I'm in a bind and need help

[gibbons]

The presentation for our EAA chapter meeting scheduled at my hangar this coming Sunday (1/21) has been cancelled.

I think I'm going to put together a short (15 - 30 min.) presentation of "little known / often misunderstood regs and procedures" but don't have much time to do it. I'll use much of the material I cover during the ground portion of a flight review, but am looking for more ideas. For example, I'll cover the "any traffic in the area please advise" update to the AIM, which situations allow a pilot to enter class C and which don't, cloud and visibility requirements when cancelling IFR in class E airspace, altitude restrictions when given "cleared for the visual, contact the tower", etc.

Your help in putting together items to cover in this presentation would be greatly appreciated. Please post your ideas in this thread and, if you could, post the FAR or AIM reference so I won't have to spend time looking things up. If there's something you've learned recently that you thought you should have known all along, that would be a great start.

Thanks in advance for the help.

 

[tonycondon]

must stay above visual approach slope indicators at an airport with a control tower?

 

[jesse]

must stay above visual approach slope indicators at an airport with a control tower?

That one is..a good way to get me worked up

 

[tonycondon]

and its a regulation, and a little known one, which is why i included it.

 

[jesse]

and its a regulation, and a little known one, which is why i included it.

Yeah I've read it..like 10 times. Can interrupt it a few ways if I remember correctly--Whats the reg number again?

 

[EdFred]

The presentation for our EAA chapter meeting scheduled at my hangar this coming Sunday (1/21) has been cancelled.

I think I'm going to put together a short (15 - 30 min.) presentation of "little known / often misunderstood regs and procedures" but don't have much time to do it. I'll use much of the material I cover during the ground portion of a flight review, but am looking for more ideas. For example, I'll cover the "any traffic in the area please advise" update to the AIM, which situations allow a pilot to enter class C and which don't, cloud and visibility requirements when cancelling IFR in class E airspace, altitude restrictions when given "cleared for the visual, contact the tower", etc.

Your help in putting together items to cover in this presentation would be greatly appreciated. Please post your ideas in this thread and, if you could, post the FAR or AIM reference so I won't have to spend time looking things up. If there's something you've learned recently that you thought you should have known all along, that would be a great start.

Thanks in advance for the help.

61.51

 

[jesse]

and its a regulation, and a little known one, which is why i included it.

91.129e1

Class D airports...

(3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for safe landing.
Paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section do not prohibit normal bracketing maneuvers above or below the glide slope that are conducted for the purpose of remaining on the glide slope.

until a lower altitude is necessary for safe landing.

That leaves it pretty open still--many things might require a lower altitude...like avoiding wake turbulance. I imagine that if ATC clears you to do it you would also be covered. I pretty much always ask for a short approach at towered airports and keep it tight and fast. They have never said anything but words of appreciation.

 

[tonycondon]

yes but your tight approaches are usually steep approaches, above the glideslope.

i think this underscores why it should be discussed

 

[Ken Ibold]

Chip,

I have a handful of FAA powerpoint presentations I've accumulated over the years. I'll email them to you. Maybe some nuggets to mine...

 

[jesse]

yes but your tight approaches are usually steep approaches, above the glideslope.

i think this underscores why it should be discussed

True.. Although I usually drop below it on short short final to avoid wasting time on the runway. But I don't come blasting in way below it like an idiot for miles out.

Another thing is--what distance are we talking. Sometimes you'll get like a six mile straight in..I can count of being below the glide slope for quite awhile from my normal cruising altitude. I'm not about to climb up to it.

 

[EdFred]

yes but your tight approaches are usually steep approaches, above the glideslope.

i think this underscores why it should be discussed

Why? Jesse, like myself are well above the VASI/PAPI until we touch down. That's about the point I see red over white or 2 reds.

 

[Tristar]

Hey I have proved that you can drop 1,000ft going initialy 80kts in a 152 on really short final and still make it on the beginning of the runway. It wasn't pretty but it got down.

 

[Don Jones]

61.51

I am with Ed,
Especially the whole acting pic versus logging pic topic which stirs so much controversy.
With detail explanation of what "rated for" means

 

[EdFred]

I am with Ed,
Especially the whole acting pic versus logging pic topic which stirs so much controversy.
With detail explanation of what "rated for" means

along with 91.109 and 61.3

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Definitely 61.51.

Also, to go along with the good ol' "any traffic" thing, some more general radio technique wouldn't hurt. "With you" and all that. Maybe point out that the jet jockeys aren't always doing the right things on the radio!

How about talking about NOTAMs and how once they are published in the NTAP or A/FD you won't get them in a briefing?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

While I agree that when conditions permit, the pilot must see and avoid, but doesn't the controller have a responsibility to the IFR pilot for separation services from all other aircraft?

Chip,

I think answering the above question should be a big priority. A lot of folks don't know the answer, or understand why they should stay 500/1000/2000 feet away from the clouds.

 

[Everskyward]

A lot of folks don't know the answer, or understand why they should stay 500/1000/2000 feet away from the clouds.

Or why the distances increase at 10,000 feet.

 

[KennyFlys]

That leaves it pretty open still--many things might require a lower altitude...like avoiding wake turbulance.

You fly under wake turbulence? Oooooook!

 

[jesse]

You fly under wake turbulence? Oooooook!

Put a headwind down a runway. Now put a jet taking off on that runway. Now put me on final landing on that runway. The shorter I land on that runway the less chance there is of me hitting his wake turbulance during my flare.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Here is a question, and the answer I have been given never made sense to me. On the Sectional chart the yellow sections are not indicated as anything in the legend. I was told by my ground school CFI that it indicated "urban" areas we needed to stay at least 1000 feet above. Well, looking at the areas that are yellow and where it is not, that does not appear to be accurate. What I believe it indicates is the areas and the shapes of greater than normal exterior lights, for use in night VFR navigation. I have looked for this but can not find it defined. An example of what gave me this answer is a yellow shape that matches a subdivision near me where the homes were all required by the developer to have some driveway entrance lights. It is bright along those streets. Otherwise the homes are on one acre lots and not zoned urban and not in a city/village/town. Not as urban as a lot of other areas more densely developed and in a city anyway, that are not shown as yellow. I expect I am not the only one who wonders about this.

 

[EdFred]

I was told they were the aproximate shapes of towns/villages/cities.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

See? Nice to have a document to reference. What I see is a lot of town/village/city area is not yellow, and some of the yellow is not at a town/village/city (like the subdivision I mentioned). And the yellow indicates lighting to my simple mind, and that seemed to make sense with what I see on the Sectional. This is not explained by the Sectional makers not keeping up with development either. Some older well established urban areas are not yellow, while some newer rural areas with lightining are yellow.

 

[Don Jones]

Here is a question, and the answer I have been given never made sense to me. On the Sectional chart the yellow sections are not indicated as anything in the legend. I was told by my ground school CFI that it indicated "urban" areas we needed to stay at least 1000 feet above. Well, looking at the areas that are yellow and where it is not, that does not appear to be accurate. What I believe it indicates is the areas and the shapes of greater than normal exterior lights, for use in night VFR navigation. I have looked for this but can not find it defined. An example of what gave me this answer is a yellow shape that matches a subdivision near me where the homes were all required by the developer to have some driveway entrance lights. It is bright along those streets. Otherwise the homes are on one acre lots and not zoned urban and not in a city. Not as urban as a lot of other areas more densely developed and in a city anyway, that are not shown as yellow. I expect I am not the only one who wonders about this.

Order up one of these books. (you can download and print it, however the cartriges cost way more than the book) I ordered some for my stock, only took a couple of days to get here. The book does not talk about the "lights" question you have(it just shows the yellow area's as populated places). I was told it was lighted areas.

http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/aero_guide

 

[gprellwitz]

I was told they were the aproximate shapes of towns/villages/cities.

That matches what the Aeronautical Chart User's Guide says. "Populated places outlined. Large Cities Category 1 and Cities and Large Towns Category 2".

That said, I was "told" during my training that it was intended to show the outline of the light footprint as seen from the air to aid in identification at night. I haven't seen that where I can point to it. Jeppesen doesn't address it, and Machado points out that cities and towns grow faster than the cartographers can keep up, and you shouldn't focus too much on trying to match the shape on the ground with the chart.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

That matches what the Aeronautical Chart User's Guide says. "Populated places outlined. Large Cities Category 1 and Cities and Large Towns Category 2".

That said, I was "told" during my training that it was intended to show the outline of the light footprint as seen from the air to aid in identification at night. I haven't seen that where I can point to it. Jeppesen doesn't address it, and Machado points out that cities and towns grow faster than the cartographers can keep up, and you shouldn't focus too much on trying to match the shape on the ground with the chart.

OK. Checked and verified. Populated Places it is. Still does not match what I see on the Sectional, unless a subdivision is included as a Catagory 2 Populated Place. For example, a well lighted port area with no homes is yellow, but a city residential neighborhood is not. And it certainly does not match the urban areas we are to be 1000 feet above. I am still going to actually USE IT primarilly for location orientation at night.

 

[KennyFlys]

Here is a question, and the answer I have been given never made sense to me. On the Sectional chart the yellow sections are not indicated as anything in the legend. I was told by my ground school CFI that it indicated "urban" areas we needed to stay at least 1000 feet above. Well, looking at the areas that are yellow and where it is not, that does not appear to be accurate. What I believe it indicates is the areas and the shapes of greater than normal exterior lights, for use in night VFR navigation. I have looked for this but can not find it defined. An example of what gave me this answer is a yellow shape that matches a subdivision near me where the homes were all required by the developer to have some driveway entrance lights. It is bright along those streets. Otherwise the homes are on one acre lots and not zoned urban and not in a city. Not as urban as a lot of other areas more densely developed and in a city anyway, that are not shown as yellow. I expect I am not the only one who wonders about this.

The correct term would be "populated" per the Chart User's Guide but FAR 91.119 uses "congested" which is also used for heavier air traffic in a given area. The FAR does not specify what is considered "congested" but I'd use the sectional for that reference. The chart guide gives three different sizes or "categories." They include the irregular yellow patterns you'll see over larger towns, a small yellow square and small, round circle. As a side note, the latter makes horrible visual checkpoints unless used with something more prominent such as a railroad or power line.

On the other hand, there can be a relatively large area of closely-knit homes near a lake or given location but well away from any town. Those could be reasonably considered a "congested" area. They may or may not be indicated on a sectional like the area you described. Developments happen so quickly, I believe many of these areas are not yet caught up with cartographers who update the sectionals or observers providing that data may be using subjective reasoning.

But, why would you want to hang out at a thousand feet for very long? Perhaps a short sight-seeing trip to allow a passenger to see their home but it should be short-lived. Recently, in Mississippi, we flew over a friend's home so her mom could see us. I did three turns over their house at about 1100-1200. That was plenty for me as there were simply no easy landing spots should an engine fail. The town is shown as an irregular yellow area on the sectional.

 

[jesse]

But, why would you want to hang out at a thousand feet for very long? Perhaps a short sight-seeing trip to allow a passenger to see their home but it should be short-lived. Recently, in Mississippi, we flew over a friend's home so her mom could see us. I did three turns over their house at about 1100-1200. That was plenty for me as there were simply no easy landing spots should an engine fail. The town is shown as an irregular yellow area on the sectional.

Aerial pictures. I usually liked somewhere around 800 ft.

Also the lower you are for ground reference maneuvers the better.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Perhaps it should be popuLIGHTED areas.

 

[KennyFlys]

Aerial pictures. I usually liked somewhere around 800 ft.

Also the lower you are for ground reference maneuvers the better.

I may get as low as 700 for Eights on a Pylon as well but I don't stay down there longer than the maneuver requires and I won't do those over a populated area. It will also be one with a couple outs for a landing location.

Need to take a picture? Great, dip down. Have someone else take the picture. The pilot should be strictly flying the plane at those altitudes.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

If you have a Seattle sectional or the Seattle Terminal Area chart, going E or W under the south end of the Class B for SEA will take you either over the City of Federal Way at less than 1600 MSL (perhaps 1300 AGL) or over the Port of Tacoma. Much of Federal Way is not yellow, though certainly populated, but the Port of Tacoma is yellow. So why would you cross over the area? To get to the other side.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

The correct term would be "populated" per the Chart User's Guide but FAR 91.119 uses "congested" which is also used for heavier air traffic in a given area. The FAR does not specify what is considered "congested" but I'd use the sectional for that reference/quote]

Point taken. "Congested", not "Urban". But the yellow areas do not indicate that either. Populated (and lighting) does not equal congested. At least not based on the Seattle sectional and the areas I am familiar with.

 

[SkyHog]

How about explaining the common purpose rule, Chip. That seems to get a lot of people confused (and me angry at the FAA).

Also - I think everyone could use more information about "ATITAPA." I suggest fighting opposition with the suggestion of "Any traffic, what's your 20." Afterall, nothing in the FARs says to avoid CB talk.

Oh - and maybe you could go over the difference between logging and acting as PIC.

 

[KennyFlys]

Point taken. "Congested", not "Urban". But the yellow areas do not indicate that either. Populated (and lighting) does not equal congested. At least not based on the Seattle sectional and the areas I am familiar with.

That's why I mentioned the possibility of a subjective observer collecting data.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Here is some interesting stuff on the issue of flying for hire from an aviation lawyer. I am particularly interested in the "Second Trap". Seems like if you fly for the widget company as a Private Pilot it should be a violation since the company is paying you to fly; but they are saying it isn't in this article if no one is charged for the flight, and the company flight is "incidental" to the business of the widget company, since the passengers are not paying anyone for the flight it is not a flight "for hire".:


http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/traps.html

 

[KennyFlys]

Here is some interesting stuff on the issue of flying for hire from an aviation lawyer. I am particularly interested in the "Second Trap". Seems like if you fly for the widget company as a Private Pilot it should be a violation since the company is paying you to fly; but they are saying it isn't in this article if no one is charged for the flight, and the company flight is "incidental" to the business of the widget company, since the passengers are not paying anyone for the flight it is not a flight "for hire".

The biggie for the commercially licensed pilot is "holding out." Are you advertising your pilot services by some means? If so, you're considered a charter operation and subject to Part 135.

If your best friend walks up to you and offers to pay you to fly them to some location, that's perfectly legal. He can pay all expenses and for your time.

As for the private pilot, he cannot be paid to fly. He cannot fly for hire under any circumstance nor can he be reimbursed for expenses beyond the "prorata share" of passengers while passengers are on board.

The prime example I can think of for this would be Neal Boortz, a syndicated radio talk show host from Atlanta. He's a private pilot (no commercial ticket for airplanes although he holds one for lighter-than-air). He flys his Mooney often for appearances around the west half of the country. He'll take it for book tours, etc. It's his preferred mode of transportation over airlines and dealing with those standing around.

The station has not hired him as a pilot. His flying is "incidental to that business" of promoting his radio show and benefiting his audience. His expenses are covered by one means or another be it station-paid, speaker fees, book sales, etc. He simply chooses how to use those funds. In most cases, it's for avgas rather than junk fees on an airline ticket. Under 61.113, it's legal. And, it's a nice way to support owning a decked-out, 2005 Mooney 20.

 

[SkyHog]

If your best friend walks up to you and offers to pay you to fly them to some location, that's perfectly legal. He can pay all expenses and for your time.

That doesn't seem to jive with the common purpose reg. Now, if you had said you were going that way anyways....

As for the private pilot, he cannot be paid to fly. He cannot fly for hire under any circumstance nor can he be reimbursed for expenses beyond the "prorata share" of passengers while passengers are on board.

Unless the pilot would have driven anyways, and chose to fly instead. Then it would be incidental, no? I believe the pilot can then be reimbursed the amount he would have been given for the drive, unless I'm mistaken.

 

[poadeleted20]

The biggie for the commercially licensed pilot is "holding out." Are you advertising your pilot services by some means? If so, you're considered a charter operation and subject to Part 135.

No, you're not. You can advertise pilot services (i.e., availability to pilot other people's airplanes) to your heart's content. What you cannot do is advertise that you'll fly people where they want to go in an airplane you provide -- that's a charter operation.

If your best friend walks up to you and offers to pay you to fly them to some location, that's perfectly legal. He can pay all expenses and for your time.

In his plane? Yes, that's pilot services. In your plane? No, that's air transportation for hire. And it doesn't matter whether you held out to the public or not.

As for the private pilot, he cannot be paid to fly. He cannot fly for hire under any circumstance nor can he be reimbursed for expenses beyond the "prorata share" of passengers while passengers are on board.

Y'all need to re-read the subsections of 61.113 again. There are a number of instances where a private pilot can be reimbursed for all expenses, including business travel, emergency services, etc.

The prime example I can think of for this would be Neal Boortz, a syndicated radio talk show host from Atlanta. He's a private pilot (no commercial ticket for airplanes although he holds one for lighter-than-air). He flys his Mooney often for appearances around the west half of the country. He'll take it for book tours, etc. It's his preferred mode of transportation over airlines and dealing with those standing around. The station has not hired him as a pilot. His flying is "incidental to that business" of promoting his radio show and benefiting his audience. His expenses are covered by one means or another be it station-paid, speaker fees, book sales, etc. He simply chooses how to use those funds. In most cases, it's for avgas rather than junk fees on an airline ticket. Under 61.113, it's legal. And, it's a nice way to support owning a decked-out, 2005 Mooney 20.

100% correct. But if a coworker rides with him, he can still be reimbursed for the full cost of the flight, not just his pro rata share.

 

[KennyFlys]

Unless the pilot would have driven anyways, and chose to fly instead. Then it would be incidental, no? I believe the pilot can then be reimbursed the amount he would have been given for the drive, unless I'm mistaken.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear there. He can't be hired with the express purpose to fly as part of his job. The flying can be in support of his job but not an expressed requirement. He gets reimbursed for expenses; it's up to him how he uses those reimbursements.

And, only Arrianna Huffington uses the excuse, "It was going there anyway!"

 

[cwyckham]

Certainly something about logging vs acting PIC. I once had a CFI fire me as a student (and yell at and verbally abuse me) because he "caught" me logging my tailwheel dual training as PIC. I was a PPL and was rated in a single engine aircraft, so it was perfectly legal. He didn't see it that way and wanted to know "how I could look at myself in the mirror in the morning."

I'd also include a bit about how and when a safety pilot can log PIC.

I don't believe the yellow areas on sectionals have any legal relevance as far as the 1000' rule. I believe that they're best guesses of town boundaries, etc. and are meant as a VFR navigational aid only. My guess would be that they're plotted by looking at night satellite photos because the lit areas are usually built up areas.

 

[jesse]

Need to take a picture? Great, dip down. Have someone else take the picture. The pilot should be strictly flying the plane at those altitudes.

It's very difficult to get a good picture doing this. You clear the area visually from the ground to first ensure there are no obstacles. After that you clear the area from the air. I would generally have a 'box' per say that I would stay within and know I was safe.

In order to get good pictures--you pretty much have to fly the camera. I preferred to use the LCD preview for framing purposes and would fly the object into the viewfinder while looking for traffic. I even went as far as to mount the camera in a solid condition and keeping it somewhat zoomed out, flying the object into the view finder, and snapping the picture. The key is to use a real high resolution so you can crop it later. I've done my fair share of aerial photography and have captured some really great pictures of houses in less than ideal conditions.