Private Pilot Flying under Sport pilot Rules

[Ken]

Hi Folks:

Question: The Sport Pilot rules say maximum altitude is 10,000 feet above MSL. I hope to fly home tomorrow from X59 in Florida to Virginia and will spend some time over the Atlantic. I want to fly at 10,500 as that is a prescribed VFR altitude per my heading. The winds are more favorable than at 8,500 feet. Why would the FAA make such a rule? 

I know stupid question and I doubt flight following knows about this reg or under what rules I am to follow.

 

Ken

 

  

 

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

VFR cruising altitudes are not mandatory rules.  They are wise to follow and I do 99% of the time, but you can choose to do differently.  Now, on flight following they may call you out.

[Warmi]

35 minutes ago, GrassStripFlyBoy said:

VFR cruising altitudes are not mandatory rules.  They are wise to follow and I do 99% of the time, but you can choose to do differently.  Now, on flight following they may call you out.

Sounds like a rule to me …

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.159

As far as the original question about Sport Pilot rules … to me it often seems as if some of these rules were instituted purely to justify existence of a separate certificate to begin with.

[Skunkworks85]

6 hours ago, Ken said:

Hi Folks:

Question: The Sport Pilot rules say maximum altitude is 10,000 feet above MSL. I hope to fly home tomorrow from X59 in Florida to Virginia and will spend some time over the Atlantic. I want to fly at 10,500 as that is a prescribed VFR altitude per my heading. The winds are more favorable than at 8,500 feet. Why would the FAA make such a rule? 

I know stupid question and I doubt flight following knows about this reg or under what rules I am to follow.

 

Ken

 

  

 

I cant speak to the actual reason why the FAA would make the rule, But here is my Opinion, They choose to limit SPL to 10k MSL due to the perceived idea that you start to loose the horizon, Same reason SPL is not allowed at night. 

As to your question, SPL is limited by the information outlined in 61.315. It is your responsibility to abide by them, If you feel it is unfair, Obtain a higher rating or lobby for rule changes. Please don't break the rules, Which could effect all the other following the requirements. 

[FlyingMonkey]

24 minutes ago, Skunkworks85 said:

I cant speak to the actual reason why the FAA would make the rule, But here is my Opinion, They choose to limit SPL to 10k MSL due to the perceived idea that you start to loose the horizon, Same reason SPL is not allowed at night. 

That is possible, but I don’t think so.  Even at 17,900 you can clearly see the ground in good VFR conditions. Private Pilots can fly at 17,900 pure VFR with basic instruments on the same training SPs receive for pilotage.

I think the rule exists for aeromedical reasons…Sport Pilots don’t have medicals and so the chances of hypoxic incapacitation at lower altitudes has to be considered.  Also they want to keep us well clear or the 12,000ft requirement for oxygen.

I could be wrong, just IMO.
 

Also remember you can fly higher for 2000ft terrain clearance.  I think you have a reasonable case if there is terrain to that level in any direction and distance to which you could be expected to maneuver during normal operations or in an emergency.  That’s how I use that rule and I think it’s the most safety-conscious interpretation.

[Skunkworks85]

20 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

That is possible, but I don’t think so.  Even at 17,900 you can clearly see the ground in good VFR conditions. Private Pilots can fly at 17,900 pure VFR with basic instruments on the same training SPs receive for pilotage.

I think the rule exists for aeromedical reasons…Sport Pilots don’t have medicals and so the chances of hypoxic incapacitation at lower altitudes has to be considered.  Also they want to keep us well clear or the 12,000ft requirement for oxygen.

I could be wrong, just IMO.
 

Also remember you can fly higher for 2000ft terrain clearance.  I think you have a reasonable case if there is terrain to that level in any direction and distance to which you could be expected to maneuver during normal operations or in an emergency.  That’s how I use that rule and I think it’s the most safety-conscious interpretation.

You're probably right.

[Warmi]

58 minutes ago, Skunkworks85 said:

I cant speak to the actual reason why the FAA would make the rule, But here is my Opinion, They choose to limit SPL to 10k MSL due to the perceived idea that you start to loose the horizon, Same reason SPL is not allowed at night. 

As to your question, SPL is limited by the information outlined in 61.315. It is your responsibility to abide by them, If you feel it is unfair, Obtain a higher rating or lobby for rule changes. Please don't break the rules, Which could effect all the other following the requirements. 

Short of separate IFR rating ( and also being current ) there is nothing in your typical PPL training that would prepare a freshly minted private pilot for potential issues related to spatial disorientation anymore than a freshly minted SPL pilot would.

[Tom Baker]

I also think it is medical. A sport pilot can fly using only a drivers license,  and does not have to see a doctor. Especially a FAA doctor. They have know way of knowing if the pilot can safely fly at altitudes that may require oxygen. 

Now one could say that a private pilot can fly with a drivers license under Basic Med, but to do that you have seen a FAA doctor at some point, and have had a physical using a FAA exam checklist. They at least feel as if they have some control.

The thing that really doesn't make any sense is that you could legally fly a motor glider at that altitude with a  private pilot glider rating, and also have never seen a FAA doctor.

[airhound]

All over that one’….and no doubt within gliding distance of terra firma.
Otherwise, are our carbon fiber CT’s more buoyant than other types? Yes/no

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

9 hours ago, Warmi said:

Sounds like a rule to me …

Perhaps my use of the words not mandatory are too loose.  There are the exceptions of turning, climbing, as well as one having to maintain altimeter setting consistently along the route.  It's also interesting tolerances are not defined, that makes it very open.   I routinely see 200 - 300' difference in true MSL on properly set altimeter compared to GPS elevation. (GPS being off) How many pilots are adjusting improperly to GPS during flight?  VFR has a lot of margin in mix.  How many people are unknowingly flying around off the mark and in danger of the IFR traffic that's on the even flight levels?  

[airhound]

At startup the Aerocruze AP is always 100-200 lower than Skyview Altimeter and calls for syncing in the checklist. 

[FlyingMonkey]

1 hour ago, GrassStripFlyBoy said:

Perhaps my use of the words not mandatory are too loose.  There are the exceptions of turning, climbing, as well as one having to maintain altimeter setting consistently along the route.  It's also interesting tolerances are not defined, that makes it very open.   I routinely see 200 - 300' difference in true MSL on properly set altimeter compared to GPS elevation. (GPS being off) How many pilots are adjusting improperly to GPS during flight?  VFR has a lot of margin in mix.  How many people are unknowingly flying around off the mark and in danger of the IFR traffic that's on the even flight levels?  

I spend a lot of time meandering around, and I rarely get above 3000 AGL unless I'm going to a definite destination.  The main reason is I don't want to be locked into a VFR altitude given the amount of maneuvering I tend to do when just wandering.  I get a little apprehensive when doing a lazy 360° turn at 5500ft when I'm in the westerly portion of the turn.  ADS-B has made this a little better, but it certainly doesn't catch everybody.

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

That 3000' comment is noteworthy, more so MSL but around flat midwest many pilots pick 3k MSL as it's just below the cruising altitudes.  For that specific reason I typically level at 2.5k or 3.5k, to better offset from the traffic that seems to often be at 3 even.

[FlyingMonkey]

26 minutes ago, GrassStripFlyBoy said:

That 3000' comment is noteworthy, more so MSL but around flat midwest many pilots pick 3k MSL as it's just below the cruising altitudes.  For that specific reason I typically level at 2.5k or 3.5k, to better offset from the traffic that seems to often be at 3 even.

Personally I don't like 3500 MSL...it's a VFR altitude *and* within 3000ft AGL where I live.  So there can literally be any traffic from any direction at that altitude, and some of them might but be paying as close attention because they are at the "correct" altitude.  Just buzzing around I'm usually 2000-3000ft MSL, which is 1000-2000ft AGL in these parts.  3000ft has the same problem noted above but with IFR traffic, but as a practical rule if people are cruising around here at 3000ft MSL on an IFR flight plan, the weather probably has me on the ground anyway!

2500ft MSL seems a good "sweet spot" here.

 

[Tom Baker]

1 hour ago, GrassStripFlyBoy said:

That 3000' comment is noteworthy, more so MSL but around flat midwest many pilots pick 3k MSL as it's just below the cruising altitudes.  For that specific reason I typically level at 2.5k or 3.5k, to better offset from the traffic that seems to often be at 3 even.

Depending on where you are around the Midwest the requirements for cruising altitude does start until 4500 MSL. The rule cruising altitude starts at 3000 above the ground, and a good part of the Midwest is more than 500 MSL field elevation. So 4500 is the first VFR altitude that is applicable. Now our airport is just under 500 MSL, so 3500 is the rule around here.

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

All clear on 3k AGL for where VFR altitudes start, the topic is pilots in my area very frequently fly at 3k MSL and I opt for being above or below that mark.  Any heading not the E / W cruising difference.

[Tom Baker]

Last year going to Oshkosh and back my son and I as a flight of two didn't get over 1500 AGL.

[FlyingMonkey]

7 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

Last year going to Oshkosh and back my son and I as a flight of two didn't get over 1500 AGL.

That’s how I like to fly, it’s where all the scenery is.

[Towner]

Most of my trip to Oshkosh was spent at high altitude. Not much of a choice out west, but even east of the Rockies I was 5500-7500. This was partially due to good tailwinds, but also for safety as I was over unfamiliar areas. 
 

I do have to admit that I did spend a few hours between 1000-1500 agl on the way back for sightseeing. Some beautiful country that I’ve never seen before.

I think there can be advantages to both lower and higher altitudes depending on the mission. Usually higher for me during longer cross country trips with the assistance of flight following.

[redegg]

3 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

That’s how I like to fly, it’s where all the scenery is.

It's also where the ground is!

[FlyingMonkey]

8 hours ago, redegg said:

It's also where the ground is!

If you can't miss hitting something 1500 feet away, time to get your eyes checked! 

[Tom Baker]

I have thousands of hours flying tree top high doing pipeline patrol, so 1500 feels like nose bleed altitude to me.

[Ken]

The view from 7 to 10,000' along the coast of Nc,SC,Ga and Florida is pretty nice. Over the Cape and NASA is pretty nice too.  

[FlyingMonkey]

21 minutes ago, Ken said:

The view from 7 to 10,000' along the coast of Nc,SC,Ga and Florida is pretty nice. Over the Cape and NASA is pretty nice too.  

Don't get me wrong, the view from up there is beautiful.  But it's a more abstract view, you're not going to see individual features smaller than a town or lake.  All flying has great scenery, just pick your poison!

[Ken]

Yep