How LOW can you legally fly?

[@richardludwig8389]

Great answer, the other questions I always get are: 1. How high can you go 2. How long can you fly 3. How much does it cost 4. Do you need a license I like that your video was short and to the point.

[@DanielBlock-k8o]

*I am not an expert, do not take my word for anything* That being said: There is not a set max altitude always (that you need to worry about, technically you aren't allowed in class A airspace without permission but if you can get up there in an ultralight I'd be surprised). There are ceilings in some places, like underneath class B and C airspaces, Which are shaped like upside down wedding cakes. While you technically can fly under them, generally these are around airports in big cities, where ultralights aren't allowed anyway. Rule of thumb is stay in the middle of nowhere and you'll be fine. How long can you fly entirely depends on the aircraft. You're limited to 5 gallons of fuel, excluding fuel lines and tubes and stuff. I'm unsure of whether you can legally carry fuel as cargo (not in the tank). The range of the plane pretty much depends on efficiency. Some ultralights only fly for an hour or so, others can fly for much longer. Cost you're on your own idk. Sorry. Probably a lot less than flight school and buying a real plane though. No you don't need a license or any kind of aircraft certification or registration. Ultralights and paraglides are technically considered "unclassified vehicles". Think of it like a go cart in the sky; you don't need license and registration for it, but you better not drive it on the highway. Here's a link to FAR 103: www.usua.org/Rules/faa103.htm#:~:text=The%20rule%20governs%20the%20operation,twilight%20hours%20with%20proper%20lighting. Feel free to politely correct anything I may have gotten wrong in the replies.

[@markr.1984]

Back when I lived in a sparely populated part of Indiana there was a guy I worked with that used to do the powered chute thing with a few buddies. One of his buddies was shot at several times. He found bullet holes in quite a few places and also had hits on the engine on a cooling fin.

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@markr.1984 😲

[@vg23air]

thats when you contact the fbi, that is their domain

[@JPTulo]

@@vg23airYeah attempted murder is not cool

[@bobsullivan5714]

"Anybody or anything" includes pilot/passenger and the landing aircraft....... ie. you are in the desert above an area of rocks......fly with an available glide slope to clear those obstacles. ie. same if you are over water.

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@bobsullivan5714 Good advice!

[@xedniw]

(b. of part 91. 119 states (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.

[@jakerazmataz852]

"An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@jakerazmataz852 Good comment.

[@jakerazmataz852]

@@greggschachterleppc2769 Credit google.😁

[@diggy-d8w]

Great question & answer..... you know the way it's written leaves room for THEM to use it how they'd like meaning they might use it to reprimand is they so desired? I think you read/understood it correct but for me personally there's an amount of the respect you show by not swooping too low above a property. Legally you might be able to fly lower but out of respect one might stay a certain height when near a home, barns, or other property? I think respect & a healthy dose of common sense will always prevail in how a flyer handles his flight..... I'm glad you're tackling these head-on b/c this is important to know. As an old man I see "common sense" being treated as a relic of the past.... lol, good video. You're a relatively new flyer & the first couple of videos are the straight up important things to know. More to watch..... chat soon. peace & GB

[@deefective1100]

In Canada it is 1000 ft. AGL over a built up area. What constitutes a built up area? It could be a farmer's house surrounded by a thousand acres, if he complaints you will hear about it.

[@dandaily5522]

This is a good topic, I sometimes push the low limits. In most aircraft, I love the low and slow. In an SR-71 Blackbird, I'd love to take it as high and as fast as feasibly possible. In that aircraft, you could catch the sunset and turn it into a sunrise. I'll be curious to see how the three sixty cam videos come out. Thanks for your great content and mentorship. God bless you, brother! 🇺🇸 🛩

[@portnuefflyer]

I'm a current light plane flyer, who often flies quite low, as in fence post height, (ground effect is a wonderful thing) BUT, only when no one or nothing is around, simple. The other day I saw 2 foot launched powered para guys flying 2 to 300' above a freeway, homes, etc., as I was also a UL flier years ago, "I get it," it's fun, but damn, not where other can see and bitch, use alittle common sense! You have a great audio setup BTW!

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@portnuefflyer That sounds like some dodgy stuff you witnessed. I was taught not to fly over something you can’t land on. Each one has their own comfort level but safety is of the upmost importance in my way of thinking. I’m glad you could hear me, I spent quite a bit of time trying to get the audio right.

[@DD-uf2uo]

One unwritten "Rule" of flying, is to Know where you are going 2:32 BEFORE leaving the ground. 🤔 Have a FULL tank of gas too. .

[@malcolmwhite6588]

I learned to fly light aircraft in the 90s and I can answer this at least in New Zealand. You are allowed to fly very very low- zero feet AGL In fact. I never took off once when I was not allowed to actually touch the ground upon return to the airfield.😂

[@kenbyrd8457]

But, what about civil? I.e., when can the owner of property legitimately charge that you are "trespassing" due to your being too low?

[@wiley0714]

Property owners do not have any rights as far as the air. In truth, property owners do not really own their property. Your property is owned by the government. If you don't believe me, just stop paying property tax and see how long before they foreclose on your property and take it.

[@erictaylor5462]

No way I'm flying on something if the engine sounds like a leaf blower.

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@erictaylor5462 🤣 yep, my wife calls it a mad weed eater. It’s actually an aircraft engine but it is a two stroke. I would love to have a four stroke but you start adding about $20,000 to the equation.

[@vg23air]

if its single seat operating under far 103 there is no low altitude limit.

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@vg23air We could have an interesting discussion about that. I think we would probably end up agreeing that it is a matter of semantics.

[@vg23air]

@@greggschachterleppc2769 would be a short discussion, i would link you to me reading the sept 1982 entry by the FAA into the federal register that details why they created 103 which was to go in effect shortly and specifically why NO OTHER FARs apply even though commenters to the rule change thought they should. search 103 is born on my channel. nothing has changed since that entry into the fed register with regard to FARs 103 pilots must follow or core 103 stuff.

[@vg23air]

@@greggschachterleppc2769 kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4HRZIGgrt6roc0si=OwKFt1Djjg1fvVpG

[@ericleuty6270]

Literally that is correct but wait till the lawyers get involved.

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@ericleuty6270 True. A person also has to really believe in their mind that a part 103 Powered Parachute is not an aircraft. If it flies, it’s an aircraft in my mind.

[@TheFlyingScotsmanTV]

having "in the USA" would be a useful indication you are aware of the rest of the world...

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@TheFlyingScotsmanTV Thanks for watching

[@MarkSands-th8sv]

No helmet??

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@MarkSands-th8sv My wife tells me I’m a hard headed numbskull. I guess that makes it safe? :-)

[@vg23air]

part 91 only applies to registered N numbered aircraft, part 103 do not follow part 91 rules

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@vg23air Right. The main thing I was trying to communicate was the lowest legal altitude for a Powered Parachute. Thanks for watching!

[@wiley0714]

Nope. Part 103 has to do with an ultralight vehicle. Or more particularly an ultralight aircraft. For example, in the United States, there are different classes of airspace. Some are controlled and some are considered uncontrolled.

[@mnice59]

Short but VERY miss leading. What about; over a/an Airport City Reserve National park Research center Military ........? There are a bunch of yahoos on YT who think they built models or fly drones they think they can do anything they please. One ex: complete disregard for airport traffic patterns. Love all the sections of aviation but follow the rules for safety. PS Just look at Trent Palmer and all his gang.

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@mnice59 I was commenting on a few sentences in the far aim.

[@JPTulo]

@mnice59 You think planes should only land on paved runways?

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@JPTulo Nope.

[@JPTulo]

@@greggschachterleppc2769 Sorry, I was talking to the other guy. I fly an inch off the ground for miles at a time.

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@ Sounds like you and I can be friends! What aircraft are you fly?

[@wiley0714]

I would disagree. 500 feet. While, you could fly 1 foot off the ground across a lawn : Aircraft over non-congested areas Aircraft must fly at least 500 feet above the surface, unless flying over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, aircraft must remain at least 500 feet away from people, vessels, vehicles, or structures. Tractors, are vehicles. A vessel is anything that is designed to carry a person as far as a boat. But it can also mean someone riding an ATV. Structures, could mean Barn's, hangars, windmills. When somebody goes to land a powered parachute near their trailer, there is obviously the exemption because you are coming in for a landing. However, if you were not, then you would be in violation. So to me, the most logical and safest answer would be 500 feet . To say that you could fly an aircraft as low as it's possible in order for you to safely landed in the event of a catastrophic engine failure is not necessarily the appropriate answer because it depends on the logistics of the area.

[@JPTulo]

You’re allowed to do observation passes and go-arounds, you don’t HAVE TO land.

[@wiley0714]

@ and again that is not correct. At a tower airport you're required to remain in the pattern. Only during an intended landing, can you make a go around, because you would specifically be going around from a landing. Now, since you want to bring up the phrase "go around "and land, we can talk about landing exemptions in which there is no minimum height requirement because she would be landing. However, going back to what I originally stated the more appropriate answer is 500 feet from the surface. You can ask any flight instructor or any FSDO on that one. I have flown my powered parachute, many times in, even though I could easily scrape 2 feet above the ground, and sometimes I do in large open areas. But, when I'm around structures, towers, people, I don't allow a lackadaisical attitude.

[@ramjet4025]

OMG, every time I've heard a pilot pray before a flight they have been an accident going to happen.

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@ramjet4025 Keep watching the channel. 295 flights and all of them safe. I give credit to Jesus.

[@user-Atamigaputer]

gods blessing lol goof there is no god

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

Thanks for watching, enjoy the day.

[@illduitmyself]

Then you have no meaning or purpose? Then go away

[@talusranch990]

Good luck with your cancer diagnosis next month

[@rnordquest]

You are free to think that. But…time, space, and matter had to be created or come into existence simultaneously. A big bang is only one of three. This isn’t intended to start a long discussion, only to present something to consider.

[@greggschachterleppc2769]

@@rnordquest There is more than ample proof of Intelligent design. I find that comforting.