Flying low and close to houses in a rural setting

[EE48]

I live along a river in a somewhat rural area. For the past 2-3 years we've had a pilot in the area flying very low near our house (and several other houses). My neighbors and I finally got fed up with it this weekend after he flew ~6 feet above the river and within ~60 feet of several houses along the river. I drove to the airfield, waited for him to land and talked with him. I don't think he's going to do it again, but if he does, I'd like to understand what my options are to report him and what sort of regulations he's violating. I'm not a pilot, but I can't imagine what he's doing is allowed by the FAA.

The photo below is a cropped frame from a video that I captured of him flying low along the river (below the roof line of my house and the houses of several neighbors). I also photographed him inside his plane at the airfield with the registration number of his plane visible. It's not in the photo, but about 500 feet in front of the plane there's a bridge spanning the river. He pulls up fairly last minute to avoid hitting it.

And a second follow-up question regarding rural landings... I looked up his registration number on the Internet and I found that last year he actually had an accident with his plane on the river. According to the NTSB report, it sounds like he was taxing, misapplied brake pressure, tipped forward and damaged both the prop and the rudder. On his Instagram it shows him landing his plane just about everywhere -- in friend's backyards, in fields neighboring stores and structures. What are the rules regarding rural landings like those? Is he allowed to try to land wherever he wants, whether it's a sandbar on a river or in a friend's backyard?

 

[Clip4]

First, thank you for taking the time to address this issue with the pilot in a neighborly manor.
The regulation concerning how low aircraft can fly is below. There are no FAA regulations that address where aircraft may land. Most states have laws addressing this, some don’t, but if he is landing on property with permission it is likely he is 100% legal.

If he doesn’t respect your neighborly conversation, your next step is to contact the FAA and make a complaint.

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

 

[Gary Ward]

Except when taking off and landing.^^^

I don't think he is a old bold pilot...

IMO he is too close to his/your home and the FAA would not like his actions.

 

[Lindberg]

If you believe what he's doing is unsafe or illegal, you can report it via the FAA Hotline:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aae/programs_services/faa_hotlines.

 

[Busflyer]

I too think you handled this well.

 

[Half Fast]

....and within ~60 feet of several houses along the river.

This would be a violation of the regulations. Do you have other frames from your video that depict this? In the frame you posted, it appears the pilot is over water and not close to people or structures, so there would be no violation. If there's a house or bridge or crowd just outside the frame, he's in violation, but there's no way to know that.

Hopefully your chat with him will settle matters and you won't need to do anything further.

 

[EE48]

If there's a house or bridge or crowd just outside the frame, he's in violation, but there's no way to know that.

I cropped down the frame for privacy reasons. The original video about ~16 seconds long and is a much wider shot with a date/time in the upper right corner. It includes a lot more of the foreground and other structures (including my house and my neighbors). It shows the pilot flying decently fast, low and level along a ~900 foot section of river (though he was probably flying low along the river for a mile or two prior to the video). It's also enough footage to make it clear he's not coming in for a landing (aside from the obvious fact that there's no suitable ground to land around there). He's about 80 feet from my house but he got as close as 50 feet to some of my neighbors who have their homes closer to the rivers edge.

We live a few miles away from a rural airfield. The occasional coming and going of aircraft does not bother us in the slightest. Personally, I find it fun to watch -- particularly when interesting firefighting aircraft using the airfield as a staging ground. But flying below my roof line within 80 feet of my house is a whole different thing...

 

[AKiss20]

This would be a violation of the regulations. Do you have other frames from your video that depict this? In the frame you posted, it appears the pilot is over water and not close to people or structures, so there would be no violation. If there's a house or bridge or crowd just outside the frame, he's in violation, but there's no way to know that.

Hopefully your chat with him will settle matters and you won't need to do anything further.

With the focal length and known length of the airplane in question, one could pretty easily calculate how close the camera is to the plane. If the pilot is within 500’ of a person, still a violation of the regs.

 

[Half Fast]

With the focal length and known length of the airplane in question, one could pretty easily calculate how close the camera is to the plane. If the pilot is within 500’ of a person, still a violation of the regs.

Agreed, if the focal length and electronic zoom factor is known. Not sure that it is.

 

[Lndwarrior]

And if you report him thru the above link the FAA will investigate them and likely very quickly. The FAA is slow as hell at most things but they can act surprisingly quickly when it comes to reported violations.

 

[Dana]

There has been some discussion about whether a plane that is "waterskiing" is a "landing and takeoff" (i.e. touch and go) for the purpose of the minimum altitude regulation. I don't know if he was doing that, but it might be a factor.

However to the OP, I would wait a bit and see if your friendly chat with him solves the problem. If not, then by all means report him.

 

[AKiss20]

Agreed, if the focal length and electronic zoom factor is known. Not sure that it is.

Not by us but presumably the OP would have such info in the exif data

 

[chemgeek]

14 CFR § 91.119 describes requirements for obstruction clearance, including flight in "congested areas." What constitutes a "congested area" is decided on a case-by-case basis, but the FAA has ruled in some circumstances that a cluster of homes, or people congregating on a beach or other location as a congested area. This aircraft would clearly be too low to be abiding by 91.119 (a) - in event of power failure, (b) - congested areas, or (c) - non-congested areas.

 

[Lindberg]

There has been some discussion about whether a plane that is "waterskiing" is a "landing and takeoff" (i.e. touch and go) for the purpose of the minimum altitude regulation.

There are actually people who claim that dragging the wheels of non-amphibious plane on the water is a "landing"? No way would I take the "pro" on that argument. Let's see them make it a full stop.

 

[dbahn]

There has been some discussion about whether a plane that is "waterskiing" is a "landing and takeoff" (i.e. touch and go) for the purpose of the minimum altitude regulation. I don't know if he was doing that, but it might be a factor.

The hooker in the altitude regulation is the exception that says "when necessary". The FAA can easily take enforcement action when they deem that the action wasn't necessary.

 

[asicer]

There has been some discussion about whether a plane that is "waterskiing" is a "landing and takeoff" (i.e. touch and go) for the purpose of the minimum altitude regulation. I don't know if he was doing that, but it might be a factor.

Regardless of the altitude, the horizontal separation from houses was apparently inadequate.

 

[Randomskylane]

How do they define open water? Does a five foot wide three inch deep creek qualify? Small river? Etc

I guess I think of open water as the ocean or something large like Lake Michigan

 

[dbahn]

14 CFR § 91.119 describes requirements for obstruction clearance, including flight in "congested areas." What constitutes a "congested area" is decided on a case-by-case basis, but the FAA has ruled in some circumstances that a cluster of homes, or people congregating on a beach or other location as a congested area. This aircraft would clearly be too low to be abiding by 91.119 (a) - in event of power failure, (b) - congested areas, or (c) - non-congested areas.

Not as clearly a you think. "In the event of power failure" only applies to the risk of people on the surface, not the risk to the airplane and its passengers.

 

[Domenick]

...I looked up his registration number on the Internet and I found that last year he actually had an accident with his plane on the river. According to the NTSB report, it sounds like he was taxing, misapplied brake pressure, tipped forward and damaged both the prop and the rudder. ...

I am not doubting your report, nor the potential danger the pilot may represent, and you seem to have handled the situation well so far.

One thing confuses me. It's not a float plane. Not sure how he could be taxiing on the river.

 

[Pinecone]

14 CFR § 91.119 describes requirements for obstruction clearance, including flight in "congested areas." What constitutes a "congested area" is decided on a case-by-case basis, but the FAA has ruled in some circumstances that a cluster of homes, or people congregating on a beach or other location as a congested area. This aircraft would clearly be too low to be abiding by 91.119 (a) - in event of power failure, (b) - congested areas, or (c) - non-congested areas.

How? If his engine quits, he will be in the river with no hazard to people and property on the surface.

It does NOT say able to make a safe landing.

 

[Lindberg]

I am not doubting your report, nor the potential danger the pilot may represent, and you seem to have handled the situation well so far.

One thing confuses me. It's not a float plane. Not sure how he could be taxiing on the river.

Plenty of planes have removable floats. But that doesn't explain tipping over from brake misapplication.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I cropped down the frame for privacy reasons. The original video about ~16 seconds long and is a much wider shot with a date/time in the upper right corner. It includes a lot more of the foreground and other structures (including my house and my neighbors). It shows the pilot flying decently fast, low and level along a ~900 foot section of river (though he was probably flying low along the river for a mile or two prior to the video). It's also enough footage to make it clear he's not coming in for a landing (aside from the obvious fact that there's no suitable ground to land around there). He's about 80 feet from my house but he got as close as 50 feet to some of my neighbors who have their homes closer to the rivers edge.

We live a few miles away from a rural airfield. The occasional coming and going of aircraft does not bother us in the slightest. Personally, I find it fun to watch -- particularly when interesting firefighting aircraft using the airfield as a staging ground. But flying below my roof line within 80 feet of my house is a whole different thing...

80 feet from your house seems like it has the possibility of being a bit of an embellishment. Without a map of the property in question, it's tough to say. I do commend you on trying to talk to the pilot in-person. Even so, I guess the question overall is "what is the danger/problem" in your particular case? If this were a jetboat/airboat or similar watercraft running down the river would it still irk you?

 

[172andyou]

On his Instagram it shows him landing his plane just about everywhere -- in friend's backyards, in fields neighboring stores and structures. What are the rules regarding rural landings like those? Is he allowed to try to land wherever he wants, whether it's a sandbar on a river or in a friend's backyard?

I don't see anyone responding to this, so I'll give it a try. Unless specifically prohibited (e.g. protected waterways are a big one) it is legal to land on sand bars and in a friend's backyard. In fact, after a long battle, all 50 states now have recreational use statutes that protect landowners from being sued if they allow someone to use their land and the user gets injured.

The FAA will still take notice if aviating unsafely. But that's true whether on a river, backyard or fully inspected public use airport.

So, if he's aviating unsafely, concentrate on that aspect.

 

[CaptainXap]

I am not doubting your report, nor the potential danger the pilot may represent, and you seem to have handled the situation well so far.

One thing confuses me. It's not a float plane. Not sure how he could be taxiing on the river.

He might have landed on a gravel bar in the river. That seems to be a pretty popular activity for the YouTube bush pilot crowd.

 

[Lindberg]

Unless specifically prohibited (e.g. protected waterways are a big one) it is legal to land on sand bars and in a friend's backyard. In fact, after a long battle, all 50 states now have recreational use statutes that protect landowners from being sued if they allow someone to use their land and the user gets injured.

Your second sentence seems to be non sequitur since landowner liability is unrelated to whether it's legal to land somewhere. State and local regulations can certainly affect the legality of landing on a sandbar or in your neighbor's backyard. It's not even legal for seaplanes to land on all lakes in every state.

 

[Clip4]

How? If his engine quits, he will be in the river with no hazard to people and property on the surface.

It does NOT say able to make a safe landing.

The state EPA might disagree that 50 gallons of leaded fuel needlessly in a river isn’t a hazard to persons on the surface.

 

[172andyou]

Your second sentence seems to be non sequitur since landowner liability is unrelated to whether it's legal to land somewhere. State and local regulations can certainly affect the legality of landing on a sandbar or in your neighbor's backyard. It's not even legal for seaplanes to land on all lakes in every state.

It was meant to support the general notion that unless otherwise prohibited it's something the states of implicitly endorsed even to the point of limiting liability.

I explicitly noted that regulations do exist, giving the example of protected waterways.

 

[172andyou]

How? If his engine quits, he will be in the river with no hazard to people and property on the surface.

The fishermen on this site might have concerns.

 

[FancyG]

I believe I have the same model and now understand why my insurance is so unreasonable.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Even so, I guess the question overall is "what is the danger/problem" in your particular case?

I’d avoid going down the “illegal is OK if there’s no danger/problem” rabbit hole.

 

[Lindberg]

I’d avoid going down the “illegal is OK if there’s no danger/problem” rabbit hole.

Or "illegal is ok if I don't personally agree there's danger/problem."

If the OP believes something illegal or unsafe has occurred, the FAA is there to investigate and make that determination. And I can report that just because you report something doesn't mean someone's going to get in trouble, even if they should.

 

[SoonerAviator]

I’d avoid going down the “illegal is OK if there’s no danger/problem” rabbit hole.

I generally don't go worrying about legality as much if it isn't causing me harm. It's like getting mad at kids for riding dirt bikes and quads around the flood retention areas outside my neighborhood (normally dry unless we've had tons of recent rainfall). Yeah, it's probably not legal to ride there on county/CoE property, but it isn't hurting anyone. I try to err on the side of freedom/pursuit of happiness rather than violating statutes written by insurance policy lawyers.

If this guy is flying low down the river in a Carbon Cub making a few passes, I'd probably not give it a second thought (admittedly biased as we are pilots). If he's being a nuisance by flying by constantly and pretending to be Lt Pete Mitchell by strafing the houses, I'd feel differently.

 

[EE48]

I am not doubting your report, nor the potential danger the pilot may represent, and you seem to have handled the situation well so far.

One thing confuses me. It's not a float plane. Not sure how he could be taxiing on the river.

The pilot landed on a short gravel bar in the river -- not on the water itself. Apparently this plane is good at very short landings and takeoffs. According to the report, he was taxiing around on the gravel bar for a takeoff and misapplied brake pressure such that he rolled forward damaging the prop and the rudder. All of this information was self-reported though. Who knows if it was from taxiing or from a bad landing. There were some photos in the NTSB report that the pilot provided. I would share a link to the report, but I told the pilot that I wouldn't be reporting him (or cause him to get reported) if he stopped flying so low and close to my house.

 

[EE48]

80 feet from your house seems like it has the possibility of being a bit of an embellishment. Without a map of the property in question, it's tough to say. I do commend you on trying to talk to the pilot in-person. Even so, I guess the question overall is "what is the danger/problem" in your particular case? If this were a jetboat/airboat or similar watercraft running down the river would it still irk you?

I can guarantee you that 80 feet is not an embellishment The river itself is only ~60 feet wide in that section, he's flying in the middle of the river, and my house is within 50 feet of the rivers edge (60 / 2 + 50 = 80 feet) Some of my neighbors are within 10-20 feet of the rivers edge (60 / 2 + 20 = 50 feet).

As for jetskis and other motorized craft -- aside from it being impractical (too shallow during most of the warm months) all motorized watercraft are banned by the state on this river. There's a lot of protected wildlife on this stretch of the river. That said, we get tons of tubers, kayakers, paddleboarders, etc floating by in the summer and it doesn't bother us in the slightest.

As for "what's the danger/problem", it's a two-parter: 1. it's a nuisance because the plane is very loud. He's flying so low that you can't see him on approach and it causes some people to panic trying to figure out if they're about to become a crater. 2. the pilot received his license three years ago and has already had an accident on this river (gravel bar). That said, I think that him crashing into my house is unlikely. I think it's more likely that he'll clip a wire that crosses the river or crash into the trees while strafing the forest or have another accident on a gravel bar.

 

[Dana]

If he's landing on the gravel bar, depending on where your house is relative to it, the low flying may be "necessary for the purpose of takeoff or landing" and thus be legal... or it may not. Sometimes people stretch the low flying a bit farther than strictly "necessary", but it can be a fine line. Accidents during off airport landings are not unusual, and not always due to bad piloting; sometimes it's just the price of playing the bush plane game... especially with a young and/or inexperienced pilot. But young and/or inexperienced pilots are also more likely to get in trouble for dumb things like low flying. I think you did the right thing by talking with him and not reporting it at first, wait and see what happens next.​

 

[Wagondriver]

As the details slowly come out, it appears to me that the objection is a fear generated by lack of knowledge and “I just don’t like it”.

Sounds like the people that pitched a fit when I put in my runway at my house. Doom and gloom, it’s going to crash into my house!

 

[SoonerAviator]

I can guarantee you that 80 feet is not an embellishment The river itself is only ~60 feet wide in that section, he's flying in the middle of the river, and my house is within 50 feet of the rivers edge (60 / 2 + 50 = 80 feet) Some of my neighbors are within 10-20 feet of the rivers edge (60 / 2 + 20 = 50 feet).

As for jetskis and other motorized craft -- aside from it being impractical (too shallow during most of the warm months) all motorized watercraft are banned by the state on this river. There's a lot of protected wildlife on this stretch of the river. That said, we get tons of tubers, kayakers, paddleboarders, etc floating by in the summer and it doesn't bother us in the slightest.

As for "what's the danger/problem", it's a two-parter: 1. it's a nuisance because the plane is very loud. He's flying so low that you can't see him on approach and it causes some people to panic trying to figure out if they're about to become a crater. 2. the pilot received his license three years ago and has already had an accident on this river (gravel bar). That said, I think that him crashing into my house is unlikely. I think it's more likely that he'll clip a wire that crosses the river or crash into the trees while strafing the forest or have another accident on a gravel bar.

Do keep in mind that this aircraft likely weighs around 1,000lbs, so about the same as a Harley Davidson cruiser/Honda Goldwing with a couple of riders on it. No one is likely to become a crater if he hits a house/car/tree. As to the noise, how often is the pilot coming by in a each given instance?

 

[172andyou]

As for jetskis and other motorized craft -- aside from it being impractical (too shallow during most of the warm months) all motorized watercraft are banned by the state on this river. There's a lot of protected wildlife on this stretch of the river. That said, we get tons of tubers, kayakers, paddleboarders, etc floating by in the summer and it doesn't bother us in the slightest.

This is an angle to investigate. I've never seen a protected waterway that prohibited motorized watercraft but would allow airplanes. They might exist, all depends on how the rules were written. But I've never seen one. Closest I can think of is some wilderness areas out west that prohibit motors, but grandfathered some airstrips in for forest service purposes.

 

[geezer]

Pretending you are in Alaska when you are not can be a problem. The real boonies, there are not people there to complain, or if there are some there, they expect to get deliveries by airplane, so a benefit.

I had a lot of pleasure canoeing and tubing on the Shenandoah River, over a half century. If someone had flown a Carbon Cub or equivalent along the water, at an altitude below the tree tops, I would have been concerned, at the height in the picture, I would have complained.

Under those conditions, a small mis judgement can turn deadly, and in the OP's case, that pilot may elect to land on dry land if he has a power failure, and the selected dry ground may include his house if directional control is not as good as the pilot had hoped when he decided.

This reminds me of the local guy who built a single seat airboat, and roared up and down the Shenandoah river. Many complaints from tubers, who feared he might hit them as he rounded bends at speed. Game Officer stopped him, wrote a ticket for unsafe speed, and warned him not to go to court, the Judge would not be lenient, and not to return to the river at a speed faster than 10 mph. We never heard of him on the river again.

 

[EE48]

As the details slowly come out, it appears to me that the objection is a fear generated by lack of knowledge and “I just don’t like it”.

Sounds like the people that pitched a fit when I put in my runway at my house. Doom and gloom, it’s going to crash into my house!

As the details slowly come out...? The details remain the same. We have a pilot who flew his plane within 6 feet of the water vertically (below my roofline) and within 80 feet of my house (50 feet within my neighbors) horizontally. He was not landing and there is no suitable location to do so in that section of river. As others have pointed out, flying that low is in violation of FAA rules.

I openly stated earlier that I view this both as a nuisance and a safety issue. Would you call it safe and not annoying if someone flew an airplane down the middle of your street, equally close to your house, equally below the roof line of your home and without landing? I'd like to understand why you feel his behavior is illegal but acceptable.

Do keep in mind that this aircraft likely weighs around 1,000lbs, so about the same as a Harley Davidson cruiser/Honda Goldwing with a couple of riders on it. No one is likely to become a crater if he hits a house/car/tree. As to the noise, how often is the pilot coming by in a each given instance?

Yeah, I'm aware that a plane of that size will not create a crater -- that part was just a joke. My point is that he's flying so low and so close that no one can see him on approach and have no idea what is rapidly/loudly approaching -- which causes alarm about what's about to happen. A bunch of non-aviators on the ground aren't going to think "Oh don't worry, that's the sound of a small two-seater single engine aircraft! It's not gonna create a crater if it crashes!"