This might be a really stupid question...but here goes.

Over congested area its 1000' AGL
Over Non congested area its 500' AGL

I just watched a video in "Whered you fly today" of flying to mexican mountain. I saw that he was flying pretty dang close to the road, 50 feet up or so. Awesome video....

So, whats the deal, if it is out in the middle of nowhere, noone watching its ok, or what?

Like I said, might be a dumb question, but Ive gone a long ways in life asking them rather than not.

ohadI wrote:This might be a really stupid question...but here goes.

Over congested area its 1000' AGL
Over Non congested area its 500' AGL

I just watched a video in "Whered you fly today" of flying to mexican mountain. I saw that he was flying pretty dang close to the road, 50 feet up or so. Awesome video....

So, whats the deal, if it is out in the middle of nowhere, noone watching its ok, or what?

Like I said, might be a dumb question, but Ive gone a long ways in life asking them rather than not.

It's NOT a dumb question. Here's the regulation, verbatim:
§ 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.

(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 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.

So, if you are out in the middle of nowhere, you may LEGALLY TIE the low altitude flight record . That would be one half millimeter I reckon. The FAA says you just have to be at an altitude such that if you have an engine failure, you won't cause any damage to people and stuff on the surface. You can kill yourself and your passengers, and they wouldn't cite you under this reg, but rather under 91.13---Careless and Reckless Operation.

One thing you have to be careful with when it comes to off airport landings, though is pay careful attention to the very first words in that regulation: "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing". So, if you're operating a seaplane for example, and you CHOOSE to land near a boat, you're in violation of this regulation UNLESS that was the ONLY way you could land on that lake.

Fly safe.

MTV

I also read the regulation and see what it says, but...

I guess Im trying to understand the close to the road flying. With the 500 foot rule, how could one assume that there are no cars coming down the road? If there was and the said car was buzzed at 50 feet, wouldnt that be a violation?

Thanks

If there was and the said car was buzzed at 50 feet, wouldnt that be a violation?

Yup.

Cary

That's why ya go directly over 'em so they can't read your N number!

Gump

I often wonder the same thing. Say I'm buzzing down the river, and go around a corner and there is a river boat there. I'm closer then 500 feet, but there's no way I could've known he was there, or gained altitude fast enough. But Im guessing I'm in the wrong either way...

yep

Yes, you will note that there is no verbiage such as "intentional" or "knowing" or "inadvertent" in any of the FARs..... Didn't know they were there? You're still busted.

MTV

And if you noticed, the altitude over the few congested areas were well in excess of minimums. And the rest of the time there were no persons, structures, vehicles or vessels within 500 feet. At all times the aircraft could be safely landed without undue hazard to persons or property. One of the great things about flying in primarily G airspace over barren land.

ohadI wrote:I also read the regulation and see what it says, but...

I guess Im trying to understand the close to the road flying. With the 500 foot rule, how could one assume that there are no cars coming down the road? If there was and the said car was buzzed at 50 feet, wouldnt that be a violation?

Thanks

If you can't see 500 feet down the road you shouldn't be that low. Also the 500 foot distance need not be altitude. Lateral distance is OK as well.

So, it's not a person, vessel or vehicle, but, does the FAA consider a road to be a structure? Can you legally zoom down the road, in the middle of nowhere, at 5 feet? Assuming of course, that you climb to 500' when near any of that other stuff?

So, a 180 with Clevelands requires an STC, right?

oops, wrong thread...

flyingzebra wrote:So, it's not a person, vessel or vehicle, but, does the FAA consider a road to be a structure? Can you legally zoom down the road, in the middle of nowhere, at 5 feet? Assuming of course, that you climb to 500' when near any of that other stuff?

Which also begs the question. If a paved road is a structure, is a dirt road a structure? And if so is a plowed and cultivated field a structure. i.e.. mown grass fields. How about fence lines? Fortunately for this crowd, the answer is no.
Again, the 500 feet distance is a straight line distance in ANY direction. Not just up. 500 feet to the side meets the regulation. Think of radio towers on a hill. You are not required to fly over them. You can pass them to the side with the required distance.
Flying low down over roads in the middle of nowhere with gusty cross winds is excellent practice for cross wind landings and a heck of a lot better than mucking up the pattern at your local airport doing low passes.
Also it breaks up the monotony on long flights over the desert.

flyingzebra wrote:So, it's not a person, vessel or vehicle, but, does the FAA consider a road to be a structure? Can you legally zoom down the road, in the middle of nowhere, at 5 feet? Assuming of course, that you climb to 500' when near any of that other stuff?

Now if one is LANDING on said road....

Gump