[8note]

It's pretty safe flying that low, more like driving a car than flying a plane, because the danger is the forward movement and not the falling

[beeeeerp]

I’m going to disagree unless you are in a specific area of aviation, because it severely reduces your emergency landing options.

[defrost]

Depends on the operator, K.Geophysics operated for 25+ years with 15+ airframes (mostly fixed wing, some heli's) with zero deaths or crashes.

Another company bought them out and had three major crashes and five deaths with the next two years.

You can put that down to quality of maintainance and route planning.

One crash due to engine failure on takeoff and climbing, a second due to tangling with power lines that were not on the flight plan, the third I'm unsure but IIRC it was maintainance again.

By cause these were crashes caused by poor support surrounding the work rather than intrinsic risk of low flying .. of which only the power line tangle had an element of, which wouldn't have happened had the support team down their homework.

[beeeeerp]

Maintenance and operation is a big factor, but engine-outs do happen.

It also seems like you are talking about helicopters, which have a special exemption: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119

In a fixed wing, altitude is absolutely your friend and gives you more options to land, which equates to a higher probability of finding a nicer emergency landing spot.

And to your point, power lines that are shorter than 199ft don’t have to be on the charts. I could erect a tower off major airways or near an airport to that height without prior warning.