Maybe they think you’re lying on purpose! (Maybe you are 
)
http://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=ssl#q=1+mile+to+feet
Though I suspect your thinking of a nautical mile, but I’m sure most would think of a statute mile
http://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=ssl#q=1+nautical+mile+to+feet
Jan,
fly a little higher every time and you’ll get used to it quickly. After a while you will not want to fly low in cruise anymore. I think it is so much safer to fly at FL90 than 3000 feet … time and many options if the engine fails, little traffic, better visibility…
Yes, I already started to appreciate all of those advantages. Less turbulent, too. Only it is not easy if one is not allowed into controlled airspace – flying an ultralight with no transponder. In my own national airspace I have an absolute maximum of 4500 AMSL, must fly into Germany or (better) France to go higher… But FL090 will be available to me only in the fewest places, I think.
I’ve taken a Chipmunk and a Jodel to 10,000’ and it was no big deal. But I prefer to fly where I can see more ground detail. High altitude is O.K. if combined with high terrain as in West Colorado.
But FL090 will be available to me only in the fewest places, I think.
My wild guess would be that in Germany, in FL90, you would be class E in 95% of places. France maybe 90%.
Class E, yes, up till FL100 mostly; but Transponderpflicht ab 5000’ AMSL (or 3500 AGL).
Which is why France offers more opportunity, in this respect.
I used to feel much more comfortable at 1,000’ (or less) than I did at 10,000’, particularly when solo or without another pilot on board. I know it’s counter intuitive and therefore irrational, the altitude generally bringing more time to resolve issues, better glide range, and a much smaller chance of hitting anything, be it ground based or airborne etc.
I think there was something about being far above the ground that made it feel like an alien environment where I had “no right” to be (physically, not legally).
I go as high as practical always – if something goes wrong you have more time to figure the problem out. Also I’m less likely to run into other VFR traffic because it mostly crawls along at 1500 ft!
I notice a great variety of approaches to flight altitude selection. Noticeably the VFR pilots from the UK are used to flying pretty low (I read numbers like 2000-3000ft), others fly at 8000-9000ft with oxygen and yet others fly at FL120 without oxygen.
I’ve had multiple instructors and discussed that topic with them and also saw a variety of answers but all except one (who preferred to stay as low as possible) always suggested flying up to 10,000ft without oxygen, 10,000-12,000ft max 30 minutes without oxygen and don’t go above that if you don’t have oxygen (which are approximately the legal requirements for commercial flights as well). I personally prefer to fly higher when over the mountains, so the only VFR flights I’ve done at the legal minimum of 1000ft AGL were the check flights where they wanted to see I can do that.
On the topic of the thread, I’ve never had a passenger being afraid of the altitude but I had one who said he was “uncomfortable being so close to the ground” during a mountain passing (about 2000ft AGL) and another one who felt very bad and said his body was “in the same frequency as the engine”. That last one scared me very much, knowing that similar effects can bring bridges down, I had no idea what it would do to him. However he told me that only after we landed, otherwise I would have changed the RPM immediately. He needed more than 2 hours to recover although I landed ASAP.
