"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gene Whitt wrote:

The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
runway being buzzed.

There's no rule that you can't get within 500' of another aircraft.
However, you can't get within 500' of a person on the ground unless
you're landing.

This isn't an isolated bust. They got a lear pilot making a low pass
on the same charge. Low passes aren't "a lower altitude necessary for
landing" so you better make sure you maintain the minimum altitudes.

500' is plenty low for a low pass.

Ron and Gene, can you point to any documentation of these enforcement
actions? I'd like to look at the details.

The AIM gives instructions for performing low approaches at both towered and
untowered airports (4-3-12). Although the AIM doesn't say explicitly what
altitude they're talking about, the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary defines
"low approach" as a maneuver "over an airport or runway...where the pilot
intentionally does not make contact with the runway"; that phrasing
certainly suggests a much lower height than 500'. (The AIM also cites
practice precision approaches as an example of low approaches; there, too,
you would typically fly much lower than 500'.)

It's hard to see how the FAA could get away with busting a pilot for
following the procedures recommended in the AIM. So I'd be interested to see
if something else might have been going on in the cases you mention.

Thanks,
Gary