Goldy Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 "Kathleen Bergen, spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said that in general, the minimum safe altitude for an aircraft over a congested area is 1,000 feet. "However, there is some flexibility in that for helicopters because of their maneuverability," she said. "If we got a report that they were operating in a careless and reckless manner, of course we would investigate." Gee, I wonder what "some flexibility" means...I just cant remember reading that phrase in the FAR's ! Goldy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justfly Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 ...Gee, I wonder what "some flexibility" means...I just cant remember reading that phrase in the FAR's !uh, I know you know this Goldy, but since there are others that read here to learn, I don't think she was being obtuse, she means, 14 CFR PART 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES § 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. ( 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. (d) Helicopters. Helicopters MAY be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph ( 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 any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator. (I capitalized "MAY") She also reserved the right, as always, to interpret low flight as careless and reckless vis-à-vis, § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation. (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. ( Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. I actually thought it was good of her to point out that there are exceptions for helicopters, many fixed-wing pilots are indignantly unaware of that. Especially since the local law enforcement had already gone-a-huntin' fer a rogue helmachopper peelot! Helicopter triggers 911 calls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldy Posted June 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2008 JustFly- First thanks for the vote of confidence ! What surprised me is why the FAA spokesperson didnt just state what the FAR's state....that helicopters can be flown below 1000 feet as long as they dont create a hazard to persons on the ground..period. The way she states it , every reporter now thinks any flight below 1000 AGL is unsafe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingseapig Posted June 17, 2008 Report Share Posted June 17, 2008 JustFly- First thanks for the vote of confidence ! What surprised me is why the FAA spokesperson didnt just state what the FAR's state....that helicopters can be flown below 1000 feet as long as they dont create a hazard to persons on the ground..period. The way she states it , every reporter now thinks any flight below 1000 AGL is unsafe. Perception is everything. You need to operate the aircraft in a way in which any observer on the ground can feel safe and not threatened. If someone on the ground feels threatened and gets the tail number and calls the FAA you can get in trouble. I know a guy who zoomed low over the beach and a FAA rep was enjoying a family day at the beach and felt that the operator was flying wrecklessly and got his tail number and the guy got a letter of caution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADRidge Posted June 18, 2008 Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 Seapig; that is a good point, however I think the point Goldy was making (sorry if I'm using your words in the wrong way, Goldy) is that thanks to Ms Bergen, the general public has that much more reason to believe that any operation under 1000' AGL is unsafe. I know of a situation where a school has gotten complaints and threats from a "concerned citizen" complaining about a low-flying R-22 that was 800'AGL at the time of complaint. The statement made by Ms Bergen, while somewhat true, doesn't help with how certain members of society see us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2008 B I N G O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.