What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Minimum Altitude over water

G

Geeman

Well Known Member
I was in Destin last week on the beach and a large 4 prop military plane flew over the beach at probably 200'. Of course, I thought it was awesome. The next day I say a T-6 about a mile off the beach doing some turns and stuff about 100' or 200' above the water. Of course, I thought it was awesome.

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?
 
You are correct. If you do ecide to fly low over water be sure there are no swimmers/surfers/etc within 500'.

Years ago a friend got busted by the feds for flying low over water in a Lear 24. His defense was that he was over open water. Thye fed that saw him said "yes but there were surfers jumping off their boards!"
 
The military can get away with a little more than we can. I was there 25 years ago and do not miss that type of flying. When you are young and have 2-4 engines, not much scares you.

What is legal is not always safe...ie, "Clear of clouds and 1 mile visibility in class G". I recently made my SECOND(First was due to TS in N Florida) 180* turn, 8 miles West of the Triple Tree Fly-In. Towers were everywhere! Don't depend on that Synthetic Vision...it gives you a false sense of safety. Two hours later, I returned in clear skies. There were all types of planes flying in and out in those conditions. Now I am beginning to realize why our accident rate is so high. My wife and kids were proud of my decision and we still made it back for steak dinner Friday evening. It won't be my LAST 180*!

Over water, I try to stay within gliding distance of shore. I did not over Lake Michigan, but water surface temps were 75F. I was at 12,500-13,500'. I would not do it in any cooler weather. Minimums leave little room for mistakes or malfunctions.
 
Low Flying

If you were near Destin that 4 engined C-130 was probably landing or departing Hurlburt Field and hopefully you were talking to somebody for that special airspace you were in.
I was flying very low just off the beach at Destin and the CFI with me said we were legal since we had floats and any body of water is a potential runway. :D
 
mrreddick said:
If you were near Destin that 4 engined C-130 was probably landing or departing Hurlburt Field and hopefully you were talking to somebody for that special airspace you were in.
I was flying very low just off the beach at Destin and the CFI with me said we were legal since we had floats and any body of water is a potential runway. :D
Click to expand...

Better yet, I might know which airplane it was, and what they were doing flying that low. Lets just say that checking out girls on the beach is a popular way to check out the sensor systems on the AC-130 Gunships....
 
Out here in California, we have a rather large marine sanctuary and they don't like you lower than 1000' so keep your eyes out for those. I'm not sure if these exist in other parts of the country but I hear that they can throw the book at you for these kinds of violations.
 
mrreddick said:
If you were near Destin that 4 engined C-130 was probably landing or departing Hurlburt Field and hopefully you were talking to somebody for that special airspace you were in.
I was flying very low just off the beach at Destin and the CFI with me said we were legal since we had floats and any body of water is a potential runway. :D
Click to expand...

I was laying on the beach. And yes I have flown down the beach in Destin talking with eglin approach before, but was not sure how low I could be. The C-130 was not landing or departing.....it was flying down the beach....must have been checking some sensors, oh and checking out the bikinis.
 
I heard of one $35k fine for a helicopter covering with a film crew while filming a recent movie.

Unfortunately, low ceilings and fog is the norm on the coast.

Also unfortunately, temps are usually around 55 to 60F so there are no bikinis to be seen along our beaches. :(
 
jchang10 said:
I heard of one $35k fine for a helicopter covering with a film crew while filming a recent movie.

Unfortunately, low ceilings and fog is the norm on the coast.

Also unfortunately, temps are usually around 55 to 60F so there are no bikinis to be seen along our beaches. :(
Click to expand...

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.
 
az_gila said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ArVeeNiner said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't think the posting I responded to was talking about a marine sanctuary...
 
Geeman said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Geeman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ArVeeNiner said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apparently, NOAA would levy the fine. http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2012/120202west-coast-sanctuary-overflight-now-a-gamble.html

What I'm wondering is how will they actually read my tiny 3" tail numbers? :p 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."
 
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



Aryana said:
Apparently, NOAA would levy the fine. http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2012/120202west-coast-sanctuary-overflight-now-a-gamble.html

What I'm wondering is how will they actually read my tiny 3" tail numbers? :p 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."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I had several years of great flying when I was stationed at Eglin many years ago. Don't forget, the Eglin area is one of the busiest areas of military flying in the country. Many miles of land East and West of the base, almost to Crestview to the North, as well as a good part of the Gulf, are all part of the base and Restricted airspace for military use. You can fly safely through the area as long as you contact Eglin approach and give them your intentions.
 
John Clark said:
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
Click to expand...

The article sure made it sound like the NOAA team is on the ground, not in the air. I don't condone flying too low over any marine sanctuary, and as I mentioned, my only fear is that someone on the ground decides somehow that an aircraft is too low (based on what, I don't know) when they are in fact in compliance with minimums and decides to "report" them.

How does radar help identify who made the violation when a steel tube/fabric airplane with no transponder or any contact with ATC from takeoff to landing violates the minimums? I am all for laws that protect our environment, but I would hope they have a better plan for enforcement than people looking up from the ground or using radar.

Maybe they're hoping all the violators will be on IFR flight plans or VFR flight following! :D

Personally, I encourage use of the ASRS system at NASA for pilots to voluntarily report any unintentional violations...not for exoneration, but to ensure that any and all violations are reported to the government for the safety of us all, and for the future survival of the aviation community. If we as pilots ensure that we are in compliance, then our precious government resources can be better spent on other things, and in turn the environment will not be negatively impacted.

BTW, thanks for all that you and the rest of the FAAST Team do for the aviation community John. It's very valuable and I enjoy all the great content and programs they provide.:)
 
Last edited:
Aryana said:
How does radar help identify who made the violation when a steel tube/fabric airplane with no transponder or any contact with ATC from takeoff to landing violates the minimums? I am all for laws that protect our environment, but I would hope they have a better plan for enforcement than people looking up from the ground or using radar.
Click to expand...

First, let me say that I'm sure NOAA has better things to do than issue altitude busts. However I'm also sure that they would report something that is really egregious. On the radar issue, it is a double edged sword, assuming that there was coverage and your mode C/S was working, you could defend a false claim by reviewing the radar records. Yes, it is recorded. But, if you do something really silly the same evidence could, of course, be used against you. Your example of a tube and fabric, no radio flight is perfectly legal if attention is paid to the airspace and clearance from people. Just remember that the average Champ/Cub is no match for a Coast Guard Helicopter. :rolleyes:

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Certainly true! Those helicopters are few and far between though, and they are a rare sight on the coast here in N. CA. Just this week, one of the San Francisco based USCG helicopters was dispatched to San Luis County to save a disabled 185 on floats that had engine trouble and landed in the ocean. The helicopter ran low on gas for the rescue it was so far away! As an avid sailor, I always hoped they had good coverage for fast response times, but I never wanted to rely on it.

So to bring this thread back on topic, even with floats I wouldn't consider the entire ocean a potential landing field. Common sense should prevail, but this example of an aircraft getting swallowed up in only 6 foot seas (which are very common everywhere on the CA coast) shows that what may look benign from the air might prove quite treacherous when you're up close and personal with it.

If I am over water and decide not to fly high enough to glide back to shore, I at least follow the common shipping routes for a quick pick up in case of a water ditching, and always keep well over 500 feet from any ship/person.

Here's another brain teaser for you. Did you know that if a bird makes a nest in your engine cowling, it's very likely against the law for you to remove it? Almost every bird species here in CA is protected, but how do they enforce it? Eventually, we have to realize that you can't outlaw stupidity or apathy. Whether its regarding marine mammals that get spooked by careless pilots that fly too low, or people that don't value the life of an endangered animal who is just trying to survive.

/downfrommysoapbox
/threadhijack
 
Steel tube fabric aircraft aircraft have a excellent radar cross section. Depending on overall radar coverage the FAA as mentioned can tag a aircraft all the way to its destination.

George
 
Therein lies the problem over a lot of the sanctuaries located over the west coast. Mountainous terrain obscures the coverage especially below 1000 feet AGL. I've done it (not over marine sanctuaries) in steel tube, metal, and composite aircraft while in contact with ATC and they pipe up real quick when the non Mode C equipped steel tube/fabric aircraft drops off their screen.
 
Aryana said:
Therein lies the problem over a lot of the sanctuaries located over the west coast. Mountainous terrain obscures the coverage especially below 1000 feet AGL. I've done it (not over marine sanctuaries) in steel tube, metal, and composite aircraft while in contact with ATC and they pipe up real quick when the non Mode C equipped steel tube/fabric aircraft drops off their screen.
Click to expand...

They are losing contact with you because of altitude not the construction method for the aircraft. Radar cross section is a composite of many factors but fabric aircraft with metal support structure and engines produce a excellent radar image. Lots of angles under the fabric to reflect radar energy.

George
 
Thanks for the link. Lot of really helpful info there. Curious to hear the answer on your question from some of the experts here!
 
Low flight over water

Don't forget marine birds are also flying low over the water. How would you like a pelican coming through your windshield?
 
There are only a few places where the minimum altitudes are enforced, the Grand Canyon being the most well-known. The dotted areas may be a recommendation or request right now. If we push the limits, get enough complaints from the general public, then we will be faced with more widespread restrictions. I enjoy the peace and quiet of our national and state parks and understand the 2,000 agl recommendation. I also prefer to keep my windshield and leading edges intact and insurance rates lower. It gives me three more miles of glide distance. Most of my bird encounters have happened at or below this altitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top