far more quickly than the rest of the airplane, with predictable results.

Yeah, if you flair it in just so you'll wind up with the shiny side up, but I see plenty of flat landings on runways, I can't imagine folks doing that much better on unfamiliar bodies of water.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Still, having it flip on landing is not impossible, and will happen quickly if the fan stops down low. Seems like an awful lot to risk just for kicks. Altitude is safety in the Book of Steingar.
 
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Still, having it flip on landing is not impossible, and will happen quickly if the fan stops down low. Seems like an awful lot to risk just for kicks. Altitude is safety in the Book of Steingar.
Certainly not going to contest this! :no:
 
Seems like the first thing to hit the drink will be the gear, which will suddenly encounter loads of drag before any other part of the aircraft. Thus the gear will decelerate far more quickly than the rest of the airplane, with predictable results.

The results become much more predictable when you consider the bow angle and planing surface on the water that the cowling provides which is more lift than the nose gear is drag.
 
Altitude is energy, as long as you have enough energy to make a landing, you are as safe at 1' as 10,000. Many places the river bank and even river is the safest place to go so there's no difference if you take 10 minutes to get there or 10 seconds. All altitude does is expands your choices of where to stick it, if the choice is the same, no difference except more time for more things to go wrong.
 
Last edited:
Really? Which one?

The one in Laffayette that Chevron uses, the one at Young Memorial, and the one at Delgato. I typically have to do water survival every 5 years and the helicopter dunker is part of it.
 
The results become much more predictable when you consider the bow angle and planing surface on the water that the cowling provides which is more lift than the nose gear is drag.

If it hits at a neutral angle. If the cowling hits with rotational force (as in being slammed into the water because the gear hit the drink) then there is almost no lift at all.
 
Altitude is energy, as long as you have enough energy to make a landing, you are as safe at 1' as 10,000. Many places the river bank and even river is the safest place to go so there's no difference if you take 10 minutes to get there or 10 seconds. All altitude does is expands your choices of where to stick it, if the choice is the same, no difference except more time for more things to go wrong.

More altitude, more options. At low altitude you could hit the drink and drown even though there's an airport on the other bank.
 
If it hits at a neutral angle. If the cowling hits with rotational force (as in being slammed into the water because the gear hit the drink) then there is almost no lift at all.

With an amphib the moment arm is long enough to cause a problem, with an SEL tricycle, the gear is short enough that those angles won't be as easy to devlop in a controlled ditching as the main gear is behind the CG and will resist ra longitudinal pitch down dragging it in by the quarters.
A fixed gear TDer will flip in an instant, but in a tricycle the mains are the greater drag and provide a righting moment. If you ditch near stall, you are very likely to stay upright landing in reasonably smooth water. The faster you are when you ditch, the more likely you are of going over.
 
Last edited:
More altitude, more options. At low altitude you could hit the drink and drown even though there's an airport on the other bank.

More altitude POTENTIALLY more options. My point is you cannot pre write definitive statements like that. I've been flying over plenty of places where the options at 10,000 didn't suck any less because they are the same options everywhere, big trees, big rocks, or water.
 
Back
Top