Case law on runway buzzing/flyovers

[Jim Logajan]

For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
"buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
> "buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

My favorite line is this -

"The Administrator next argues that the go-around was
needlessly caused by respondent's poor preparation for landing."

I guess now we need to worry about going around!

[Stubby]

Do us a favor and provide a summary! Thanks.


Jim Logajan wrote:
> For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
> "buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
> "buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

Oh yeah - the facts in this case make for a happy ending. :-)

[John Galban]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
> > "buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:
> >
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF
>
> Oh yeah - the facts in this case make for a happy ending. :-)

The unhappy part is that the pilot probably had to foot a hefty bill
for all the court time and appeals. This is a good example of how the
FAA will back an inspector, even when the inspector is obviously in the
wrong.

Having to go to court to justify a go-around is not only ridiculous,
it flies (no pun intended) in the face of safe flying practices.

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

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PD


A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic. I guess there was
an assumption that the law judge would automatically side with the FAA
regardless of merit.



JKG

[Jim Logajan]

Stubby > wrote:
> Do us a favor and provide a summary! Thanks.

FAA accused pilot of violating 14 C.F.R. 91.119(a), 91.13(a), 91.119(c)
and 61.3(a) . The court initially found for the FAA on the first two
counts but dismissed the last two.

However, the appeals court found the pilot innocent of the first two
counts also.

Basically the court found no facts to support the claim that the pilot
wasn't performing a go-around following a botched approach. The
witnesses for the FAA were two FAA inspectors, only one of whom saw the
aircraft and then only when it was at midfield.

> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
>> "buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this
>> case:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF


§ 91.119(a) reads:
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.

§ 91.13(a) reads:
No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless
manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

§ 91.119(c) reads:
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(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.

§ 61.3(a) reads:
(a) Pilot certificate. No person may act as pilot in
command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight
crewmember of a civil aircraft of United States registry
unless he has in his personal possession a current pilot
certificate issued to him under this part[.]

[Jim Macklin]

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDf



"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| Jim Logajan > wrote:
|
| > http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PD
|
|
| A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic. I
guess there was
| an assumption that the law judge would automatically side
with the FAA
| regardless of merit.
|
|
|
| JKG

[Jim Logajan]

Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PD
>
>
> A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic. I guess there was
> an assumption that the law judge would automatically side with the FAA
> regardless of merit.

And the court _did_ side with the FAA on two of four counts too, until they
were overturned on appeal. Yuck.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Oh yeah - the facts in this case make for a happy ending. :-)

For the pilot in question. However, the successful outcome for the pilot
hinges on the argument that he had aborted a landing attempt and was making
a go-around.

It's impossible to say how the case would have been decided had the facts
been different, but the decision does strongly suggest that absent the
intent to land, the low-altitude flight over the runway would have been
found in violation of the FARs. Certainly the original FAA inspector and
law judge would have found that to be the case, considering that they found
the pilot in violation even when assuming a go-around (which, frankly,
boggles the mind).

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting read. I am curious...how did you
find it? Is there an easy way to search FAA certificate actions (best)
and/or NTSB reviews of FAA certificate actions (almost as good)?

Pete

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> It's impossible to say how the case would have been decided had the
> facts been different, but the decision does strongly suggest that
> absent the intent to land, the low-altitude flight over the runway
> would have been found in violation of the FARs. Certainly the
> original FAA inspector and law judge would have found that to be the
> case, considering that they found the pilot in violation even when
> assuming a go-around (which, frankly, boggles the mind).

I agree - having pilots worry that a botched go-around will be second
guessed by the FAA would seem to detract from safety; e.g.: "I'm coming in
too fast - but if I do a go-around, I might get grounded by the FAA. If I
don't, I might have an accident landing."

Alas, I just found another one where the facts WERE different and the pilot
LOST his appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4020.PDF

> Thanks for the link. It's an interesting read. I am curious...how
> did you find it? Is there an easy way to search FAA certificate
> actions (best) and/or NTSB reviews of FAA certificate actions (almost
> as good)?

I did a regular Google search using various keyword combinations. I now
forget what worked in this case; I know "buzzing" was one of the keywords
that worked better than "flyover" in conjunction with "runway". But I see
now that the URL http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs is a directory full of FAA
administrative legal results and the following Google search yields a whole
bunch of hits on any complaints containing the word "buzzing":

site:http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION buzzing

Obviously other terms may work better.

Note too that these documents refer to other relevant cases, e.g.
"Administrator v. Hart, NTSB Order EA-2884 (1989)" (too old to be in that
online list, which seems to go only back to 1999).

[Matt Whiting]

Stubby wrote:

> Do us a favor and provide a summary! Thanks.
>
>
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
>> "buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

Do us a favor and read it yourself. It isn't that hard to follow.

Matt

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:04:19 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
>"buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

They need some new inspectors. No respectable "buzz job" would be done
at 200 feet. Now if it was 20 feet I'd agree with them.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jim Macklin]

20 feet is awfully high, you'd hit the telephone wires while
flying under them ;-)



"Roger" > wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:04:19 -0000, Jim Logajan
>
| wrote:
|
| >For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway
flyover (or
| >"buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I
found this case:
| >
| >http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF
|
| They need some new inspectors. No respectable "buzz job"
would be done
| at 200 feet. Now if it was 20 feet I'd agree with them.
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> [...]
> Alas, I just found another one where the facts WERE different and the
> pilot
> LOST his appeal:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4020.PDF

Also a very informative case. Some useful and enlightening tidbits:

* It is specifically mentioned that the defacto exception granted
practice landings has been defined by NTSB precedent (so apparently, the FAA
at one point did try to take action against a pilot making a practice
approach, and was overruled by the NTSB because the low flight was during a
practice approach).

* In the case, the board assumed that the claim of a practice approach
was true, but found that since the runway was unsuitable for an actual
landing with the aircraft in question, it was not subject to the
exclusion-by-precedent of allowing practice approaches the same low-altitude
exception granted real landings (also by NTSB precedent).

* It is also noted that the exception granted practice landings is valid
only at locations where a normal landing would be permissible. That is, the
exception is not granted for practice approaches to a simulated emergency
landing site (presumably if a normal landing were possible, even
off-airport, that would be allowed since the FARs don't prohibit off-airport
landings? hard to say without seeing a precedent for that).

One thing that I note about cases like this that refer to precedents is
that, absent any actual quotes from the precedent explaining why the
precedent was decided the way it was, there's no way to know why the NTSB
judged the original precedent case in favor of the pilot or the FAA (as the
case may be). That's unfortunate because I think it's a lot more
interesting to know why the original precedent was decided in a particular
way, than to know that there is a precedent upon which subsequent cases
rely. :(

One other interesting thing about this case is that it very nicely
illustrates the general attitude of the NTSB that the FAA is free to
interpret and execute the FARs as they like. The NTSB only decides factual
elements of the case, and defers interpretation and enforcement decisions to
the FAA. This is stated explicitly in this case.

> I did a regular Google search using various keyword combinations. I now
> forget what worked in this case; I know "buzzing" was one of the keywords
> that worked better than "flyover" in conjunction with "runway". But I see
> now that the URL http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs is a directory full of FAA
> administrative legal results and the following Google search yields a
> whole
> bunch of hits on any complaints containing the word "buzzing":
>
> site:http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION buzzing
>
> Obviously other terms may work better.

Such as "91.119"? :) I used that term and turned up 96 articles. I
haven't had a chance to read any of them (other than the two mentioned here
so far), but I expect they will be similarly interesting.

Pete

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jim Logajan > posted:

> For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
> "buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this
> case:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF
>
Thanks for digging this up, Jim. It is somewhat of a comfort to know that
the legal system can arrive at a logical conclusion, even if it is
discomforting to know that FAA administrators can be so... is "stupid" too
strong a word?

I found it rather ludicrous that opinions such as how one executes an
approach (never mind that the administrator didn't even *see* the
approach) or go-around could be entered as fact, when in fact it is up to
the PIC to determine how to execute those manoeuvers. FAR 91.13 seemed
totally inappropriate, given that the portion of flight in question was
over the runway, which AFAIK, is typically an "unpopulated" area.

I hope that Hal has some way to recoup his legal fees.

Neil

[Jonathan Goodish]

Yes, that was the original linked article. And your point is? It looks
to me that the conclusion was that, "The Administrator's order is
dismissed."


JKG

In article <FBdyg.84395$ZW3.71466@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDf
>
>
>
> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
> | In article >,
> | Jim Logajan > wrote:
> |
> | > http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PD
> |
> |
> | A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic. I
> guess there was
> | an assumption that the law judge would automatically side
> with the FAA
> | regardless of merit.
> |
> |
> |
> | JKG

[Jim Macklin]

The link was incomplete, I added the f back.



"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
| Yes, that was the original linked article. And your point
is? It looks
| to me that the conclusion was that, "The Administrator's
order is
| dismissed."
|
|
| JKG
|
| In article <FBdyg.84395$ZW3.71466@dukeread04>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDf
| >
| >
| >
| > "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in
message
| >
...
| > | In article
>,
| > | Jim Logajan > wrote:
| > |
| > | > http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PD
| > |
| > |
| > | A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic.
I
| > guess there was
| > | an assumption that the law judge would automatically
side
| > with the FAA
| > | regardless of merit.
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | JKG

[Jonathan Goodish]

Got it.


JKG

In article <99xyg.84521$ZW3.82103@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> The link was incomplete, I added the f back.
>
>
>
> "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Yes, that was the original linked article. And your point
> is? It looks
> | to me that the conclusion was that, "The Administrator's
> order is
> | dismissed."
> |
> |
> | JKG
> |
> | In article <FBdyg.84395$ZW3.71466@dukeread04>,
> | "Jim Macklin" >
> wrote:
> |
> | > http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDf
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > "Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in
> message
> | >
> ...
> | > | In article
> >,
> | > | Jim Logajan > wrote:
> | > |
> | > | > http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PD
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic.
> I
> | > guess there was
> | > | an assumption that the law judge would automatically
> side
> | > with the FAA
> | > | regardless of merit.
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | JKG

[LWG]

It is offensive to me that our tax dollars are being spent on this nonsense.
It is unbelievable that they tried to bust this guy for flying over an
airport. It's amazing how many personal vendettas FAA personnel use to
precipitate certificate actions -- like Bob Hoover, and the guy the FAA
harassed into a fatal accident. This certainly looks like another one.

"John Galban" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> > For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
>> > "buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this
>> > case:
>> >
>> > http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF
>>
>> Oh yeah - the facts in this case make for a happy ending. :-)
>
> The unhappy part is that the pilot probably had to foot a hefty bill
> for all the court time and appeals. This is a good example of how the
> FAA will back an inspector, even when the inspector is obviously in the
> wrong.
>
> Having to go to court to justify a go-around is not only ridiculous,
> it flies (no pun intended) in the face of safe flying practices.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>