Low level flight article in Sport Pilot

[rdarby]

In the latest Sport Pilot is an article from Ops about low level flight. The examples are used where someone was just above 500' over unpopulated land.

 

Then it was implied that they needed a low level endorsement.

 

I remember my BAK including no flying below 1000' over populated areas, and no flying under 500' over unpopulated areas.

 

So am I wrong or is the article wrong?

 

This would mean no 500' down the beach for example:scratching head:

 

 

[SDQDI]

I read the same article but don't remember the exact details. While I don't think it is illegal to fly at or above 500ft without a ll endo I do think that a LL is a good idea and I do hope to do mine as soon as time and money allow. I can't remember exactly the wording of the article so have been trying to find the mag but can't. Lol kiddies pinch them because of the plane pics and I don't get them back.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

It doesn't really give much detail.

 

"The pilot had been operating just above the 500ft AGL minimum and didn't believe a Low Level endorsement was required (it was)"

 

 

 

"recovery from an unusual attitude, or from a turn with crossed controls at low speed, actually requires specific training in order to be safely undertaken at these minimum heights."

 

 

No reference was given to any actual regulation, something which may be useful in future articles if they wish to educate pilots on the requirements, rather then just "(it was)"

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't understand what they have in mind with their attitude to LL. I used to instruct it in GA and in RAAus. Finals and go arounds are all performed under 500 feet and a tricky engine out might have an almost non existent final. Now you have to be mustering or something to have it. Shouldn't every instructor have it?? Nev

 

 

[rankamateur]

I don't understand what they have in mind with their attitude to LL. I used to instruct it in GA and in RAAus. Finals and go arounds are all performed under 500 feet and a tricky engine out might have an almost non existent final. Now you have to be mustering or something to have it. Shouldn't every instructor have it?? Nev

For mustering they are very specific, that requires CASA stock handling approval and then only allows for spotting and communication to ground crews, which is total BS because spotting needn't be below 500' anyway. The whole article seems like it is written by someone who should But does not have a very good grasp of the regulations and facts of the subject, a real pity because all it has achieved is to muddy the water more.

 

 

[M61A1]

I think that if they really want to promote safety at low level, it would be part of getting your licence for all new licences, and low level training in your next BFR for those without. By making it more difficult they will just have more illegal flying and more fatalities.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't understand what they have in mind with their attitude to LL. I used to instruct it in GA and in RAAus. Finals and go arounds are all performed under 500 feet and a tricky engine out might have an almost non existent final. Now you have to be mustering or something to have it. Shouldn't every instructor have it?? Nev

In GA Nev they raised the lowest height for Forced Landing practice, I suspect due to more power lines spreading over the countryside, but you can certainly fly at or over 500' AGL without a LL endorsement.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So does anyone check these articles for accuracy before publishing?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Professor Avius?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Add this one to the B..S... accident statistics in the same issue.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Add this one to the B..S... accident statistics in the same issue.

Maybe they need to advertise for a proofreader:contract:

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Another example of self regulation. The blind leading the blind.

 

 

[kaz3g]

It seems to me that the author is either confused as to the legal requirement or has deliberately obscured it in an attempt to encourage flight at greater heights.

 

"The pilot was flying just above the 500' AGL minimum"...yes, that's the law wrt non-populous areas...."and didn't believe a LL endorsement was needed (it was)"...not unless there is something in your ops manual that makes flight above the minimum still require a specific endorsement.

 

The new Part 61 defines "low level"...

 

lowlevel operation means an operation below 500ft AGL, other than the following:

 

(a)climbing from takeoff;

 

(b)descending for the purpose of landing;

 

©an aerial application operation.

 

Now I'm confused, too.

 

Kaz

 

 

[fly_tornado]

or they are trying to con ppl into getting LL endorsement, make a bit of $$ for the instructors, create a bit unnecessary paperwork

 

 

[metalman]

I wonder how far above the minimum we have to be before we don't need a low level,,,2-3-400. This a Avius is a real tosser ,be interesting to know who he is ,,,,,so I never mistakenly get any training from it!

 

 

[rankamateur]

This a Avius is a real tosser ,be interesting to know who he is ,,,,,so I never mistakenly get any training from it!

I am reading "Pilot Talk" Low Level Lowdown, attributed to the Ops Team, They are our authority on the matter, clarity should have been a given.

 

 

[WayneL]

What a change from 1981 (..... just reviewing some memories of 'the old days'....) when I finished putting together my Pegasus XL and took her for that first circuit and thermal activity boosted my altitude above the 500ft limit!

 

 

[facthunter]

How things change..My impression was they were trying to discourage the awarding of it unless you had a specific reason to use it. No suggestion of making extra from it.. I think everyone would benefit from the training, quite frankly, provided (as always) it was done properly. Nev

 

 

[rankamateur]

I don't know what all the fuss is about anyway, What do they really really think we will get upto in these little planes?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I bet the photographer had to be quick before that little tank ran dry.

 

 

[rankamateur]

It is in Europe so it is probrably doing it on a 450Kg MTOW as well.

 

 

[johnm]

most ultralights could easily carry 70 - 100 litres of water - 100 litres for aerial spraying would be a handy amount (a tigermoth only carried 250 kilos ? and they were considered OK at the time)

 

In NZ applying aerial spray from an ultralight was allowed (I think) - if you owned the land

 

Interesting to know what countries allow it - sure bet Australia would not ?

 

 

[rankamateur]

most ultralights could easily carry 70 - 100 litres of water - 100 litres for aerial spraying would be a handy amount (a tigermoth only carried 250 kilos ? and they were considered OK at the time)In NZ applying aerial spray from an ultralight was allowed (I think) - if you owned the land

 

Interesting to know what countries allow it - sure bet Australia would not ?

I am trying to find a torso shaped tank to mount in the passenger seat , easily removable for filling with spray, would be a handy fuel reserve when I take on the Tasman too.

 

 

[Guernsey]

I am trying to find a torso shaped tank to mount in the passenger seat , easily removable for filling with spray, would be a handy fuel reserve when I take on the Tasman too.

You could buy a manequin from a shop display supplier, fill up with fuel through the mouth and a fuel drain tap from the usual outlet. .

Alan.

 

 

[facthunter]

You can buy those rubber thingys I believe that are lifelike and adapt it. Bit like "George" in flying high. Nev