Nothing in the rules make any mention to "as long as you know the area AND you have good visibility." Are those conditions that we should just assume?
Well where do I start to answer you square?
O.K. I'll try this way.
If I am flying a float plane ( which incidentally I do. ) and I have the legal horizontal visibility 2 miles or 1 mile with special permission I am happy as a clam to fly forever below 300 feet as long as I know the area.
When flying in an area I do not know in a float plane I want at least four miles horizontal visibility to feel safe.
Rules are needed, however to be a safe pilot you also need the ability to think and know the subject you are thinking about......local knowledge of the area is critical when flying float planes at the minimum visibility that is in the CAR's.
Does that answer make it more understandable for you square?
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
The reason why so many are confused about the 300 ft regulations is because when the AirRegs were changed to the CARS in about 96? so were the VFR rules. Old rule: below 700 feet 1 mile vis and clear of cloud except 2 miles vis coast of BC. New rule: Minimum Altitude 300 feet and 2 miles visibility.
Anybody correct me if I am wrong. In case my memory is failing me.
Bob
[quote]Widow Stated
When flying VFR, good knowledge of the route, alternates and weather (current and norms) for the area are ESSENTIAL for safe flight. Flying around the wet coast, there's a good chance on any given day that you'll run into a low cloud/fog bank. You're either gonna have to turn around or go OTT (assuming you're authorized in your AOC) in order to stay within the regs. I think the issue is, 300' AGL in a wheeled plane (which needs something resembling a runway for safe landing), is quite different from 300' AGL in a floatplane (which uses water for safe landing). In a wheeled plane, 300' doesn't give much time to find a suitable place to land. In a floatplane, assuming you're flying over water, you've got your suitable place to land ...
I'd guess, in a floatplane, you would be a lot safer staying 200' above the water than 300' above the rocks.
Do I have any of that right?/quote]
Widow
You are, in my humble opinion, 100% correct.
However, due to some poorly thought out regulations, it seems that legally we are not allowed to fly before 300 feet now commercially. Yet a 50 hour wonder private pilot in a Cessna 150 on wheels that doesn't know his way around is allowed to fly at 50 feet over the water and clear of cloud within gliding distance to shore, even if it a steep cliff straight to the water.
If you are going to bat for us floaters, the rule should be changed to "When flying below 1000 feet, Visibility for seaplanes 2 miles and clear of cloud" And a 1 mile approval for a specifically trained pilot (ops Spec or pilots license)
Another note.
Its the pilots word against transport because the visibility outside of controlled airspace is forward visibility. that means as seen through the window of an aircraft. Not as reported at weather observation station a number of miles away.
I do and will keep ignoring the 300 feet rule when ever I think it is safe. As do most other commercial seaplane pilots.
Lets have another look at what is legal and what is high risk.
It is legal for me to fly direct from Port Hardy to Sandspit in our Husky on floats if the weather meets the minimum requirements, even if the wind is very strong and the sea has twenty foot waves below me.
Now if for some reason I were forced to land in that situation I would probably not survive.
Yet the rules will prevent me from flying the Husky across to Vancouver under 300 feet even if I can see Vancouver from here.....go figure.
Here is a true story that will maybe explain how differently pilots think.
My crew and I were doing our pre flight checks on the ramp in Luxor for a flight to Alexandria. There was a Cessna 172 parked beside us and the pilot was also doing his pre flight checks and we got talking to him.
He was ferrying it from Kansas to Dubai and I asked him what it was like flying the North Atlantic in a 172 and he said it was very slow compared to the Rice Rocket he had delivered on his last trip. So I asked him how he felt about only one engine and he said it was no problem because it was a new airplane and they never quit.
There is no way either me or my crew would ever fly the North Atlantic in a 172 because we won't bet our lives on one engine.
It is legal to do it but is the risk worth it.
P.S.:
A couple of years later we were holding for weather at Wick Scotland for the jump to Iceland and spent a couple of days talking to another ferry pilot who specalized in ferrying single engine airplanes and he also said it was just routine and he never worried about the engine quitting.
Several months later I got the news through the jungle drums that on his next single engine delivery he left Keflevik and never made Greenland and no one knows where he went down.
There are choices one makes as a pilot and what is legal is not always best.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Thanks Cat and Beaverbob, glad to know I do have some idea what I'm talking about ...
Here's another question. CARS 703.27 is titled "VFR Flight Obstacle Clearance Requirements". Is water an obstacle (esp. to a floatplane)? There is no definition of "obstacle" that I can find in the CARS, but the dictionary I have handy here says an obstacle is "a person or thing that opposes or hinders something". How does water (the runway) oppose or hinder floatplane flights?
Widow wrote:
There is no definition of "obstacle" that I can find in the CARS, but the dictionary I have handy here says an obstacle is "a person or thing that opposes or hinders something". How does water (the runway) oppose or hinder floatplane flights?
No Widow, an obstacle would be a building or a large tree, or an antenna, Power line towers, bridges, a cliff, etc.
Another way to describe it would be anything that could be beside the plane rather than be below it.
Bob
Cat Driver wrote:
Yet the rules will prevent me from flying the Husky across to Vancouver under 300 feet even if I can [sic] see Vancouver from here.....go figure.
Gawd!
You have indicated that you are as quick a study as those less experienced as you (not an old coot), yet you have not grasped what has already been discussed ad nauseam on this thread already: ... you are permitted to fly at 1 foot if you want to, ... you are not a Part VII operator. Come on out here to Ontario where I can teach you about flying.
However if I were to fly the Husky to the Harbor, dock it and do a trip for say WCA in their Beaver than my comment would be valid would it not?
Come on out here to Ontario where I can teach you about flying.
Send me your resume with your qualifications and a few letters of recommendation from your former students and if I think you can actually teach me something I might be interested.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Widow wrote:
There is no definition of "obstacle" that I can find in the CARS, but the dictionary I have handy here says an obstacle is "a person or thing that opposes or hinders something". How does water (the runway) oppose or hinder floatplane flights?
No Widow, an obstacle would be a building or a large tree, or an antenna, Power line towers, bridges, a cliff, etc.
Another way to describe it would be anything that could be beside the plane rather than be below it.
Bob
See, that's what I thought ... which would mean that Mr. Heryet's letter has interpreted the CARS incorrectly ... ???
I'm sure no one here could get away with writing and questioning him ... well, except maybe me ...
what did you think about my stories about ferry pilots flying single engine airplanes over the North Atlantic?
Personally I don't think I would have a problem(mentally) flying single engine across to europe, I have friends who did it, one did many times. Total hours are not excessive, so I think risk of failure is minimal. Probably safer to ditch than crash in many places in Canada.
At least there wouldn't be any mosquitos
Another friend used to ferry twin otters direct to azores, and having the second engine wouldn't help anyways given the amount of fuel in the back
There's only two reasons I wouldn't do it, I don't have an ifr rating, and understand that it is required, and I'm not sure what I 'd do once I got there
Widow wrote:
There is no definition of "obstacle" that I can find in the CARS, but the dictionary I have handy here says an obstacle is "a person or thing that opposes or hinders something". How does water (the runway) oppose or hinder floatplane flights?
No Widow, an obstacle would be a building or a large tree, or an antenna, Power line towers, bridges, a cliff, etc.
Another way to describe it would be anything that could be beside the plane rather than be below it.
Bob
See, that's what I thought ... which would mean that Mr. Heryet's letter has interpreted the CARS incorrectly ... ???
I'm sure no one here could get away with writing and questioning him ... well, except maybe me ...
You're not reading that part correctly widow.
b says two things:
300' AGL
300' horizontal distance
Both conditions are required to be met to meet the regulation.
---------- ADS -----------
"Hell, I'll fly up your ass if the money's right!"
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So
Cat Driver wrote:Does that answer make it more understandable for you square?
No it doesn't. You've rationalized a reason to break the rules. Am I supposed to be impressed? If you like I can give you some physics calculations on how its perfectly safe to take off WAY overweight in any aircraft you choose, just give me a long runway to take off from. Is this going too far for you? Cause you started this bullshit. I'm giving the young bucks here a reason to follow the law. You're giving them a reason to break it. I hope you're happy with influencing their decisions. Cause remember, if that Grumman Goose that smashed itself to pieces was 300 feet above any terrain within 3 miles, a lot of people would still be alive. And yeah, that pilot had DECADES of flying the coast just like you, I guess he just didn't live up to the superpilot standard you like to set. The difference between you and me is that I don't expect every pilot to be 110 percent on top of every gauge 110 percent of the time. Everyone one in ten, or maybe one in a hundred or maybe just one in a thousand is going to be bagged after 10 days of 15 hour duty days, and he might get distracted. I can understand that, but I just don't want it to cost people their lives.
Where have I encouraged young pilots to break the rules square?
I have only been trying to point out that it is safe to fly a sea plane lower than 300 feet above the water if you have the required legal forward visibility.
For instance we can take the Alberny inlet as an example. The inlet is rather narrow and surrounded by hills. I have seen day after day where you could fly out to Barkley Sound with stratus ceilings way lower than 300 feet and the visibility under the cloud layer unlimited.
The inlet is a perfect runway to land on should the engine quit...which would be the only reason you would have to land on it for the simple reason the visibility is perfect under the cloud layer.
Anyhow this is getting us nowhere fast because you have yet to show me why you think what I am describing is unsafe.
And I have never said that anyone should break the regulations no matter how poorly thought out they are,....such as 703 operators have to fly at 300 feet and 704 operators have to fly at 500 feet.
Where did I ever say that pilots should break the rules?
Just to give me an idea of your understanding of the subject how much time do you have flying sea planes, and have you noted that other sea plane pilots feel exactly like I do...the rules are not well thought out.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
I hope you're happy with influencing their decisions. Cause remember, if that Grumman Goose that smashed itself to pieces was 300 feet above any terrain within 3 miles, a lot of people would still be alive.
If that pilot had the legal forward visibility he would not have hit the island....he was flying over water and obviously was climbing to get on top when he hit the hill...even the TSB came to that conclusion. When you lose your legal forward visibility flying low over the water you either land or turn around and go back, it is that simple.
So try another example square.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Cap'n P8 wrote:
You're not reading that part correctly widow.
b says two things:
300' AGL
300' horizontal distance
Both conditions are required to be met to meet the regulation.
Cap'n P8, "b)" does not say and, it says or ...
(b) where the aircraft is an aeroplane, during the day, at less than 300 feet AGL or at a horizontal distance of less than 300 feet from any obstacle.
VFR Flight Obstacle Clearance Requirements
703.27 Except when conducting a take-off or landing, no person shall operate an aircraft in VFR flight
(a) at night, at less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of three miles from the route to be flown; or
(b) where the aircraft is an aeroplane, during the day, at less than 300 feet AGL or at a horizontal distance of less than 300 feet from any obstacle.
Compare the way a is written to the way b is written. I believe part b would have been worded more like part a if it was meant as one or the other. This seems to be TC's interpretation as well. It also seems to me from part a that obstacle implies ground as well as man made structures.
---------- ADS -----------
"Hell, I'll fly up your ass if the money's right!"
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So
Actually that was still pretty vague on my part. Let me try it this way. I have a five year old daughter (true story). She is a fussy eater (big surprise with a five year old, I know!) So I say to her, "You can't play with your toys or watch a movie until you finish your brussel sprouts."
---------- ADS -----------
"Hell, I'll fly up your ass if the money's right!"
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So
That's the point I'm trying to make though, Cap'n. The way the reg is written is confusing, and allows for interpretation. "a)" is clear in its meaning, "b)" is not. The rules should be clear. If they meant what they say they meant, it would be clearer this way:
"at less than 300 feet AGL and a horizontal distance of at least 300 feet from any obstacle."
Actually, that would make it the way you originally interpreted, ie. you can't be less than 300' and within 300' horizontally at the same time.
I guess the only way to make it perfectly clear would be as such:
b. aeroplane during the day
i. at less than 300'
ii. less than 300' horizontally
Which is how the CAR's are typically written to avoid confusion, yeah right!
But back to the example I gave about talking to my daughter:
"You can't play with your toys OR watch a movie until you finish your brussel sprouts."
Even though I used the word or between play/watch, it is clear I mean both conditions must be met. Now look what happens if i changed the 'or' to 'and':
"You can't play with your toys AND watch a movie until you finish your brussel sprouts."
By using the word 'and' it implies that she could only do one or the other, but not both.
---------- ADS -----------
"Hell, I'll fly up your ass if the money's right!"
Orlando Jones - Say It Isn't So
Heaven knows one should not try and figure out what the people at puzzle palace were thinking when they write any rule but the 300 feet above ground is pretty easy to understand.
With regard to the three hundred feet horizontally from any obstacle bit they most likely mean something such as a 300 foot high radio tower, and there is no way I am going to fly my airplane that close to a radio tower period.
The sad part of these issues is if you ask them you will get so many different answers you will be more confused than if you just guess at their meaning.
Then again none of us think they have the brighest and best from society beavering away writing this stuff.
Put yourself in their position, when you have a convoluted massive pile of rules such as the CAR's and you are tasked with adding to them you can run out of words to describe whatever it was you were trying to add.
Someone should write to that Heryt gem and ask him these questions, if nothing else it would give us a look into the inner workings of his mind....just remember that are trained in giving convoluted evasive answers just like politicians.......it is called " Weasel training 101 "
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
