FAR 91.119 minimium safe altitudes vs. barnstorming over people

[Vance]

Real Names

Real Names

There are only two requirements of this Forum:

1. Your Real Name In Your Profile
2. Your Location

Thats it, if you are unable to meet these simple requirements, you will be placed in a "non posting status". This will allow you to view the forum, but you will be unable to post or participate in discussions.

I am encouraging everyone to check their profiles and update them if they need it. Anyone registered in the last couple months was forced to enter their name but prior to that, the software had no requirements.

I appreciate everyone's cooperation.

Todd

For those who don't know Todd owns this forum and is kind enough to let us play here.

I try to follow his simple rules.

I don't feel he should need to be a policeman. He is a fireman.

 

[Kolibri]

I thank most of you for your replies.

Vance, I respectfully disagree with your take on this flight. Worst possible moment offered no "nice little beach" to land on. (Width looked to be <15', backed by trees. I'd have gone for the water.) Even if his glide ratio was slightly better than 4:1, it wouldn't have been much help from <100' AGL.

Also, being that low with an engine-out, a low-time pilot would probably at first pull back on the stick to reduce sink. There goes his Vg.

Finally, you yourself have posted that you don't fly over water because you were trained not to fly over something you cannot land on. (You even fly from clearing to clearing.) I agree with such precautions. Whenever I am over water, I try to ensure that the coast is landable, and within glide distance.

____
Gman, I previously posted that I've also made mistakes in the air. However, I have not intentionally busted MSAs, much less so blatantly. I certainly didn't post any video of it. (Gang-bangers get convicted all the time from selfie videos of their drive-by shootings.)

____

Kolibri you're just too "F"ing stupid to shut up. It those flyers suffer any damages you will be libel for damages and you should know better .

Letters of Investagation are a pain & you wish this on them?

"libel"? Did you mean "liable"?
And for what "damages"? From when somebody files an FAA complaint?
What the hell are you talking about?
I'm the fellow urging him to delete the video.
It was foolhardy airmanship, illegal, unsafe, and a bad example.

Does not fall under any rule as a hazard. Land in the water for emergency--- Not congested--Not flying fast---Just two dorks off to the side in a boat.

hillberg, have you even read FAR 91.119(c)? If you're a pilot, you should. Oh, and some people trying to enjoying a quiet time fishing with their boy, not bothering anyone, are "dorks"? How dare them be 100' underneath us on our river while we scream overhead at 5100rpm? What were they thinking coming out of nowhere like that?

While we're at it, let's just turn FAR 91.119(c) inside out and make it the public's responsibility to scatter out of our way whenever we descend below 500'. We bought "dirt bikes of the air", don't they know? The public hasn't a right to restrict our fun, and it's much less fun to fly above 500'.

Dorks on a river, huh? It's attitudes like yours which are part of the problem. (And, btw, the nonflying public do occasionally read our forum.)

Finally, you need to stop using profane insults with me.
You're not in my league, on any level.
If you don't like my posts, just add me to your Ignore list in your Profile Details.

____

With your thorough analysis and eye for detail, I find it hard to believe that you do not know, because every post on Youtube has the name of the poster.

thomasant, as I stated in my first post, it was an older video in my harddrive archives (downloaded from last summer, with its June 2014 file date), and I didn't recall from where I got it. I hadn't looked at it online to create the thread. Download it yourself to HD, and see what identifying data remains (none). I use YouTubeDownloader and save mp4 files.

I saw the video, and it does not look like the pilot buzzed the boat. He actually passed to the side of the boat at 1:16 and 1:17. While the altimeter reads 100 ft, how can one accurately ascertain that the gyroplane is within 500 ft horizontally from the boat, based on the video? If the FAR has been violated, then how does one prove the distance to the boat based on the video? I am not saying that what the pilot did is right or wrong.

IMHO, it is difficult to accurately ascertain the distance from an object with these video cameras.

I believe there would have been more value for me in this thread from focusing on the lessons brought out from the video, rather than criticize the pilot. Just my thoughts.

I never claimed that he passed directly overhead. But it doesn't matter that he passed off to the side; he was still waaaay too close.

Altimeter: heh, at 100' AGL one doesn't even need an altimeter! Are you alleging he was >500' AGL? Really? He was at or just below treetop height. Besides, 100' MSL indicated is probably <100' AGL, anyway, as I doubt that river's elevation was 0' sea level. I'd bet they were actually only 60-70' off the water.

Lateral distance: Look at frame 1:10 to see the entire width of the river where the boat is. I doubt there are 10 boat-lengths at that narrow stretch. And, the boat looks to be about 21' long (3.5 men of 6' height). One thing is for damn sure: The river is nowhere near wide enough for the gyro to have been 500' away. Even if we had only the last seconds of the video itself to go by, that would still be obvious. The passenger waves his hand out the door, so we've even got scale. And notice how big the RAF's shadow was; you won't create that from 500' up.

But, hey, why need I explain all this? Just ask the pilot himself, whom you all know!

______

A blind monkey could figure out where that video came from and who the pilot was.

Yep, Timchick, I agree. But I didn't try to figure out its origin when I created the thread. Why post his name? I wasn't trying to get him busted. I thought discussing it more generically would give him time to reflect and delete it (if he read the thread, or was notified by a friend). And, anyway, just this morning somebody emailed me his identity (thanks).

He was bold enough to fly it, and proud enough to post it on YT panhandling for accolades.
So, will our Perfume RiverBoy please stand and take his bow?
(He's not only on the forum as Arnie said, but in this thread, talking smack. Priceless.)

I watched several of his other videos (wow), but have I missed even better stuff? Any with some flying under bridges or power lines?

That fisherman could have groused about the fly-by to his brother-in-law pilot, describing it as a "blue, helicopter-looking thing". The pilot replies, "Oh, that's ______ in his RAF 2000 gyro! He flies around there all the time. Likes to post his videos on YouTube."

Pissed-off fisherman easily finds the footage online. Complains to the local FSDO. FSDO guy doesn't like gyros; they're always having incidents. Watches the river flight vid, and then also discovers "RAF 2000 Gyroplane - Coast Flying" plainly showing illegal flight over neighborhoods and businesses at 150-450' indicated. FSDO guy sorta sees a pattern of FAR 91.119(c) violations. Enforcement follows. Fewer thumbs up in the cockpit from his lady.

TO THE PILOT OF TOPIC:
WaspAir patiently explained FAR 91.119(c) to you, yet you haughtily disagreed. When he politely corrected you, you still hadn't the maturity or grace to say, "Thanks, I guess I had that wrong, sorry."

I'm glad you sold your RAF and are building a solo machine. No more passengers to risk in the air (e.g., flying over the ocean with your lady at, what?, 20-30'). Perhaps you'll have some introspection about your flying before you finish your hot Genesis. In your RAF you were already doing 45° S-turns at 50' AGL. Glad you survived. You may not next time. If you're married with young children you need to consider where to draw the line with your risky jollies.

Finally, this "fool" offers the following advice regarding your future similar river stunts:

1) DON'T DO IT.
2) If you do it, don't film it.
3) If you film it, keep your face and altimeter out of it.
4) If your face and altimeter are in it, don't post it.
5) If you post it, do so pseudonymously.
6) If you post under your actual name, delete it before it gets you into trouble with the FAA.
7) If you're too dense to have ignored 1-6 . . . then you're beyond help.

I strongly recommend that you:

1) Grow up regarding how you fly. Get in the "we" mode and out of the "me" mode.
2) Delete all your videos containing incriminating footage.
3) Cease calling me a "fool". It's inaccurate, and, coming from you, tympanicaly ironic.

If you choose to take all this with maturity as a growth experience, I would accept your apology with a handshake across the airwaves. (btw, it seems that you are married, so I deleted the snide remark about your male passenger, for which I apologize.)

____
Recently I was doing an hour of pattern work and noticed a guy parked at the airport watching. As I taxiied up he walked over to the chainlink fence. I walked over to chat. He said that he enjoyed watching the landings, and had some questions commonly asked of us. During this friendly conversation he casually mentioned (and without any rancor) that he's heard me fly over his house just south of the airport. I asked if my gyro seemed too loud. Not really, not quite, but . . . I then offered to fly a bit higher or give him a wider bearth from now on. He wasn't even asking for that, but seemed to appreciate the thought.

Every time we take to the air, we either add or subtract from our "perception account" with the public and the FAA. The way you fly can affect my own privileges. While aloft I keep in mind that it's not all about me. I ask that you do, too.

Thanks, and best regards, Kolibri

 

[Timchick]

Kolibri, are you the president of your neighborhood watch program?

 

[oldsparky]

thanks Vance, I just wondered what you were doing at such a high altitude, but you have just explained it. I get hypoxia rejoining the airfield at 1500 ft agl never mind 12000 ft.
I think a 2 place gyro would have a much better glide ratio than a single like mine.
The highest I have been is 6500 ft but the terrain below was 6000 ft.
cheers Bruce

 

[Vance]

I thank most of you for your replies.

Vance, I respectfully disagree with your take on this flight. Worst possible moment offered no "nice little beach" to land on. (Width looked to be <15', backed by trees. I'd have gone for the water.) Even if his glide ratio was slightly better than 4:1, it wouldn't have been much help from <100' AGL.

Also, being that low with an engine-out, a low-time pilot would probably at first pull back on the stick to reduce sink. There goes his Vg.

Finally, you yourself have posted that you don't fly over water because you were trained not to fly over something you cannot land on. (You even fly from clearing to clearing.) I agree with such precautions. Whenever I am over water, I try to ensure that the coast is landable, and within glide distance.

Thanks, and best regards, Kolibri

Please don’t just make things up and ascribe your thoughts to me.

The title of my post was “Dangerous?”
I used that to indicate that I was addressing your contention that the flight was unsafe.

“In my opinion a water landing is not particularly dangerous in a gyroplane.”
Is my way of suggesting that even if a water landing was necessary it was not particularly dangerous.

“Based on the video it seems unlikely to me even if the engine quit at the worst possible moment that there would be injuries to persons or damage to property on the ground.”
Is my way of saying the people in the boat were not in danger.

“I see lots of nice little beaches along the route as possible landing zones.”
Is my way of pointing out that there were some landing zones along the route.

“I fly higher than the aircraft in the video (500’ to 1,000’ AGL) and yet I am certain there have been lots of times when an untimely engine out would have damaged the aircraft.”
Is my way of pointing out that no matter how hard I try there are not always nice landing zones available.

“I feel there is value in practicing simulated engine out landings so I am familiar with the performance of the aircraft under varied circumstances.”
Is my way of agreeing with you that simulated engine out practice has value.

To be clear, I agree that the FAR was broken in relation to the boat.

§ 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.

The FAR is about SAFE not about being annoying.

I would have flown higher for several reasons.

I don’t fly very far from the shore because a water landing is hard on the aircraft.

I don’t feel the flight was particularly dangerous.

I would not pick this video as an example of bad manners or breaking the spirit of the FARs.

I feel being thoughtful and courteous about the effect I have on others when I am flying a gyroplane is important for the future of civil aviation.

Based on your posts on the Rotary Wing Forum I suspect you will not have a positive influence on the image gyroplanes.

Based on you lack of comprehension of posts on the Rotary Wing Forum I suspect you will break many FARs in your flying because you will read something into them that isn’t there and not consider their purpose.

I can understand why you want to remain anonymous.

 

[hillberg]

Kolibri Flying from 1978 no violations flying ever- South America-Alaska & SoCal


I think your axe to grind is for being stupid enough to buy a POS and no clue to how to get blood out of a turnip .

As for the FARs that flight was not "Illegal" have you ever worked out a CAP for a flight?

part 133 is a lot more fun, /you just stir the pot and the 'perception of safety" is lost to the general public .....You are more of a hazard to aviation .....

 

[Vance]

Hypoxia!

Hypoxia!

thanks Vance, I just wondered what you were doing at such a high altitude, but you have just explained it. I get hypoxia rejoining the airfield at 1500 ft agl never mind 12000 ft.
I think a 2 place gyro would have a much better glide ratio than a single like mine.
The highest I have been is 6500 ft but the terrain below was 6000 ft.
cheers Bruce

Glad I answered your question Bruce.

I suspect you are making a joke about hypoxia Bruce; I wasn't.

I feel based on my experience I should use supplemental oxygen above a density altitude of 8,500 feet and 5,000 feet at night.

It may be my traumatic brain injury that makes me predisposed to hypoxia.

I feel hypoxia is a very real danger in flying high.

The FAA rule is:
§91.211 Supplemental oxygen.
(a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry—
(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;
(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and
(3) At cabin pressure altitudes above 15,000 feet (MSL) unless each occupant of the aircraft is provided with supplemental oxygen.
(b) Pressurized cabin aircraft. (1) No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry with a pressurized cabin—
(i) At flight altitudes above flight level 250 unless at least a 10-minute supply of supplemental oxygen, in addition to any oxygen required to satisfy paragraph (a) of this section, is available for each occupant of the aircraft for use in the event that a descent is necessitated by loss of cabin pressurization; and
(ii) At flight altitudes above flight level 350 unless one pilot at the controls of the airplane is wearing and using an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed and that either supplies oxygen at all times or automatically supplies oxygen whenever the cabin pressure altitude of the airplane exceeds 14,000 feet (MSL), except that the one pilot need not wear and use an oxygen mask while at or below flight level 410 if there are two pilots at the controls and each pilot has a quick-donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position within 5 seconds, supplying oxygen and properly secured and sealed.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, if for any reason at any time it is necessary for one pilot to leave the controls of the aircraft when operating at flight altitudes above flight level 350, the remaining pilot at the controls shall put on and use an oxygen mask until the other pilot has returned to that crewmember's station.


I feel this is too high for me and probably for some other gyroplane pilots.

 

[anthom]

Altimeter: heh, at 100' AGL one doesn't even need an altimeter! Are you alleging he was >500' AGL? Really? He was at or just below treetop height. Besides, 100' MSL indicated is probably <100' AGL, anyway, as I doubt that river's elevation was 0' sea level. I'd bet they were actually only 60-70' off the water.

Kolibri, read my post again please. Where have I alleged that he was over 500 ft AGL. I have queried the horizontal distance, not the vertical.

If one does not need an altimeter at 100 ft AGL according to you, then at what height do you consider an altimeter as a requirement?

As far as the FAR is concerned, he was not in violation while flying in a sparsely populated area or over water at around 100 ft AGL, till he unexpectedly encountered the boat and he may have been closer than 500 ft.

Would your perception of the situation have been different if, instead of the boat as it appeared in the video, it was a capsized boat and the pilot flew intentionally lower and closer to take a look for any survivors trapped so that he could get help for them? Or would you just fly further away from the boat for fear of violating the FARs?

Sometimes there is no cut and dried answer. It depends on the situation for me.

IMHO, I feel this thread is "Much ado about nothing".

 

[WaspAir]

a tangential comment for Vance

a tangential comment for Vance

Howdy, Vance -

here's a thought for you to consider about true vs. indicated airspeed with respect to glides, inspired by the bold-face text below:

Minimum power required in The Predator is around 53kts but I experimented with as low as 45kts indicated air speed so my ground speed was typically around 65 to 70kts making 4.4 to one a more likely engine off glide ratio as I calculate it. This is not counting the additional ground speed at the higher elevations for a given indicated air speed at higher elevations.

The extra ground speed one gets from higher true airspeed does not improve a glide ratio, because the same density effect is felt in the vertical speed as well. A VSI is an "indicated" vertical speed device. The same rule of thumb (say, 2% per thousand feet) for true vs. indicated applies in both the horizontal and vertical directions, so the ratio between horizontal and vertical doesn't change. Flying at the same indicated airspeed at a higher altitude will take you down exactly the same angle toward the ground, only you will fly that angle a little faster. The glide ratio is independent of altitude.

Perhaps you meant something different in your comment, but it is an interesting little detail that many pilots have never thought through and might be worth me making this additional post here.

Happy landings.

 

[bryancobb]

DeFacto View

DeFacto View

...they said that most gyroplanes are amateur built and flown by minimally trained sport pilots, which naturally makes low flight more dangerous than helicopter operations where most aircraft are certified and pilots hold higher certificates. ...I found the response frustrating, and most everybody else here is likely to find it insulting, but that's the FAA view of the situation...

Accurate or inaccurate, that's how the FAA folks, most general aviation folks, and even the non-flying public view the gyroplane segment of aviation. Wasp, you will admit, I`m sure, that you are an ``outlier``among gyro aviators.

In my opinion, four things will have to happen before gyro pilots can enjoy the same respect and credibility as other segments of aviation. It will take 20-plus years for this to happen.

* All gyros start to LOOK like real aircraft instead of a few sticks of tubing with a jon-boat seat bolted on.
* Overwhelming majority of gyro pilots start having and demonstrating significant training instead of being or acting ``minimally trained.``
* Allowing enough time to pass that all the memories of The Bensen Era will be forgotten and that legacy that is such a roadblock to progress is a faded memory.
* Significantly improved safety record.

It`s not fair, but life isn`t fair.

 

[Steve_UK]

Bryan that makes a good deal of sense.

 

[birdy]

Brian, Steve, your chasen the rong dog.
The public ( and this includes every non gyro driver) are ignorant.
Hell, they even think gyros are dangerous.
Pretty clothes wont do anythn, look how many pretty ones are flapn blades n such. This makes even pretty ones look ugly.
Significant train,n aint worth squat if theres no basic understandn of how gyros fly. ( rotor management)
If we keep headn down the automated path instead of the educated path, no amount of time will fix the ignorance issue.

Inherantly stable machines and educated pilots will improve the image, not paint, short skirts, automation or pices of paper.

Theres absolutely nuthn dangerous bout a few tubes and a dunny seat under a rotor coupled to an educated head.

 

[C. Beaty]

The general public says; “That looks so dangerous, sitting out in the open like that."

Imagination always trumps reality.

 

[JAL]

Theres absolutely nuthn dangerous bout a few tubes and a dunny seat under a rotor coupled to an educated head.

Never heard of that brand of rotor head, is it new?

 

[PW_Plack]

Allowing enough time to pass that all the memories of The Bensen Era will be forgotten and that legacy that is such a roadblock to progress is a faded memory.

Bryan, I don't know if modern gyros have improved that much on the safety record, in terms of accidents or fatals per hour flown, from the Bensen era. You can't leave something behind if you're not walking away.

 

[Vance]

Howdy, Vance -

here's a thought for you to consider about true vs. indicated airspeed with respect to glides, inspired by the bold-face text below:



The extra ground speed one gets from higher true airspeed does not improve a glide ratio, because the same density effect is felt in the vertical speed as well. A VSI is an "indicated" vertical speed device. The same rule of thumb (say, 2% per thousand feet) for true vs. indicated applies in both the horizontal and vertical directions, so the ratio between horizontal and vertical doesn't change. Flying at the same indicated airspeed at a higher altitude will take you down exactly the same angle toward the ground, only you will fly that angle a little faster. The glide ratio is independent of altitude.

Perhaps you meant something different in your comment, but it is an interesting little detail that many pilots have never thought through and might be worth me making this additional post here.

Happy landings.

I found much about my 15 mile glide confusing.

I mentioned the indicated air speed at altitude compared to ground speed because in my opinion that further confused the calculations and the effect of the tail wind.

I suspect you are correct.

In my opinion any rotorcraft makes a poor glider.

If someone asked me if it could be done before I did it I would say no; a gyroplane has a three to one glide ratio.

In my opinion it was a poor aviation decision to shut off the engine.

I still use three to one glide ratio to imagine possible landing zones.

 

[willisbr]

Chuck and Birdy, refreshing posts. Thanks. True and well taken.

 

[Kolibri]

Kolibri, are you the president of your neighborhood watch program?

Timchick, no, not any longer, thanks to hillberg.
My HMA has been reading this thread and voiced concern that I may be "libel for damages".
Although they don't know quite what that means, it was spooky enough for them.

_____

As for the FARs that flight was not "Illegal"

hillberg, you still believe that? Not only am I wrong, but so is Vance?
And you claim violation free flying since 1978?
Did you mean "have never been charged with a violation"?

If this flight, according to you, was not a violation of 91.119(c) then you've probably busted that reg many times not even knowing so.

have you ever worked out a CAP for a flight?

As if CAP flights searching for crash survivors haven't a variance to 91.119(c)? This wasn't a CAP flight.

And what did you mean by "libel [sic] for damages"?

_____

Please don’t just make things up and ascribe your thoughts to me.

Vance, I would never intentionally do so, and don't believe that I have even unintentionally. To what do you refer here?

As I put it, "worst possible moment" was at about 1:12 a few seconds away from the boat. There was not, IMO, any wide enough beach then along the way (although there were earlier in the flight). "Murphy" plans these things, not us.

Is my way of saying the people in the boat were not in danger.

Yes, I got that the first time. I disagreed, partly because of your caveat to me regarding RAF Product Notice #33 in which a rotor blade flew off due to a failed retaining bolt and killed a student. Yet you posit that the ditching of an RAF where the craft is expected during emergency procedures to be right-rolled into the water will not risk people in the boat nearby to a rotor snapping off from the hub bar? That struck me as paradoxical.

I feel being thoughtful and courteous about the effect I have on others when I am flying a gyroplane is important for the future of civil aviation.

Not only do I totally agree, my previous closing vignette was an example of it. Aviating courtesy has been the entire subject of my thread.

Based on you lack of comprehension of posts on the Rotary Wing Forum I suspect you will break many FARs in your flying because you will read something into them that isn’t there and not consider their purpose.

An erroneous concern. With the exception of a part of thomasant's last reply (which I'll address below), my reading comprehension can't much be faulted. More than once you have misread my posts (e.g., replying about negative gs when I mentioned only zero g, or that engine cg is not gyro cg when I never claimed it was).

I understand FARs quite well, both in letter and spirit. Many pilots know me personally, and I haven't any rep for breaking FARs.

I would not pick this video as an example of bad manners or breaking the spirit of the FARs.

Let's see a "better" example!

Actually, the pilot himself seemed less-than-keen on buzzing the river after passing the boat. He instantly added power and was on the climb. I don't know him personally, but his expression seemed anxious. To me, the last 13 seconds looked like GTFO. It was probably the smartest thing he did that day.

I can understand why you want to remain anonymous.

Since you've never asked me about that, no, you don't understand, but you presume to. I am not anonymous to my friends. I have pilot Amigos, on and off the RWF.

To be clear, I agree that the FAR was broken in relation to the boat.

Thanks for the clarity. Some readers here remain confused (or mistaken) about it.

_________
thomasant, correct, your issue wasn't about the altitude. A friend had paraphrased a few replies over the phone, I took yours as relating to both altitude and separation, and I didn't read yours carefully enough once I got online, apologies. My "at 100' AGL one doesn't even need an altimeter" was obviously tongue-in-cheek, since at 100' nobody is looking at their altimeter.

Would your perception of the situation have been different if, instead of the boat as it appeared in the video, it was a capsized boat and the pilot flew intentionally lower and closer to take a look for any survivors trapped so that he could get help for them? Or would you just fly further away from the boat for fear of violating the FARs?

Sure, hypothetically, that'd have been another story.
But is your argument reduced to such? You're not even allowing that he was within 500' laterally when the issue was obvious.

__
You asked that I focus on the lessons brought out from the video. Roger, wilco. This analysis has been very interesting and helpful to me to conceptualize these strata:

1) have I the altitude to entirely clear the generally nonlandable area?

2) if not, have I the altitude to still reach a viable emergency landing spot within that poor terrain? (Vance's 3:1 glide ratio planning prudence is wise, and I will hereafter employ for myself.)

3) if not (and why would one fly lower than that?), can I at least see/avoid 91.119(c) issues?

The min. altitude for #2 obviously depends upon terrain. If it's praire, then #1 equals #2 -- one could roar around at 100'. Whether or not you'd then still comply with #3 depends upon your AS, alertness, visual acuity, and reaction time -- better to have first surveyed from 500'.

Had he been yanking and banking at just 75' above the trees (still too low to choose amongst emergency landing options, IMO, but low enough to be somewhat exciting) he'd have at least allowed himself lateral "outs" whenever needed. When, at <100', he first saw the boat, he was ~528' away. Had he been above the trees at, let's say, 200' AGL, he'd have seen it from probably twice that distance over the trees and had time to veer off, maintaining 500' separation.

It seems to me that there were three conceptual levels of altitude over that unfriendly (though indeed picturesque) terrain.

generally safe altitude to glide away from that terrain: 1500'?
(i.e., gliding distance to flat land? 6000'? More?)

minimum altitude for emergency landing on suitable beach: 500'?
(500' x 3:1 glide ratio = 1500' Needed even more?)

minimum altitude to see/avoid river traffic from above trees: 200'


Below 500' he's significantly risking himself and his passenger.

Below 200' he's also irresponsibly risking people on the river, and thus guaranteeing himself a FAR 91.119(c) violation if anyone is just around the bend (as they were). For example, once he began to climb/GTFO after passing the boat, his VS seemed about 300fpm. From <100' AGL, this would have been insufficient from 1:10-on to reach 500' separation from the boat just 6 seconds away. (Even with an unavailable 1000fpm climb he'd have gained only 100' in that time.)

Winding rivers are great fun, but don't get too greedy with low altitude. When you've a passenger or people below, the safety:thrill ratio should never get out of whack. The lesson here is that 500' would have been minimum for safety and compliance. Anything less was geometrically more risky. (Once he was at 100', he actually had nothing more to lose by dropping to 50'!)

This would have been a tricky route to plan emergency landing spots. Early on in the video there were some "nice little beaches" but not near the boat. A precautionary overflight would have identified them and their max distance from the beginning and end points of the route. If 200' AGL is our lowest FAR 91.119(c) see/avoid/getaway over the trees altitude, then we'd better not be more than 600' (200' x 3:1) from one of those wider beaches. 1200' long is a very short circuit, but it's the max available at only 200' AGL. Want a longer one than 1200'? Unless one has has made the intentional choice of the river itself as the emergency landing area (which one must have previously confirmed clear of all people and boats), one must fly higher, it's just that simple.

_____
One last thing about such low flying: I think a pilot is honor bound to discuss this first with his passenger and thoroughly inform him of the risks. (Let's assume the pilot has just surveyed the river from 500' and is absolutely sure that the two mile stretch he wants lowfly is clear of people and vessels. Then pilot should say something like, "OK, nobody's down there. I've flown this stretch at <100' and it's a blast, but the price of that thrill is that if this used car engine suddenly quits on us, we're in the water within several seconds because we can't rely on an engine-out happening near a beach. I'm willing to risk myself and my own gyro, but I can't assume that risk for you. If we go down, it'll probably be survivable. The gyro will suffer considerable damage and may even be totaled, but we'll likely live. So, it's your call, because this must be a unanimous decision. Do we stay high and safe or go low?"

btw, such pilots may want to have on file a signed and witnessed covenant not to sue from these passengers. It's all fun and games, until Jake breaks his back and most friendships won't survive that. He'll later claim in court that he wasn't informed of such increased risks, that he wouldn't have otherwise flown if a water ditching was the only option, that he requested a safer altitude to the pilot's refusal, etc., etc.

Look, I understand why we all love to fly gyros. They're exciting. And the lower we fly them, the more exciting they become. I was this young man's age myself, and also did many bone-headed yee-haw things (mostly on motorcycles). Had we Hero4 cameras back then, I'd have also posted a bunch of my exploits on YT. However, I did survive and outgrow my youthful exuberance and poor judgment, and I want the same for him, too.

We don't have to fly like Grandma, but we do need to carefully think through how we fly over inhospitable terrain and where to draw the line between fun and safety. Sure, it's often tempting to go just a little bit lower, but at some definable point you will cross into the Zone Of No Outs. ZONO is no place to be. As a middle-aged man, I am blessed to have survived my own foolish forays there. As my flying proficiency increases and my judgment improves, my goal is to widen the time between my own ZONOs until they nearly cease to occur. Being human, however, we can not likely completely eliminate them.

Please fly wisely. Protect yourself and our sport. Thanks, Kolibri

 

[Gman]

Kolibri,
After taking the time to read your posts under this topic and others, I have misspoke to you. I will try to engage the brain in the future. I apologize to you for this.
Jerry

 

[Kolibri]

much appreciated

much appreciated

Kolibri,
After taking the time to read your posts under this topic and others, I have misspoke to you. I will try to engage the brain in the future. I apologize to you for this.
Jerry

OK, I just picked myself off the floor.
Wow, thanks for that. Apology accepted of course; no hard feelings.
I pop off online myself, even on RWF. hwell:
I'll try to tone it down here.
Fly safely -- have fun!