commercial low-flight safety

[gatt[_2_]]

Some duck hunters want to hire me to overfly a network of ponds in Oregon so
that they can scout the hunting range ahead of the season, with the request
that they want to "get down low."

Based on the terrain and the shape of the ponds, it would be easy to set it
up like a basic closed-traffic pattern at 1,500 down to 500' AGL, and I'm
sure pilots in Alaska do that sort of thing in their sleep. (The hunters
are Alaska natives and used to chartering these sorts of flights, and I've
flown with one of them several times noncommercially so they know me and I
know them.)

I told them 500' is as low as I would commit, esp without first observing
for flying birds, tall trees, trigger-happy hunters and other possible
hazards. It's a photo mission and we're launching and returning to the
same field, so it's all legal. The terrain is a very wide, flat,
unpopulated valley floor which is not in a protected wildlife area. The
aircraft is a C-172.

My question is, how low would -you- go for this sort of flight assuming the
birds aren't around and there aren't of Cheneys on the banks looking for
something in the air to shoot at?

Thanks, everybody!

-c
(CP-ASEL-IA)

[John[_13_]]

I would have offered an opinion but since you felt the need to make this a
political statement I won't bother.

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Some duck hunters want to hire me to overfly a network of ponds in Oregon
> so that they can scout the hunting range ahead of the season, with the
> request that they want to "get down low."
>
> Based on the terrain and the shape of the ponds, it would be easy to set
> it up like a basic closed-traffic pattern at 1,500 down to 500' AGL, and
> I'm sure pilots in Alaska do that sort of thing in their sleep. (The
> hunters are Alaska natives and used to chartering these sorts of flights,
> and I've flown with one of them several times noncommercially so they know
> me and I know them.)
>
> I told them 500' is as low as I would commit, esp without first observing
> for flying birds, tall trees, trigger-happy hunters and other possible
> hazards. It's a photo mission and we're launching and returning to the
> same field, so it's all legal. The terrain is a very wide, flat,
> unpopulated valley floor which is not in a protected wildlife area. The
> aircraft is a C-172.
>
> My question is, how low would -you- go for this sort of flight assuming
> the birds aren't around and there aren't of Cheneys on the banks looking
> for something in the air to shoot at?
>
> Thanks, everybody!
>
> -c
> (CP-ASEL-IA)
>
>
>
>

[gatt[_2_]]

"John" > wrote in message
news:u2pnj.33547$75.25569@trnddc05...

>I would have offered an opinion but since you felt the need to make this a
>political statement I won't bother.

Okay, thanks.

>> My question is, how low would -you- go for this sort of flight assuming
>> the birds aren't around and there aren't of Cheneys on the banks looking
>> for something in the air to shoot at?

Ah. Must be the Cheney joke. Sorry... I can't think of anybody else
recently whose inadvertently blasted a fellow bird hunter in the face, but
if you can think of one you're welcome to change the names around to suit
your political sensitivies.

Really, though, I'm sorry you thought a passing joke was a "political"
statement. I have neither endorsed nor condemned a party, candidate or VP,
so, whatever. Have a great week!

-c

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

gatt wrote:
>>I would have offered an opinion but since you felt the need to make this a
>>political statement I won't bother.

>
>-c


He was going to say your plan sounds good and to be careful.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[John[_13_]]

I admit I'm a bit sensitive lately, it seems like so many of threads
degenerate into a political discussion.

To address the question posed: Is this flight to occur during hunting
season or is it before the season open? That would be a big question. You
would not want to be mistaken for a really big goose :)


"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John" > wrote in message
> news:u2pnj.33547$75.25569@trnddc05...
>
>>I would have offered an opinion but since you felt the need to make this a
>>political statement I won't bother.
>
> Okay, thanks.
>
>>> My question is, how low would -you- go for this sort of flight assuming
>>> the birds aren't around and there aren't of Cheneys on the banks looking
>>> for something in the air to shoot at?
>
> Ah. Must be the Cheney joke. Sorry... I can't think of anybody else
> recently whose inadvertently blasted a fellow bird hunter in the face, but
> if you can think of one you're welcome to change the names around to suit
> your political sensitivies.
>
> Really, though, I'm sorry you thought a passing joke was a "political"
> statement. I have neither endorsed nor condemned a party, candidate or
> VP, so, whatever. Have a great week!
>
> -c
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:28:14 GMT, "John" >
wrote in <i1qnj.1407$e46.78@trnddc04>:

>I admit I'm a bit sensitive lately, it seems like so many of threads
>degenerate into a political discussion.

It seems like there's a lot more emotional vitriol being expressed
among newsgroup participants too.

>To address the question posed: Is this flight to occur during hunting
>season or is it before the season open? That would be a big question. You
>would not want to be mistaken for a really big goose :)

Apparently you failed to read the first sentence in the OP:

Some duck hunters want to hire me to overfly a network of ponds in
Oregon so that they can scout the hunting range ahead of the
season, ...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:28:14 GMT, "John" >
> wrote in <i1qnj.1407$e46.78@trnddc04>:
>
>>I admit I'm a bit sensitive lately, it seems like so many of threads
>>degenerate into a political discussion.
>
> It seems like there's a lot more emotional vitriol being expressed
> among newsgroup participants too.

You mean "at you"


You deserve it, that;s why.

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
> "John" > wrote in message
> news:u2pnj.33547$75.25569@trnddc05...
>
>> I would have offered an opinion but since you felt the need to make this a
>> political statement I won't bother.
>
> Okay, thanks.
>
>>> My question is, how low would -you- go for this sort of flight assuming
>>> the birds aren't around and there aren't of Cheneys on the banks looking
>>> for something in the air to shoot at?
>
> Ah. Must be the Cheney joke. Sorry... I can't think of anybody else
> recently whose inadvertently blasted a fellow bird hunter in the face, but
> if you can think of one you're welcome to change the names around to suit
> your political sensitivies.
>
> Really, though, I'm sorry you thought a passing joke was a "political"
> statement. I have neither endorsed nor condemned a party, candidate or VP,
> so, whatever. Have a great week!
>
> -c
>
>

If there are hunters down there they will shoot at you if you are flying
too low. Luckily they are hunting with steel shot so it probably won't
make it up to your alt.

Even if they don't shoot at you they can get your N# and many states
have laws against doing just about anything that could be construed as
harassing hunters.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
> "John" > wrote in message
> news:u2pnj.33547$75.25569@trnddc05...
>
>> I would have offered an opinion but since you felt the need to make this a
>> political statement I won't bother.
>
> Okay, thanks.
>
>>> My question is, how low would -you- go for this sort of flight assuming
>>> the birds aren't around and there aren't of Cheneys on the banks looking
>>> for something in the air to shoot at?
>
> Ah. Must be the Cheney joke. Sorry... I can't think of anybody else
> recently whose inadvertently blasted a fellow bird hunter in the face, but
> if you can think of one you're welcome to change the names around to suit
> your political sensitivies.
>
> Really, though, I'm sorry you thought a passing joke was a "political"
> statement. I have neither endorsed nor condemned a party, candidate or VP,
> so, whatever. Have a great week!
>
> -c
>
>
It's funny about Usenet. I read your post and noted the Cheney reference
and didn't take it to be political at all; simply a metaphor to add a
closing touch of humor. I do this myself all the time.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> It's funny about Usenet. I read your post and noted the Cheney reference
> and didn't take it to be political at all; simply a metaphor to add a
> closing touch of humor. I do this myself all the time.
>
>

Hell, I like Cheney and given that he deer hunts at one of the ranches
in TX where I have hunted a time or two and will probably hunt again I
can tell you that I will be damn sure I know where his gun is pointing
if we are ever there at the same time.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 28, 12:35*pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > It's funny about Usenet. I read your post and noted the Cheney reference
> > and didn't take it to be political at all; simply a metaphor to add *a
> > closing touch of humor. I do this myself all the time.
>
> Hell, I like Cheney and given that he deer hunts at one of the ranches
> in TX where I have hunted a time or two and will probably hunt again I
> can tell you that I will be damn sure I know where his gun is pointing
> if we are ever there at the same time.

Or any hunter. I've not yet met any fellow hunters who find fault in
anyone in his situation. It was an unfortunate thing, like an engine
failure on short final. Something to give pause but not blame.

-Robert

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jan 28, 12:35 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> It's funny about Usenet. I read your post and noted the Cheney reference
>>> and didn't take it to be political at all; simply a metaphor to add a
>>> closing touch of humor. I do this myself all the time.
>> Hell, I like Cheney and given that he deer hunts at one of the ranches
>> in TX where I have hunted a time or two and will probably hunt again I
>> can tell you that I will be damn sure I know where his gun is pointing
>> if we are ever there at the same time.
>
> Or any hunter. I've not yet met any fellow hunters who find fault in
> anyone in his situation. It was an unfortunate thing, like an engine
> failure on short final. Something to give pause but not blame.
>
> -Robert


I agree. I've always felt felt that the pickup on the Chaney incident
was totally unfair and completely political, regardless of the side
speaking out.
I'm positive as is anyone who has seriously hunted or handled firearms
in their life that Chaney simply made a mistake as many of us have made
mistakes. I'm also positive that his concern for his friend's life was
genuine and that what happened that day galvanized him so that for the
rest of his natural born days, he'll NEVER point a firearm anywhere else
but where it should be pointed.
Chaney was extremely lucky to be given a second chance. I know about
these things as I once made a near fatal error myself and was the
recipient of one of those second chances in life.
Those who would enjoy the pain of someone as they suffer through an
experience like that suffered by Chaney for some political agenda are in
my book beyond human feeling as I know it anyway.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>
>Or any hunter. I've not yet met any fellow hunters who find fault in
>anyone in his situation. It was an unfortunate thing, like an engine
>failure on short final. Something to give pause but not blame.
>
>-Robert

Interesting.
All the hunters I know feel the contrary. Shouldn't have happened. Simple
failure of firing discipline.

Most of 'ems elk, bear, deer and antelope killers tho'.
Maybe bird guys are differnt.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> Or any hunter. I've not yet met any fellow hunters who find fault in
>> anyone in his situation. It was an unfortunate thing, like an engine
>> failure on short final. Something to give pause but not blame.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> Interesting.
> All the hunters I know feel the contrary. Shouldn't have happened. Simple
> failure of firing discipline.
>
> Most of 'ems elk, bear, deer and antelope killers tho'.
> Maybe bird guys are differnt.
>

It was a mistake on the VP's part but yes bird hunting is much different
than hunting for larger mammals. The main thing is that you are seldom
ever doing to be swinging and firing at the same time when shooting at
deer not to mention there is usually no another hunter changing position
behind and beside you when you are hunting deer, elk etc...

Both of those things happen all the time when bird hunting.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 28, 1:19*pm, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Most of 'ems elk, bear, deer and antelope killers tho'.
> Maybe bird guys are differnt.

I've not hunted deer before but I'd guess you sit still, eye your
target and take your shot when it feels right. When my son was taking
his bird hunting class (using clays) they start with their back to the
clay launcher. When the clay flys you have to spin around raise your
shot gun, aim, then fire before the clay is too far gone. Safey is
important and injuries should not happen but I think many hunters
thought "but for Providence, that could have been me". Its like the
guy who loses his engine on short final. You can blame him for not
being high enough, etc but in your gut you're just glad it isn't you.

-Robert

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> be swinging and firing at the same time when shooting at
> another hunter changing position... behind and beside you
>
>Both of those things happen all the time when bird hunting.

Yikes.
Sounds like fun.....NOT.

yeah I can understand the situation.
Tight quarters, fast moving targets, beer. ; -]

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[gatt[_2_]]

"John" > wrote in message
news:i1qnj.1407$e46.78@trnddc04...
>I admit I'm a bit sensitive lately, it seems like so many of threads
>degenerate into a political discussion.

Yeah, it's that season, I suppose. No worries, and I agree. When I said
"pull a Cheney," there's a little backstory there; they're looking for a new
place to hunt because right after "the" Cheney incident, one of them was hit
by birdshot because some newbie was out there freezing in shorts, and got a
little too eager to hit something and go home.

> To address the question posed: Is this flight to occur during hunting
> season or is it before the season open? That would be a big question.
> You would not want to be mistaken for a really big goose :)

It'll be during the off-season. I had the exact concern. I told one of
them that unless the plane is named "Memphis Belle" I don't want to be the
guy that stirs up the birds everybody's been waiting for all day.

-c

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> be swinging and firing at the same time when shooting at
>> another hunter changing position... behind and beside you
>>
>> Both of those things happen all the time when bird hunting.
>
> Yikes.
> Sounds like fun.....NOT.
>
> yeah I can understand the situation.
> Tight quarters, fast moving targets, beer. ; -]
>


Just like flying. Never drink until after.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

gatt wrote:

>
> I don't want to be the guy that stirs up the birds everybody's been waiting for all day.
>
>-c

Speaking of the inadvisability of stirrin' up hunter-types.

Reminds me of some simple wisdom me pappy lay on me one sunny cold day when I
was a wee deer hunter.

We were hunting for deer, walking down an old logging road, quietly chatting
about the relatively low kill count that season. Disease was spreading thru
the deer population that year.

On our way to a spot we preferred to begin our stalk, a fella up on a nearby
knoll started shouting down at us that we were makin' too much noise and go
sit our sorry asses down and shut the Fjukk up. He says he had a bead on a
buck when we scared 'em away.
My pops says quietly under his breath to me, "well if ya had a shot why
dincha take it?"

Now i'm kinda ****ed at this fella shoutin' at us all impoilte and such and
say to my dad, "hey..right dad. Tell him that..you tell 'em..why dint he take
the shot?"

"sorry, friend!" my dad says "we'll be movin on and keepin' quiet"

So now i'm like really confused and ask my pops, "He was a rude redneck dad.
Why didn't you lay that one on him about taking the shot?"

My dad looks down at me all wise (he had been a cop and later detective in
Detroit all my life) and he says,

"Because he has a gun, my boy."

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200801/1

[gatt[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message

> Even if they don't shoot at you they can get your N# and many states have
> laws against doing just about anything that could be construed as
> harassing hunters.

Good point. I'll check for state regulations on such things. It's going
to be in the off-season, though so the main thing I don't want to do is
harrass the wildlife.

-c

[gatt[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message

>> yeah I can understand the situation.
>> Tight quarters, fast moving targets, beer. ; -]
>>
> Just like flying. Never drink until after.

Sad that it doesn't seem to go that way anymore.

My folks don't hunt anymore because they kept running into people's trash,
which almost always includes beer cans. Ironically, most recently they
found them on opening day, after bow-hunting season had just closed. So it
wasn't the rifle-hunters, but the bow so-called "sportsmen." Traditionally,
people might expect the opposite to be true.

Maybe in the old days kids received weapon safety training more commonly
(4-H, etc), so the values were instilled very early on. Nowadays I don't
think people receive a fraction of the exposure to weapons and hunting as
before.

'Course, that could be nostalgia.

-c

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 28, 2:49*pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
>

> Maybe in the old days kids received weapon safety training more commonly
> (4-H, etc), so the values were instilled very early on. *Nowadays I don't
> think people receive a fraction of the exposure to weapons and hunting as
> before.

Boy scouts still has wonderful bow, rifle, and shotgun training. Most
summer camps have NRA/BSA certified instructors hosting training. In
my experiece the training at Boy Scouts camps is excellent.

-Robert

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> Interesting.
>> All the hunters I know feel the contrary. Shouldn't have happened. Simple
>> failure of firing discipline.

> It was a mistake on the VP's part but yes bird hunting is much different
> than hunting for larger mammals. The main thing is that you are seldom
> ever doing to be swinging and firing at the same time when shooting at
> deer not to mention there is usually no another hunter changing position
> behind and beside you when you are hunting deer, elk etc...
>
> Both of those things happen all the time when bird hunting.

I see it both ways, too. Mostly as a lack of gun discipline, though.

That said, there is nothing like walking through a field, with clumps of
grass and vegetation all around, you've seen nothing all day, but suddenly,
in amongst your buddies and all seemingly all around you, the air is full of
quail on the wing.

It has a tendency to: scare the crap out of you, confuse you, and not least
of all - make you think that surely all you have to do is pull the trigger,
and at least one bird will be brought down.

The last thing is what has to be avoided, and remembered at all times. You
only pull the trigger when you _know_ what you are pointed at, and that you
will bringing down a bird and nothing else.
--
Jim in NC

[Denny]

If it is a federal/state flyway or hunting area then it is protected
against low flights... Better check with the DNR before going low...
Usually 1500 feet or more AGL is required...
If it is not a protected game area under federal or state regs then
basic open country FAA rules apply - 500 feet from buildings, people,
etc... It doesn't have to be 500 vertically, just 500 feet away...
If the ducks are present, then think about how you will handle taking
one through the windscreen, before screaming across the fields..
A bit of thinking it through ahead of time will save a lot of hassle
later...

denny

[Jim Logajan]

Denny > wrote:
> If it is a federal/state flyway or hunting area then it is protected
> against low flights... Better check with the DNR before going low...
> Usually 1500 feet or more AGL is required...

I thought that the only agency that congress delegated regulation of the
U.S. national airspace was the FAA. That is, if there is a specific
prohibition of the nature you state, it will be in an FAA NOTAM or
otherwise noted on FAA official charts or in regulations. I don't recall
anywhere in any of the training material that I have that a pilot is
expected to check for NOTAMs from the DNR, or NOTAMs for the IRS, or ...
well, you get the idea I hope.

I may indeed be wrong, but if so I'd appreciate some cites.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 29, 10:13*am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Denny > wrote:
> > If it is a federal/state flyway or hunting area then it is protected
> > against low flights... Better check with the DNR before going low...
> > Usually 1500 feet or more AGL is required...
>
> I thought that the only agency that congress delegated regulation of the
> U.S. national airspace was the FAA. That is, if there is a specific
> prohibition of the nature you state, it will be in an FAA NOTAM or
> otherwise noted on FAA official charts or in regulations. I don't recall
> anywhere in any of the trainin material that I have that a pilot is
> expected to check for NOTAMs from the DNR, or NOTAMs for the IRS, or ...
> well, you get the idea I hope.
>
> I may indeed be wrong, but if so I'd appreciate some cites.

No regulations, just a note on the sectional saying that they request
pilots to avoid flight below 1500 feet for wildlife.

-Robert

[gatt[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:a9b486f0-1403-4a7f-b4a8-

>> I may indeed be wrong, but if so I'd appreciate some cites.

>No regulations, just a note on the sectional saying that they request
>pilots to avoid flight below 1500 feet for wildlife.

They have a protected area along the Oregon coast and CFIs have mentioned
that the Coast Guard (or somebody) will report you if they catch you.

As for this particular location, I haven't determined what sort of zone it's
in yet but even if it's not hunting season I'll still be keeping an eye out
for wildlife. Keepin' the fowl out of the cowl.

If there are geese there, hopefully I'll scare the bejesus out of them.
It'll be payback for those squadrons that regularly appear on short final at
Troutdale. (And for what they did to the inside of my boat. Never leaved
a boat tied off in Oregon with an unsecured bag of pretzels on the seat!)

Guys out of Scappoose have been doing aerobatics over the Sauvie Island
wildlife refuge for years, so maybe I'll try to make a phone call over there
and see what they know about any local rules.

-c

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 29, 12:05*pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> news:a9b486f0-1403-4a7f-b4a8-
>
> >> I may indeed be wrong, but if so I'd appreciate some cites.
> >No regulations, just a note on the sectional saying that they request
> >pilots to avoid flight below 1500 feet for wildlife.
>
> They have a protected area along the Oregon coast and CFIs have mentioned
> that the Coast Guard (or somebody) will report you if they catch you.

That's true. You'll probably get a call asking you to stop doing that.
However, they can't take any actual action against you because there
is no actual regulation violated. Of course, in the end its in our
interest to avoid irritating people with our airplanes else we may get
new regulations.

-Robert

[Dana M. Hague]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:08:37 -0800, "gatt" >
wrote:

>My question is, how low would -you- go for this sort of flight assuming the
>birds aren't around and there aren't of Cheneys on the banks looking for
>something in the air to shoot at?

As low as necessary, while maintaining the required 500' distance from
people on the surface and also staying within gliding distance of an
emergency landing spot. "Gliding distance" can include a zoom to
convert airspeed to altitude so keep your speed up while down low.

Of course, too low and you'll be moving to fast to see anything.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in
human history... with the possible exception of handguns and tequila.