National parks and cloud

sterlingmossy

sterlingmossy

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
30
Location
Wilmette, IL
Display Name
Display name:
sterlingmossy
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
 
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.
 
sterlingmossy said:
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
Click to expand...

7-4-6. Flights Over Charted U.S. Wildlife Refuges, Parks, and Forest Service Areas

a. The landing of aircraft is prohibited on lands or waters administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or U.S. Forest Service without authorization from the respective agency. Exceptions include:

1. When forced to land due to an emergency beyond the control of the operator;

2. At officially designated landing sites; or

3. An approved official business of the Federal Government.

b. Pilots are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above the surface of the following: National Parks, Monuments, Seashores, Lakeshores, Recreation Areas and Scenic Riverways administered by the National Park Service, National Wildlife Refuges, Big Game Refuges, Game Ranges and Wildlife Ranges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wilderness and Primitive areas administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

NOTE-
FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-36, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas, defines the surface of a national park area (including parks, forests, primitive areas, wilderness areas, recreational areas, national seashores, national monuments, national lakeshores, and national wildlife refuge and range areas) as: the highest terrain within 2,000 feet laterally of the route of flight, or the upper-most rim of a canyon or valley.​

I see Requested, not Required. Doesn't mean you won't get a letter in the mail regardless. It's been reported before.
 
But.... The FAA rules are not the only ones that may apply. Other agencies may also have a say.
 
What other agencies? Where can i
steingar said:
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.
Click to expand...


agreed. I think the scenario assumes a planned flight that didn’t go as planned ;)
research please?
 
sterlingmossy said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/flight/faqs.html
5) If a pilot reduces altitude below the designated minimum altitude within a NOAA regulated overflight zone to remain compliant with visual flight rules (VFR) requirements or for other flight safety reasons, would that be considered a violation by NOAA?
Answer: When investigating suspected regulatory violations, NOAA can consider mitigating factors, such as weather conditions, emergencies, flight rules, and flight controller instructions. Such factors are evaluated on a case-by- case basis, in combination with other information unique to an incident. Shifting marine fog conditions are a common occurrence along the West Coast. Pilots should plan ahead to avoid situations that would require descending into NOAA regulated overflight zones to maintain VFR.
 
sterlingmossy said:
research please?
Click to expand...

Well, research is what you do when you make yourself aware of all relevant information pertaining to a flight. Apparently that means you're supposed to look up every NOAA, NPS, and BLM site (and who knows what else) and acquaint yourself with the rules for each particular location so that you can comply. Just file these away with the sporting event and pop up TFRs in that encyclopedic mind that every pilot must have to stay legal.
 
Thanks everybody. I guess it isn’t cut and dried. But I really appreciate all the comments.
 
sterlingmossy said:
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
Click to expand...
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.

steingar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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/etc
 
sterlingmossy said:
I guess it isn’t cut and dried
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tantalum said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Amazing how differently people define scud running. ;)
Click to expand...
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
 
Pilawt said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.:rolleyes:
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2012/Jul/MBNMS_Pilot_Outreach_Letter_Jul2012.pdf
 
Bell206 said:
Hawaii I believe that prohibited flying less than 1000’ above a humpback whale
Click to expand...
..does this presume the whale is surfaced? What about a whale submerged 300' below and an aircraft at 500'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top