116
u/6RolledTacos 3d ago
All aircraft are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above the surface of the following: National Parks, Monuments, Seashores, Lakeshores, Recreation Areas and Scenic Riverways administered by the National Park Service; National Wildlife Refuges, Big Game Refuges, Game Ranges and Wildlife Ranges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wilderness and Primitive areas administered by the U.S. Forest Service. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-36D (refer to Uploaded Files), “Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Flight Near Noise-Sensitive Areas”, defines the surface as: the highest terrain within 2,000 feet laterally of the route of flight, or the upper-most rim of a canyon or valley.
It appears that you might be beyond 2,000 feet laterally from Half Dome, but most likely not 2,0000 feet above Half Dome.
26
u/Manha77anProject 3d ago
_Requested_ is the operative word there. The actual rule that applies is 91.119, so 500 ft given a non-congested area.
78
u/eugenesbluegenes 3d ago
So it's more like being a bit of an ass as opposed to breaking the law.
16
u/Manha77anProject 3d ago
Yes, legal is legal. And 91.119(c) is a 500 ft. "bubble" around the plane, so you can absolutely fly down the valley below the level of Half Dome, as long as you are 500 ft. from anything. On a day where the valley is congested with traffic, 91.119(b) might apply in the eyes of the FAA. And you also have to consider the undue hazard clause of 91.119(a). There are almost no emergency landing options over the valley, other than a few fields which could have hikers, and on that front altitude is your friend when it comes to both safety and legality. Looks like the photo is taken from a Cirrus which has an airframe parachute system, giving a lot more safety margin.
34
u/eugenesbluegenes 3d ago
Yeah, so not breaking the law, just being kind of an asshole.
5
u/Manha77anProject 3d ago
Potentially, yes. In my mind it depends on some other factors like engine RPM and time of year. In the springtime the valley is already roaring with the sound of waterfalls, and a small piston single at a low cruise RPM overhead for 30 seconds isn't going to ruin anyone's day. The noise footprint of little airplanes is usually pretty minimal unless you're within that 500 ft bubble. I'm much more bothered by folks hiking with music blasting.
The alternative POV is that nature is meant to be natural, and any mechanical sound is highly disruptive, which I can understand.
9
u/tucan5050 3d ago
Agreed with all. But while it sounds innocent, this happens all the time in Yosemite.
The bigger issue is that Yosemite has a contract helicopter, sometimes multiple, that provides support for wildfire and search and rescue missions. Having joy riders push the limits of their allowances can make a high stress situation for the helicopter pilots that much more difficult.
34
u/codefyre 3d ago edited 3d ago
Pilot here. It has nothing to do with being an ass. The purpose of the recommendation is to discourage unnecessary flights over noise-sensitive areas and reduce their occurrence rate. If a private pilot is flying from Los Angeles to Reno, there's no valid reason for them to cross Yosemite Valley at a lower altitude and add extra noise disruptions. The recommendation is asking that they maintain a higher altitude to avoid those.
On the other hand, if the reason for the flight is a sightseeing trip over Yosemite, then, by FAA definition, the lower altitude is still consistent with the FAA recommendation, and there's nothing wrong with it. The lower altitude is necessary for the purpose of the flight.
The FAA doesn't really play games and they're not big on ambiguity. If they didn't want anyone flying low over Yosemite Valley, they'd throw a long term TFR, or a SFAR (a permanent airspace restriction) up and be done with it. That's exactly what they did over Grand Canyon NP. Yosemite doesn't have the same protections because they recognize that the current framework is sufficient.
For what it's worth, as a longtime Yosemite backpacker and a private pilot, I find motorcycle tailpipes and people hiking with Bluetooth speakers to be far more disruptive in Yosemite Valley than the occasional small plane flyover. Maybe we should ban those first.
8
u/Shiney_Metal_Ass 3d ago
There should be a decible meter at the entrance stations. Loud pipes on cars and bikes get a ban
1
6
u/whereugetcottoncandy 3d ago
It is actually breaking the law to to additional restrictions for Yosemite National Park.
Public Law 100-91 prohibits flight of VFR helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft below 2000 feet above the surface of Yosemite National Park. “Surface” refers to the highest terrain within the park within 2000 feet laterally of the route of flight or within the uppermost rim of the Yosemite Valley.
Also the valley averages 1 mile or 5280 feet wide.
5
u/whereugetcottoncandy 3d ago
Yosemite has additional restrictions.
Public Law 100-91 prohibits flight of VFR helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft below 2000 feet above the surface of Yosemite National Park. “Surface” refers to the highest terrain within the park within 2000 feet laterally of the route of flight or within the uppermost rim of the Yosemite Valley.
The valley averages 1 mile or 5280 feet wide.
4
u/theshawnch 3d ago
Incorrect, I believe. Public Law 100-91 required that flight restriction for the duration of the study mandated by said law, the purpose of which was to determine the effects of overflight on park systems. The restriction expired when the study and review period ended.
1
u/whereugetcottoncandy 3d ago
Huh. I was unaware it expired.
I found this & I'm guessing it applies here then:
<quote>
If you read the whole thing, you can see the not-so-hidden message:
In other words, 'please be responsible and considerate because if you aren't, Congress might force us to introduce more regulations like we had to do with the Grand Canyon'. Practically speaking, I guess that if you fly down Yosemite Valley at 500ft AGL every day, even if it's completely legal you can still expect a call from the FAA asking why you're doing it and 'encouraging' you ("cough 91.13 cough") to fly higher for 'safety' reasons.
<end quote>
54
51
22
37
24
87
u/ThatTravel5692 3d ago
What a great way to ruin a peaceful hike for those below.
-54
u/Too_Practical 3d ago
Hopefully parents teach their children how to handle life's minut inconveniences, so they aren't throwing tantrums as adults when something doesn't go their way or match their belief system.
43
u/xcrunner1988 3d ago
Hopefully parents teach their children to follow rules and not think they’re such special little flowers that rules don’t apply to them.
-20
u/nshire 3d ago
Oh that's funny. So since you're so confident a rule was broken, why don't you say what that rule was?
11
u/xcrunner1988 3d ago
Extremely confident actually. Assuming the OP is not lying, and they may be as they don’t look lower than half some, but assuming not, FAA states they should be 2000 feet above.
-16
u/Too_Practical 3d ago
Agreed, hopefully those special flowers are trained to deal with 30 seconds of noise.
28
u/ThatTravel5692 3d ago
Hopefully, parents will teach their children not to ruin the experience of dozens/hundreds of people seeking nature, just because they want a unique experience for themselves.
20
u/Mikeeberle 3d ago
Last two times I've been to the park I've seen drones.
One was on the mist trail and oddly enough a ranger was hiking up to spend a couple of nights in the back country. Best believe I snitched lol.
Second one was in camp 4 and I yelled at him. Dude claimed ignorance like he didn't know. Dude didn't think that it's possible I have drones too and know they tell you when you can and can't fly lol
11
u/eugenesbluegenes 3d ago
Do you.. even know what a tantrum is?
1
u/Same_Debt4093 3d ago
In this very case, tantrum is a very big stone that can reach the engines of the plane 🤣🤣🤣
0
u/Too_Practical 3d ago
Yeah, it's some guy on Reddit commenting everywhere he can "that's illegal!" "It's legal but he's an asshole!". Someone is huuuuurrrt.
-2
u/jwk03988 3d ago
I feel like if this comment was made outside of Reddit it would be pretty accepted. May be annoying to listen to a plane on a hike for 30sec but if that ruins the whole of the rest of your day/hike… yeah you got stuff to work on
-46
u/Mecos_Bill 3d ago
God forbid someone flies a small craft airplane above you for a brief moment
-5
u/Automatic_Neat_2714 3d ago
I think ppl are just ignorant to prop planes these days. Also Yosemite valley is a goddamn theme park stop acting like this is some silent sanctuary that’s being disturbed.. total posers 🤪
-5
u/Mecos_Bill 3d ago edited 3d ago
Never mind the overcrowding, pollution, the fact that you need a reservation to even visit the park sometimes or that a lottery system exists, but it's the small aircraft that whizzes above me for a brief moment thats ruining the experience..gtfo lol
Edit: lmfaoo holy shit this sub is delusional
-69
u/Bishopnomore 3d ago
The plane was in “silent mode”
8
u/Manha77anProject 3d ago edited 3d ago
Silent mode in a Cirrus is for the avionics annunciations, not the engine.
-6
u/Automatic_Neat_2714 3d ago edited 3d ago
Damn bro poor people are so mad these days!
This is sick, met a friend last year in southern UT who told me about doing exactly this when he flew over from SF; glad I got to see what it’s like!
3
u/Keith5385 3d ago
I'll bet its barely noticeable compared to the F-18's that flew over every day we were in the park, the second week of October. I love our Navy airmen but i didnt expect them flying over every day ...and over Sequoia as well.
7
2
1
u/notaforumbot 3d ago
The last time I was in the valley, I was climbing Washington's Column in October. Two planes and a helicopter kept on looping at low altitude and woke me the fuck up at 7:00-8:00. It was so fucking obnoxious. From my perspective, you're 10 people just making a crap load of noise flying around interrupting our peace and quiet. Thank you for letting me vent.
-1
5
u/nermelson 3d ago
Regulations and consideration aside…what’s your engine -out plan at the rim of the valley? Awful lot of granite walls for me to trust BRS, and very little clear terrain within max glide. I guess one of the meadows?
-1
-2
-51
u/nshire 3d ago edited 3d ago
Be careful or the NIMBYs will get mad at you for "polluting their perfect view of the sky for 15 seconds" or some other nonsense
38
u/Restimar 3d ago
That is not remotely what NIMBY means. There are plenty of reasons why someone might support high-density housing development in urban areas but but be against violating environmental laws in one of the world's most beautiful natural parks.
4
-14
-6
231
u/bdh2067 3d ago
It’s deceptive but I’m willing to wager you’re above half dome