I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal. But here you go:



"After making two flyovers — a common, but illegal maneuver in which the
pilot flies low over the runway — he made the five-minute flight to
Rountree where he normally purchased fuel, said airport employees.

According to an investigator with the Federal Aviation Administration,
before landing, he conducted another flyover, but stalled, crashing
nose-down just beyond the tree line in an open field east of the runway.

The crash was reported at approximately 8 a.m. by a resident who saw the
wreckage as he left for work, according Hartselle Police."


"Veteran-flyer Tom Coggin, 67, of Cullman, died instantly when his RV-6,
two-seater aircraft crashed on private property near Rountree Field,
Hartselle's municipal airstrip."

"Deadly Flight" - Cullman Times July 25 2006

http://www.cullmantimes.com/homepage/local_story_206231537.html?keyword=leadpicturestor y

Owen Hiller > wrote:
> I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal.

I presume this may be due to 91.119, which would probably require at least
500 feet AGL if there is no intent to land?

Jim Logajan wrote:

> Owen Hiller > wrote:
>
>>I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal.
>
>
> I presume this may be due to 91.119, which would probably require at least
> 500 feet AGL if there is no intent to land?

That would be my thought, but boy that is splitting hairs.

Matt

Owen Hiller wrote:
> I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal. But here you go:
>
>
It is not. The reporter also probably thinks that the plane stalled
because the engine quit.

I could see flyovers being illegal under two FARs - minimum safe
altitude, as well as careless and reckless. Regardless of legality,
they are totally unnecessary and unsafe. The outcome of this flight
demonstrates that point.


Owen Hiller wrote:
> I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal. But here you go:
>
>
>
> "After making two flyovers - a common, but illegal maneuver in which the
> pilot flies low over the runway - he made the five-minute flight to
> Rountree where he normally purchased fuel, said airport employees.
>
> According to an investigator with the Federal Aviation Administration,
> before landing, he conducted another flyover, but stalled, crashing
> nose-down just beyond the tree line in an open field east of the runway.
>
> The crash was reported at approximately 8 a.m. by a resident who saw the
> wreckage as he left for work, according Hartselle Police."
>
>
> "Veteran-flyer Tom Coggin, 67, of Cullman, died instantly when his RV-6,
> two-seater aircraft crashed on private property near Rountree Field,
> Hartselle's municipal airstrip."
>
> "Deadly Flight" - Cullman Times July 25 2006
>
> http://www.cullmantimes.com/homepage/local_story_206231537.html?keyword=leadpicturestor y

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> I could see flyovers being illegal under two FARs - minimum safe
> altitude, as well as careless and reckless. Regardless of legality,
> they are totally unnecessary and unsafe. The outcome of this flight
> demonstrates that point.

Minimum safe altitude is that altitude necessary to ensure being able
to glide to a safe landing in the event of a power failure. One may
presume that when over a runway you ought to be able to reach the
thing. The 500' altitude requirement that some have been throwing
around here has nothing to do with minimum safe altitude.

You are required to practice missed approaches as a student pilot,
which is essentially a flyover. You are also required to demonstrate
the ability to glide to a safe landing. ATC may even require you to fly
over the runway at a low altitude. Much of student pilot training is
devoted to teaching students to fly over runways at low altitude
safely. During instrument training or in IMC the pilot may fly a
circling approach as low as 500' over the runway and in fact may fly
almost a whole pattern at that altitude, and he may descend lower than
that under some conditions.

John and Martha King demonstrate in some of their videos a very low
pass over the runway in ground effect as a training device and they
recommend that instructors do this with their students. The Kings are
not notoriously dangerous pilots, nor are they given to recommending
that pilots break the FARs.

The pilot in this case is said to have stalled, but given the
inaccuracies in the news article and the fact that the investigation
had barely begun, let alone come to a conclusion, that really amounts
to speculation. But suppose he did stall. I submit that anyone who
stalls while flying over a runway is likely to do that when taking off.

In article . com>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> I could see flyovers being illegal under two FARs - minimum safe
> altitude, as well as careless and reckless. Regardless of legality,
> they are totally unnecessary and unsafe. The outcome of this flight
> demonstrates that point.

He seemed to have lost control of his airplane. The flyover had nothing
to do with that. The same outcome could have occured during a landing
or takeoff.

Sometimes flyovers are necessary such as a go-around or to check the
condition of an intended landing area. The only reason they may be
unsafe is because they aren't practiced enough.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> I could see flyovers being illegal under two FARs - minimum safe
> altitude, as well as careless and reckless. Regardless of legality,
> they are totally unnecessary and unsafe. The outcome of this flight
> demonstrates that point.

They aren't unsafe any more than any other aspect of flying is unsafe.
They may or may not be necessary, all depends on the circumstances.
They are necessary if you are inspecting a field that is short, soft
and/or unknown to you as part of your pre-landing activities. Many
flight instruction guides specifically recommend this in these cases.

Matt

karl gruber wrote:
> Was he on a flight plan?
>
>
> Karl
>

Exactly. Every reporter "knows" that not filing a flight plan is both
illegal and dangerous.

>
>
> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal. But here you go:
> >
> >
> >
> > "After making two flyovers - a common, but illegal maneuver in which the
> > pilot flies low over the runway - he made the five-minute flight to
> > Rountree where he normally purchased fuel, said airport employees.
> >
> > According to an investigator with the Federal Aviation Administration,
> > before landing, he conducted another flyover, but stalled, crashing
> > nose-down just beyond the tree line in an open field east of the runway.
> >
> > The crash was reported at approximately 8 a.m. by a resident who saw the
> > wreckage as he left for work, according Hartselle Police."
> >
> >
> > "Veteran-flyer Tom Coggin, 67, of Cullman, died instantly when his RV-6,
> > two-seater aircraft crashed on private property near Rountree Field,
> > Hartselle's municipal airstrip."
> >
> > "Deadly Flight" - Cullman Times July 25 2006
> >
> > http://www.cullmantimes.com/homepage/local_story_206231537.html?keyword=leadpicturestor y
> >
> >
> >

cjcampbell wrote:

> karl gruber wrote:
> > Was he on a flight plan?
> >
> >
> > Karl
> >
>
> Exactly. Every reporter "knows" that not filing a flight plan is both
> illegal and dangerous.

What reporter has stated that?

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > I could see flyovers being illegal under two FARs - minimum safe
> > altitude, as well as careless and reckless. Regardless of legality,
> > they are totally unnecessary and unsafe. The outcome of this flight
> > demonstrates that point.
>
> They aren't unsafe any more than any other aspect of flying is unsafe.
> They may or may not be necessary, all depends on the circumstances.
> They are necessary if you are inspecting a field that is short, soft
> and/or unknown to you as part of your pre-landing activities. Many
> flight instruction guides specifically recommend this in these cases.
>
> Matt

I think we are talking about different things here. Go-arounds,
circling approaches, low pass for inspecting the runway, and slow
flight one foot above the runway are all well-intended useful
maneuvers. I do them, and I teach them. May be I misunderstood the
article, but the phrase "fly over" in the article implied a highspeed
pass over the runway. This is what I was referring to as unnecessary
and unsafe.

Mustang requesting fly-by. Sorry Mustang, the pattern is
closed.




"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Matt Whiting wrote:
| > Andrew Sarangan wrote:
| > > I could see flyovers being illegal under two FARs -
minimum safe
| > > altitude, as well as careless and reckless. Regardless
of legality,
| > > they are totally unnecessary and unsafe. The outcome
of this flight
| > > demonstrates that point.
| >
| > They aren't unsafe any more than any other aspect of
flying is unsafe.
| > They may or may not be necessary, all depends on the
circumstances.
| > They are necessary if you are inspecting a field that is
short, soft
| > and/or unknown to you as part of your pre-landing
activities. Many
| > flight instruction guides specifically recommend this in
these cases.
| >
| > Matt
|
| I think we are talking about different things here.
Go-arounds,
| circling approaches, low pass for inspecting the runway,
and slow
| flight one foot above the runway are all well-intended
useful
| maneuvers. I do them, and I teach them. May be I
misunderstood the
| article, but the phrase "fly over" in the article implied
a highspeed
| pass over the runway. This is what I was referring to as
unnecessary
| and unsafe.
|

Jim Macklin > wrote:

> Mustang requesting fly-by. Sorry Mustang, the pattern is
> closed.

Wasn't that Maverick? :)

--
Peter

See my email...

Dodge City asked for a fly-by when we brought one of the
first Beechjets by, something about 200 kts at 50 feet is
neat.

I feel the need, the need for speed.



"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
|
| > Mustang requesting fly-by. Sorry Mustang, the pattern
is
| > closed.
|
| Wasn't that Maverick? :)
|
| --
| Peter

Who are you quoting? Who used the word "illegal"?

Bob Gardner

"Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
...
>I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal. But here you go:
>
>
>
> "After making two flyovers - a common, but illegal maneuver in which the
> pilot flies low over the runway - he made the five-minute flight to
> Rountree where he normally purchased fuel, said airport employees.
>
> According to an investigator with the Federal Aviation Administration,
> before landing, he conducted another flyover, but stalled, crashing
> nose-down just beyond the tree line in an open field east of the runway.
>
> The crash was reported at approximately 8 a.m. by a resident who saw the
> wreckage as he left for work, according Hartselle Police."
>
>
> "Veteran-flyer Tom Coggin, 67, of Cullman, died instantly when his RV-6,
> two-seater aircraft crashed on private property near Rountree Field,
> Hartselle's municipal airstrip."
>
> "Deadly Flight" - Cullman Times July 25 2006
>
> http://www.cullmantimes.com/homepage/local_story_206231537.html?keyword=leadpicturestor y
>
>
>

"Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> Who are you quoting? Who used the word "illegal"?

Since Owen included the link to the article written by an "Evan
Belanger" of "The Cullman Times," that appears to be the source of the
quote.

>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal. But here you
>>go:
>>
>>
>>
>> "After making two flyovers - a common, but illegal maneuver in which
>> the pilot flies low over the runway - he made the five-minute flight
>> to Rountree where he normally purchased fuel, said airport employees.
>>
>> According to an investigator with the Federal Aviation
>> Administration, before landing, he conducted another flyover, but
>> stalled, crashing nose-down just beyond the tree line in an open
>> field east of the runway.
>>
>> The crash was reported at approximately 8 a.m. by a resident who saw
>> the wreckage as he left for work, according Hartselle Police."
>>
>>
>> "Veteran-flyer Tom Coggin, 67, of Cullman, died instantly when his
>> RV-6, two-seater aircraft crashed on private property near Rountree
>> Field, Hartselle's municipal airstrip."
>>
>> "Deadly Flight" - Cullman Times July 25 2006
>>
>> http://www.cullmantimes.com/homepage/local_story_206231537.html?keywor
>> d=leadpicturestory
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Peter R. wrote:
> Jim Macklin > wrote:
>
> > Mustang requesting fly-by. Sorry Mustang, the pattern is
> > closed.
>
> Wasn't that Maverick? :)
>
> --
> Peter

I think it was "Negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is full."

Interesting article at:

http://www.southern-aviator.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=3645&-token.src=column&-nothing

When are VFR low approaches at uncontrolled airports legal?
Alan Armstrong
8/1/2001

Excerpt from near the end:

Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there is
nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach" will
only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon which
your aircraft can land. Neither is there anything in the Airport
Operations Provisions section of the Aeronautical Information Manual,
which actually sanctions low approaches. Nothing is said, either, in
the Air Traffic Control Handbook.

There is also no consistency between the provisions of the Aeronautical
Information Manual and the FARs, since FAR § 91.119 only permits
descent below a safe altitude if the aircraft is in the process of
takeoff or landing.

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I think we are talking about different things here. Go-arounds,
> circling approaches, low pass for inspecting the runway, and slow
> flight one foot above the runway are all well-intended useful
> maneuvers. I do them, and I teach them. May be I misunderstood the
> article, but the phrase "fly over" in the article implied a highspeed
> pass over the runway. This is what I was referring to as unnecessary
> and unsafe.

But you also claimed that the minimum safe altitude regulation applies. I
don't see how it does, if all the other low-altitude maneuvers are legal
("low pass for inspecting the runway", "slow flight one foot above the
runway", and a missed approach as part of a practice IFR approach in which a
landing was never intended as specific examples...the others you mentioned
could be argued as part of a landing).

"Careless or reckless" is, as we should all know, the catch-all the FAA uses
for pretty much any operation they don't like. It's no surprise that rule
might be invoked. When an accident happens as a result of a pilot doing
something out of the ordinary, the FAA will usually invoke that rule. But
that doesn't make a specific operation illegal; it mainly just makes
crashing during a specific operation illegal.

Given that low-pass approaches are clearly permitted in some situations, I
don't see how one can read the minimum altitude regulations in a way that
prohibits what this guy was doing. It's pretty clear from the FAA's
handling of operations that low-altitude flight in the vicinity of a runway
is allowed, even when the pilot never intended to land.

Pete

> Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there is
> nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach" will
> only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon which
> your aircraft can land.

I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for
best glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to
see if one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using the
procedures one is practicing.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
> I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for best
> glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to see if
> one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using the
> procedures one is practicing.

FYI...

As it happens, I just flew with an instructor yesterday, doing my BFR.
During our ground discussion, he told me that he was involved in an incident
in which the FAA cited him for violating the minimum safe altitude
regulations. In his case, he was not doing engine-out practicing, but that
did come up, and here's what the local FAA inspector said...

* There is no "sparsely settled" area anywhere within the Puget Sound
region, even in locations where it is miles to the nearest structure. The
FAA does not provide any guidance as to what *is* a sparsely settled area,
but apparently if there's any settlement anywhere within some apparently
long distance, that's not "sparse".

* There is no exception to the minimum safe altitude rules for the purpose
of practicing engine-out procedures. If you are not over a sparsely settled
area (of which there are none around here, and by this interpretation there
would be none around ANY significantly populated region), then you may not
descend below 500', and that goes up to 1000' above the highest obstacle
within 2000' of the aircraft if the area is considered "congested" (note
that they don't restrict that to man-made obstacles...if there's a 100' tree
around, quite common here in the Northwest and elsewhere, your minimum
altitude is actually 1100' AGL, for example).

* The inspector readily admitted that there is no formal definition of the
terms, and declined to offer any formal definition of the terms. They are
playing by the rules set forth by the NTSB in past judgments, in that the
FAA is permitted to interpret their rules as they see fit, and are not
required to make any explicit statements about the specifics of the rules.
So, if they see a pilot flying lower than the FAA inspector thinks he should
be, and the altitude is below *some* minimum safe altitude specified, the
inspector need only describe the area as an area where a higher altitude is
required, and there's no defense that the pilot can mount against that.

So, as far your actual question goes...it depends on what you mean by "see
if one can actually make the field", but if that would require flight below
500' and you're not at an airport, then no, you can't do that practically
anywhere that people live. If you're flying in a congested area (and
remember, there's no formal definition of "congested area"), that minimum is
the 1000' given.

With a minimum altitude of 1000' above the highest obstacle within 2000',
I'd say it'd be pretty hard to know for sure that you've got the field made.
An experienced instructor could make a reasonably accurate judgment call,
but from that altitude, all sorts of things could screw up the glide.

Frankly, I think it's pretty lame for the FAA to have rules for which they
don't include definitions of the terms used. I'm not one to just broadly
paint the FAA as being bad, but this is certainly one area in which they
need some serious improvement.

Pete

Achtung, I'm from the FAA and I'm hear to define words the
way I want. Papers!


§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails,
an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or
property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city,
town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of
persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest
obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the
aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet
above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than
the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section if the operation is conducted without hazard to
persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person
operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or
altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the
Administrator.



Important words above... OVER Every place that isn't OVER a
town, city, settlement or crowd is by the above list
SPARSELY and I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of water.
Except for congested areas, a tree is not an item of
concern, the term structure can mean the outhouse or porta
potty or a tent, but a road sign along a vacant highway
doesn't count as a structure.







"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jose" > wrote in message
| . com...
| > I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out
procedures (trim for best
| > glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the
practice is to see if
| > one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by
using the
| > procedures one is practicing.
|
| FYI...
|
| As it happens, I just flew with an instructor yesterday,
doing my BFR.
| During our ground discussion, he told me that he was
involved in an incident
| in which the FAA cited him for violating the minimum safe
altitude
| regulations. In his case, he was not doing engine-out
practicing, but that
| did come up, and here's what the local FAA inspector
said...
|
| * There is no "sparsely settled" area anywhere within the
Puget Sound
| region, even in locations where it is miles to the nearest
structure. The
| FAA does not provide any guidance as to what *is* a
sparsely settled area,
| but apparently if there's any settlement anywhere within
some apparently
| long distance, that's not "sparse".
|
| * There is no exception to the minimum safe altitude rules
for the purpose
| of practicing engine-out procedures. If you are not over
a sparsely settled
| area (of which there are none around here, and by this
interpretation there
| would be none around ANY significantly populated region),
then you may not
| descend below 500', and that goes up to 1000' above the
highest obstacle
| within 2000' of the aircraft if the area is considered
"congested" (note
| that they don't restrict that to man-made obstacles...if
there's a 100' tree
| around, quite common here in the Northwest and elsewhere,
your minimum
| altitude is actually 1100' AGL, for example).
|
| * The inspector readily admitted that there is no formal
definition of the
| terms, and declined to offer any formal definition of the
terms. They are
| playing by the rules set forth by the NTSB in past
judgments, in that the
| FAA is permitted to interpret their rules as they see fit,
and are not
| required to make any explicit statements about the
specifics of the rules.
| So, if they see a pilot flying lower than the FAA
inspector thinks he should
| be, and the altitude is below *some* minimum safe altitude
specified, the
| inspector need only describe the area as an area where a
higher altitude is
| required, and there's no defense that the pilot can mount
against that.
|
| So, as far your actual question goes...it depends on what
you mean by "see
| if one can actually make the field", but if that would
require flight below
| 500' and you're not at an airport, then no, you can't do
that practically
| anywhere that people live. If you're flying in a
congested area (and
| remember, there's no formal definition of "congested
area"), that minimum is
| the 1000' given.
|
| With a minimum altitude of 1000' above the highest
obstacle within 2000',
| I'd say it'd be pretty hard to know for sure that you've
got the field made.
| An experienced instructor could make a reasonably accurate
judgment call,
| but from that altitude, all sorts of things could screw up
the glide.
|
| Frankly, I think it's pretty lame for the FAA to have
rules for which they
| don't include definitions of the terms used. I'm not one
to just broadly
| paint the FAA as being bad, but this is certainly one area
in which they
| need some serious improvement.
|
| Pete
|
|

In article >,
Jose > wrote:
> > Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there is
> > nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach" will
> > only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon which
> > your aircraft can land.
>
> I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for
> best glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to
> see if one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using the
> procedures one is practicing.

Well, if you make it, you can land there.


JKG

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message .. .
: Owen Hiller > wrote:
: > I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal.
:
: I presume this may be due to 91.119, which would probably require at least
: 500 feet AGL if there is no intent to land?

That is 500' from persons or 'property'.

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Owen Hiller > wrote:
> > I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal.
>
> I presume this may be due to 91.119, which would probably require at least
> 500 feet AGL if there is no intent to land?


Except that's not an accurate paraphrase of 91.119.



JKG

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. com...
>
> That is 500' from persons or 'property'.
>

No, it's 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Flying over the runway may or may not be illegal, but it sure beats
the hell out of flying below the runway.

I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over a quote from someone like
that.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> Who are you quoting? Who used the word "illegal"?
>
> Since Owen included the link to the article written by an "Evan
> Belanger" of "The Cullman Times," that appears to be the source of the
> quote.
>
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "Owen Hiller" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal. But here you
>>>go:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "After making two flyovers - a common, but illegal maneuver in which
>>> the pilot flies low over the runway - he made the five-minute flight
>>> to Rountree where he normally purchased fuel, said airport employees.
>>>
>>> According to an investigator with the Federal Aviation
>>> Administration, before landing, he conducted another flyover, but
>>> stalled, crashing nose-down just beyond the tree line in an open
>>> field east of the runway.
>>>
>>> The crash was reported at approximately 8 a.m. by a resident who saw
>>> the wreckage as he left for work, according Hartselle Police."
>>>
>>>
>>> "Veteran-flyer Tom Coggin, 67, of Cullman, died instantly when his
>>> RV-6, two-seater aircraft crashed on private property near Rountree
>>> Field, Hartselle's municipal airstrip."
>>>
>>> "Deadly Flight" - Cullman Times July 25 2006
>>>
>>> http://www.cullmantimes.com/homepage/local_story_206231537.html?keywor
>>> d=leadpicturestory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Owen Hiller wrote:
> I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal. But here you go:
>
>
>
> "After making two flyovers — a common, but illegal maneuver in which the
> pilot flies low over the runway — he made the five-minute flight to
> Rountree where he normally purchased fuel, said airport employees.
>
> According to an investigator with the Federal Aviation Administration,
> before landing, he conducted another flyover, but stalled, crashing
> nose-down just beyond the tree line in an open field east of the runway.
>
> The crash was reported at approximately 8 a.m. by a resident who saw the
> wreckage as he left for work, according Hartselle Police."
>
>
> "Veteran-flyer Tom Coggin, 67, of Cullman, died instantly when his RV-6,
> two-seater aircraft crashed on private property near Rountree Field,
> Hartselle's municipal airstrip."
>
> "Deadly Flight" - Cullman Times July 25 2006
>
> http://www.cullmantimes.com/homepage/local_story_206231537.html?keyword=leadpicturestor y
>
>
>
Then again, being 67 and all (about my age) this guy could have been in
the throes of some medical problem on each flyover (yeah yeah he did
stop and get gas but still could have been incapacitated somehow the
entire time) and thus the crash event.

Terry

Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>> Owen Hiller > wrote:
>> > I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal.
>>
>> I presume this may be due to 91.119, which would probably require at
>> least 500 feet AGL if there is no intent to land?
>
>
> Except that's not an accurate paraphrase of 91.119.

True. My intent was merely to provide a summary line for 91.119, not
provide any sort of paraphrase. I should have written "I presume this may
be due to 91.119, which addresses minimum legal altitudes?"

I don't pretend to know whether runway flyovers are illegal, which is why I
framed the speculation as a question.

> Minimum safe altitude is that altitude necessary to ensure being able
> to glide to a safe landing in the event of a power failure.

FAR 91.119 does not define minimum safe altitude based on the safe
landing of the aircraft itself in the event of power failure. It's
based on whether such a landing will result in undue hazard to the
persons or the property on the surface. Otherwise you will never be
legal flying below 500AGL over the open water.

U.S FAR 91.119 still carries the grand tradition that as part 91
flyers, you're allowed to do certain risky things, as long as you're
only endangering yourself. That's a great tradition that makes this
country great, folks.

Bob Gardner wrote:
> I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over a quote from someone like
> that.
>
I wouldn't either. I know that a low approach over a runway is not
illegal. People do them all the time with the tower's blessing.

John Galban====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

John Galban wrote:
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over a quote from someone like
>> that.
>>
> I wouldn't either. I know that a low approach over a runway is not
> illegal. People do them all the time with the tower's blessing.

For that matter, going around would be considered a low approach.

"Terry" > wrote

> Then again, being 67 and all (about my age) this guy could have been in
> the throes of some medical problem on each flyover (yeah yeah he did
> stop and get gas but still could have been incapacitated somehow the
> entire time) and thus the crash event.

My bet is that after the high speed pass, he slowed a bit to land, turned
too steeply, and did a high speed stall.
--
Jim in NC

We flew below the runway all the time in the King Air full
motion simulators at Flight Safety, even did a few spinouts.



"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
| Flying over the runway may or may not be illegal, but it
sure beats
| the hell out of flying below the runway.

John Galban wrote:


Hey, saw your name in the book at Schafer. Next year why don't you plan
on coming up for the work party. Third weekend of July.

Dale wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
>
>>I could see flyovers being illegal under two FARs - minimum safe
>>altitude, as well as careless and reckless. Regardless of legality,
>>they are totally unnecessary and unsafe. The outcome of this flight
>>demonstrates that point.
>
>
> He seemed to have lost control of his airplane. The flyover had nothing
> to do with that. The same outcome could have occured during a landing
> or takeoff.
>
> Sometimes flyovers are necessary such as a go-around or to check the
> condition of an intended landing area. The only reason they may be
> unsafe is because they aren't practiced enough.

Bingo ! Lots of folks don't like to fly flaps down at low speed close
to the ground and therefore don't practice it as often as they should.
It's like spinning, you really should take a spin certified trainer to
3000 or 4000 and spin the damned thing to make sure that you recognize
and react to a incepted spin is as nearly instantaneously as
possible...which is *really* important at 700agl in a climb out and you
screw up...

....Ken

Newps wrote:
> John Galban wrote:
>
>
> Hey, saw your name in the book at Schafer. Next year why don't you plan
> on coming up for the work party. Third weekend of July.

Hey Newps,

My name's in the Shafer book every year :-) I try to get my
vacation time to line up with the MPA work party, but it doesn't always
work out. Last time I was able to join the party was in '99. I'm
planning a lot more mountain flying time off next year (about 4 weeks),
so I'll probably be there.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:
> True. My intent was merely to provide a summary line for 91.119, not
> provide any sort of paraphrase. I should have written "I presume this may
> be due to 91.119, which addresses minimum legal altitudes?"
>
> I don't pretend to know whether runway flyovers are illegal, which is why I
> framed the speculation as a question.

There is nothing in the FARs that would suggest that runway "fly overs"
are illegal. Now, careless and reckless could probably describe a fly
over, depending on how it is executed.



JKG

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. com...
> : I presume this may be due to 91.119, which would probably require at
> least
> : 500 feet AGL if there is no intent to land?
>
> That is 500' from persons or 'property'.

Unless you are flying over a sparsely populated area, it's *at least* 500'
AGL. I think it's safe to say that anywhere that there's a "municipal
airstrip", the FAA isn't going to consider "sparsely populated".

Pete

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> There is nothing in the FARs that would suggest that runway "fly overs"
> are illegal.

If there is no intent to land, I'd say 91.119 certainly can be read as just
such a prohibition.

Now, there are obviously other issues (the FAA doesn't go around citing
people making practice instrument approaches, for example). But a strict
reading of the FARs definitely *does* suggest exactly what you think it
doesn't.

Pete

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:rc9yg.84362$ZW3.50803@dukeread04...
> [...]
> Important words above... OVER Every place that isn't OVER a
> town, city, settlement or crowd is by the above list
> SPARSELY and I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of water.

Do you even bother to read the posts to which you reply? Or are you saying
that you don't believe what I wrote?

I specifically wrote exactly the interpretation that the FAA is using here,
and it isn't anywhere *close* to the interpretation you'd like it to be. In
particular, the person who was cited by the FAA for violation of 91.119 was
NOT over "a town, city, settlement, or crowd" and yet was found to NOT be
flying over a "sparsely populated area".

As far as "I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of water" goes, that's fine,
but nothing that I wrote pertained to flight over water. The question is
what constitutes a "sparsely populated area", and in the Puget Sound region,
there is NO place that meets that description, according to our local FSDO.

Pete

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> For that matter, going around would be considered a low approach.

Semantically speaking, sure. But that's not relevant here.

In the case of a true go-around, the low-altitude approach was made for the
purpose of landing, even if no landing actually occurred. No such claim
could be made for an intentional low approach.

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> For that matter, going around would be considered a low approach.
>
> Semantically speaking, sure. But that's not relevant here.
>
> In the case of a true go-around, the low-altitude approach was made for the
> purpose of landing, even if no landing actually occurred. No such claim
> could be made for an intentional low approach.

Which makes the case posted earlier interesting. Granted, one could
argue the pilot lied about the go-around, but even so....interesting.

Morgans wrote:
> "Terry" > wrote
>
>> Then again, being 67 and all (about my age) this guy could have been in
>> the throes of some medical problem on each flyover (yeah yeah he did
>> stop and get gas but still could have been incapacitated somehow the
>> entire time) and thus the crash event.
>
> My bet is that after the high speed pass, he slowed a bit to land, turned
> too steeply, and did a high speed stall.

Does make sense ...

Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO is
insane.

If some FAA inspector told me what you are saying, I would
be in contact with my Congressman and FAA HQ.

The FAA publications teach missed approaches, low approaches
and all manner of low flight. If you are OVER a town, it
can be identified and a pilot knows what altitude he is
expect to fly. When over open range, trees, water or an
area with no concentration of houses or buildings, that
constitutes "sparsely" by common definition. Laws in order
to be enforced must be written so a common person can abide
by the words written in that law.

The FAA interpretation you say the FAA enforces in your
region is nonsense and since they have brought cases, it is
open to challenge, Congressional over-sight, and public
demonstration.

The FAA does issue waiver to these rules for airshows, some
times it is a blanket for the airport/event [Oshkosh] and
sometimes it is for the pilot and the airspace. But any
pilot expects to be able to fly a low approach and do a
go-around. Many CFIs have their students fly along and just
a few feet above the runway, planning not to land, even
though the speed is right ay 1.3 Vso. Some times we do have
tire contact, but it wasn't planned.

If an agent of the Administrator asks you to do something or
clears you to do some something, that is approval by the
Administrator.

The FAA has many agents, some like airplanes and some still
think they are a Col. in the USAF. If you take a NASA night
photo of the area and it is dark, it is sparsely populated.
If you are a mile away from a densely populated area and any
area of buildings, vehicles [that includes tractor and
trucks] structures [that includes tower and oil rigs] people
and that includes Mexicans walking over the border, stay 500
foot radius away.

But just because you say it, I say it, the FAA says it or
even an NTSB law judge says it, it may not be correct.
Congress and the US Supreme Court are the final say.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:rc9yg.84362$ZW3.50803@dukeread04...
| > [...]
| > Important words above... OVER Every place that isn't
OVER a
| > town, city, settlement or crowd is by the above list
| > SPARSELY and I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of
water.
|
| Do you even bother to read the posts to which you reply?
Or are you saying
| that you don't believe what I wrote?
|
| I specifically wrote exactly the interpretation that the
FAA is using here,
| and it isn't anywhere *close* to the interpretation you'd
like it to be. In
| particular, the person who was cited by the FAA for
violation of 91.119 was
| NOT over "a town, city, settlement, or crowd" and yet was
found to NOT be
| flying over a "sparsely populated area".
|
| As far as "I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of water"
goes, that's fine,
| but nothing that I wrote pertained to flight over water.
The question is
| what constitutes a "sparsely populated area", and in the
Puget Sound region,
| there is NO place that meets that description, according
to our local FSDO.
|
| Pete
|
|

come on out west.. I'll show you a municipal airport in a sparsely populated
area.. there are no homes within 7 miles, and only two hotels and a prison,
all more than 1000ft from the runway

B

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> ".Blueskies." > wrote in message
> . com...
>> : I presume this may be due to 91.119, which would probably require at
>> least
>> : 500 feet AGL if there is no intent to land?
>>
>> That is 500' from persons or 'property'.
>
> Unless you are flying over a sparsely populated area, it's *at least* 500'
> AGL. I think it's safe to say that anywhere that there's a "municipal
> airstrip", the FAA isn't going to consider "sparsely populated".
>
> Pete
>

Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And
it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation.




"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Emily" > wrote in message
| . ..
| > For that matter, going around would be considered a low
approach.
|
| Semantically speaking, sure. But that's not relevant
here.
|
| In the case of a true go-around, the low-altitude approach
was made for the
| purpose of landing, even if no landing actually occurred.
No such claim
| could be made for an intentional low approach.
|
|

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:6zeyg.16263$6w.7083@fed1read11...
> come on out west.. I'll show you a municipal airport in a sparsely
> populated area.. there are no homes within 7 miles, and only two hotels
> and a prison, all more than 1000ft from the runway

I am "out west". And you are missing the point. There's no way that the
FAA inspectors here would consider any airport with a hotel and prison
nearby to be in a "sparsely populated area".

And why no actual airport name in your post? You could actually "show" me
the airport right here. Even if I wasn't already "out west", the Internet
makes it easy.

Pete

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
> Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO is
> insane.

Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.

However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the FARs, and the NTSB has
found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's interpretation is the one
that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to "common definition"
(and frankly, the actual "common definition" of "sparsely" is even more
vague than any official definition...can you tell me exactly how "widely
spaced" the intervals between population need to be in order to qualify as
"sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring, growing, or settled at
widely spaced intervals"?).

> The FAA publications teach missed approaches, low approaches
> and all manner of low flight.

Beyond missed approaches, low approaches, takeoffs, and landings, what
flight below 500' does the FAA teach? More specifically, what low flight
that cannot be accomplished at an airport does the FAA teach?

> If you are OVER a town, it
> can be identified and a pilot knows what altitude he is
> expect to fly. When over open range, trees, water or an
> area with no concentration of houses or buildings, that
> constitutes "sparsely" by common definition.

And yet, there's at least one pilot who was found in violation of 91.119
while flying below 500' in "an area with no concentration of houses or
buildings".

I don't agree with the interpretation, but given the broad latitude the FAA
is granted in enforcing their regulations, it's important for every pilot to
understand the precedents.

> [...]
> The FAA interpretation you say the FAA enforces in your
> region is nonsense and since they have brought cases, it is
> open to challenge, Congressional over-sight, and public
> demonstration.

I agree it would have been more informative had this pilot contested the
violation. As it happens, he was let off without so much as a suspension,
and so he was happy to not make waves. However, I am not so naive as to
think that he would have had an open and shut case in contesting the action.

> [...] But any
> pilot expects to be able to fly a low approach and do a
> go-around.

Again, completely irrelevant to the question of "sparsely populated".

> Many CFIs have their students fly along and just
> a few feet above the runway, planning not to land, even
> though the speed is right ay 1.3 Vso. Some times we do have
> tire contact, but it wasn't planned.

Yes, I know. I even benefited from this practice, and I've never heard of
anyone being cited because of it. However, still completely irrelevant to
the question of "sparsely populated".

> If an agent of the Administrator asks you to do something or
> clears you to do some something, that is approval by the
> Administrator.

Again, completely irrelevant.

> The FAA has many agents, some like airplanes and some still
> think they are a Col. in the USAF. If you take a NASA night
> photo of the area and it is dark, it is sparsely populated.

A relevant claim, but unfounded in this context. I'm aware of no FAA
interpretation that describes "sparsely populated" in that manner.

> [...]
> But just because you say it, I say it, the FAA says it or
> even an NTSB law judge says it, it may not be correct.
> Congress and the US Supreme Court are the final say.

Well, if you're aware of such a case in which the FAA opinion was overruled,
I'm all ears. If not, then your own interpretation of "sparsely populated"
(which I generally agree with) carries no weight whatsoever.

Pete

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Which makes the case posted earlier interesting. Granted, one could argue
> the pilot lied about the go-around, but even so....interesting.

And in fact, the FAA basically tried to argue that the pilot did lie.
Fortunately, the NTSB found that the pilot's story was more plausible than
the FAA's.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
> Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And
> it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation.

Yup. As I mentioned earlier, technically speaking such operations are
illegal under 91.119. However, as I also mentioned earlier, clearly the FAA
sets aside that technicality for such operations, since they not only allow
them, they encourage them.

But that doesn't mean that any random low approach is legal, especially if
not done for some FAA-sanctioned purpose.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Which makes the case posted earlier interesting. Granted, one could argue
>> the pilot lied about the go-around, but even so....interesting.
>
> And in fact, the FAA basically tried to argue that the pilot did lie.
> Fortunately, the NTSB found that the pilot's story was more plausible than
> the FAA's.
>
>
Almost gives you the warm and fuzzies, don't it?

Your Congressman sets the FAA budget every two years. The
FAA has to answer Congress' requests on demand. Call your
Congressman and I'll can mine and raise the issue. I know
my Congressman personally and have his phone number
memorized and call his staff by first name. Let's start a
movement, everybody call your Congressman about stupid FAA
rules and interpretations.

There is an election November 7, they will listen to you now
and they will be "home" looking to talk face to face.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
| > Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO
is
| > insane.
|
| Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.
|
| However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the
FARs, and the NTSB has
| found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's
interpretation is the one
| that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to
"common definition"
| (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of "sparsely"
is even more
| vague than any official definition...can you tell me
exactly how "widely
| spaced" the intervals between population need to be in
order to qualify as
| "sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring,
growing, or settled at
| widely spaced intervals"?).
|
| > The FAA publications teach missed approaches, low
approaches
| > and all manner of low flight.
|
| Beyond missed approaches, low approaches, takeoffs, and
landings, what
| flight below 500' does the FAA teach? More specifically,
what low flight
| that cannot be accomplished at an airport does the FAA
teach?
|
| > If you are OVER a town, it
| > can be identified and a pilot knows what altitude he is
| > expect to fly. When over open range, trees, water or an
| > area with no concentration of houses or buildings, that
| > constitutes "sparsely" by common definition.
|
| And yet, there's at least one pilot who was found in
violation of 91.119
| while flying below 500' in "an area with no concentration
of houses or
| buildings".
|
| I don't agree with the interpretation, but given the broad
latitude the FAA
| is granted in enforcing their regulations, it's important
for every pilot to
| understand the precedents.
|
| > [...]
| > The FAA interpretation you say the FAA enforces in your
| > region is nonsense and since they have brought cases, it
is
| > open to challenge, Congressional over-sight, and public
| > demonstration.
|
| I agree it would have been more informative had this pilot
contested the
| violation. As it happens, he was let off without so much
as a suspension,
| and so he was happy to not make waves. However, I am not
so naive as to
| think that he would have had an open and shut case in
contesting the action.
|
| > [...] But any
| > pilot expects to be able to fly a low approach and do a
| > go-around.
|
| Again, completely irrelevant to the question of "sparsely
populated".
|
| > Many CFIs have their students fly along and just
| > a few feet above the runway, planning not to land, even
| > though the speed is right ay 1.3 Vso. Some times we do
have
| > tire contact, but it wasn't planned.
|
| Yes, I know. I even benefited from this practice, and
I've never heard of
| anyone being cited because of it. However, still
completely irrelevant to
| the question of "sparsely populated".
|
| > If an agent of the Administrator asks you to do
something or
| > clears you to do some something, that is approval by the
| > Administrator.
|
| Again, completely irrelevant.
|
| > The FAA has many agents, some like airplanes and some
still
| > think they are a Col. in the USAF. If you take a NASA
night
| > photo of the area and it is dark, it is sparsely
populated.
|
| A relevant claim, but unfounded in this context. I'm
aware of no FAA
| interpretation that describes "sparsely populated" in that
manner.
|
| > [...]
| > But just because you say it, I say it, the FAA says it
or
| > even an NTSB law judge says it, it may not be correct.
| > Congress and the US Supreme Court are the final say.
|
| Well, if you're aware of such a case in which the FAA
opinion was overruled,
| I'm all ears. If not, then your own interpretation of
"sparsely populated"
| (which I generally agree with) carries no weight
whatsoever.
|
| Pete
|
|

The root problem is that many FAA Inspectors are mindless
authoritarians. The bureaucrats band together to defend
their turf. The NTSB has too many political appointees with
no aviation experience. The result is stupid application of
the rules.

Phone, write and email the FAA and your Congressman.
Contact the AOPA and EAA, demand some changes, demand
sanity.

Just a quick sample from Google...land use map sparsely
populated 826,000 pages

[PDF] T. Kit 9-12/TG.1'99 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
View as HTML
the size of each state is not related to the size of
the land area. ... the cartogram to the standard US map. 7.
Name a sparsely populated state other ...
www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/912ch1.pdf - Similar pages


SIZE IT UP(Map Literacy) Grades 9-10 Skills and Objectives
.... Use the two maps on page 5 (the US Population Cartogram
and the Standard US Map) to answer the ... Name a sparsely
populated state other than Montana. 8. ...
www.census.gov/dmd/www/text/9-12b.txt - 16k -
Cached - Similar pages


Web Sites Powered by ESRI Internet Solutions ... land use
information, historical maps, and more. The Atlas has a
powerful search function capable of finding locations even
in sparsely populated areas. ...
www.esri.com/software/internetmaps/index.html - 24k -
Cached - Similar pages


Zoning, CDFS-1265-99 He/she must have a thorough knowledge
of the zoning text and map and use these ... Another
reality, especially in sparsely populated areas, is staffing
and ...
ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1265.html - 17k - Cached -
Similar pages


Land Use Debate Land use research materials; Maps (Local,
regional, global) ... Have the students determine the common
factors of the sparsely populated areas. ...
www.wested.org/werc/earthsystems/geology/landuse.html
- 10k - Cached - Similar pages

So the US government in the form of the Census Bureau
and the USDA and probably the Interior Department and
Defense Department all can provide maps that
define sparsely populated areas.

The FAA can be forced to follow established
definitions.




"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
| > Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine.
And
| > it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a
violation.
|
| Yup. As I mentioned earlier, technically speaking such
operations are
| illegal under 91.119. However, as I also mentioned
earlier, clearly the FAA
| sets aside that technicality for such operations, since
they not only allow
| them, they encourage them.
|
| But that doesn't mean that any random low approach is
legal, especially if
| not done for some FAA-sanctioned purpose.
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
> Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And
> it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation.
>
I'll bet the FAA was hacked off (not that I agree) because the low pass was
down on the deck, at WOT. Ya' think? <g>
--
Jim in NC

In the case of the first posted report, two inspectors were
at a remote airport. One inspector heard an airplane that
didn't sound like it was being flown properly. The other
inspector said he didn't see anything.

Sounds can be useful, like when you hear a Bonanza or C210
with the prop at low pitch[ hi rpm] on climb out and the
tips are going supersonic because (a.) The pilot doesn't
know enough to pull the prop back 50-100 rpm and (b.)
because the governor is set too fast because the tach isn't
properly calibrated.

But I suspect the inspectors were missing a ball game and
wanted to be at a big, concrete airport. So they decided to
punish somebody.

The FAA gets into a mood [or is it mode] where they start
looking for somebody to violate because that makes a paper
trail that will get them noticed by the higher-ups.
One day I took a charter from Wichita to MKC [Kansas City
Downtown]. It was scheduled IFR in the Duchess because the
customer wanted to spend as little as possible. It was
scheduled for a 7 AM departure. It was also in the spring
so IFR conditions and ice were a certain possibility. I
began calling the FSS [the Internet did not yet exist] about
5 AM. I got a full briefing and filed IFR. I called back
several times for updates and asked for PIREPS each time,
the last time about 5 minutes before engine start. The
weather was 1,000 overcast and tops were reported by many
pilots as being at 3,000, a layer about 800 feet thick. It
was clear above and the PIREPS indicated temps above
freezing, NO ICING on climb out. When I departed I saw no
ice on the Duchess and the sky was clear above the layer.
When I got back that afternoon there was a message to call
the FSDO and speak to my friend Warren.
I called Warren and he asked me why I was flying in icing
conditions. Seems the Feds had been renting the King Air
for some practice and had been making multiple IFR
approaches, for about an hour. They had just landed as I
was taxiing out and a lineboy told them I was on a charter
to Kansas City,
I of course said I was not flying in ice, had seen no ice
all day and recounted the details of my flight. BUT there
were lawyers from the Kansas City FAA office on that King
Air and they had seen a Beech Duchess [BE-76] with nothing
but carb heat and a heated pitot depart IFR.
They had been getting ice while being vectored in the top of
the layer at 3,000 for an hour. Anyway, the local FSDO was
ordered [I was told] to begin action against me. I prepared
my case for an informal meeting and the feds came in with
stacks of paper, every telephone call I'd made, all the
radio calls, the ATIS tapes and transcripts. It was during
this meeting that my boos, who as Director of Operations
also attended, and I learned that the feds had been getting
ice in the pattern doing a dozen or so ILS and VOR
approaches in the layer.
The feds noted that I had made many phone calls and updated
the weather. They noted that I had requested all PIREPS for
the local airport and enroute, nobody had reported any
icing. In the end they decided to drop the case, but the KC
lawyers insisted I write a new page for our OPS manual on
ICING. I did and put in exactly what I did, including that
lack of PIREPS or PIREPS that reported ice, confirming a
forecast required a switch to an ice approved aircraft, a
delay or even a cancellation. The FAA approved that
revision with no changes.

I then asked the feds why they didn't report the ice during
the hour they were flying, wasn't reporting ice a required
report and were they going to violate the PIC of that King
Air?

It actually was fun.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.



"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
| > Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine.
And
| > it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a
violation.
| >
| I'll bet the FAA was hacked off (not that I agree) because
the low pass was
| down on the deck, at WOT. Ya' think? <g>
| --
| Jim in NC
|

The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow. If it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco/online/pdf_files/7th_VFR_Symbols.pdf



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
: "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
: news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
: > Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your FSDO is
: > insane.
:
: Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.
:
: However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the FARs, and the NTSB has
: found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's interpretation is the one
: that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to "common definition"
: (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of "sparsely" is even more
: vague than any official definition...can you tell me exactly how "widely
: spaced" the intervals between population need to be in order to qualify as
: "sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring, growing, or settled at
: widely spaced intervals"?).
:

Actually, the yellow area is a representation of the way a
city looks at night, the pattern of the lights.

see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
and then browse to find useful info. For instance Greeley
Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.



".Blueskies." > wrote in
message
. com...
| The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow. If
it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'?
|
|
http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco/online/pdf_files/7th_VFR_Symbols.pdf
|
|
|
| "Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| : "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| : news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
| : > Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your
FSDO is
| : > insane.
| :
| : Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.
| :
| : However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the
FARs, and the NTSB has
| : found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's
interpretation is the one
| : that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to
"common definition"
| : (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of
"sparsely" is even more
| : vague than any official definition...can you tell me
exactly how "widely
| : spaced" the intervals between population need to be in
order to qualify as
| : "sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring,
growing, or settled at
| : widely spaced intervals"?).
| :
|
|

According to the naco link below, these are populated areas. I know I always thought it was the outline of lights also,
but I cannot find that defined anywhere...

Those census facts are interesting - scary for my area, Kalamazoo, MI, but still interesting...



"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message news:3Fnyg.84443$ZW3.22903@dukeread04...
: Actually, the yellow area is a representation of the way a
: city looks at night, the pattern of the lights.
:
: see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
: and then browse to find useful info. For instance Greeley
: Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.
:
:
:
: ".Blueskies." > wrote in
: message
: . com...
: | The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow. If
: it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'?
: |
: |
: http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco/online/pdf_files/7th_VFR_Symbols.pdf
: |
: |
: |
: | "Peter Duniho" > wrote in
: message ...
: | : "Jim Macklin" >
: wrote in message
: | : news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
: | : > Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your
: FSDO is
: | : > insane.
: | :
: | : Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest otherwise.
: | :
: | : However, be that as it may, they are interpreting the
: FARs, and the NTSB has
: | : found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's
: interpretation is the one
: | : that is used, even if that interpretation is contrary to
: "common definition"
: | : (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of
: "sparsely" is even more
: | : vague than any official definition...can you tell me
: exactly how "widely
: | : spaced" the intervals between population need to be in
: order to qualify as
: | : "sparsely" under the common definition of "Occurring,
: growing, or settled at
: | : widely spaced intervals"?).
: | :
: |
: |
:
:

The first thing you'll notice is the big yellow blot that is
Houston. Contrary to popular belief among pilots, the yellow
does NOT signify the boundaries of the city. After all, what
good would a city boundary do for a pilot in the air? The
yellow indicates the approximate light pattern at night of
populated area from the air, which is much more useful
information. If you're flying at night, these patterns may
be the only thing you can see from, say, 8,000 feet in the
air, so looking at a recognizable pattern may be a big help
in determining where you are.

This was just a page I found on the Internet. I know that
somewhere I have a government handbook, perhaps the USAF
Navigators handbook, that gave the answer.





".Blueskies." > wrote in
message
y.net...
| According to the naco link below, these are populated
areas. I know I always thought it was the outline of lights
also,
| but I cannot find that defined anywhere...
|
| Those census facts are interesting - scary for my area,
Kalamazoo, MI, but still interesting...
|
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message news:3Fnyg.84443$ZW3.22903@dukeread04...
| : Actually, the yellow area is a representation of the way
a
| : city looks at night, the pattern of the lights.
| :
| : see
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
| : and then browse to find useful info. For instance
Greeley
| : Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.
| :
| :
| :
| : ".Blueskies." > wrote in
| : message
| : . com...
| : | The sectional charts show 'populated' areas in yellow.
If
| : it is not yellow, then is it 'unpopulated'?
| : |
| : |
| :
http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco/online/pdf_files/7th_VFR_Symbols.pdf
| : |
| : |
| : |
| : | "Peter Duniho" > wrote in
| : message ...
| : | : "Jim Macklin" >
| : wrote in message
| : | : news:bAeyg.84402$ZW3.76333@dukeread04...
| : | : > Yes, I read your words and my opinion is that your
| : FSDO is
| : | : > insane.
| : | :
| : | : Perhaps they are. I have no facts to suggest
otherwise.
| : | :
| : | : However, be that as it may, they are interpreting
the
| : FARs, and the NTSB has
| : | : found that where the FARs are vague, the FAA's
| : interpretation is the one
| : | : that is used, even if that interpretation is
contrary to
| : "common definition"
| : | : (and frankly, the actual "common definition" of
| : "sparsely" is even more
| : | : vague than any official definition...can you tell me
| : exactly how "widely
| : | : spaced" the intervals between population need to be
in
| : order to qualify as
| : | : "sparsely" under the common definition of
"Occurring,
| : growing, or settled at
| : | : widely spaced intervals"?).
| : | :
| : |
| : |
| :
| :
|
|

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
y.net...
> According to the naco link below, these are populated areas. I know I
> always thought it was the outline of lights also,
> but I cannot find that defined anywhere...

They are not defined to be "well lit areas", but they aren't an official
depiction of "non-sparsely populated areas", and as a matter of mapping
expedience, I don't doubt that the area is based upon the general nighttime
view of a region.

The most important thing to be aware of is that the VFR charts are *not*
useful for determining where you are with respect to 91.119.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
: ".Blueskies." > wrote in message
: y.net...
: > According to the naco link below, these are populated areas. I know I
: > always thought it was the outline of lights also,
: > but I cannot find that defined anywhere...
:
: They are not defined to be "well lit areas", but they aren't an official
: depiction of "non-sparsely populated areas", and as a matter of mapping
: expedience, I don't doubt that the area is based upon the general nighttime
: view of a region.
:
: The most important thing to be aware of is that the VFR charts are *not*
: useful for determining where you are with respect to 91.119.
:
: Pete
:
:

Do you have any references for that? The only thing I have been able to find is the NACO defined 'populated area' for
the yellow areas....

http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/catalog/charts/supplementary/aero_guide
http://avn.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/aero_guide

....

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there
>> is nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach"
>> will only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon
>> which your aircraft can land.
>
> I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for
> best glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to
> see if one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using
> the procedures one is practicing.
>
Well, I don't need to be below 500' agl to know whether I've made the
field, and I don't practice engine outs at 600'. ;-)

Neil

Recently, Jim Macklin > posted:

> see http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
> and then browse to find useful info. For instance Greeley
> Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.
>
Well, if the county is 1,000 square miles, and all 500 people reside in a
two block neighborhood, then some areas will be densely populated! ;-)

Neil

and the rest is not populated at all.



"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
y.net...
| Recently, Jim Macklin
> posted:
|
| > see
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/20/20071.html
| > and then browse to find useful info. For instance
Greeley
| > Co. Kansas has 2 people per square mile.
| >
| Well, if the county is 1,000 square miles, and all 500
people reside in a
| two block neighborhood, then some areas will be densely
populated! ;-)
|
| Neil
|
|
|
|

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
> > There is nothing in the FARs that would suggest that runway "fly overs"
> > are illegal.
>
> If there is no intent to land, I'd say 91.119 certainly can be read as just
> such a prohibition.


Please explain how an intent to land is a requirement of FAR 91.119?
FAR 91.119 (a) says that I may not fly below an altitude allowing a safe
emergency landing, irrespective of whether I intend to land or not. The
language, "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," provides me
with an exception to the rest of 91.119 as long as I am taking off or
landing. But, it does not indicate a violation for low-level flight as
long as I meet the requirement if paragraph (a) without violating
anything in paragraphs (b) or (c).

Aside from any other argument, it would be very difficult for anyone to
argue against an intent to land for someone performing a low-pass on an
open runway.



JKG

> Please explain how an intent to land is a requirement of FAR 91.119?
> FAR 91.119 (a) says that I may not fly below an altitude allowing a safe
> emergency landing, irrespective of whether I intend to land or not. The
> language, "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," provides me
> with an exception to the rest of 91.119 as long as I am taking off or
> landing.

That's not what my book says. The "except when necessary..." clause is
in front of everything. The (a) anywhere: ... allowing a safe
landing... means ANYWHERE you fly, you must be albe to land without
undue hazard... IN ADDITION, even if you could land without undue
hazard, other restrictions apply (500', 1000', etc)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Please explain how an intent to land is a requirement of FAR 91.119?
> > FAR 91.119 (a) says that I may not fly below an altitude allowing a safe
> > emergency landing, irrespective of whether I intend to land or not. The
> > language, "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," provides me
> > with an exception to the rest of 91.119 as long as I am taking off or
> > landing.
>
> That's not what my book says. The "except when necessary..." clause is
> in front of everything. The (a) anywhere: ... allowing a safe
> landing... means ANYWHERE you fly, you must be albe to land without
> undue hazard... IN ADDITION, even if you could land without undue
> hazard, other restrictions apply (500', 1000', etc)
>
> Jose

"Except when necessary for takeoff and landing" grants you an exception
to any other requirements in 91.119 for minimum altitudes. However, I
could fly along at 100 feet AGL over sparsely populated areas, as
permitted by 91.119(a) and (c). Last time I checked, an airport runway
was pretty sparsely populated, and I could certainly use it for an
emergency landing if I lost power.



JKG

> Last time I checked, an airport runway
> was pretty sparsely populated...

Oh, I don't know about that. There are probably airplanes around within
five hundred feet, and people in them or working on them. There may
also be structures.

I was at an FAA safety seminar in which the Hudson River was stated to
be "congested", as is the middle of Pennsylvania wherever there is a
highway. The context was flying the Hudson corridor. The presentor
said that the FAA granated a special document (I don't know what they
call them - memorandum of understanding?) in which they acknowledge that
it is not possible to fly over the George Washington Bridge while
remaining in the corridor (you must remain 1000 feet above it, which
puts you in class B), but they "promise not to prosecute" people who
violate the FARs by flying the corridor.

It looks like they are setting themselves up again to enforce anything
they want, by using this document as a precedent for anything being
considered "congested".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Last time I checked, an airport runway
> > was pretty sparsely populated...
>
> Oh, I don't know about that. There are probably airplanes around within
> five hundred feet, and people in them or working on them. There may
> also be structures.

It depends on the airport and what's occurring on the surface. I would
venture to guess that most airports are rather sleepy most of the time,
and people and structures are beyond 500 feet from the runway.

Regardless, though, you'd have a tough time arguing that someone who
does low approaches, go arounds, or low passes down the runway didn't
initially intend to land.



JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

>
> Regardless, though, you'd have a tough time arguing that someone who
> does low approaches, go arounds, or low passes down the runway didn't
> initially intend to land.

I think speed is a factor here. I can buzz a runway in a a plane at
speeds a lot higher than would be safe for landing.

> Regardless, though, you'd have a tough time arguing that someone who
> does low approaches, go arounds, or low passes down the runway didn't
> initially intend to land.

No I wouldn't. The issue (of course) isn't whether the pilot
=eventually= intended to land (somewhere), but whether the pilot =at
that time= intended to land =there=. Somebody practicing low approaches
would be hard put to say he botched the approach so badly every time
that a go-around was warranted.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>> > There is nothing in the FARs that would suggest that runway "fly overs"
>> > are illegal.
>>
>> If there is no intent to land, I'd say 91.119 certainly can be read as
>> just
>> such a prohibition.
>
>
> Please explain how an intent to land is a requirement of FAR 91.119?

Um...all of the minimum altitudes apply unless for the purpose of a takeoff
or landing? Duh. The requirement is to be given an exception to 91.119.

> FAR 91.119 (a) says that I may not fly below an altitude allowing a safe
> emergency landing, irrespective of whether I intend to land or not.

(a) is the broadest, least-likely-to-apply situation. It prescribes the
absolute minimum altitude anywhere. 91.119 isn't a menu, where you get to
choose which paragraph you want to comply with. You have to comply with
them all.

> The
> language, "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," provides me
> with an exception to the rest of 91.119 as long as I am taking off or
> landing. But, it does not indicate a violation for low-level flight as
> long as I meet the requirement if paragraph (a) without violating
> anything in paragraphs (b) or (c).

If you are at any public, municipal airport, there is no way you are meeting
the requirement of (a) without violating (b) or (c).

> Aside from any other argument, it would be very difficult for anyone to
> argue against an intent to land for someone performing a low-pass on an
> open runway.

If you'd bothered to read the related thread, "Case law on runway
buzzing/flyovers", you'd understand why that statement is just plain false.
There are many cases where the FAA has successfully argued against an intent
to land for someone performing a low-pass on an open runway. Two prime
example situations are when the runway was never a suitable landing site for
the airplane in the first place, or when the approach to the runway was not
made in a manner conducive to an actual landing (that would, of course,
require a reliable witness to describe the entire approach).

Pete

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Last time I checked, an airport runway
> was pretty sparsely populated

There is no way that a runway is in and of itself considered a "sparsely
populated area".

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
. com...
> Do you have any references for that?

Any references for what?

> The only thing I have been able to find is the NACO defined
> 'populated area' for the yellow areas....

That is correct.

I just took my commercial checkride a few feeks ago. I was taught by my
instructor to overly a non-towered airport by tpa+500ft (or more),
proceed away from the airport WITHOUT descending and then enter the
pattern( i.e. enter 45 and descent to TPA). On my checkride the
Examiner also expected this. I was taught that the key is to not
descent to or below TPA unless you are commiting to landing, which
means adhering to FARS and AIM procedures. Flying over the Field at or
below TPA just to take a look may be considered famously "careless and
reckless". I can't find it at the moment, but my instructor showed me
the TPA+500 rule in the AIM or FARs. In all of my instrument and
private training somehow the overly the airport rule was missed. The
Examiner explained that just because YOU might know what you are doing,
every other pilot will be expecting everone to be following standard
procedures. When pilots deviate, not matter how well they think they
are communicating their intentions, accidents frequently happen. Who
expects someone to be cutting across the field a few hundred feet below
them while on downwind?

Above all it's probably best ot use common sense. At Bremerton Airport
near me, there are so many training aircraft and pilots who forget to
announce position, chaos, etc, I am hesitant to overfly the field at
all. Since I know the area well, I feel it's safer to not overfly. At a
new airport or one that has wildlife that frequents the field makes
more sense.

Just my two cents. Good post!

> I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal. But here you go:
>
>
>
> "After making two flyovers - a common, but illegal maneuver in which the
> pilot flies low over the runway - he made the five-minute flight to
> Rountree where he normally purchased fuel, said airport employees.
>
> According to an investigator with the Federal Aviation Administration,
> before landing, he conducted another flyover, but stalled, crashing
> nose-down just beyond the tree line in an open field east of the runway.
>
> The crash was reported at approximately 8 a.m. by a resident who saw the
> wreckage as he left for work, according Hartselle Police."
>
>
> "Veteran-flyer Tom Coggin, 67, of Cullman, died instantly when his RV-6,
> two-seater aircraft crashed on private property near Rountree Field,
> Hartselle's municipal airstrip."
>
> "Deadly Flight" - Cullman Times July 25 2006
>
> http://www.cullmantimes.com/homepage/local_story_206231537.html?keyword=leadpicturestor y

"Cirrus" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I just took my commercial checkride a few feeks ago. I was taught by my
> instructor to overly a non-towered airport by tpa+500ft (or more),
> proceed away from the airport WITHOUT descending and then enter the
> pattern( i.e. enter 45 and descent to TPA).

Not a bad procedure, as a general concept. I agree that for you to not have
heard about this until your Commercial certificate training is very odd.
This is basic Private stuff.

> On my checkride the
> Examiner also expected this. I was taught that the key is to not
> descent to or below TPA unless you are commiting to landing,

How do you fly an instrument procedure then? Most instrument procedures,
even non-precision, may often involve flight below TPA prior to being
committed to landing. For that matter, ANY approach to landing involves
flight below TPA prior to being committed to landing (you should not be
committed to the landing until you have touched down and have slowed
sufficiently to ensure no need for a go-around).

> which
> means adhering to FARS and AIM procedures.

AIM, perhaps. The FARs say nothing about descent below TPA. They don't
even discuss TPA.

> Flying over the Field at or
> below TPA just to take a look may be considered famously "careless and
> reckless".

True enough. The FAA invokes 91.13 in most actions, including those for
which they can find no other rule to use.

> I can't find it at the moment, but my instructor showed me
> the TPA+500 rule in the AIM or FARs.

I believe that the AIM mentions that. There's no place in the FARs that
does.

> In all of my instrument and
> private training somehow the overly the airport rule was missed. The
> Examiner explained that just because YOU might know what you are doing,
> every other pilot will be expecting everone to be following standard
> procedures.

This is where you start to head off into the weeds. Standard procedure or
not, no other pilot should be significantly inconvenienced, or otherwise
surprised by an airplane flying down the runway. While there may be good
reasons to avoid a low-approach over the runway in certain situations, I
don't see how "every other pilot will be expecting everone [sic] to be
following standard procedures" applies here.

> When pilots deviate, not matter how well they think they
> are communicating their intentions, accidents frequently happen. Who
> expects someone to be cutting across the field a few hundred feet below
> them while on downwind?

"Cutting across the field"? The thread is about flight over and parallel to
the runway. No one is suggesting low-level flight perpendicular to the
runway. If your whole response was directed at that operation, it's
irrelevant to this thread.

Pete

Cirrus wrote:
> I just took my commercial checkride a few feeks ago. I was taught by my
> instructor to overly a non-towered airport by tpa+500ft (or more),
> proceed away from the airport WITHOUT descending and then enter the
> pattern( i.e. enter 45 and descent to TPA). On my checkride the
> Examiner also expected this. I was taught that the key is to not
> descent to or below TPA unless you are commiting to landing, which
> means adhering to FARS and AIM procedures. Flying over the Field at or
> below TPA just to take a look may be considered famously "careless and
> reckless". I can't find it at the moment, but my instructor showed me
> the TPA+500 rule in the AIM or FARs. In all of my instrument and
> private training somehow the overly the airport rule was missed. The
> Examiner explained that just because YOU might know what you are doing,
> every other pilot will be expecting everone to be following standard
> procedures. When pilots deviate, not matter how well they think they
> are communicating their intentions, accidents frequently happen. Who
> expects someone to be cutting across the field a few hundred feet below
> them while on downwind?

This is the result of instructors and DEs who have little experience
flying outside a metropolitan area. Not inspecting a potentially soft
field or obstructed field from MUCH less than TPA+500 is a good way to
get killed or at a minimum trash a good airplane. You don't need to do
this at a controlled field, but that doesn't meant that this procedure
is right ALL of the time. Any instructor who doesn't teach how to
inspect an unknown field should have their certificate revoked.


Matt

Peter Duniho wrote

> If there is no intent to land, I'd say 91.119 certainly can be read as
> just such a prohibition.

From the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary:

CLEARED FOR THE OPTION- ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a touch-
and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop landing at
the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training so that an
instructor can evaluate a student's performance under changing situations.

LOW APPROACH- An approach over an airport or runway following an instrument
approach or a VFR approach including the go-around maneuver where the pilot
intentionally does not make contact with the runway.

Bob Moore

"Bob Moore" > wrote

> From the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>
> CLEARED FOR THE OPTION- ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a touch-
> and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop landing
at
> the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training so that an
> instructor can evaluate a student's performance under changing situations.
>
> LOW APPROACH- An approach over an airport or runway following an
instrument
> approach or a VFR approach including the go-around maneuver where the
pilot
> intentionally does not make contact with the runway.

I would take that the beef the FAA has is that a low approach is normally
done at approach speeds, not WOT, wouldn't you think? <g>
--
Jim in NC

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
>> If there is no intent to land, I'd say 91.119 certainly can be read as
>> just such a prohibition.
>
> From the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary: [snipped]

So?

Morgans wrote:

> "Bob Moore" > wrote
>
>
>>From the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>>
>>CLEARED FOR THE OPTION- ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a touch-
>>and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop landing
>
> at
>
>>the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training so that an
>>instructor can evaluate a student's performance under changing situations.
>>
>>LOW APPROACH- An approach over an airport or runway following an
>
> instrument
>
>>approach or a VFR approach including the go-around maneuver where the
>
> pilot
>
>>intentionally does not make contact with the runway.
>
>
> I would take that the beef the FAA has is that a low approach is normally
> done at approach speeds, not WOT, wouldn't you think? <g>

But you apply WOT as soon as you make the decision to go around. That
usually occurs prior to reaching the runway threshold, so you would be
at WOT. You'd not likely be going 150 MPH in a small airplane, however,
but that really shouldn't be a big deal.


Matt