Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)

But in Death Valley the neighbors don't shoot you down.



"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
| Absolute lowest altitude, is below sea level in Death
Valley
|
| True for North America. But the Dead Sea is lower:
|
| http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001763.html
|
| Dead Sea, Israel-Jordan, 1,349 ft. below sea level (-411
m)
| Death Valley, Calif., 282 ft. below sea level (-86 m)
|
| I'm not sure what aircraft was first to fly into the Dead
Sea area to take
| honors for the first lowest flight ever, but I know the
Graf Zeppelin did
| it in 1929, going to about 1000 feet below sea level. It
didn't even need a
| snorkel! :-)

Blanche wrote in
:

Those of us in the US read them, all of them, cover to cover.
Repeatedly. And get tested on them on a recurring, regular basis. You
want to ask questions? Fine, but having access to the FARs - which you
do -- and reading them -- which you refuse to do -- are the the ground
rules for being here.

Unfortunately, as long as some keep feeding this troll, he won't have a
need to read the FAR's, AIMS or any other reference that's been provided to
him.

Don't like the rules of the game? Go play another one, somewhere
else, with someone else. Stop wasting bandwidth.

Manowar, do I agree with this, but some folks really disagree with me when
I say they are wasting their time with this dude. But of course, I am
being told that I am destroying my "reputation" (whatever that reputation
that I so care little about) trying to bring some sanity back to this
group.

Blanche, been singing your tune for about 3 months now..... Only way to
get rid of him is to not answer his questions.

Allen

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:05:30 -0600, Doug Spencer
wrote:

How about it's congested if you couldn't make an emergency landing
without hitting a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure while flying
below the minimum required in a congested area? Seems like a reasonable,
pragmatic way to think about the subject and probably fairly close to
the intent.

That's about half of it... but at least as far as ultralights (powered
paragliders in this case) are concerned, the FAA interpreted a busy 4
lane highway with clear fields on each side a "congested area"
(ultralights have NO minimum altitude, but can't fly over a "congested
area" at ANY altitude). I see the interpretation as not only "can you
land safely", but also "if anything falls off the machine will it be
likely to injure anybody on the ground?"

Somebody else mentioned the yellow areas on charts. They represent
the lighted portion of cities at night, not specifically congested
areas (though most of those areas would doubtless be considered
"congested").

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I.

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:58:07 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

I'm not sure what aircraft was first to fly into the Dead Sea area to take
honors for the first lowest flight ever, but I know the Graf Zeppelin did
it in 1929, going to about 1000 feet below sea level. It didn't even need a
snorkel! :-)

There was a guy who flew a hot air balloon in a large, deep cave,
could be even deeper... I forget the details though.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 06:10:41 +0000, Chris Wells
wrote:


I may have all of you beat...I've flown, repeatedly, in fog with 50' of
visibility, about 10' above the trees and 5' or less above the ground.
No IFR ticket, either.

Ain't ultralights great?

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. - Edward Abbey

In rec.aviation.student Dana M. Hague
d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote:
That's about half of it... but at least as far as ultralights (powered
paragliders in this case) are concerned, the FAA interpreted a busy 4
lane highway with clear fields on each side a "congested area"
(ultralights have NO minimum altitude, but can't fly over a "congested
area" at ANY altitude).

Are you even allowed to *cross* the highway? If not, that could put a
serious crimp in your travel plans, depending on where you're flying.

I see the interpretation as not only "can you
land safely", but also "if anything falls off the machine will it be
likely to injure anybody on the ground?"

Not to mention if the machine iself falls from the sky.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

"Duncan (NZ)" wrote in message
. nz...
In article ,
says...
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:08:40 +1300, Duncan (NZ) wrote:

In article ,
says...
What regulations determine the absolute lowest altitude you can fly
above the ground in the U.S.? I understand that the area just above
the ground is usually Class G outside airports, and it only goes up
to
700 or 1200 feet most of the time ... which implies that you can
actually fly at 500 feet AGL if you want. But is there some other
regulation that prohibits aircraft from flying this low, in general
or
in certain conditions/areas?

Well... in New Zealand it's 500' - unless you're in an approved low
level (training) area, in which case it's as low a your intructor
dares.

Over populated areas it's 1,000'

All AGL.

So the instructor who took me down to 100ft over 70? mile beach,
whilst on vacation was just having fun?!!!!!

- did you see your instructor switch the transponder to standby?

My instructor told me I should be careful and never fly low enough to let
anyone read the tail number of the plane...
--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:59:28 GMT, A Lieberma
wrote:


Blanche, been singing your tune for about 3 months now..... Only way to
get rid of him is to not answer his questions.

Allen

Briefly...

Is there a particular reason why r.a.s and r.a.p are not moderated?

(The long version...)

It is surprising that headers appearing least deserving of attention
will load with so many replies. Maybe we collect our share of bowel
restrants during the day, then look to release them in some convenient
out-house; which is our own. (Or yours, as the case may be. I am not
a pilot, yet.)

The option to keep the toilet lid closed is available to those having
more useful gifts to, and expectations from, their neighbors. But
there's a noisy party next door, in another header; where errors and
other personal matters may be thought easily forgotten, and those of
others cussed out angrily. That flatulent noise cannot be completely
avoided throughout. The distraction is substantial.

Rec.aviation.student/piloting are news groups intended for a
disciplined environment. (So are others in the usenet; or were.)
Pilots enter therein without complaint, and with relief, since
discipline actually does allow for entertainment, (and something even
a little deeper). And their mixing in appropriate measures, with the
effort to make that discernment, can be a filling experience.

Then there are the party 'raiders'. (Couldn't recall the usual word,
and the dictionary didn't help; except for 'party poopers'.) Their
want (for all we can figure), is to destroy an ordered pleasure, its
success. Why? Envy of 'big-shots' (who occasionally are immature
themselves), or to put people in their place, because no one should,
in their fantasy, be better than ony one else -- for reasons of theft,
or just plain destruction, or just plain ego.

It is their power-play where they can win in unprotected places, where
complaints are futile and dissed as whining. Then it is an
unfortunate union, by rape, in pain. By a few acting as if on behalf
of the whole, their half of the whole; as if owed brotherhood, or a
command status. All in the name of 'freedom'.

No civilized effort towards some goal, as glory, can exist without
protection at some level (as opposed to unguarded 'freedom').
Otherwise, eventually it will be defiled; destroyed.

Because of the state of the usenet, and the universal curiosity about
aviation, I can't see how useful discussions can be had without
locking out disturbances. So, does anyone have time to moderate these
groups? Or would that make them too restrained? How about lightly
moderated, where specific abusers could be blocked & posts deleted. Or
is that somehow asking for trouble? A forum on the internet, anyone?
It isn't my business to suggest it, but will anyway.

Some regulars prefer tighter control than others. And the disagreement
itself becomes a distraction. There are always distractions, but
what's going on now is ridiculous.
--
Mike

Recently, Michael Rhodes posted:

Some regulars prefer tighter control than others. And the disagreement
itself becomes a distraction. There are always distractions, but
what's going on now is ridiculous.

Not to worry, this, too, will pass.

Neil

He said feet. Meters are not used in European aviation any more, except
in former Soviet Union countries and partially in gliders.

Yes, I know he said feet; the numbers were so low I thought that might
have been an error. That meters aren't used any more is a surprise to
me - the world is regressing.

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.