Minimum altitude over national parks, wilderness areas, etc.
David H >
"All aircraft are REQUESTED to maintain a minimum altitude of 2000 feet
above the surface of the following: National Parks; Monuments;
Seashores; etc., etc."
Is this just a polite request, or is it mandatory?
Today, on a scenic flight around the Olympic Penninsula in Washington
state, I flew along the shoreline of Olympic National Park (and several
other adjacent National Wildlife Refuges, etc.). There's an active MOA
over most of this area that extends down to 1200' AGL.
To avoid the MOA, I had to be below 1200' AGL, but to avoid the National
Park, Wildlife Refuges, etc., I tried to stay as high as possible. I
flew at 1000' AGL. Did I do the right thing, or should I expect a call
tomorrow from the FAA?
Is that 2000' minimum altitude just a request, or is it a requirement?
If it's a requirement, why doesn't the language reflect that...and what
is one supposed to do when the 2000' requirement (if that's what it is)
conflicts with the MOA restriction that goes down to 1200' AGL?
Thanks.
Seth Masia
restrictions are advisory. You're permitted to fly in an MOA -- it's just
that you need to look sharp for conflicting military traffic. It's
restricted areas that are banned.
As for the wilderness advisory, see
http://www.wrf.com/publications/Aviation/securing.html
What I would do here is to fly a safe VFR altitude at a modest RPM to
minimize noise footprint on the ground. No one is going to report you to
the Feds if they don't hear your overflight.
Seth
Comanche N8100R
David H > <"<nospamforme"@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:0TgA5.27194$ve5.1...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
Ed Chastain
>
> You won't hear from the FAA. Both the wilderness area and the MOA
> restrictions are advisory. You're permitted to fly in an MOA -- it's just
> that you need to look sharp for conflicting military traffic.
> What I would do here is to fly a safe VFR altitude at a modest RPM to
> minimize noise footprint on the ground. No one is going to report you to
> the Feds if they don't hear your overflight.
>
> Seth
> Comanche N8100R
A modest RPM? In your little bugsmasher? You better hope the MOA is
cold or if not, the friendly F-16 pilot spots you during his 600 kt
run..
Its stupid for VFR pilots to wander into MOA's or any military airspace
without knowing the status.
Cub driver
You are required to maintain 1000 ft above National Wildlife Areas,and
they are marked on the sectional, so my guess is that the request for
2000 above a national forest is just that--a request for courtesy and
not a requirement.
all the best - Dan
Nothing New About Death: http://www.danford.net
Annals of Military Aviation forum: http://www.delphi.com/annals
newsletter: nothingnewabout...@topica.com
Cub driver
>Its stupid for VFR pilots to wander into MOA's or any military airspace
>without knowing the status.
I think that Mr Masia, like the rest of us, would inquire of the FSS
before "wandering" into a MOA. It would be very difficult indeed to
fly over the White Mountains of NH without impinging on Yankee One Or
Yankee Two MOAs. Indeed, I always keep an eye peeled when I am flying
along Interstate 93. The A-10s love to "Ski 93".
stuart
a yellow and black checkered roof. I'm in Canada. Any takers as to what I am
referring to? It's weird.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
"Cub driver" <nothi...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:39d1d6ca...@news.MA.ultranet.com...
Seth Masia
Thanks for the support on the MOA issue. Of course you'd contact FSS for
the MOA status. Local pilots know what the usual hours are and what sort of
traffic to expect. If it's helicopter traffic low above the desert, that's
one thing; terrain following jets quite another. And it's not likely
anything fast and noisy will be operating below 2000 AGL over a sensitive
park, high-altitude MOA notwithstanding.
This summer I've been commuting between Boulder and the Bay Area. It's
almost impossible to fly VFR across Nevada and California without traversing
an MOA someplace. More interesting this year have been the temporary forest
fire restrictions in Colorado and Utah, and looking sharp for slurry bombers
en route at odd altitudes.
Seth
Cub driver <nothi...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:39d1d613...@news.MA.ultranet.com...
>
> You are required to maintain 1000 ft above National Wildlife Areas,and
> they are marked on the sectional, so my guess is that the request for
> 2000 above a national forest is just that--a request for courtesy and
> not a requirement.
>
David H >
stayed below it.
Ron Rapp
wrote:
>A modest RPM? In your little bugsmasher? You better hope the MOA is
>cold or if not, the friendly F-16 pilot spots you during his 600 kt
>run..
Bugsmasher, eh? Interesting that there would be a "nose sensitive"
area directly below an MOA with a 1200 AGL floor. Your friendly F-16
pilot screaming along at 600 knots will generate lots of complaints
from people concerned about the environment in that park, and I'll bet
GA will get the blame.
>Its stupid for VFR pilots to wander into MOA's or any military airspace
>without knowing the status.
It's stupid for ANYONE to enter into any airspace without knowing
about it. Funny you used the word "wander", as if VFR pilots just
meander around without any idea where they are or where they're going,
nothing but a danger to themselves and the unsuspecting 600 knot F-16.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it. :)
--Ron
Rich Lafferty
stuart <hyde...@home.com> wrote:
> One question on my PPL exam concerned minimum altitude over a building with
> a yellow and black checkered roof. I'm in Canada. Any takers as to what I am
> referring to? It's weird.
A fur farm. Plane noise scares the little guys, I guess. There's some
irony involved, certainly, but apparently it messes up breeding
patterns for a few generations. Minimum altitude is 2000' AGL.
(AIP RAC 1.15.1.)
Isn't that on the PSTAR?
-Rich
--
Rich Lafferty ----------------------------------------
Nocturnal Aviation Division, IITS Computing Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC
ri...@bofh.concordia.ca -------------------------------
George R. Patterson III
>
> I think that Mr Masia, like the rest of us, would inquire of the FSS
> before "wandering" into a MOA. It would be very difficult indeed to
> fly over the White Mountains of NH without impinging on Yankee One Or
> Yankee Two MOAs.
Similarly, the Snowbird MOA lies over the Smokies. I was told that one
of the main reasons for establishing the MOA was to increase the number
of pilots who called ATC to let them know they were crossing the park.
There were a few planes that went down before Snowbird was created, and
nobody knew they were missing for a week or so.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
stuart
--
-----------------------------------------------------
"Rich Lafferty" <ri...@bofh.concordia.ca> wrote in message
news:slrn8t47r...@bofh.concordia.ca...
Rich Lafferty
stuart <hyde...@home.com> wrote:
> Don't tell me you actually knew the answer to that one on the exam?
[fur farm markings]
Strangely, yes. Or I will, at least, because the exam's next week. :-)
But that's the one exam in which they give you the list of possible
questions, so it'd be sort of silly to skip one.
Besides, having on my conscience thousands of ruined mink sex drives,
I don't know if I could handle that.
-RIch
Lou Hinshaw
GA pilots DO wander.
This is shown at many airports where other GA pilots complain about their
colleagues' misflights, and if it happens at airports depend on it, it will
happen away from airports.
"The learned Fool writes his nonsense in better language,
but 'tis still nonsense."
B.Franklin 'Poor Richard Improved' (1754)
Lou H.
Semi-Learned, and very foolish,
Prolific inventor, now on VP prop
and cheap jet for GA
Lousy Salesman,
Incompetent businessman.
(Typical of the Breed)
Looking for both around
Tulsa OK, USA
(need working partner)
stuart
think the moose went south.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
"Lou Hinshaw" <aru...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:39d43991....@news.pipeline.com...