High Speed Passes & the FAA

Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if over
people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This question
was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was located on a
permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The finish
line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do you?
JJ Sinclair

91.119 Except for TO & landing, 1000' over congested areas or within 500'
of person, vessel, vehicle or structure if in sparse area or over open
water.


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if over
people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This
question
was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was located
on a
permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The
finish
line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do you?
JJ Sinclair

At 14:42 01 October 2003, Vaughn Simon wrote:
91.119 Except for TO & landing, 1000' over congested
areas or within 500'
of person, vessel, vehicle or structure if in sparse
area or over open
water.

And then there's 91.303, which defines 'aerobatics'
as ' an intentional flight maneuver involving an abrupt
change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude,
or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal
flight.' Unless waived per procedures outlined 91.903
(eg: for an airshow or aerobatic competition), 91.303
Paragraphs (a) thru (f) prohibit such manueuvering
below 1500' AGL and in certain areas irrespective of
altitude.


Judy

In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
violation of 91.119? When flying an instrument approach and breaking out, it
is also common for aircraft to "circle to land" at a runway other than that
flown on the approach. This circling is often lower to the ground than 500
feet.

I have asked for and received clearance from the tower at Napa, CA, for low
passes in both power and glider. Approval for overhead break approaches, etc
are also routinely given.
--
bumper
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...
91.119 Except for TO & landing, 1000' over congested areas or within
500'
of person, vessel, vehicle or structure if in sparse area or over open
water.


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if
over
people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This
question
was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was
located
on a
permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The
finish
line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do
you?
JJ Sinclair




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

Scenario

LOCATION, Montague, Ca.

EVENT, SSA National Championships

SCENE, Finish line (50 foot min) 5:00 PM

ACTION, Two sailplanes approach the finish line that is located on the closed
runway, that intersects the active runway. The edge of the runway has 20
motorhomes and sailplane tie-downs for all 30 contestants. The two finishing
sailplanes are now about 100 feet high and both doing red-line. They approach
the finish line from slightly different directions, with an angle to each other
of about 30 degrees. The pilots have both hands on the stick and their full
attention is focused on the finish line.

You know where I'm going with this, but let me say, It's not just the figment
of old JJ's imagination. We had a fatal accident that happened just this way.
The two sailplanes were at altitude, but both pilots had their full attention
focused on Bridgeport Turn Point. THEY NEVER SAW EACH OTHER. One landed with 3
foot of his right wing tip missing. The other pilot got a wing tip in the
cockpit.

Back to Montague, You know what happens, they hit at 50 feet, doing 145 knots.
Two pilots will get Tagged & Bagged, later that night, but the incident isn't
over yet. What's the debris vector of the wreckage? It's right into a line of
motorhomes with wives, children and innocent bystanders.

QUESTIONS
Does the FAA allow this?
Does the SSA allow this?
Should the SSA allow this?

JJ's SOLUTION,
Mandatory 500 foot/ 1 mile finish cylinder, with graduated penalty.
JJ Sinclair

Wow - I didn't know that actually happened at Montague.
What year was that? Anyone on the ground hurt?

At 21:12 01 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
Scenario

LOCATION, Montague, Ca.

EVENT, SSA National Championships

SCENE, Finish line (50 foot min) 5:00 PM

ACTION, Two sailplanes approach the finish line that
is located on the closed
runway, that intersects the active runway. The edge
of the runway has 20
motorhomes and sailplane tie-downs for all 30 contestants.
The two finishing
sailplanes are now about 100 feet high and both doing
red-line. They approach
the finish line from slightly different directions,
with an angle to each other
of about 30 degrees. The pilots have both hands on
the stick and their full
attention is focused on the finish line.

You know where I'm going with this, but let me say,
It's not just the figment
of old JJ's imagination. We had a fatal accident that
happened just this way.
The two sailplanes were at altitude, but both pilots
had their full attention
focused on Bridgeport Turn Point. THEY NEVER SAW EACH
OTHER. One landed with 3
foot of his right wing tip missing. The other pilot
got a wing tip in the
cockpit.

Back to Montague, You know what happens, they hit at
50 feet, doing 145 knots.
Two pilots will get Tagged & Bagged, later that night,
but the incident isn't
over yet. What's the debris vector of the wreckage?
It's right into a line of
motorhomes with wives, children and innocent bystanders.

QUESTIONS
Does the FAA allow this?
Does the SSA allow this?
Should the SSA allow this?

JJ's SOLUTION,
Mandatory 500 foot/ 1 mile finish cylinder, with
graduated penalty.
JJ Sinclair

Gentlefolk,

Since when wuz 120-155 mph fast
at an airport?

Not for a long long time, and it wasnt against any
airport speedin rule was it?

In fack, it aint fast at all.

Ok, agreed. 120-150mph is not fast, at an airport
for airplanes, or is it fast for gliders?

If so, so what? Ain't broke no gliderplane speed limit.
Aint none there.

Approaching an airport at a speed of 120-150mph mol
in a heavier than air craft,
and pulling up and going around or turnin back for
landing downwind or into wind depending on which direction
approach was made is known in
FAA parlance
as 'Missed Approach.' Thas whutcha do at airports.


You dont do that low over yo neighbors subdivision.


If folks iz out on airfield standin' round or parkin'
or sittin' on non-aviatin' quipments
or motorinhomes
or campin' tents
or trailers
and etseteruh,


remember where they is ....

Shonuff, it's an airport designed and put there shonuff
for aviatin' uses

and specially takin off and landin
and missin approaches
and comin by fast
or comin by slow,
an' landin' this way
and that way,
and all that.

They be aviatin' ,
and sorry to break trains of thought
at the bridge party
at the motorinhome.

Well, now.
We shall not take aim at a motorhome
wherever it may be with sojourners.
Shonuff, No.

But have some good aviatin'
and have fun.

Summary: 150mph is not fast at an airport. Not landin
at first approach is Missed Approach. Do 'em at airports.


Dancin on clouds
Keep it up!

Jim Culp USA
GatorCity Florida

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:18:41 GMT, "John Morgan"
wrote:

In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
violation of 91.119?

Let's face it: Coming in on final at 150 mph+ because you "forgot" to
pull the airbrake lever is very hard to disguise as a go-around...


Bye
Andreas

In article ,
Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:18:41 GMT, "John Morgan"
wrote:

In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
violation of 91.119?

Let's face it: Coming in on final at 150 mph+ because you "forgot" to
pull the airbrake lever is very hard to disguise as a go-around...

You don't have to have an actual intention to land in order to do a
"missed approach". See the helicopter example in my other message.

Also, I recall seeing at the same airport (Wellington Intl, NZ) an RAAF
tanker (707 or 767 or something) execute a missed approach to maybe two
hundred feet ft with three or four A4 SkyHawk and F/A-18 Hornet jets
hanging off hoses from the wings and another couple in formation beside
the wingtips.

No way did *they* ever have an intention to actually land there.

-- Bruce

You've gone too far with this JJ. You proved the absurd nature of your
point by giving us a great example of what happens when we don't see another
glider....and that was at a high altitude. I would argue that the reason
that there are few finish line near misses is that folks are heads up and
expecting to see other gliders at close quarters unlike out on course. The
likelyhood of glider parts killing you at a contest finish would be less
than that of a lightening. Care to look at the stats? It will be hard for
you to beat zero percent.

If some of you want a sport that has no risk then by all means go find one
but good luck since I cannot think of a single racing sport that would
qualify. And PLEASE leave the rest of us alone!!!!!!!!!

Finally I want to add that you should be ashamed for basically ensuring that
the FAA will be out at some contests next season doing ramp checks. Let
those living in glass houses cast the first stone.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix