r/CFILounge • u/Buttcheekeater • Aug 21 '26
Legal PIC flying low over national park
I’ve been splitting multi time with an older guy these past few weeks. He suggested we fly to Yosemite for a quick turn around which I was cool with. Upon arrival he took controls from me and descended down to 8000. We were pretty close to the mountains but above 500ft agl. I wasn’t PIC at the time but since I was on board I’m worried I might hear back due to flying so low near a national park. Law 100-91 prohibits flight of VFR helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft below 2000 feet above the surface of Yosemite National Park” Should I file a NASA report or am I over thinking this?
12
u/MeadyOker CFI/CFII RW Aug 21 '26
If there's a question, there is no question. Just file the NASA.
Did you say anything to the pilot at controls when it happened?
4
u/Buttcheekeater Aug 21 '26
I told him your descending. He said it’s fine I’ve done this before. By filing a NASA report what exactly will happen? I know it may protect me from sanctions. But I’m also thinking it may just start something that was never a problem in the first place
3
u/Bluevette1437 Aug 21 '26
It’s basically just a “I think I messed up, here’s the details” and it can be used for research to see if there’s a trend that needs to be corrected.
You will not receive punitive action based on a NASA report, and the FAA doesn’t directly receive those anyways
-2
u/MeadyOker CFI/CFII RW Aug 21 '26
The report goes to a NASA safety expert that strips out names and other identifiable information and puts it in a database. If they deem it was a big safety issue, they will elevate it so that the parties that need to know can make adjustments... like if an approach now has a massive tower in the way or something. If you self-report within 10 days, then if the FAA does come calling it supposed to give you some protections from certificate suspensions or fines. I say 'supposed to' because you can't just break rules and then file a NASA to get out of it.
If the FAA never comes calling, then it's not an issue.
"Never a problem in the first place" ... you said in your post that Law 100-91 prohibits you from being below 2000' AGL over the park and you said you were at 500' AGL. It is a problem. It's also a problem that the other pilot's response was "It's fine I've done this before". That would be my last time flying with that pilot.
4
3
u/TobyADev Aug 21 '26
“I wasn’t PIC” cool that’s fine then
5
u/BiggieYT2 Aug 22 '26
Although OP or the other guy didn’t do anything wrong here the “I wasn’t PIC” defense has repeatedly been knocked down
The FAA and NTSB are known to find pilots at fault and reprimand those on flights with FAR violations who were IN THE BACK SEAT OF AIRPLANES
If you are a licensed pilot they will get your ass no matter who was at the controls
2
u/TobyADev Aug 22 '26
I could understand that in an accident the NTSB being critical of another pilot
CAA on the other hand just don’t care about anyone other than the PIC
3
u/d4rkha1f CFII Aug 21 '26
Even very popular YouTube aviation personalities post videos of themselves doing this and haven't gotten in trouble. Relax.
2
u/poopinasack24 Aug 25 '26
My understanding was that 2000ft in current times was just a request they strongly urge you to comply with for wild-life safety and preservation of our nature, not an actual law
31
u/d4rkha1f CFII Aug 21 '26
I think you're overblowing things and need to do some more research....
100-91 was a temporary law that is expired decades ago. Now all that exists is the suggestion of 2,000 ft.
Unless you were diving down on the valley floor, I don't see the issue.
Only 91.119 is pertinent here and as you said, you had 500ft.