Your favorite altitude

Cherokee 180

90% of the time I'm cruising between 3000 AGL and 5000-7000 MSL. I'm
occasionally between 2000 and 3000 AGL for sightseeing, never lower,
and rarely above 9000 MSL (takes too long to get there).

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone"
for altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At
what altitude AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the
ground, and at what altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high
for your own comfort? Also, what type of aircraft do you normally fly
(just to put these numbers in perspective)?

I fly all sorts, send me 50$ and i'll tell you how low I fly in each one.

Oh and that's $50 for each type.


Bertie

the smooth one

wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:
When you are flying VFR in good weather, what is your "comfort zone" for
altitude (irrespective of regulatory or other restrictions)? At what
altitude
AGL do you find that you feel a little too close to the ground, and at
what
altitude MSL do you find that you feel too high for your own comfort?
Also,
what type of aircraft do you normally fly (just to put these numbers in
perspective)?

The question makes no sense as written.

Generally 3000 AGL minimum to have some glide room if the engine quits.

For short trips, 4500/5500 MSL, longer trips 5500/6500, real long
trips or over mountains, 7500/8500.

A Tiger.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Completely agree with the 'depend on circumstances' crowd, although I
have found that the aviation community tends to be split into two
personalities - those who prefer to get "as high as practical", and
those who tend to enjoy staying lower, enjoying the view (for what its
worth, the latter crowd in my experience seems to do more to make sure
they stay over easily land-able terrain, whereas the 'get-high' group
tends to take more direct routing, so I'm not sure one is particularly
more dangerous than the other).

Kinda a 'get up, get there' vs 'low, slow, and enjoy the view'
dichotomy.

I think most of us fall somewhere in between, it the main thing is
what do we want to get out of a particular flight.

About the only exception i'll say in terms of other 'altitude
preference'. When flying heavily congested, open vfr airspace (such
as SF bay on a bay tour), I've always been most comfortable flying at
'250 and '750 altitudes rather than '000 and '500... The rational is
pretty simple - its still trivially easy to track my altitude
precisely (the mind responds faster to vertical or horizontial
orientations on the altimeter than it does reading particular values),
while at the same time, it gets me 'off the beaten path' so to speak.

The safety value is marginal, if nill in reality (between sightseeing
pilot's not holding altitude and differing altimeter calibrations),
but I still do it now out of habit.

Dan writes:

In mountainous areas, I like to stay at least 1000 ft. above the
highest terrain along the course. More if the winds aloft are high.
Out here in the west, it always seems like I'm bumping up against the
oxygen altitude limits if I'm IFR though...

Why only when you are IFR?

I note that a lot of the areas in the western U.S. have sizable mountains.

If you have a choice between continuing straight on and climbing several
thousand feet to clear some mountains (with the potential need for
supplementary oxygen), and taking a detour to go them without a change in
altitude but at the cost of extra time and distance, which do you usually
prefer or consider more prudent?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

george writes:

anything that clears the granite overcast :-)

I presume that "granite overcast" is a slang term for terrain?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Danny Deger writes:

More that once over the plains around Amarillo Texas I would fly cross
country at about 3 feet. I had to climb to go over the barbed wire fences.
Perfectly legal as best I could tell. I could easily have landed if my
engine quit. It is REALLY flat up there.

Three feet would make me uncomfortable, but to each his own.

It also wouldn't be legal, since it violates 91.119(a), although in Texas I
suppose there isn't anyone around to watch and enforce.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Paul kgyy writes:

Given favorable winds, I like to fly at 7-9000 over the plains. In
mountains, which I don't do much any more, I like to be as high as I
can without oxygen considerations, which usually means 10-12,000 if
not for too long, or if more than half an hour I start using O2.

Do you always keep oxygen on hand, or do you only bring it along if you
suspect you'll be needing it?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

EridanMan writes:

About the only exception i'll say in terms of other 'altitude
preference'. When flying heavily congested, open vfr airspace (such
as SF bay on a bay tour), I've always been most comfortable flying at
'250 and '750 altitudes rather than '000 and '500... The rational is
pretty simple - its still trivially easy to track my altitude
precisely (the mind responds faster to vertical or horizontial
orientations on the altimeter than it does reading particular values),
while at the same time, it gets me 'off the beaten path' so to speak.

Do you risk getting into any trouble by not following the x500 rule for
altitude?

Wouldn't it be safer to fly at x200 or x700 altitudes, since the transponder
rounds off to the nearest hundred?

Unusual altitudes appear to violate 91.159 unless you're at 3000 AGL or below,
although I thought I had read somewhere that VFR flights could fly at any
altitude as long as they were not directed otherwise by ATC.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Danny Deger writes:

More that once over the plains around Amarillo Texas I would fly cross
country at about 3 feet. I had to climb to go over the barbed wire
fences.
Perfectly legal as best I could tell. I could easily have landed if my
engine quit. It is REALLY flat up there.

Three feet would make me uncomfortable, but to each his own.

It also wouldn't be legal, since it violates 91.119(a), although in Texas
I
suppose there isn't anyone around to watch and enforce.

--

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

You didn't read my post. I clearly stated I could have safely landed if the
engine failed.

Danny Deger