Peter Duniho wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
For that matter, going around would be considered a low approach.

Semantically speaking, sure. But that's not relevant here.

In the case of a true go-around, the low-altitude approach was made for the
purpose of landing, even if no landing actually occurred. No such claim
could be made for an intentional low approach.

Which makes the case posted earlier interesting. Granted, one could
argue the pilot lied about the go-around, but even so....interesting.