"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.


Please explain how an intent to land is a requirement of FAR 91.119?

Um...all of the minimum altitudes apply unless for the purpose of a takeoff
or landing? Duh. The requirement is to be given an exception to 91.119.

FAR 91.119 (a) says that I may not fly below an altitude allowing a safe
emergency landing, irrespective of whether I intend to land or not.

(a) is the broadest, least-likely-to-apply situation. It prescribes the
absolute minimum altitude anywhere. 91.119 isn't a menu, where you get to
choose which paragraph you want to comply with. You have to comply with
them all.

The
language, "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing," provides me
with an exception to the rest of 91.119 as long as I am taking off or
landing. But, it does not indicate a violation for low-level flight as
long as I meet the requirement if paragraph (a) without violating
anything in paragraphs (b) or (c).

If you are at any public, municipal airport, there is no way you are meeting
the requirement of (a) without violating (b) or (c).

Aside from any other argument, it would be very difficult for anyone to
argue against an intent to land for someone performing a low-pass on an
open runway.

If you'd bothered to read the related thread, "Case law on runway
buzzing/flyovers", you'd understand why that statement is just plain false.
There are many cases where the FAA has successfully argued against an intent
to land for someone performing a low-pass on an open runway. Two prime
example situations are when the runway was never a suitable landing site for
the airplane in the first place, or when the approach to the runway was not
made in a manner conducive to an actual landing (that would, of course,
require a reliable witness to describe the entire approach).

Pete