400' rule AGL vs proximity to building

[smashse]

So I take it you are inferring that there are police helicopter pilots in your area that do not adhere to §91.119(a) and are endangering people or property by flying so low there is insufficient altitude in case of engine failure.

You taught me something new ‘/s’ so I understand you were being sarcastic.

Well let's not infer, I am 100% saying the state troopers in my area did not adhere to 91.119 in at least 1 instance I witnessed and definitely flew lower than 400' for 45 minutes sometimes directly over my occupied house. I also know that several other people in my area say the same, which is anecdotal but goes along with exactly my experience. There is a large (20 acre) unoccupied field next to my house, so I am sure they will use that as justification that they weren't endangering anyone as they could have aimed for that in an emergency.

I was unaware of the rules at the time, and have not had a similar experience since, and I am sure they were doing something like searching for marijuana grows in fields around the area, but still, they did not adhere. I've never had any grow like that in my field, so they left and haven't returned, but it did happen. I'd suspect they will be back someday, at which point I'll probably record and report it.

On the /s, actually /jk would probably have been more appropriate, which is "just kidding" meaning just joking around... But it was posted as a silly comment, not meant to actually state law or rules. It maybe wasn't even worth posting as it could confuse someone, but it isn't wrong, a civilian flying any aircraft would be subject no matter what. But I wasn't answering the question posed about police flying police aircraft.

 

[Rich QR]

Well let's not infer, I am 100% saying the state troopers in my area did not adhere to 91.119 in at least 1 instance I witnessed and definitely flew lower than 400' for 45 minutes sometimes directly over my occupied house.

What makes you think that was in violation of 91.119? The 500' is in 91.119(c), but notice that 91.119(d)(1) says that helicopters are exempt from 91.119(b) and (c), provided that the helicopter complies with any routes and altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA. Was their flight in violation of routes and altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters in the area around your home?

 

[smashse]

What makes you think that was in violation of 91.119? The 500' is in 91.119(c), but notice that 91.119(d)(1) says that helicopters are exempt from 91.119(b) and (c), provided that the helicopter complies with any routes and altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA. Was their flight in violation of routes and altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters in the area around your home?

Well, I doubt that the FAA has a route that circles a property over a dozen times. That isn't really a route. Second, the altitude set would be 500', and they were definitely below 400' and within that distance to my house, vehicle, and my person while doing it, without an airport in 5 miles, no emergency, and they were not en route between 2 points, as they came in from the SE, and left back to the east, but not SE direction they came in from. They also didn't land anywhere I could see or even hear them. Also, I am not between 2 airports in any direction unless maybe we are talking in different countries or hundreds of miles. Sectional maps I have consulted do not show ANY route, IFR or VFR over my property.

So what makes me think they were in violation? Well first, it isn't up to me to decide that, it is up to the FAA. All I can do is suspect a violation, record and report it. It is up to the FAA to decide if it is a violation, and even if the FAA decides it is a violation, they may decide not to investigate it or do anything. But, I am not part of the FAA, and all I can do is report based on my interpretation of the rules. I do not find it on the sectional maps for Helicopters online for any routes. They did not seem to adhere to any "route", often hovering and returning in a different yet similar direction. Also, there were no notices of escaped convicts (no jails near anyway), nothing that would point to them looking for a suspect, no bank robberies, or anything of the sort near me that day. No increased police ground traffic, no noticeable investigations on the ground.

Can you tell me a route, or show me one, that circles a non-airport property dozens of times and then carries on to another location back the same way they came in, but not exactly the same way? So the route would turn 270 degrees over a property?

Why is everyone attacking me for making one joke post? I mean some said that police didn't have altitude floors, and everyone attacked saying "YES THEY DO!! SEE POST #14!!!". I never said they didn't, just that it does appear, from living in a big city of over 4 million, to living in rural America, that police often do not adhere to the altitude floor rules.

My point, and many others seem to agree, that police often fly under the 500' floor, and the mods argue they are required to, but visual observation of actual flights indicate that they often do not. That's all I am saying.

This is devolving into a troll session, we should lock the post.

 

[BigAl07]

Well, I doubt that the FAA has a route that circles a property over a dozen times. That isn't really a route. Second, the altitude set would be 500', and they were definitely below 400' and within that distance to my house, vehicle, and my person while doing it, without an airport in 5 miles, no emergency, and they were not en route between 2 points, as they came in from the SE, and left back to the east, but not SE direction they came in from. They also didn't land anywhere I could see or even hear them. Also, I am not between 2 airports in any direction unless maybe we are talking in different countries or hundreds of miles. Sectional maps I have consulted do not show ANY route, IFR or VFR over my property.

So what makes me think they were in violation? Well first, it isn't up to me to decide that, it is up to the FAA. All I can do is suspect a violation, record and report it. It is up to the FAA to decide if it is a violation, and even if the FAA decides it is a violation, they may decide not to investigate it or do anything. But, I am not part of the FAA, and all I can do is report based on my interpretation of the rules. I do not find it on the sectional maps for Helicopters online for any routes. They did not seem to adhere to any "route", often hovering and returning in a different yet similar direction. Also, there were no notices of escaped convicts (no jails near anyway), nothing that would point to them looking for a suspect, no bank robberies, or anything of the sort near me that day. No increased police ground traffic, no noticeable investigations on the ground.

Can you tell me a route, or show me one, that circles a non-airport property dozens of times and then carries on to another location back the same way they came in, but not exactly the same way? So the route would turn 270 degrees over a property?

Why is everyone attacking me for making one joke post? I mean some said that police didn't have altitude floors, and everyone attacked saying "YES THEY DO!! SEE POST #14!!!". I never said they didn't, just that it does appear, from living in a big city of over 4 million, to living in rural America, that police often do not adhere to the altitude floor rules.

My point, and many others seem to agree, that police often fly under the 500' floor, and the mods argue they are required to, but visual observation of actual flights indicate that they often do not. That's all I am saying.

This is devolving into a troll session, we should lock the post.

You do realize that we can get an FAA Waiver for those regulations don't you? Also, just because YOU aren't aware of extenuating circumstances doesn't' mean there aren't any. To think otherwise is a bit narcissistic isn't it?

In case you'd like to research it, the waiver in question would like fall under "91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General." Also it's possible they are operating under some type of Public Safety COA.

Most of our professional aviators are more "safety centered" than you would even imagine because they know that John Q. Public is watching closely and just itching to report them and do anything they can to take them down. Case in point . . .


But if you insist that they are indeed violating the FARs then by all means make the effort to report them so the incident can be investigated and you can rest assure if there IS a report there will be some type of investigation even if it's only a verification phone call. Click on the "here" at the bottom of this post to learn how to contact your FSDO to report the incident.



91.119 Minimum safe altitudes; general

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere – An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas – Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open-air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas – An altitude of 500 feet above the surface except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters – Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed In paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

Helicopter operations may be conducted below the minimum altitudes set for fixed-wing aircraft. The reason: they have unique operating characteristics, the most important of which is their ability to execute pinpoint emergency landings during power-out emergencies. Furthermore, the helicopter's increased use by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies requires added flexibility.

For more information, or to report a low-flying aircraft, please contact your local FSDO. For a list of FSDO’s pertaining to your area, click here.

 

[Rich QR]

Can you tell me a route, or show me one, that circles a non-airport property dozens of times and then carries on to another location back the same way they came in, but not exactly the same way? So the route would turn 270 degrees over a property?

I suspect there are none, meaning the flight was legal.

If the FAA has not published any relevant helicopter routes or altitude restrictions in the airspace, then the helicopter was not in violation of published routes or altitude restrictions. So 91.119(b) and (c) don't apply to that helicopter flight.

Why is everyone attacking me for making one joke post? I mean some said that police didn't have altitude floors, and everyone attacked saying "YES THEY DO!! SEE POST #14!!!". I never said they didn't, just that it does appear, from living in a big city of over 4 million, to living in rural America, that police often do not adhere to the altitude floor rules.

That's not what replying people said. You implied the police were behaving as though they had some special privileges to fly lower than civilian helicopters.

In areas where the FAA has not established helicopter routes or altitude restrictions, there IS no floor for helicopter operations. That's from the link in post #14 (which merely points to 91.119).

My point, and many others seem to agree, that police often fly under the 500' floor, and the mods argue they are required to, but visual observation of actual flights indicate that they often do not. That's all I am saying.

There IS no 500' floor. If post 14 didn't make that clear, see here: Minimum Safe Altitudes - How Low Can You Go?

Although there is no fixed floor (outside of places where the FAA has published altitude restrictions and routes), helicopters are still subject to 91.119(a). That part of the rule makes it a bit harder to determine whether or not a violation has occurred, since there's no fixed altitude that determines whether a landing can be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. But if a helicopter crashes...