Low Flight - Correct me if I'm wrong.

K

kyleb

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
7,956
Location
Marietta, GA
Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
We were in Fernandina Beach Florida for the week. We were out on the beach yesterday, when a LSA buzzed down the surf line (the demarcation between sand and water) at 100-150'. He flew a couple of miles South, reversed course, and again flew the length of the beach at that altitude. Obviously, he passed much closer than the minimum 500' from hundreds (thousands?) of people on the beach.

There's no exclusion to the low flight regulations that could apply in that situation is there?
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, there is no exclusion.

how did you determine his altitude?
Click to expand...

By eyeball. I was sitting in a chair 100' from the surf line, so he was only 150' away or so. Been doing this for a while, you know. I guess I could scale it off of the pictures I took, but I'm too lazy to do that. Here's a pic if you'd like to scale it:

upload photos online
 
That doesn't look like an LSA to me... that's an ultralight, no? I could be wrong...looks like one of the Quicksilver designs...GT-500?
 
Last edited:
MuseChaser said:
That doesn't look like an LSA to me... that's an ultralight, no?
Click to expand...

Definitely an LSA. Two place, side by side. Much larger/heavier than the 254 lb minimum for an ultralight.
 
MuseChaser said:
That doesn't look like an LSA to me... that's an ultralight, no?
Click to expand...
Looks kinda like a QC Challenger -- which is an LSA. Although there are numerous LSA's that look just like that
 
Okay... I was wrong. I zoomed in and it didn't look like a side-by-side or even two-seat craft, but you were there and I wasn't. I guessed wrong... and even so, it was probably against the "no closer then 500'" rule even in unpopulated areas. It does look closer than 1.66 football fields from the folks in the water.
 
kyleb said:
By eyeball. I was sitting in a chair 100' from the surf line, so he was only 150' away or so. Been doing this for a while, you know. I guess I could scale it off of the pictures I took, but I'm too lazy to do that. Here's a pic if you'd like to scale it:

upload photos online
Click to expand...

What's the wingspan of that airplane? Looks like two wingspans above the people. Less than 100 feet, for sure.
 
Even if it is a Part 103 aircraft, it's probably illegal. While there isn't a hard minimum altitude, there is a nebulous 103.9 against operations that are hazardous to people.
 
Part 103 for ultralights is pretty lax, but it does prohibit operations that might be hazardous to those on the ground. Hazardous is not specifically defined. The aircraft in question looks like it is in the neighborhood of 50 AGL. That's probably sufficient to flout the rule.
 
That, my friends, appears to be CGS Hawk:

iu


As a two place tandem it is not an ultralight and is required to be N numbered.
 
This is always the fall back for part 91.


§ 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.
 
TommyG said:
This is always the fall back for part 91.


§ 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.
Click to expand...

This is the section of that regulation that really matters. He is obviously WAY closer than 500 to those people, and is not apparently in the process of taking off or landing.

(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.
 
TommyG said:
This is always the fall back for part 91.


§ 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.
Click to expand...

Name a spot in the US of A where any aircraft isn't in violation at any altitude.
Maybe somewhere out west or maybe the mid-west?
Anywhere on the east, west or south coast there is no altitude from which an airplane falling out of the sky isn't a potential threat to persons or property.
And "undue" is a legally meaningless word.
Then you have places like the Hudson River exclusion area where you pass over the GWB (604 ft), usually bumper to bumper traffic, at 800 or 900 feet msl to stay out of the class "B" space.
Looking at that picture, if that aircraft had an engine failure his biggest chance of hitting someone would be slamming into someone who was running to the plane while trying to get video or a selfie.
 
midwestpa24 said:
This is the section of that regulation that really matters. He is obviously WAY closer than 500 to those people, and is not apparently in the process of taking off or landing.

(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.
Click to expand...


I can’t tell from the pic; is he over the beach or the water? It might be argued that the “over open water” altitude exception applies but I suspect he was still within 500’ of people.
 
Half Fast said:
I can’t tell from the pic; is he over the beach or the water? It might be argued that the “over open water” altitude exception applies but I suspect he was still within 500’ of people.
Click to expand...

Look at the shadow. It was near solar noon, and the airplane was flying almost due North when the photo was taken. The shadow is slightly in front of the airplane and isn't offset to the side more than a few feet. So he's half over sand, half over water.
 
I flew down the beach near Cape Fear and Oak Island this afternoon to get some pictures of the lighthouse for my son's history project. We maintained 1000' AGL, (and or safety reasons climbed well above the traffic pattern at SUT off the beach south of SUT). I'm pretty sure someone could determine that a continuous row of beach houses qualifies as "heavily populated", and/or they'll view the beach itself as "heavily populated". It's just not worth the headaches if someone complains.

On the other hand, given the dunes in front of the beach houses and the salt water marsh behind the houses, the only place to land in the event of an engine failure would be on the beach, which was pretty sparsely inhabited this afternoon.
120748592_1748319668660267_2221176737570236431_n.jpg

120739848_1748252902000277_1303003832252078339_n.jpg
 
You could land in the water.

what is the regulation that says “not within 500’ of people”? I read 91.119 (c), except over open water.
 
smv said:
You obviously missed the video of the idiot driving (not flying) a botched go-around right into a hangar. :D
Click to expand...
Yeah. I got nothing for you. I guess we should just stay home. But then a tree might fall on us. So we could move to the prairie. Then we would get a tornado visitor. I guess we should just eat worms and die. There’s nothing safer than death.
 
bflynn said:
You could land in the water.

what is the regulation that says “not within 500’ of people”? I read 91.119 (c), except over open water.
Click to expand...

?? people are persons. “... person, vessel, vehicle, or structure...”
 
bflynn said:
You could land in the water.

what is the regulation that says “not within 500’ of people”? I read 91.119 (c), except over open water.
Click to expand...


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.

So, in the cases of flying over open water or sparsely populated areas, you can go lower than 500’ but you still have to remain 500’ or more slant range from people.

But I don’t know who’s going to measure it.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The safest thing by far is to grab a chair and sit around with your airport buddies by hangar row and talk about flying.
Click to expand...

When the guy flew the length of the beach, twice, at that altitude, my thoughts weren't so much safety as stupidity. "Hey, I'm blatantly violating the regs, right in front of 1,000 people, most of whom have cameras."

I just wonder what other bad decisions this guy makes.
 
Half Fast said:
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.

So, in the cases of flying over open water or sparsely populated areas, you can go lower than 500’ but you still have to remain 500’ or more slant range from people.

But I don’t know who’s going to measure it.
Click to expand...

Used to fly with the North Island flying club near Sandy Eggo. On the weekends we would contact Lindbergh tower for clearance through the Bravo. When transitioning north, their instructions would be, "Cleared into the Bravo to the north. Remain offshore and below 500'. Report Crystal Pier."

Weaving in and out of boats, swimmers, and surfers at <500' with no hope of reaching dry land if the engine failed was always a lot of fun...
 
Prove it. He might have been too low and over people, but there's no way to prove it with the photo. 2 minutes in Gimp and it looks to me like he was out in the water or the people on the beach are giants....

p2.png
 
smv said:
Used to fly with the North Island flying club near Sandy Eggo. On the weekends we would contact Lindbergh tower for clearance through the Bravo. When transitioning north, their instructions would be, "Cleared into the Bravo to the north. Remain offshore and below 500'. Report Crystal Pier."

Weaving in and out of boats, swimmers, and surfers at <500' with no hope of reaching dry land if the engine failed was always a lot of fun...
Click to expand...

I've done that one. Still can't figure out why the engine always sounded funny when I was doing it. Trip down memory lane. I got my PPL at NZY in the club.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Yeah. I got nothing for you. I guess we should just stay home. But then a tree might fall on us. So we could move to the prairie. Then we would get a tornado visitor. I guess we should just eat worms and die. There’s nothing safer than death.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's the meteorologist in me, but 2 of my 3 rules when buying my house were
1. No wooded lots / large trees within a distance they could fall into my house while I sleep
2. Basement / tornado shelter a must.
(#3 was not in a flood plain / get up on a hill.)

I ended up with a "wooded" lot, but it starts about 200 feet behind my house well beyond falling distance.
 
TommyG said:
An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
Click to expand...
This part of that FAR is ridiculous and clearly written by a lawyer. This basically means it is illegal to fly a piston single over anything but the desert or open water. At 5,500 in the LAX VFR Coastal Route corridor am I in violation?

smv said:
Cleared into the Bravo to the north. Remain offshore and below 500
Click to expand...
They still do this.. it's fun, and feels wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smv
bflynn said:
You could land in the water.

what is the regulation that says “not within 500’ of people”? I read 91.119 (c), except over open water.
Click to expand...
Down the beach is not "over open water or sparsely populated areas." The term "open water" refers to areas "distant" from the shore or islands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top