Low level flying

[Max1594]

I've always been told that the areas on the sectionals that are yellow are 'congested' but other than that its up to you to decide whether its un-congested or sparsely populated.

On another note my instructor told me about a guy he knew that would buzz a lake, never got caught but crashed into a tree and kicked the bucket!

 

[Maurus]

As far as a cub flying low, there could be a grass field you don't know about near you. Had that happen once. Wondered why a cub flew over me at 200 feet AGl only to find out later on that there was a private grass field down the road.

 

[gne in prog]

I've always been told that the areas on the sectionals that are yellow are 'congested' but other than that its up to you to decide whether its un-congested or sparsely populated.

On another note my instructor told me about a guy he knew that would buzz a lake, never got caught but crashed into a tree and kicked the bucket!

i knew a guy who got killed with his student buzzing a lake. they didn't see the high tension power lines that went over one end.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

I've always been told that the areas on the sectionals that are yellow are 'congested' but other than that its up to you to decide whether its un-congested or sparsely populated.

On another note my instructor told me about a guy he knew that would buzz a lake, never got caught but crashed into a tree and kicked the bucket!

If I recall correctly yellow is the area that would be "lit up" at night. So that probably would in most cases be congested, unless there are just fields full of lights somewhere.

 

[Max1594]

If I recall correctly yellow is the area that would be "lit up" at night. So that probably would in most cases be congested, unless there are just fields full of lights somewhere.

That makes sense

 

[Maurus]

That makes sense

Unfortunately the definition of congested and uncongested are not given until you are getting cited by the FAA. The yellow area idea is a good rule of thumb, but just because you are outside of the yellow, it doesn't mean you are in an uncongested area.

 

[inigo88]

I've always been told that the areas on the sectionals that are yellow are 'congested' but other than that its up to you to decide whether its un-congested or sparsely populated.

Not trying to be the reg police, but I don't think this is right. Here's appropriate part of 91.119:

91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes: General

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes...

...

(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.

(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.

I have a book called the FAA Aeronautical Chart User's Guide (I think by NACO?) that is basically a visual glossary to aeronautical chart symbols. For populated places, it calls the the outlined yellow cities "Large Cities Category 1," then cities which just appear as a yellow square are "Cities and Large Towns Category 2," and towns which appear as a little open circle are "Towns and Villages Category 3."

By the NACO definitions, ALL of those would be considered congested areas (if we assume that village=settlement anyway, I sure don't know the difference). I agree with SpiraMirabilis that the three categories of city/town on charts are only for recognition purposes.

"Any Open Air Assembly of Persons" applies to things like stadiums and racetracks (watch out for TFRs too) but I've had one CFI even tell me that busy FREEWAYS met the definition too (I see the logic but I bet this is a contentious subject).

So ultimately the way I interpret it is that any city/town/village/settlement you can see on an aeronautical chart is considered congested, and it's then up to you to decide what outside of that is "Other than congested" (500 ft deck) or "Sparsely populated" (500 ft dome).

Conveniently, none of this is further elaborated upon in Part 1.

 

[Guy]

Agreed.......certain activities (military especially) are exempted from the 500 ft min alt rules, though as I understand the regs, only in authorized areas.

Any government owned and operated aircraft is termed "public use". A term that always struck me as odd since they won't let me use them. Public use aircraft are not required to follow the FARs. The logic is that governments are responsible and operate in a responsible manner and therefore it is inappropriate to impose rules on them outside those of their own government agency. This principle came under scrutiny a couple years ago when a county police helicopter was involved in a fatal accident when flown by a pilot who did not have a pilot certificate.

When it comes to the military, the FAA has no authority. However, at the beginning of each of the service's book of rules is a rule that says "obey the FARs" or words to the affect. So, when a military pilot violates an FAR, the FAA will turn the information over to the applicable service and close the case with no further action. What happens to the airman after that is left to the discretion of the service.

 

[Guy]

What if its your property? I've always wondered this. Can you buzz your house if its the only house out in the sticks? Can you fly over your boat at 30' agl? The reg says Persons or Property, but it seems to me that you should be able to operate around your stuff however you choose.

Yes and no. No, you can't come close to "stuff", but you also would not be in violation of 14 CFR 91.13(a) because that pertains to the property of another. If it is your land and your aircraft and there are no structures, have at it.

 

[///AMG]

When it comes to the military, the FAA has no authority. However, at the beginning of each of the service's book of rules is a rule that says "obey the FARs" or words to the affect. So, when a military pilot violates an FAR, the FAA will turn the information over to the applicable service and close the case with no further action. What happens to the airman after that is left to the discretion of the service.

Negative. I am subject to the FARs when flying in US airspace, just as I am subject to OPNAV 3710 (Navy regulatory document). They do happen to overlap in many areas, but I can get violated by the FAA just as fast as I can by big Navy. I know several people who have gotten FAA issued PDR's while flying jets with "Navy" written on the side in US airspace. You are correct that the service does it's best to protect the identity of the aircrew and work from there, BUT, we still can technically be violated.

 

[MikeD]

Negative. I am subject to the FARs when flying in US airspace, just as I am subject to OPNAV 3710 (Navy regulatory document). They do happen to overlap in many areas, but I can get violated by the FAA just as fast as I can by big Navy. I know several people who have gotten FAA issued PDR's while flying jets with "Navy" written on the side in US airspace. You are correct that the service does it's best to protect the identity of the aircrew and work from there, BUT, we still can technically be violated.

AND, if you happen to have FAA certificates and the FAA finds that out, they can (if they wanted) violate your civilian certificate for a violation occurring in a military aircraft EVEN though you weren't operating under the priviliges of your civilian certificate. Hence why you never give any sort of ID if you decide to call or make any sort of contact via landline OR put any identifying info for the Aircraft Commander on a DD-175.

 

[Guy]

I understand Aerobatics pilots have low level waivers, but when they want to do stunts, like when the motorcycle jumped over skip stewarts airplane, do they have to have special permission from the FAA or is that all covered under their low level waiver.

I’m weak in this area, so if someone has more detail or correction, please let me know.

I believe this is the way the process flows:

First, the pilot makes application for an Aerobatic Competency card. They are judged by a representative of the National Aerobatic Association much like a DPE would judge an airman applying for a pilot certificate.

The Aerobatic Competency card (FAA Form 8710-7) includes altitude limitations for the pilot.

Next, the aerobatics can be done in an Aerobatic Practice Area or in conjunction with an Aviation Event under the authority of the FAA. In an air show, someone is appointed as a responsible individual and part of what happens is that all performers are checked for their credentials including aerobatic competency if applicable.


References:

AC 91-45C Waivers: Aviation Events
FAA Form 8710-7 Aerobatic Competency
FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 6 Issue a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for an Aviation Event.

 

[Guy]

Unfortunately the definition of congested and uncongested are not given until you are getting cited by the FAA. The yellow area idea is a good rule of thumb, but just because you are outside of the yellow, it doesn't mean you are in an uncongested area.

Absolutely and unfortunately, 100% correct. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is "congested".

 

[Guy]

Negative. I am subject to the FARs when flying in US airspace, just as I am subject to OPNAV 3710 (Navy regulatory document). They do happen to overlap in many areas, but I can get violated by the FAA just as fast as I can by big Navy. I know several people who have gotten FAA issued PDR's while flying jets with "Navy" written on the side in US airspace. You are correct that the service does it's best to protect the identity of the aircrew and work from there, BUT, we still can technically be violated.

If by PDR, you mean a Pilot Deviation Report, that is not a violation. That is an informational document written by ATC.

I would never say that something “never” happened because weird stuff happens, but I’ll past some quotes from FAA Order 2150.3B FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program below. They are in Chapter 4 and Chapter 7. There is also additional verbiage in other areas of the order.

Stripping the quoted parts down to simpler words, they say an enforcement cannot be done on someone subject to UCMJ when they are acting in that capacity. It also says that an airman whose competence is in question can be reexamined (referred to as a 44709). A 44709 reexamination may feel like an enforcement to the airman, but it isn’t the same thing.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/17213
<O

d. Violations by Members of the U<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><st1:country-region>.S. </st1:country-region>Armed Forces. The FAA is required to forward reports of these violations to the Secretary of the department concerned under 49 U.S.C. § 46101(b), whenever the violator is acting in the performance of official duties. The FAA, however, takes remedial action in addition to referring a report when the violator, whether or not acting in the performance of official military duties, holds an FAA certificate, and the violator’s qualifications are at issue. The FAA may take punitive action against a member of the U.S. Armed Forces for a violation committed when the member is not performing official duties.

(7) 49 U.S.C. § 46301(h) provides that 49 U.S.C. § 46301 does not apply to a member of the armed forces of the United States or a civilian employee of the Department of Defense subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice when performing official duties. The appropriate military authority is responsible for taking necessary disciplinary action and submitting to the Administrator with respect to aviation safety duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator, a timely report on action taken.

 

[///AMG]

Yes, I am aware a PDR is not a violation in the traditional sense, but it still is frowned upon both in the military as well as out on civilian street (and is seen by mil commands as a violation). Either way, I'm just speaking to the regs that pertain to myself and all the other military aviators I know of. When in CONUS, we obey the FAR's, which are generally less conservative than our service regs. We have certain waivers that allow us to deviate in very specific areas (minimum airspeed in controlled airspace, and altitude/airspeed on defined VR/IR routes come to mind here). Perhaps MikeD or Hacker can amplify this info, as they have far more experience than I, but that is how it is taught to us from day 1. Mike is absolutely right that a violation in a mil aircraft can be transferred by the FAA/FSDO to your civilian ticket, which many of us have.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Only if they can find out who was flying it, which depending on how severe the "violation" is and how obstinate the USAF/FAA liason officer wants to be (usually I hear they try to be 'very obstinate'.) I imagine most FSDOs can get in a hissy fit that they don't have the immediate way of finding out who was PIC/AC on military flights that they do on civ ones. I wonder how many "enforcement actions" were dropped just because the inspector that started it forgot about it before the pilot was identified.

 

[///AMG]

Like I said, in almost every case I have seen, the pilot WAS protected from the FAA. Does that mean that they are protected from the wrath of their command? No. We are professional aviators just like the 121/135/etc guys, and violating a FAR in US airspace is not looked at lightly. I have yet to see an instance where the FSDO called down to report something that was bogus. Blowing through a clearance altitude, or exceeding 250 kts below 10k in congested airspace where a civilian controller would care enough to call it in (some violations that come to mind out of recent memory) are not violations where your skipper is going to think "hey, they were just doing what they needed to do to get the job done". That kind of stuff makes squadronmattes question your professionalism just as much as it would make your chief pilot wonder "wtf?" in the civilian world. I guess my point is that there seems to be a misperception among civilian pilots that we fly by a totally different set of rules and that the strong arm of the law can't touch us. In reality, we spend a good bit of time and thought deconflicting the military control of our tactical flying in restricted areas/MOA's/low level routes, with the civilian control that we back up against going to and from these areas, and it would be foolish to just think that your regs don't apply. Most of them are written for the safety of everyone, and I like to keep my jet just as far from conflicting traffic as the next guy. When not in one of these training areas, we are almost always either under IFR control, or at the very least using flight following, and abiding by those applicable regs. I think it would be good for more of you to know that we fly by the same rulebook, and aren't out there getting handouts from the feds just because we fly tactical aircraft.

 

[Guy]

Yes, I am aware a PDR is not a violation in the traditional sense, but it still is frowned upon both in the military as well as out on civilian street (and is seen by mil commands as a violation). Either way, I'm just speaking to the regs that pertain to myself and all the other military aviators I know of. When in CONUS, we obey the FAR's, which are generally less conservative than our service regs. We have certain waivers that allow us to deviate in very specific areas (minimum airspeed in controlled airspace, and altitude/airspeed on defined VR/IR routes come to mind here). Perhaps MikeD or Hacker can amplify this info, as they have far more experience than I, but that is how it is taught to us from day 1. Mike is absolutely right that a violation in a mil aircraft can be transferred by the FAA/FSDO to your civilian ticket, which many of us have.

Yes, I understand that the military is governed by military regulations, and as I wrote earlier, each service has a "thou shall obey all FARs in their regulations somewhere". My question to you or Mike is how can a violation in a military aircraft by a military pilot subject to UCMJ be "transferred" to a cvilian "ticket" (certificate) when the FAA Order says:

49 U.S.C. § 46301(h) provides that 49 U.S.C. § 46301 does not apply to a member of the armed forces of the United States or a civilian employee of the Department of Defense subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice when performing official duties. The appropriate military authority is responsible for taking necessary disciplinary action and submitting to the Administrator with respect to aviation safety duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator, a timely report on action taken.

Although, I will say I got a little cross-eyed trying to read 49 USC 46301. Perhaps MidlifeFlyer can help on that level of detail.

 

[ETAV8R]

that video and song are cool.

found this while watching the initial vid, im sure this is here on JC somewhere:
[yt]cD2sdNrvgrE&feature=fvw[/yt]

 

[MikeD]

Yes, I understand that the military is governed by military regulations, and as I wrote earlier, each service has a "thou shall obey all FARs in their regulations somewhere". My question to you or Mike is how can a violation in a military aircraft by a military pilot subject to UCMJ be "transferred" to a cvilian "ticket" (certificate) when the FAA Order says:

As I understand it, it's not supposed to be able to, because when piloting a military aircraft, you are in no way acting on the priviliges of your civilian ticket. I have seen guys have the FAA attempt to come after them though when their identity was somehow discovered, or they (stupidly) identified themselves. Now, how far that went or how it went I wasn't privy to, but it's ass pain nonetheless.