Flying over the runway is illegal?

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

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.

They aren't unsafe any more than any other aspect of flying is unsafe.
They may or may not be necessary, all depends on the circumstances.
They are necessary if you are inspecting a field that is short, soft
and/or unknown to you as part of your pre-landing activities. Many
flight instruction guides specifically recommend this in these cases.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
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.

They aren't unsafe any more than any other aspect of flying is unsafe.
They may or may not be necessary, all depends on the circumstances.
They are necessary if you are inspecting a field that is short, soft
and/or unknown to you as part of your pre-landing activities. Many
flight instruction guides specifically recommend this in these cases.

Matt

I think we are talking about different things here. Go-arounds,
circling approaches, low pass for inspecting the runway, and slow
flight one foot above the runway are all well-intended useful
maneuvers. I do them, and I teach them. May be I misunderstood the
article, but the phrase "fly over" in the article implied a highspeed
pass over the runway. This is what I was referring to as unnecessary
and unsafe.

Mustang requesting fly-by. Sorry Mustang, the pattern is
closed.




"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Matt Whiting wrote:
| 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.
|
| They aren't unsafe any more than any other aspect of
flying is unsafe.
| They may or may not be necessary, all depends on the
circumstances.
| They are necessary if you are inspecting a field that is
short, soft
| and/or unknown to you as part of your pre-landing
activities. Many
| flight instruction guides specifically recommend this in
these cases.
|
| Matt
|
| I think we are talking about different things here.
Go-arounds,
| circling approaches, low pass for inspecting the runway,
and slow
| flight one foot above the runway are all well-intended
useful
| maneuvers. I do them, and I teach them. May be I
misunderstood the
| article, but the phrase "fly over" in the article implied
a highspeed
| pass over the runway. This is what I was referring to as
unnecessary
| and unsafe.
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

Mustang requesting fly-by. Sorry Mustang, the pattern is
closed.

Wasn't that Maverick?

--
Peter

See my email...

Dodge City asked for a fly-by when we brought one of the
first Beechjets by, something about 200 kts at 50 feet is
neat.

I feel the need, the need for speed.



"Peter R." wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| Mustang requesting fly-by. Sorry Mustang, the pattern
is
| closed.
|
| Wasn't that Maverick?
|
| --
| Peter