Sink the Kate

[RiverAux]

Is it just me, or is that CAP plane perhaps just a bit below the minimum altitude restrictions in CAP regulations as well as for minimum altitude over boats per FAA:
http://www.cap.gov/visitors/news/cap_news_online/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=4819&year=2008&month=10

[Eclipse]

There is also the issue of (apparently) having two CAP aircraft in the same grid at the same time.

[ol'fido]

1. What is the minimum altitude for CAP aircraft? over water? over vessels?

2. Can you actually tell what the altitude is by that angle, distance, etc.?

3. Estimating range and altitude over water can be very tricky even with some visual references depending on conditions. So let's not judge too hastily.

[RiverAux]

1,000' is the minimum per CAP although there are some exceptions to that.

I believe 500' is the closest you are allowed to approach to a boat on the water.

Two planes in a grid being a no-no is more of a rule of thumb than a regulation AFAIK.

Yes, judging distance can be tricky, but that does not appear to be more than a few hundred feet above the boat to me, perhaps less.   

[NIN]

Try again...

The Katahdin is 110 ft long.  Perhaps someone better at trig than I am could estimate the height above the surface based on the wingspan of the plane versus the length of the ship...

(that's presupposing you can estimate the altitude of the aircraft from which you've taken the photo, too..)

Bottom line is: Claiming that the plane is probably violating the regulations assumes facts not in evidence and wild supposition. 

[_]

You also have to consider the effects of the camera and it's lens.  Below is a link to a page with a couple photos that illustrate the effect the lens of a camera can have on the comparative sizes of objects that are a distance apart.

http://www.tutorial9.net/photoshop/interface/lenses-and-focal-length/

[Flying Pig]

Your right, there are exceptions to the 1000ft rule.  2nd, the 500 ft rule from any object has to do with creating  a hazard for the boat and its crew or the object.  I would say they are just fine and there is no way you can judge their altitude from the photo.  Some of you guys seem to be out to find error in anything your werent a part of.

[RiverAux]

Well, you guys can think what you want, but it looks pretty darn low to me -- and I've seen quite a few planes flying low to the ground underneath me. 

[SarDragon]

Well, after doing a little measuring, and figuring, I'm estimating an altitude of @ 125' AGL.

YMMV.

[NIN]

Depending on the kind of lens used, and especially if its any kind of a telephoto, there would be a fair degree of "foreshortening" in that image.  If they're at 125' over that vessel, then I'll eat my shorts.

I've got a ton of experience being at, say, 3500 ft and watching people below me who I swear are going to hit the ground, and yet, they're really at 2500 ft....

I would suggest that its difficult, nigh unto impossible, to ascertain the true altitude of that aircraft without a LOT more data, so why don't we stop throwing rocks at some guys who apparently got some great multi-agency exposure and training, and assume that maybe, just maybe, they were executing the mission in a safe, responsible manner within the regulations and the FARs, eh?

[Major Carrales]

Depending on the kind of lens used, and especially if its any kind of a telephoto, there would be a fair degree of "foreshortening" in that image.  If they're at 125' over that vessel, then I'll eat my shorts.

I've got a ton of experience being at, say, 3500 ft and watching people below me who I swear are going to hit the ground, and yet, they're really at 2500 ft....

I would suggest that its difficult, nigh unto impossible, to ascertain the true altitude of that aircraft without a LOT more data, so why don't we stop throwing rocks at some guys who apparently got some great multi-agency exposure and training, and assume that maybe, just maybe, they were executing the mission in a safe, responsible manner within the regulations and the FARs, eh?

Well said, Nin.  The tendency for people to "go off the handel" with so little information is almost sickening and happens way too often these days.  In my opinion, it negates any good that is actually accomploshed here at CAPTALK. 

Oh, and one more thing...
But be "careful" some people have a hard time when people "take the moral high ground" and call for an objective tempered view of things.  It ashame people take issue when others try to uphold a higher standard of honor and civility.

[RiverAux]

I now must admit that I hacked into CAP News Online to plant a photoshoped photograph of a CAP airplane over that boat just so I would have something to complain about here.....

If CAP wants to put a photo of what appears to be a major safety violation as well as a possible violation of CAP and FAA regulations on its web page, and I happen to notice it -- I'm not the bad guy for bringing it up.

Now, can I prove that the plane is too low?  Personally, I cannot, but my own experience leads me to believe it is.  Now, you may disagree with my opinion, but please try not to pretend that such disagreement is proof in and of itself -- you've got your opinion about what is being shown in the photograph that is just as valid as mine.  So, since we're in the same boat (so to speak), I think we can dispense with the moralizing. 

2nd, the 500 ft rule from any object has to do with creating  a hazard for the boat and its crew or the object. 

Doesn't matter whether you're creating a hazard or not, an airplane can't fly within 500' of a boat.

Sec. 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 those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Now, I know you fly helicopters and there is a part D that does allow helicopters to do so if it doesn't creat a hazard, but that doesn't apply in this case.

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 any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

[Flying Pig]

THE ONLY RESON TO FLY BELOW 10,000FT IS FOR THE PHOTO OP!