300' rule & Seaplanes...

[iflyforpie]

The 'I was going to land' excuse didn't work for the chopper pilot that was violated for buzzing around low level. Read it in the ASL a while back.

I've buzzed around lower than 300ft; but that was under 702 where there is no minimum altitude other than what is specified in part 6.

[Cat Driver]

This has to be the most stupid thread for quite some time.

Anyone who thinks sea planes do not regularly fly below 300 feet above the water on the west coast going from point A. to point B. obviously needs a reality check.

[Widow]

Cat, don't other countries have different rules for seaplane ops?

And, don't some seaplane ops operate as 704 instead of 703?

[Cat Driver]

There are very few countries that have sea plane operations to the extent that Canada does, Alaska would be the only one that I know of that has a big sea plane buisness.

Europe has almost none and the few that do operate there have some strange ideas on how to operate them.

That was one of the reasons the Greek HCAA hired me, to help them set up a set of rules that would allow sea planes to operate safely.

I have an Australian authorization to fly and teach on Australian registered airplanes but I have never flown in Australia so I really am not familiar with their rules because that was not what concerned me when I was teaching the Australians.

widow the bottom line is sea planes fly in an entirely different environment than land based airplanes and thus their weather problems are quite different.

A sea plane when flying over water has the runway below them at all times, the issue is seeing where you are going and being able to see the runway below you.

If you have glassy water below you it does not matter if you are flying at 3 feet....300 feet or 3000 feet you can not tell how high you are above the water by looking at it.

Sea plane flying requires completely different techniques and rules compared to land planes, an experienced sea plane pilot who knows the area they are flying in can fly at 100 feet until they die of old age providing they can see the water and far enough ahead to land or turn around if they see something ahead of them that they must avoid.

[mag check]

I must go see that "country" of Alaska one of these days

[Donald]

Anyone who thinks sea planes do not regularly fly below 300 feet above the water on the west coast going from point A. to point B. obviously needs a reality check.

Ok so using the same logic, should speed limits on roads, drunk driving laws, marijuana laws, underage drinking laws all be abolished?

[Widow]

Understanding what you're saying is kind of why I asked Cat. Seaplane ops are different for lots of reasons, and that difference is important enough that it should be reflected in different regulations - IMHO.

[Cat Driver]

Ok so using the same logic, should speed limits on roads, drunk driving laws, marijuana laws, underage drinking laws all be abolished?

How are you making the connection between the above laws and flying a sea plane below 300 feet?

Is it your opinion that the pilots on the west coast who sometimes fly below 300 feet over the water are dangerous?

If we use your logic Donald then we must ban all agricultural flying, all fire suppression flying, all air show displays etc. right?

Sometimes I can't believe the thought processes of some people in aviation.

I have more time flying below 300 feet than a lot of the posters here have flying period so if it is so dangerous how come I never banged one up?

[Cat Driver]

Ok so using the same logic, should speed limits on roads, drunk driving laws, marijuana laws, underage drinking laws all be abolished?

Here is a real good idea for you Donald.

To stop this dangerous type of flying why don't you do what i suggested, start flying around as a passenger and document all the cases of pilots who fly sea planes below 300 feet out there on the west coast, after you put a large number of pilots and companies out of business go sit in the Flying Beaver and tell everyone what you did to make flying safe....you would be real popular...but I don't think you would be safe once you left the flying beaver.

[Widow]

Again, don't some seaplane ops fall under 704 rather than 703? And, if so, how does that make their regulatory burden different?

[iflyforpie]

I have more time flying below 300 feet than a lot of the posters here have flying period so if it is so dangerous how come I never banged one up?

Because some corrupt pencil pushing twit in TCCA who's entire flying experience was done off and over land says it's dangerous!

[Cap'n P8]

Again, don't some seaplane ops fall under 704 rather than 703? And, if so, how does that make their regulatory burden different?

Well if they are operating 704 then the minimum altitude is 500'. If you could find a big enough seaplane to operate under 705 it would be 1000'.

[mag check]

Because some corrupt pencil pushing twit in TCCA who's entire flying experience was done off and over land says it's dangerous!

Exactly, just like the one that tried to bust me years ago for flying out of an area the he considered "built up", and much too confined for my little floatplane. And he knew, because he had all kinds of Albatros time, and there was nooooooo way he would fly out of there

Too bad there was no definition in the CARS for a "built up" area, so I didn't have to stop

[Cat Driver]

Well if they are operating 704 then the minimum altitude is 500'. If you could find a big enough seaplane to operate under 705 it would be 1000'.

Really?

The last Canadian registered sea plane I flew was operated by Enterprise Air under 705 as I recall and I don't remember such a restriction.

[cessnafloatflyer]

Have a look at the Vancouver VTA.
We are required to be at 500 feet for almost all of the approaches to the River quite a ways out there. When that runway below is 10 foot swells, calm as glass or 6 inch waves, we're down there all day. Heck we can go weeks without getting over 1000 feet. 2 miles vis, 500 feet and well until you're 2 miles from shore all you see is white and water below; virtually IMC. Very different than up high on an airway that's for sure. But that's what we do, we're trained to do it and you'd better know what 2 miles looks like.

[Cap'n P8]

Well if they are operating 704 then the minimum altitude is 500'. If you could find a big enough seaplane to operate under 705 it would be 1000'.

Really?

The last Canadian registered sea plane I flew was operated by Enterprise Air under 705 as I recall and I don't remember such a restriction.

Once again, I'm not posting because I personally care that someone is out there flying below these altitudes. I flew in the bush for 7 years before my current gig...I know what goes on.

But the fact is, someone asked what the regulation was and I remembered where to find it and posted it.

703
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.

704
VFR Flight Obstacle Clearance Requirements

704.23 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 500 feet AGL or at a horizontal distance of less than 500 feet from any obstacle.

705
VFR Flight Obstacle Clearance Requirements

705.32 Except when conducting a take-off or landing, no person shall operate an aeroplane in VFR flight

(a) during the day, at less than 1,000 feet AGL or at a horizontal distance of less than 1,000 feet from any obstacle; or

(b) at night, at less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of five miles from the route to be flown or, in designated mountainous regions, at less than 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of five miles from the route to be flown.

[Hornblower]

Private pilots are not restricted thusly. I guess they are deemed to be better decision makers and more skilled/experienced than most of the 703/4/5 guys.

[ragbagflyer]

Maybe the loophole we need is in "AGL". If you are in a seaplane, over water you clearly aren't over "ground". Also, considering that these are "obstacle clearance requirements" why should they even apply to open water?

[Cap'n P8]

Private pilots are not restricted thusly. I guess they are deemed to be better decision makers and more skilled/experienced than most of the 703/4/5 guys.

No, they do not carry the paying public. Isn't that what every rule for commercial operations is about?

[Cap'n P8]

Maybe the loophole we need is in "AGL". If you are in a seaplane, over water you clearly aren't over "ground". Also, considering that these are "obstacle clearance requirements" why should they even apply to open water?

I'm pretty sure the term applies to the surface, rather than just ground.

[Donald]

I asked this question in post #2 and it appears things are going in circles, so I'll ask again:

If 300 feet is unacceptable, where should we draw the line?

200 feet?

100 feet?

or no line at all?

[Cat Driver]

I asked this question in post #2 and it appears things are going in circles, so I'll ask again:

If 300 feet is unacceptable, where should we draw the line?

200 feet?

100 feet?

or no line at all?

Lets assume you are flying your trip over the Bonneville Salt Flats or even better the airport runway you took off from stretches right to your destination, how high would you need to fly above the runway to be safe?

[mag check]

I asked this question in post #2 and it appears things are going in circles, so I'll ask again:

If 300 feet is unacceptable, where should we draw the line?

200 feet?

100 feet?

or no line at all?

Lets assume you are flying your trip over the Bonneville Salt Flats or even better the airport runway you took off from stretches right to your destination, how high would you need to fly above the runway to be safe?

If I was flying over the salt flats, I would want enough altitude to glide to the other side, because most times of year, that is the absolute worst spot to land an airplane.
So considering the size of Bonneville, I would want about 25000 ft before I felt good and "safe"

Other than that, I kinda like flying in ground effect

[Widow]

Here is a copy of the letter that sparked this thread.

TCFloat1.JPG (67.02 KiB) Viewed 1271 times

TCFloat2.JPG (96.4 KiB) Viewed 1271 times

Oh, and here it is in PDF format in case anyone wants a copy ...

TCCA Float Rule Letter.pdf

(141.85 KiB) Downloaded 138 times

[mag check]

What is required I wonder to get "special provision" to operate below 300'?

Is a commercial helicopter required to be above 300' as well?