Flight altitude rules?

Vance

Gyroplane CFI
Staff member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
18,357
Location
Santa Maria, California
Aircraft
Givens Predator
Total Flight Time
2600+ in rotorcraft
91-119 Minimum safe altitudes: General and 91-515 Flight altitude rules seem to be in conflict.

Both seem to be in conflict with what I understood is the generally held opinion that you can fly a gyroplane as low as you want over other than congested areas as long as you stay 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

I would appreciate a clarification on this.

What is the minimum altitude for gyroplane flight when not landing or taking off?

What is the tolerance?

Thank you, Vance
 
Just a short start here Vance, someone will get more detailed for you. 14 CFR 91 500 series regs apply to "Large and Turbine-Powered Multiengine Airplanes and Fractional Ownership Program Aircraft", so you're on the wrong page.
 
Last edited:
My guess Vance, is someone with authority is going to point out that a gyroPLANE is not a Helicopter and thus does not enjoy the clearance/altitude allowances of the helo.?!


Cheers :)
 
Thank you Chris,

I am often on the wrong page.

Thank you Harry,

That is probably part of the confusion.

A gyroplane is not a helicopter, it is an aircraft.

Is it an airplane?

I want to play by the rules, I find the rule book confusing.

Thank you, Vance
 
Vance,

Gyroplanes have to follow the same altitude restrictions as standard fixed-wing aircraft. They are not allowed the lower altitudes enjoyed by helicopters.

That is in fact. In practice, a lot of people fly gyroplanes as though they were helicopters and "hope" nobody will notice. They are potentially at risk.

This is an aside to further complicate the issue:

Some airports are developing light sport patterns (often mis-named "ultralight" patterns) for slow-moving aircraft. They are popular and widely used in this part of Georgia. Slower gyrocopters are expected to know about and fly these alternate patterns. This is a problem, because documentation of these "secondary patterns" is somewhat rhetorical and frequently difficult to find. In general, they are at a lower altitude (typically 700 AGL instead of 1000 AGL) and on the opposite side of the field from the standard left-traffic pattern.

*JC*
 
Gyros are not airplanes.

Any time the FAR's use the term airplane it does not apply to us. If they use the term aircraft it does.

.
 
I find the rule book confusing.

Your not the only one who can find it confusing. :rolleyes:

To put things in perspective when the CFR's state "Rotorcraft" it applies to both Helicopters and Gyroplanes. If it states "Helicopters" then of course it only applies to Helicopters.

Again if it states "Airplanes" then it only applies to Airplanes and not Rotorcraft.

"Aircraft" applies to anything with an "N" number. Except an Ultralight which is called an "Ultralight Vehicle".
 
Thank you JC,

What is the altitude restriction for standard fixed wing aircraft?

91.121 seems to me to be in conflict with 91.119.

Is it 500 feet or 180 feet at an altimeter setting of 29.92 or higher?

Am I on the correct page now?

Thank you Tim and Chuck,

That was my understanding; I am often overcome with self doubt.

Thank you, Vance
 
91.121(b) is referring to the flight altitudes above 18000 feet only. It has nothing to do with minimum height over the ground. The reason there are limitations to the altimeter setting is that aircraft above 18000 feet use the standard altimeter setting of 29.92. If they then use a low altitude and there is a low pressure they will be in conflict with VFR traffic. Stick with the rule as explained in 91.119 for minimum height above the ground. 91.119 (a) allows you to go as low as you want as long as you are not in a populated area and don't cause a hazard to persons or property on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Michael,

Your answer caused me to go back and read 91.119 one more time and I think I finally got it. Minimum altitude is 500 feet unless you are over open water or sparsely populated areas. I somehow kept getting confused with the way it is worded.

Thank you, Vance
 
Vance- I have been incorrectly scorned a few times for all the down on the deck flying I did in my gyros. I called my FSDO be reassured I was fine doing so just so of course I maintained 500 ft. from any person, vessel or structure. Now the kicker here is what defines sparcely populated areas? I have been told it is one dwelling every 35 acres, but I cant find that in writing. I am most definately in a less populated area than that. Also the FSDO told me that say you flew what you feel is 500 ft. from a person out walking, and that person turns you in saying you were less than 500 ft. the judgement of distance goes to the pilot over a non pilot. Of course if there are pictures proving you were less than 500 ft., that would get the nod. Stan
 
Vance,

Put simply, fly a minimum of 500 feet AGL over unpopulated areas and a minimum of 1000 feet AGL for anything that is populated. What is populated and not populated is not cut and dried exactly, especially for marginal areas. When in doubt, fly 1000 feet AGL You can't get in trouble if you are a little high.

*JC*
 
And one more detail for those congested areas:

If there's a tower, tall building, or a hill within 2000 feet of you laterally, you need to be 1000 feet above it, not just 1000 agl. Anytime you're within a half mile of a tower or building, you should measure height from the top of it.
 
Thank you Stan,

You were part of the confusion. I like your definition of sparsely populated areas. It sounds official enough to baffle.

Thank you JC,

One of the joys I find is sort of surfing the hills and valleys around here. I love to feel the lift on the windward side and the sink on the lee side. It works best if I am low.

I have found that I can easily do a 180 degree auto if the engine goes quiet from 200 feet and 60kts.

I wanted to make sure I was not inadvertently breaking the rules.

People had told me it was ok but I had trouble reading it in the book.

Thank you Mr. Stark,

How tall does the structure need to be to have these limits?

Would that include power poles? We have a lot of 150 foot high power lines around here and I always try to fly over the top of the structure.

Thank you, Vance
 
And the most important part:

Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
 
I love the way Stan bends the rules to his will, don't you? I think in exactly the same terms buddy!!!

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Vance, say HI to Ed for me!


I’ve never considered a telephone pole to be a structure for anything but woodpeckers?

On another topic …
Been thinking about your newest 2 place design, you'd help me design a similar two place only I really want to try and make it out of carbon fiber? I’ve seen a way to design a cabin that could be removed making it a convertible open frame combo.

PS:
Heads Up!
There is a certain building thread that has gone quiet for way too long now... Do you know who I mean???

The rumor is that the building is about to continue....
Rumors, rumors, rumors, ... where are the pictures.......................
 
Last edited:
There is a certain building thread that has gone quiet for way too long now... Do you know who I mean???

The rumor is that the building is about to continue....
Rumors, rumors, rumors, ... where are the pictures.......................

I know what you mean! I should have some new pictures soon!

Gyro Doug
 
And the most important part:

Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.


This is the critical point I was hoping someone would have made; 500 feet and the ability to hit pay-dirt without bending your gyro too much or breaking someone else's stuff. Thank you helipaddy for pointing out the most important facet of the reg.
 
On another topic …
Been thinking about your newest 2 place design, you'd help me design a similar two place only I really want to try and make it out of carbon fiber? I’ve seen a way to design a cabin that could be removed making it a convertible open frame combo.

.

Hello John,

I have little experience and no success with composite structures so my help would not be helpful.

I love your enthusiasm so I will help any way I can.

I found it instructive bouncing ideas off of a smart experienced fixed wing guy. Thank you for validating the fundamental design goals and helping to quantify performance goals. You stretched my speed a little and understood the reason for my climb and range.

Thank you, Vance
 
Thank you Padraic,

Thank you for adding that. I think it is important.

Thank you Jonathan,

You could have jumped in earlier. I take safety seriously and I want to play by the rules.

Thank you all for helping me to be confused on a higher level, Vance
 
Top