VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 09-14-2012, 12:55 PM
ArVeeNiner's Avatar
ArVeeNiner ArVeeNiner is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
Helicopters are different - they must have been doing something else -

From the rest of FAR 91.119 not in the original posting..

(d) ?Helicopters. ?Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator
.
You can be legal in the eyes of the FAA and still get a fine for flying into the sanctuary. Somebody other than the FAA would levy the fine I would imagine.
__________________
Kelly Johnson
San Jose, CA
RV-9A

Pink slip issued: 5/7/12

First flight: 5/28/12, Memorial Day.

Phase I Complete: 8/18/12!

2020 donation: complete
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-14-2012, 01:24 PM
az_gila's Avatar
az_gila az_gila is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArVeeNiner View Post
You can be legal in the eyes of the FAA and still get a fine for flying into the sanctuary. Somebody other than the FAA would levy the fine I would imagine.
I didn't think the posting I responded to was talking about a marine sanctuary...
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-14-2012, 02:10 PM
Vlad's Avatar
Vlad Vlad is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Utah
Posts: 8,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeman View Post



Got me to thinking, how low can you legally fly above the water, assuming you are not close to people, boats, rigs, etc. I could not remember from my written test, so I pulled this from FAR's.

Sec. 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.

My interpretation of this, is the T-6 was legal, but the military turboprop was not. Maybe the Navy has special rules that allow them to.

I am not trying to start a debate whether flying a 100 feet off the water is safe or not, just if it is legal.

Am I interpreting this right?
Here in NY we have a chunk of airspace along the shoreline under Class B we routinely fly VFR 400' and below with a code from JFK. It is perfectly legal but depending on the season not that simple. In case of power plant failure one can have wet footprint because beaches are packed with people and you can't go there. Late winter segulls are so active that dodging them you might drop a hundred feet or so. Very rare but you may get into a wake by a heavy ATC will give you early warning.
__________________
Where is N666BK?

Не имей сто рублей, а имей сто друзей.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-14-2012, 02:13 PM
Tandem46's Avatar
Tandem46 Tandem46 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeman View Post
I was in Destin last week on the beach and a large 4 prop military plane flew over the beach at probably 200'.
My interpretation of this, is the T-6 was legal, but the military turboprop was not.
Kyle,
Keep in mind, the area you are talking about not only lies within Class Delta owned by Eglin AFB, but also lies under restricted airspace of the Eglin complex and has special flight rules that requires a clearance to operate in. I guarantee that c-130 was legal and talking to ATC.
__________________
RV-7 Flying since 2004
1,100 hrs+
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-14-2012, 02:30 PM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeman View Post
My interpretation of this, is the T-6 was legal, but the military turboprop was not. Maybe the Navy has special rules that allow them to.
The FARs do not apply to military operations!
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-14-2012, 05:45 PM
tdhanson tdhanson is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 92
Default

How about playing in the water... waterskiing or using wheels as floats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21El16OPZoc
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-14-2012, 05:51 PM
Tandem46's Avatar
Tandem46 Tandem46 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel View Post
The FARs do not apply to military operations!
Unless they're in some kind of SUA such as restricted airspace, then they most certainly do apply to mil ops.
__________________
RV-7 Flying since 2004
1,100 hrs+
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-15-2012, 10:26 AM
Aryana Aryana is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western US
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArVeeNiner View Post
You can be legal in the eyes of the FAA and still get a fine for flying into the sanctuary. Somebody other than the FAA would levy the fine I would imagine.
Apparently, NOAA would levy the fine. http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article...-a-gamble.html

What I'm wondering is how will they actually read my tiny 3" tail numbers? I'm often right at the 1000 foot requirement, and don't want some NOAA guy on the ground deciding I deserve a $100k fine.

"The regulation creates a presumption that any pilot who flies below 1,000 feet msl in the vicinity of one of the protected sanctuaries (or below 2,000 feet msl in some areas) has disturbed the wildlife there. Penalties will be based on observations from the ground by personnel who do not necessarily have any aviation knowledge, training, or specialized equipment to make accurate calculations of an aircraft’s altitude."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-15-2012, 10:51 AM
John Clark's Avatar
John Clark John Clark is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 1,324
Default

Interesting "spin" from the AOPA. They fail to mention that NOAA has a fleet of aircraft flown by people that have "aviation knowlege." Not that they are out looking for violations, they are doing research and surveys, but they sure could report something they saw. By the way, 3" N numbers are not much help against being tagged by radar.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA



Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryana View Post
Apparently, NOAA would levy the fine. http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article...-a-gamble.html

What I'm wondering is how will they actually read my tiny 3" tail numbers? I'm often right at the 1000 foot requirement, and don't want some NOAA guy on the ground deciding I deserve a $100k fine.

"The regulation creates a presumption that any pilot who flies below 1,000 feet msl in the vicinity of one of the protected sanctuaries (or below 2,000 feet msl in some areas) has disturbed the wildlife there. Penalties will be based on observations from the ground by personnel who do not necessarily have any aviation knowledge, training, or specialized equipment to make accurate calculations of an aircraft’s altitude."

Last edited by John Clark : 09-15-2012 at 10:53 AM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-15-2012, 10:58 AM
Wayne Gillispie Wayne Gillispie is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1,499
Default

Fly higher and leave some margin for yourself, wildlife and wildlife observers. If I want to see the ground rush by, I'll look out my car window. If I want to see the water rush by, I'll rent a boat. If I want to see the clouds rush by, I'll hop in the plane. Minimums will get us in trouble in more ways than we think.

I would think with manned or unmanned aircraft, radar and satellites it would not be hard to catch someone. I won't be testing their technology to find out.
__________________
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:54 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.