In UK and US Airspace, it’s “not less than 500’ from a person, structure, etc”. I think it’s the same in NZ.
Some of the personal minima suggestions seem dangerous to have fixed.
e.g. Minimum Fuel. I need enough to divert to the nearest airfield likely to be open. That can be half my fuel – 2 hours left – for fog forming in calm winter weather. Less, but far above legal requirement, for haar.
Crosswind limit depends on my crosswind currency, as does wind strength.
I did the FAA CPL and IIRC the ground ref maneuvers were done at 1200ft. The height is aircraft speed dependent, I think, because at 140kt it doesn’t work lower or higher.
Only New Zealand seems to include low flying in its PPL training.
The FAA SE CPL includes ground reference manoeuvres, although unlikely to go lower than 600 feet AGL when demonstrating them.
In industrialised countries there are too many potential masts, wires, cranes etc that 1,000 feet AGL is a reasonable minimum.
personally dont think 500ft is low in an appropriate environment. What do you think?
I agree, but that wasn’t the question re training in NZ versus Europe.
Maybe they don’t have the 500ft rule?
FWIW I have no issue with flying below 500ft but I would not post a video of it 
Also I don’t have any reason to do so here in the southern UK… you cannot go anywhere without getting within 500ft of a person, etc. and nowadays everybody has a camera phone and a pic will be on its way to the CAA, who would absolutely love it 
My point was that we are individuals and have individual views on what might be low flying.
I personally dont think 500ft is low in an appropriate environment. What do you think?
In Europe one normally flies above 500ft because if you go below and within, etc, you get busted.
Peter wrote:
In normal “PPL” flying one is not close to the ground.
Depends upon your definition of close to the ground and the type of aeroplane you fly, your flying mission or passion and where you fly.
Some IFR pilots avoid VFR flying and fly above mountains on oxygen as opposed to enjoying the view through valleys. Someone else might fly a super cub from a farm strip and feel 1000ft is high. Im a VFR pilot. For me the flight itself is part of the fun of going somewhere by GA. I rarely fly above 3000ft over land as I like to look at the view from above and what is going on down below. I like flying along stretchs of coastline at 500ft and if allowed I wouldnt have an issue flying lower either depending upon what was below. Others like Aerobatics – me too when I have access to something that will go downside up…
I am not aware of data on this. In normal “PPL” flying one is not close to the ground. I wonder why NZ is different? I know they have mountains, but so do a few countries in Europe.
Many fatal accident reports are loss-of-control at low height, when the view in a turn, and speed clues, are unfamiliar.
Only New Zealand seems to include low flying in its PPL training.
Are there enough statistics to suggest this solved the problem?
Basically, you can do it in two ways:
Fly to a suitable landing place and hope to be at 60ASI &15AOB on impact
OR
Fly at 60ASI &15AOB and hope to be on a suitable area on impact
In the second VMC/IMC is less irrelevant while for the first IMC is highly relevant and so the chance of botching into a high energy landing or stall
