Flying over the runway is illegal?

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

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.

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

"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

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...picturestor 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.

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.

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.

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