High Speed Passes & the FAA

Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if over
people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This question
was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was located on a
permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The finish
line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do you?
JJ Sinclair

91.119 Except for TO & landing, 1000' over congested areas or within 500'
of person, vessel, vehicle or structure if in sparse area or over open
water.


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if over
people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This
question
was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was located
on a
permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The
finish
line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do you?
JJ Sinclair

In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
violation of 91.119? When flying an instrument approach and breaking out, it
is also common for aircraft to "circle to land" at a runway other than that
flown on the approach. This circling is often lower to the ground than 500
feet.

I have asked for and received clearance from the tower at Napa, CA, for low
passes in both power and glider. Approval for overhead break approaches, etc
are also routinely given.
--
bumper
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...
91.119 Except for TO & landing, 1000' over congested areas or within
500'
of person, vessel, vehicle or structure if in sparse area or over open
water.


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if
over
people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This
question
was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was
located
on a
permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The
finish
line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do
you?
JJ Sinclair




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:18:41 GMT, "John Morgan"
wrote:

In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
violation of 91.119?

Let's face it: Coming in on final at 150 mph+ because you "forgot" to
pull the airbrake lever is very hard to disguise as a go-around...


Bye
Andreas

In article ,
Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:18:41 GMT, "John Morgan"
wrote:

In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
violation of 91.119?

Let's face it: Coming in on final at 150 mph+ because you "forgot" to
pull the airbrake lever is very hard to disguise as a go-around...

You don't have to have an actual intention to land in order to do a
"missed approach". See the helicopter example in my other message.

Also, I recall seeing at the same airport (Wellington Intl, NZ) an RAAF
tanker (707 or 767 or something) execute a missed approach to maybe two
hundred feet ft with three or four A4 SkyHawk and F/A-18 Hornet jets
hanging off hoses from the wings and another couple in formation beside
the wingtips.

No way did *they* ever have an intention to actually land there.

-- Bruce

At 14:42 01 October 2003, Vaughn Simon wrote:
91.119 Except for TO & landing, 1000' over congested
areas or within 500'
of person, vessel, vehicle or structure if in sparse
area or over open
water.

And then there's 91.303, which defines 'aerobatics'
as ' an intentional flight maneuver involving an abrupt
change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude,
or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal
flight.' Unless waived per procedures outlined 91.903
(eg: for an airshow or aerobatic competition), 91.303
Paragraphs (a) thru (f) prohibit such manueuvering
below 1500' AGL and in certain areas irrespective of
altitude.


Judy

Scenario

LOCATION, Montague, Ca.

EVENT, SSA National Championships

SCENE, Finish line (50 foot min) 5:00 PM

ACTION, Two sailplanes approach the finish line that is located on the closed
runway, that intersects the active runway. The edge of the runway has 20
motorhomes and sailplane tie-downs for all 30 contestants. The two finishing
sailplanes are now about 100 feet high and both doing red-line. They approach
the finish line from slightly different directions, with an angle to each other
of about 30 degrees. The pilots have both hands on the stick and their full
attention is focused on the finish line.

You know where I'm going with this, but let me say, It's not just the figment
of old JJ's imagination. We had a fatal accident that happened just this way.
The two sailplanes were at altitude, but both pilots had their full attention
focused on Bridgeport Turn Point. THEY NEVER SAW EACH OTHER. One landed with 3
foot of his right wing tip missing. The other pilot got a wing tip in the
cockpit.

Back to Montague, You know what happens, they hit at 50 feet, doing 145 knots.
Two pilots will get Tagged & Bagged, later that night, but the incident isn't
over yet. What's the debris vector of the wreckage? It's right into a line of
motorhomes with wives, children and innocent bystanders.

QUESTIONS
Does the FAA allow this?
Does the SSA allow this?
Should the SSA allow this?

JJ's SOLUTION,
Mandatory 500 foot/ 1 mile finish cylinder, with graduated penalty.
JJ Sinclair

You've gone too far with this JJ. You proved the absurd nature of your
point by giving us a great example of what happens when we don't see another
glider....and that was at a high altitude. I would argue that the reason
that there are few finish line near misses is that folks are heads up and
expecting to see other gliders at close quarters unlike out on course. The
likelyhood of glider parts killing you at a contest finish would be less
than that of a lightening. Care to look at the stats? It will be hard for
you to beat zero percent.

If some of you want a sport that has no risk then by all means go find one
but good luck since I cannot think of a single racing sport that would
qualify. And PLEASE leave the rest of us alone!!!!!!!!!

Finally I want to add that you should be ashamed for basically ensuring that
the FAA will be out at some contests next season doing ramp checks. Let
those living in glass houses cast the first stone.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

JJ,

I dont believe your only concern is with a possible
breach of FAR's. If it were you would sit back happy
in the knowledge that you are not breaking the law
and allow everyone else to make up their own mind.

Why do people feel they have to legislate for things
that may never happen? Whats next? Why not ban variometers?
I certainly look at my variometer much more around
the flight than I do when executing a very safe, thought-out
competition finish.

Let people make their own decision.

Owain

A self-confessed fun-a-holic.

At 16:30 02 October 2003, Jj Sinclair wrote:
Hi Casey,
How's that LS-8, I sold you? Your not doing low passes
with it, are you?

Just because we havent had a disastrous accident near
the finish-line, doesn't
mean we never will. I look at the threat it poses.
Many sailplanes headed for
what I call a *scheduled mid-air collision*. What the
hell is that, you ask?
Its the same place (finish-line), Same altitude (50feet),
the only thing
that's not scheduled is the time. We have narrowed
that down by telling
everyone to be back in 3 hours (ups, 3:15 now with
the +15 thing) So now we
have most of the guys coming in low and fast, all headed
for the same spot and
shooting for the same altitude and close to the same
time. The guys are good
aviators and the guys in the nationals are REAL good
aviators, but they are all
focused on the finish line and quite busy; Don't go
below 50 feet, Don't go
above red-line, Dump the water, Don't forget to dump
the tail tank, Don't lose
sight of the guy in front of you, Ups, didn't page
up on the GPS, to get
altitude & distance together. What was that altitude
correction factor? WHOA,
we almost hit the ground, STOP playing with the GPS.
Which way are they
landing? No wind sock out here. Haven't heard anything
on the radio, am I on
the right frequency? There's an AWOS tower out here
somewhere? What's that
shadow moving over me?......................................Crunch
!

I see the collision at Bridgeport as a scheduled mid-air
also. Only in this
case, the last variable was altitude. Both started
at the same time, so
approaching Bridgeport at about the same time isn't
out of the question. The
point was the same, Bridgeport. Chance, or the altitude
gained in the last
thermal (shared?) was the final parameter that was
met on that tragic day.

My real point in the post was, I think we are breaking
FAR's and I think we
should do something about it. Now before all the guard
house lawyers jump me,
allow me some more outlandish statements;

1. The situation I described could be called an Air
Show. The FAA has very
specific rules about what is allowed and where it is
done in an air show. Who
wants to argue (in court) that its not an air show,
its just our way to let our
macho-crocho's display their stuff.

2. Some have said to simply move the finish line. Well,
it must be fairly close
to the runway or we won't be able to get back there
after our low altitude air
show. Besides, the macho-crocho's need an audiance.
Who's going to see them way
out there in the weeds?

3.Some pull-ups I have seen, meet the FAA definition
of aerobatics, and that
opens up a whole new can of whip-ass the Federallies
may bring to bear on our
little contest.

4. If we make the 500' / 1 mile finish cylinder, MANDATORY,
all issues with the
FAR's will be dealt with.
JJ Sinclair

I dont believe your only concern is with a possible
breach of FAR's. If it were you would sit back happy
in the knowledge that you are not breaking the law
and allow everyone else to make up their own mind.

That was a-hell-of-a-thing to say, Owain. Didn't we learn anything from
Tonapah? I think all the Directors did, time for the rest of us to get on
board. Don't you know that one more serious accident could shut everything
down? I'm not just talking about contests, but the SSA as well.

I know one thing, I won't work in any contest that uses the macho-crotcho
finish gate, just for personal liability reasons.
JJ Sinclair