Flying over the runway is illegal?

Achtung, I'm from the FAA and I'm hear to define words the
way I want. Papers!


§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
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.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city,
town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of
persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest
obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the
aircraft.

(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.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than
the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section if the operation is conducted without hazard to
persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person
operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or
altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the
Administrator.



Important words above... OVER Every place that isn't OVER a
town, city, settlement or crowd is by the above list
SPARSELY and I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of water.
Except for congested areas, a tree is not an item of
concern, the term structure can mean the outhouse or porta
potty or a tent, but a road sign along a vacant highway
doesn't count as a structure.







"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jose" wrote in message
| . com...
| I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out
procedures (trim for best
| glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the
practice is to see if
| one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by
using the
| procedures one is practicing.
|
| FYI...
|
| As it happens, I just flew with an instructor yesterday,
doing my BFR.
| During our ground discussion, he told me that he was
involved in an incident
| in which the FAA cited him for violating the minimum safe
altitude
| regulations. In his case, he was not doing engine-out
practicing, but that
| did come up, and here's what the local FAA inspector
said...
|
| * There is no "sparsely settled" area anywhere within the
Puget Sound
| region, even in locations where it is miles to the nearest
structure. The
| FAA does not provide any guidance as to what *is* a
sparsely settled area,
| but apparently if there's any settlement anywhere within
some apparently
| long distance, that's not "sparse".
|
| * There is no exception to the minimum safe altitude rules
for the purpose
| of practicing engine-out procedures. If you are not over
a sparsely settled
| area (of which there are none around here, and by this
interpretation there
| would be none around ANY significantly populated region),
then you may not
| descend below 500', and that goes up to 1000' above the
highest obstacle
| within 2000' of the aircraft if the area is considered
"congested" (note
| that they don't restrict that to man-made obstacles...if
there's a 100' tree
| around, quite common here in the Northwest and elsewhere,
your minimum
| altitude is actually 1100' AGL, for example).
|
| * The inspector readily admitted that there is no formal
definition of the
| terms, and declined to offer any formal definition of the
terms. They are
| playing by the rules set forth by the NTSB in past
judgments, in that the
| FAA is permitted to interpret their rules as they see fit,
and are not
| required to make any explicit statements about the
specifics of the rules.
| So, if they see a pilot flying lower than the FAA
inspector thinks he should
| be, and the altitude is below *some* minimum safe altitude
specified, the
| inspector need only describe the area as an area where a
higher altitude is
| required, and there's no defense that the pilot can mount
against that.
|
| So, as far your actual question goes...it depends on what
you mean by "see
| if one can actually make the field", but if that would
require flight below
| 500' and you're not at an airport, then no, you can't do
that practically
| anywhere that people live. If you're flying in a
congested area (and
| remember, there's no formal definition of "congested
area"), that minimum is
| the 1000' given.
|
| With a minimum altitude of 1000' above the highest
obstacle within 2000',
| I'd say it'd be pretty hard to know for sure that you've
got the field made.
| An experienced instructor could make a reasonably accurate
judgment call,
| but from that altitude, all sorts of things could screw up
the glide.
|
| Frankly, I think it's pretty lame for the FAA to have
rules for which they
| don't include definitions of the terms used. I'm not one
to just broadly
| paint the FAA as being bad, but this is certainly one area
in which they
| need some serious improvement.
|
| Pete
|
|

In article ,
Jose wrote:
Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there is
nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach" will
only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon which
your aircraft can land.

I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for
best glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to
see if one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using the
procedures one is practicing.

Well, if you make it, you can land there.


JKG

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message .. .
: 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?

That is 500' from persons or 'property'.

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

".Blueskies." wrote in message
. com...

That is 500' from persons or 'property'.


No, it's 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Flying over the runway may or may not be illegal, but it sure beats
the hell out of flying below the runway.

I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist over a quote from someone like
that.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Bob Gardner" wrote:
Who are you quoting? Who used the word "illegal"?

Since Owen included the link to the article written by an "Evan
Belanger" of "The Cullman Times," that appears to be the source of the
quote.


Bob Gardner

"Owen Hiller" wrote in message
...
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...37.html?keywor
d=leadpicturestory

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



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.

Terry

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.

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.