Low level flying
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:55 am
Low level flying
Its my understanding that flying should be done 1000 feet above populated areas. And in unpopulated areas, 500 feet away from any form of populace. I've also been told that during any part of flight, you should always be able to land safely (ie dont fly inverted at 10 feet; you'll never flip and land if you get an engine failure).
I understand "populated areas" to be any blobs of yellow on a VNC. So those little circles depicting towns, or the shapes for larger cities. To me that means stay 1000agl above those, but anything other than those, stay 500ft AWAY (not necessarily 500agl). So to this, if Im skimming treetops (more or less, say 100-200ft) or flying in valleys, is any of this considered illegal or against CARs?
I understand "populated areas" to be any blobs of yellow on a VNC. So those little circles depicting towns, or the shapes for larger cities. To me that means stay 1000agl above those, but anything other than those, stay 500ft AWAY (not necessarily 500agl). So to this, if Im skimming treetops (more or less, say 100-200ft) or flying in valleys, is any of this considered illegal or against CARs?
-
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 3592
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:29 am
- Location: The Frozen North
- Contact:
Re: Low level flying
If you can be considered a hazard to persons or properties on the ground, then, although hard to enforce, it is against those pesky rules. If there are pax on your machine, then it can be considered reckless flying.
Not withstanding the above, in a single engine piston machine, it isn't the best way to reach your biblical 4 score and 7 year life span. Wires, towers, snags (gray, dead treetops) and higher bird activity make for a higher hazard level.
Not withstanding the above, in a single engine piston machine, it isn't the best way to reach your biblical 4 score and 7 year life span. Wires, towers, snags (gray, dead treetops) and higher bird activity make for a higher hazard level.
Re: Low level flying
Lots of those "towns" don't really exists. I would climb for anything that really exists (ie: I can see more than 4 houses) Other than that, I stay down low.small penguin wrote:Its my understanding that flying should be done 1000 feet above populated areas. And in unpopulated areas, 500 feet away from any form of populace. I've also been told that during any part of flight, you should always be able to land safely (ie dont fly inverted at 10 feet; you'll never flip and land if you get an engine failure).
I understand "populated areas" to be any blobs of yellow on a VNC. So those little circles depicting towns, or the shapes for larger cities. To me that means stay 1000agl above those, but anything other than those, stay 500ft AWAY (not necessarily 500agl). So to this, if Im skimming treetops (more or less, say 100-200ft) or flying in valleys, is any of this considered illegal or against CARs?
That's why good planning is required. Low level flying isn't dangerous. Heck, we fly at 250' AGL and 420 Kts ground speed every day. What is dangerous is the lack of planning and studying before the flight. A good look out AHEAD of the aircraft is also essential. Call every tower you see/should see. Stick to your planned route unless you are willing to climb a little bit to give you more brain cells.just curious wrote:If you can be considered a hazard to persons or properties on the ground, then, although hard to enforce, it is against those pesky rules. If there are pax on your machine, then it can be considered reckless flying.
Not withstanding the above, in a single engine piston machine, it isn't the best way to reach your biblical 4 score and 7 year life span. Wires, towers, snags (gray, dead treetops) and higher bird activity make for a higher hazard level.
AuxBatOn
Going for the deck at corner
-
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Low level flying
I get real nervous when I see or hear low time pilots discussing low flying.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:55 am
Re: Low level flying
Whenever I see a house, or .. lately huts on the frozen lakes, I usually dodge them. Of course flying low has extra ... obstacles...
AuxBatOn, do you do pipelining or something similar?
AuxBatOn, do you do pipelining or something similar?
Re: Low level flying
The CARs say something like "500 feet from any person, structure or vessel", but generally it is a good idea to stay at least 500 feet above the ground as there will always be power lines, towers and similar things that can be hard to see until it's too late (unless you are up in the middle of nowhere). Also when you're very close to the ground you obviously have less margin for error.
Unless you're a commercial pilot and your job specifically involves low flying, it's generally best to avoid flying below 500 feet. And if you have any doubts, just take a look at the accident reports and you'll see quite a few involving low flying.
Unless you're a commercial pilot and your job specifically involves low flying, it's generally best to avoid flying below 500 feet. And if you have any doubts, just take a look at the accident reports and you'll see quite a few involving low flying.
-
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Low level flying
Low flying and inexperience quite often is just an accident going somewhere to happen.I get real nervous when I see or hear low time pilots discussing low flying.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Low level flying
I believe if you are operating commercially then the 703/704/705 regs also dictate how low you can go.
My memory is suggesting 300 feet agl for 703?
My memory is suggesting 300 feet agl for 703?
Re: Low level flying
I wouldn't say inexperience (as in low time) so much, but without proper training, yes, it's an accident waiting to happen.. . wrote:Low flying and inexperience quite often is just an accident going somewhere to happen.I get real nervous when I see or hear low time pilots discussing low flying.
Going for the deck at corner
-
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Low level flying
Where does a PPL get proper training for low flying?I wouldn't say inexperience (as in low time) so much, but without proper training, yes, it's an accident waiting to happen.
That is what I was referring to..as ..inexperience.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Low level flying
I used to work for TC Enforcement, and a lot of our cases dealt with Low Level Flying.
The assumption that as long as you are greater than 500' AGL, you'll be legal, is not always true. (even if there is no yellow on the map)
There is no definition in the CARS as to what a "built up area" is, therefore if TC can argue that those 4 houses you flew over at 500' constituted a "built up area", then you are in violation.
Having said that, it is also VERY hard to prove an altitude with eyewitness accounts.
The assumption that as long as you are greater than 500' AGL, you'll be legal, is not always true. (even if there is no yellow on the map)
There is no definition in the CARS as to what a "built up area" is, therefore if TC can argue that those 4 houses you flew over at 500' constituted a "built up area", then you are in violation.
Having said that, it is also VERY hard to prove an altitude with eyewitness accounts.
Re: Low level flying
TC has nothing to do with me, so I could not care less of what they thinkBushCaddy wrote:I used to work for TC Enforcement, and a lot of our cases dealt with Low Level Flying.
The assumption that as long as you are greater than 500' AGL, you'll be legal, is not always true. (even if there is no yellow on the map)
There is no definition in the CARS as to what a "built up area" is, therefore if TC can argue that those 4 houses you flew over at 500' constituted a "built up area", then you are in violation.
Having said that, it is also VERY hard to prove an altitude with eyewitness accounts.
.: Seen!
AuxBatOn
Going for the deck at corner
Re: Low level flying
250' AGL and 420 Kts ground speed doesn't really look like pipelining in a 172.small penguin wrote:AuxBatOn, do you do pipelining or something similar?
Unless they are doing so now with those.
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/e ... ault_e.asp
-
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Low level flying
Actually I am going to be flying in Canada again soon, will be picking up the new Husky in a few weeks.TC has nothing to do with me, so I could not care less of what they think
As far as TC goes I very much doubt that I will have any reason to ever communicate on any level with them.
It would be highly unlikely that any TC inspector in the Pacific Region would be dumb enough to give me any hassel unless they have a wish to be on the receiving end of another harassement charge.
But for sure you are correct AuxBatOn, I couldn't care less what they think.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Low level flying
I was recently buzzed by a West Coast Air beaver while walking along a dyke. He came over roughly 30' agl, and 150' down the dyke. No doubt about it, what he did was illegal. I was tempted to get the reg and report it, but what would it accomplish? Aviation will always attract a healthy percentage of idiots...
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:40 am
- Location: YXL
- Contact:
Re: Low level flying
Damn -- he was 25 feet too high -- in reality he was actually using his head -- the fact he didn't fly directly over you shows he was thinking -- most young aviators and a few older ones enjoy the thrill once in a while -- -- but like anything else -- certainly a right and a wrong way to do it.
Black Air has no Lift - Extra Fuel has no Weight
ACTPA
ACTPA
Re: Low level flying
I'm not sure anybody cares, but I (legally) "low fly"
all the time. Upright, inverted, knife edge, etc. It's
what I get paid to do.
Aerobatics aside, there is one thing that you must
always do before you perform any low flying, and
that is a recon. You must know for certain that
there are NO WIRES or other obstructions along
your route, or your ingress or egress path.
You don't just "low fly" on the spur of the moment -
that's very high risk behaviour.
all the time. Upright, inverted, knife edge, etc. It's
what I get paid to do.
Aerobatics aside, there is one thing that you must
always do before you perform any low flying, and
that is a recon. You must know for certain that
there are NO WIRES or other obstructions along
your route, or your ingress or egress path.
You don't just "low fly" on the spur of the moment -
that's very high risk behaviour.
Re: Low level flying
SP - why are you asking these questions about low flying? If you are intending on low flying, the fact you are having to ask questions about it here should be a red flag that you shouldn't be doing it. The low altitude record has already been set, tied by many, and can't be broken.
Re: Low level flying
Unless you are low-flying as part of your job and have been properly checked out (pipeline, survey, fire suppression etc.) you have no place doing it. Low flying for the thrill of it is as foolhardy and asinine as any of the other activities that raise your chances of getting killed, hurting someone else in the air or on the ground or damaging somebody's property.
Don't do it. "Professional Pilot"....what?
Don't do it. "Professional Pilot"....what?
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:17 pm
Re: Low level flying
husky wrote:I was recently buzzed by a West Coast Air beaver while walking along a dyke. He came over roughly 30' agl, and 150' down the dyke. No doubt about it, what he did was illegal. I was tempted to get the reg and report it, but what would it accomplish? Aviation will always attract a healthy percentage of idiots...
I wish I was there. That's music to my ears. Oh..and please don't rat out other pilots we get enough BS from the public.