Private Pilot Flying under Sport pilot Rules

[Towner]

If I want to fly east, like to Mammoth or Tahoe, I almost have to go above 10k msl to retain any reasonable terrain clearance. The FAA never made the 2000ft agl exception very clear as to whether it’s actual terrain clearance or maybe just referring to above the highest terrain in the area, such as that marked on sectionals. I use the latter as it gives me a lot more options for safety.

The plane is pretty susceptible to up and down drafts that high, but overall performs pretty well.

 

 

[Anticept]

The reg refers to height above terrain where you are, but I will be honest with you, nobody expects you to fly at unsafe climb and descent angles because you're flying through mountainous areas, for example. So if you exceed the limitations in the rules in the interest of safety, you do have another rule that says deviation is permitted... You're just expected to be reasonable about it.

Not a soul is going to police you though because you flew an extra thousand feet as a sport pilot. At least not until a near miss or something happens and an investigation catches you. So just be safe.

The maximum elevation figure (MEF) includes trees and man made obstacles like radio towers. It's for obstacle clearance, not just terrain clearance.

I will give you an example here in central ohio:

 

Terrain around this whole area is around 900-1000 feet MSL. But you can see the MEFs are considerably higher due to the 1100 foot AGL radio tower (OSU AM radio station)

[Towner]

Corey,

You explained this much better and with more detail than I did, but that’s kinda my point. Looking through various forums, a lot of people still say the actual height above terrain was not the FAA’s intention at all, but using the mef is really what the FAA intended. Not exactly what is written, but I think using the mef is safe and and acceptable method.

I can usually find a safe crossing altitude below the mef anyway, as some of the mef’s are above 13k msl, but I can safely cross at a lower altitude in the same area.

If they were to enforce the 2000ft agl as your height directly above the terrain, I wish they would have made it 3000ft. It may not seem like much of a difference, but that 50% increase can contribute greatly to safety.

[Jim Meade]

As Towner points out, relying on any individual's opinion of what the FAA meant or would enforce is fraught with peril. 

[FlyingMonkey]

12 hours ago, Jim Meade said:

As Towner points out, relying on any individual's opinion of what the FAA meant or would enforce is fraught with peril. 

But it's all we got!

Unless the FAA writes a letter clarifying what they mean, it's all just speculation and opinion.  All any of us can do is try to act as reasonably as we can and make sure we have a good justification for what we're doing.

[Eddie Cesnalis]

On 4/12/2023 at 5:52 PM, Towner said:

Corey,

You explained this much better and with more detail than I did, but that’s kinda my point. Looking through various forums, a lot of people still say the actual height above terrain was not the FAA’s intention at all, but using the mef is really what the FAA intended. Not exactly what is written, but I think using the mef is safe and and acceptable method.

I can usually find a safe crossing altitude below the mef anyway, as some of the mef’s are above 13k msl, but I can safely cross at a lower altitude in the same area.

If they were to enforce the 2000ft agl as your height directly above the terrain, I wish they would have made it 3000ft. It may not seem like much of a difference, but that 50% increase can contribute greatly to safety.

The minimum doable to (and from) Mammoth is 9,600' 

[Towner]

2 hours ago, Eddie Cesnalis said:

The minimum doable to (and from) Mammoth is 9,600' 

That doesn’t give much room, but I guess I’m usually not much higher. I’m pretty comfortable in the mountains, but I’m sure I don’t have your expertise! After your move, you probably had to figure out how to fly at 1000 ft all over again!