Case law on runway buzzing/flyovers

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 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!

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 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. :-)

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)

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

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[.]

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 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.

"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