Flying over the runway is illegal?

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