"We have met the enemy and it is Us"

[JeffDG]

I don't think we should be publishing procedures (like in the MART) that have routine operations (like photography) occurring below 1,000' AGL.  On training missions where I'm the OSC or AOBD, I tend to include a restriction to 1,000' AGL in my briefings.  I don't think going down to 500' is justified on training missions for the most part.

Is it published there?  If so, then I think everyone agrees it needs to be stricken.  I looked at the AP Aircrew Reference and did not see anything directing this kind of maneuver.

If you want an overhead shot, the best place to get it from is 2500-4000' AGL.

Well, the April 2010 version of the Operational Mission Inflight Guide (http://nesa.cap.gov/Documents/MAS%20Uploads/Operational%20Mission%20InFlight%20Guide%20APR%202010.pdf)

The attached graphic is on page 104, and indicates a 2,000' AGL pass, a 1,000' AGL pass and a 500' AGL circle around the target.

[bflynn]

Good find...

I know the publish date on this is Apr 2010, but this is not consistent with the AP Aircrew Reference Text, which states that a circular imaging flight pattern must be > 1000' AGL. (http://nesa.cap.gov/Documents/MAS%20Uploads/CAP%20Aerial%20Photography%20Reference%20Text%20Rev%20Apr10.pdf page 104)  Given the topics, I'll call the specific text to be the correct one and follow the AP reference rather than the more generic pilot reference.

Who owns the document you referenced?

Additionally, 500' AGL + 1/2 mile (2500') circle is at the wrong angle for good photography, this gives a base about five times the height or roughly a ten degree angle downward.  We normally use 1/4 mile away + 1000 AGL to give about a 45 degree angle.

Regardless, in neither text does it require a 60 degree bank at 500' to get an overhead shot.  In fact, your reference even says the ID photo should be from a mile away, looking north.  It also states that over the photo area, the AP becomes the mission commander.

It occurs to me that the answer to this not certain, but we all do understand that FAA mandated minimum altitude is 500 ft above the tallest obstacle within 2000', right?  And 1000' above the tallest obstacle in built up areas (marked in yellow on an aviation chart)?  So if you're over the forest at 500 AGL, you're only 450' above the standard FAA 50' tall trees and can be violated for flying too low.

[West_Coast_Guy]

Who owns the document you referenced?

A link to it appears on the Web site of the National Emergency Services Academy, if that's any help:

http://nesa.cap.gov/mascurr.htm

It occurs to me that the answer to this not certain, but we all do understand that FAA mandated minimum altitude is 500 ft above the tallest obstacle within 2000', right?

It's 500 AGL in other than congested areas, except that in sparsely populated areas and over open water, it's 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure (14 CFR 91.119(c)).

And 1000' above the tallest obstacle in built up areas (marked in yellow on an aviation chart)?

My understanding is that the yellow indicates areas that appear lighted at night, which does not necessarily include all areas that the FAA and NTSB consider to be congested. 

So if you're over the forest at 500 AGL, you're only 450' above the standard FAA 50' tall trees and can be violated for flying too low.

Since a tree is not a "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure," I would say no.

[JeffDG]

My understanding is that the yellow indicates areas that appear lighted at night, which does not necessarily include all areas that the FAA and NTSB consider to be congested. 

That's correct...I have an NTSB case somewhere on point.

But the "congested area" also includes "an open air assembly of persons", so flying low over a beach, or ever 3 farmers talking in the middle of a field, can trigger the 1,000' rule!

[JeffDG]

Since a tree is not a "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure," I would say no.

True, but towers of 199' or less do not need to be reported or charted, and they certainly do constitute "structures" for this rule.

I have a database of elevations that I sometimes use, and will go 1,200' above the highest terrain, or 1,000' above the highest tower (whichever is greater) for a sector altitude.  (I get towers from the FAA Digital Obstruction File)

One of these days, I'm going to build a table of the "sector altitude" based on the above for every CAP grid...down to the ABCD level.

[RiverAux]

I'd be careful of making broad statements about the best altitude and angle for photography.  It all depends on the nature of the target and what exactly needs to be shown. If I'm trying to photograph a single building I will probably need a different altitude and angle than if I'm trying to photograph a dam. 

[FW]

It's interesting that the mission aircrew reference text for AP (Vol. 3) states, on page 120, that the minimum altitude for taking images is 1000 agl: There is no reference for decending below this altitude for any reason. 

The 500 agl reference, IMO, is a mistake.  It violates 60-1, which is the CAP pilot's bible.  It's commedable that Jeff brought it to light and, I agree with Bflynn that it should be ignored. This should be fixed.  I'm kind of surprised no one has said anything about it.  Maybe a call to Mr. Desmaris at NHQ?

[bflynn]

So if you're over the forest at 500 AGL, you're only 450' above the standard FAA 50' tall trees and can be violated for flying too low.

Since a tree is not a "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure," I would say no.

My mistake - I mixed up two sections.  I should look up the reference before trying to quote it.
91.119 (b) says "obstacle" in congested areas.
91.119 (c) says surface in other than congested, except where over water where is becomes person, vessel, vehicle or structure.  So you're prefectly legal flying along 1' over that 499' tall tree...

As to the NESA reference, this afternoon I sent an email pointing out the conflict to the generica NESA contact point.  But if anyone knows the specific individual, that would be a more direct path.

[AirDX]

91.119 (c) says surface in other than congested, except where over water where is becomes person, vessel, vehicle or structure.  So you're prefectly legal flying along 1' over that 499' tall tree...

Until something happens, at which point they'll get you on 91.13(a), Careless or reckless operation.

[Snake Doctor]

Can someone point me in the direction of the original post in the aviation forum that started this?
As a former Wing PAO, I'm interested from a PAO/PIO standpoint.
I like to know who jacksmith60187, Recruit, Posts: 14, Unit: IL-999,  is as he/she is not a member of IL-999

[PWK-GT]

I like to know who jacksmith60187, Recruit, Posts: 14, Unit: IL-999,  is as he/she is not a member of IL-999

....Now THERE'S a shock. Gotta love 'pretend world'.

[Snake Doctor]

Really.  Stir things up while hiding. 

[bosshawk]

Another of the CT trolls? 

[Майор Хаткевич]

I like to know who jacksmith60187, Recruit, Posts: 14, Unit: IL-999,  is as he/she is not a member of IL-999

....Now THERE'S a shock. Gotta love 'pretend world'.

I was going to post the "You Got Served" or It's On!, but really, not cool.

If you want to hide/not show your unit, fine. But don't put in a fake/incorrect one.

Of course, given that all 14 (to date) posts are in this topic, I'm willing to bet any "cross posting" was done by someone more present there than here.

[Extremepredjudice]

The plot thickens...

[JeffDG]

I like to know who jacksmith60187, Recruit, Posts: 14, Unit: IL-999,  is as he/she is not a member of IL-999

....Now THERE'S a shock. Gotta love 'pretend world'.

I was going to post the "You Got Served" or It's On!, but really, not cool.

If you want to hide/not show your unit, fine. But don't put in a fake/incorrect one.

Of course, given that all 14 (to date) posts are in this topic, I'm willing to bet any "cross posting" was done by someone more present there than here.

To a certain extent, perhaps someone who doesn't have a ton of experience interacting with Legislative Squadrons might just think that IL-999 is a "made up" unit number.

[Майор Хаткевич]

But easily verified whether a unit is real or not.

We've seen cadets bounce in here from XX-1008, when they really just meant XX-108. That's fine, it's a simple mistake.

But when people put something like USA-HI-123, chances are they should have just left the unit spot blank.

[Snake Doctor]

It looks like here today gone tomorrow. 

[West_Coast_Guy]

Can someone point me in the direction of the original post in the aviation forum that started this?

Here it is:

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=81888

[jeders]

Can someone point me in the direction of the original post in the aviation forum that started this?

Here it is:

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=81888

It's only accessible if you are a member.