Light Sport 10,000' Altitude restriction with exception

[Ed Cesnalis]

1 hour ago, JohnnyBlackCT said:

Yes, it does.  But there is no other reasonable way to do it safely.  I guess you could fly along the fall line and climb your way up the mountain, but I feel confident that is not what the FAA intends for you to do.  Why don't you call them tomorrow and ask?   I have called several times and they are really nice people.  They won't be able to answer your question because there is no answer, but they might make you feel better about it.  Maybe not.

If I get someone at the FSDO to tell me not to worry about it that conversation would carry little or no weight if someone wanted to bust me in the future. This rule needs to be amended a 2nd time and that's my message to the FAA.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Are you going to stop flying over the mountains because of this?

no

[Roger Lee]

Hi Ed,

You can't get a number because the terrain rises and falls, you have to deviate at times and you can't go up and down every minute trying to maintain 2K AGL. 

Like you have always said mnt. flying is different and you have to be fluid to compensate or adjust to varying conditions. It isn't even reasonable to act like a Yo-Yo over mnt. terrain.

[Ed Cesnalis]

1 hour ago, Roger Lee said:

Hi Ed,

You can't get a number because the terrain rises and falls, you have to deviate at times and you can't go up and down every minute trying to maintain 2K AGL. 

Like you have always said mnt. flying is different and you have to be fluid to compensate or adjust to varying conditions. It isn't even reasonable to act like a Yo-Yo over mnt. terrain.

Without a number you don't have a workable rule / limitation.  AGL as a metric is the problem. 

The MEH for the current quadrant would be a workable number, good for the pilot and good for the rule.  

An MEH based ceiling would provide a workable / useful limit to satisfy the rule and the language would be simple and the pilot would be protected by knowing where legal is. The pilot and passenger would be better off in that this way there would be no reason for less safe crossings like there is now.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

17 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

Using that definition he can not safely fly in his general surroundings.

Then he should not use that definition.  Simple.  

[Tom Baker]

Ed, in all seriousness I would call the Light Sport branch in OK City, and simply ask if using the sector altitude as shown on the sectional chart will work for compliance with the limitation. The guys there in OK City have always seemed willing to help.

[Tom Baker]

2 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Then he should not use that definition.  Simple.  

If the FAA is using that definition, then not using it would put him in violation.

[FlyingMonkey]

17 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

because the 'A' in 'AGL' stands for above.  Words mean things.  FARs are regulatory and require words with meanings.  In every other context AGL means something precise.

Sure, above means above.  Words mean things.  Above can mean directly above or not.  If I'm at 10,000ft and you are at 10ft, I am still above you  even if I'm not DIRECTLY above you.  Words mean things, don't add extra meaning that is not there.  It's AGL, not DAGL.

[FlyingMonkey]

17 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Below is a vertical profile of a flight I do.  Do I descend into the valley to 8,500 and cruise and then climb a 2nd time?  Its less than the hour in your example but still a long ways.

Where ever you draw the line who do you think would win in an enforcement action?  Hard to 'argue in court' when the rule says AGL.  

The altitude limitation has been written twice now. The original was not ambiguous but provided inadequate clearance where the exception makes it safe from terrain but not safe from enforcement.

 

 

Is this really that hard???  Yes, you are more than 1000AGL at points in this profile, due to limitations of your descent and climb performance.  So what?  You are doing your best to comply with the FARs in a safe manner.  Again, there are no SkyCops up there to pull you over.  If you think you really need to be at 1000AGL at every point in your flights, move to Kansas and rest easy.

 

EDIT:  Oops, I meant 2000AGL, not 1000AGL.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

9 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Having 'a number' protects the pilot, it provides for a defense in an enforcement action.

Maybe in theory.  But I don't know if anybody flying under Sport rules has ever been busted for altitude violations below 18,000ft.  I doubt it, and I've sure never heard of it.

[Ed Cesnalis]

37 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

It's AGL, not DAGL.

AGL has an accepted / precise meaning in aviation already.  Its a number not a range.  

A new definition is a new confusion.

[Ed Cesnalis]

33 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Is this really that hard???  Yes, you are more than 1000AGL at points in this profile, due to limitations of your descent and climb performance.  So what?  You are doing your best to comply with the FARs in a safe manner.  Again, there are no SkyCops up there to pull you over.  If you think you really need to be at 1000AGL at every point in your flights, move to Kansas and rest easy.

 

EDIT:  Oops, I meant 2000AGL, not 1000AGL.

The 2nd climb to altitude (your red line) is only needed to try and comply in the real world pilots including me loathe giving up altitude only to have to climb again.  It waists gas, time, wear and tear.

A flight across CA in a CT already involves 1/2 hour of climbing for 1 1/2 hour flight, if you only climb once.

[Ed Cesnalis]

30 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Maybe in theory.  But I don't know if anybody flying under Sport rules has ever been busted for altitude violations below 18,000ft.  I doubt it, and I've sure never heard of it.

You keep bringing up sky cops and that thinking is false security.

There are events that happen above 10,000 that are subject to review, near misses for instance.  Radar is recorded and an after the fact review for another reason could illuminate a violation.

Enforcement tends to happen after the fact, you don't get pulled over much its true. 

 

I did have a sheriff use his lights on me once as I had to pull up at an intersection to provide seperation between him and me.  He was waiting at my hangar when I landed so he did effectively pull me over.

[Ed Cesnalis]

This 10,000' limitation was changed once already to make it more workable.  It can be done again.

I used to descend to 10,000' only and cross the valley but that's in conflict with the IFR east / west altitudes.

 

[Roger Lee]

So long as terrain changes you can't have a an exact number. I've already gone over this twice with the FAA. Maybe you should be thankful it isn't an exact number. It would be a royal PITA.

[rtk]

Just now, Roger Lee said:

So long as terrain changes you can't have a an exact number. I've already gone over this twice with the FAA. Maybe you should be thankful it isn't an exact number. It would be a royal PITA.

Roger, would you mind sharing what the FAA advised?

[Roger Lee]

Ed,

Be careful what you wish for it may be far more restrictive and make it worse for your area of flying. Right now it's general enough to allow you enough leeway for you to fly without any hassles.

 

Don't poke a junkyard dog with a stick he might just wake up.

[Ed Cesnalis]

27 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

Ed,

Be careful what you wish for it may be far more restrictive and make it worse for your area of flying. Right now it's general enough to allow you enough leeway for you to fly without any hassles.

 

Don't poke a junkyard dog with a stick he might just wake up.

The original was totally unworkable for CA but complaints got it changed in the right direction, just not far enough.  Its possible that another change would reverse course but not logical. I can always get a medical if I don't like it.

[Tom Baker]

2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Sure, above means above.  Words mean things.  Above can mean directly above or not.  If I'm at 10,000ft and you are at 10ft, I am still above you  even if I'm not DIRECTLY above you.  Words mean things, don't add extra meaning that is not there.  It's AGL, not DAGL.

Andy, if it doesn't mean directly above, then how far away can you be? Can I fly at 14,000 feet here in Illinois because there is a 12,000 foot mountain in California? Actually I can because I am not operating under sport pilot privileges, but how far away can you be without being in violation?

[Tom Baker]

Ed, give the Light Sport division a call and ask. Let us know what they say.

[Roger Lee]

That isn't in your flight area, or immediate surroundings that you may possibly fly over.

I'vs already been over this mountain with the FAA twice.

[FlyingMonkey]

45 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

Andy, if it doesn't mean directly above, then how far away can you be? Can I fly at 14,000 feet here in Illinois because there is a 12,000 foot mountain in California? Actually I can because I am not operating under sport pilot privileges, but how far away can you be without being in violation?

Well that is the question, isn’t it?  Your example is of course ridiculous, but it’s equally ridiculous to think the FAA intended for you to slam into a cliff face because of a sharp change in terrain height, which is what the “AGL means directly under you” interpretation argues.  the real answer is somewhere between, and since it’s not codified we eavhhave our own interpretation.

I’m simply arguing for common sense and to do what seems reasonable.  I don’t think the FAA would go after you if you follow that simple rule and can justify your actions in a way others would find reasonable too.

[Tom Baker]

3 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Well that is the question, isn’t it?  Your example is of course ridiculous, but it’s equally ridiculous to think the FAA intended for you to slam into a cliff face because of a sharp change in terrain height, which is what the “AGL means directly under you” interpretation argues.  the real answer is somewhere between, and since it’s not codified we all have our own interpretation.

I’m simply arguing for commn sense and to do what seems reasonable.  I don’t think the FAA would go after you if you follow that simple rule and can justify your actions in a way others would find reasonable too.

The people in the FAA who write the regulations don't use common sense, and the FAA lawyers who handle enforcement action don't use common sense. What both of them use are the words that are actually written. To them there is no grey area.

[Tom Baker]

28 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

That isn't in your flight area, or immediate surroundings that you may possibly fly over.

I'vs already been over this mountain with the FAA twice.

What is immediate surroundings? I am flying on a westerly heading with the following scenario. I have a peak at 10,000 feet that I want to cross with 2000 foot clearance, then a 5,500 foot valley then the next peak 20 miles away is 12,000 feet and I want to cross it with 2000 foot clearance. Do I need to descend back down to 8500 feet before starting my climb to cross the next peak at 14,000? What if the next peak is 40 miles away? Where do you draw the line? That is what I want to know.

[Ed Cesnalis]

17 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

it’s equally ridiculous to think the FAA intended for you to slam into a cliff face because of a sharp change in terrain height, which is what the “AGL means directly under you” interpretation argues.

Actually the expectation is to turn away from the terrain.  In order to climb legally matching the profile of the rising terrain you have to orbit or s turn.