Case law on runway buzzing/flyovers

For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
"buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

Jim Logajan wrote:
For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
"buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

My favorite line is this -

"The Administrator next argues that the go-around was
needlessly caused by respondent's poor preparation for landing."

I guess now we need to worry about going around!

Do us a favor and provide a summary! Thanks.


Jim Logajan wrote:
For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
"buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

Stubby wrote:
Do us a favor and provide a summary! Thanks.

FAA accused pilot of violating 14 C.F.R. 91.119(a), 91.13(a), 91.119(c)
and 61.3(a)[*]. The court initially found for the FAA on the first two
counts but dismissed the last two.

However, the appeals court found the pilot innocent of the first two
counts also.

Basically the court found no facts to support the claim that the pilot
wasn't performing a go-around following a botched approach. The
witnesses for the FAA were two FAA inspectors, only one of whom saw the
aircraft and then only when it was at midfield.

Jim Logajan wrote:
For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
"buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this
case:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF
[*]
§ 91.119(a) reads:
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.

§ 91.13(a) reads:
No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless
manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

§ 91.119(c) reads:
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(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.

§ 61.3(a) reads:
(a) Pilot certificate. No person may act as pilot in
command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight
crewmember of a civil aircraft of United States registry
unless he has in his personal possession a current pilot
certificate issued to him under this part[.]

Stubby wrote:

Do us a favor and provide a summary! Thanks.


Jim Logajan wrote:

For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
"buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

Do us a favor and read it yourself. It isn't that hard to follow.

Matt

Jim Logajan wrote:
For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
"buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

Oh yeah - the facts in this case make for a happy ending. :-)

Jim Logajan wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
"buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this case:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

Oh yeah - the facts in this case make for a happy ending. :-)

The unhappy part is that the pilot probably had to foot a hefty bill
for all the court time and appeals. This is a good example of how the
FAA will back an inspector, even when the inspector is obviously in the
wrong.

Having to go to court to justify a go-around is not only ridiculous,
it flies (no pun intended) in the face of safe flying practices.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

It is offensive to me that our tax dollars are being spent on this nonsense.
It is unbelievable that they tried to bust this guy for flying over an
airport. It's amazing how many personal vendettas FAA personnel use to
precipitate certificate actions -- like Bob Hoover, and the guy the FAA
harassed into a fatal accident. This certainly looks like another one.

"John Galban" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jim Logajan wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
For those interested (I know I was) in whether a runway flyover (or
"buzzing" a runway) has been adjudicated in the U.S., I found this
case:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDF

Oh yeah - the facts in this case make for a happy ending. :-)

The unhappy part is that the pilot probably had to foot a hefty bill
for all the court time and appeals. This is a good example of how the
FAA will back an inspector, even when the inspector is obviously in the
wrong.

Having to go to court to justify a go-around is not only ridiculous,
it flies (no pun intended) in the face of safe flying practices.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Oh yeah - the facts in this case make for a happy ending. :-)

For the pilot in question. However, the successful outcome for the pilot
hinges on the argument that he had aborted a landing attempt and was making
a go-around.

It's impossible to say how the case would have been decided had the facts
been different, but the decision does strongly suggest that absent the
intent to land, the low-altitude flight over the runway would have been
found in violation of the FARs. Certainly the original FAA inspector and
law judge would have found that to be the case, considering that they found
the pilot in violation even when assuming a go-around (which, frankly,
boggles the mind).

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting read. I am curious...how did you
find it? Is there an easy way to search FAA certificate actions (best)
and/or NTSB reviews of FAA certificate actions (almost as good)?

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
It's impossible to say how the case would have been decided had the
facts been different, but the decision does strongly suggest that
absent the intent to land, the low-altitude flight over the runway
would have been found in violation of the FARs. Certainly the
original FAA inspector and law judge would have found that to be the
case, considering that they found the pilot in violation even when
assuming a go-around (which, frankly, boggles the mind).

I agree - having pilots worry that a botched go-around will be second
guessed by the FAA would seem to detract from safety; e.g.: "I'm coming in
too fast - but if I do a go-around, I might get grounded by the FAA. If I
don't, I might have an accident landing."

Alas, I just found another one where the facts WERE different and the pilot
LOST his appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4020.PDF

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting read. I am curious...how
did you find it? Is there an easy way to search FAA certificate
actions (best) and/or NTSB reviews of FAA certificate actions (almost
as good)?

I did a regular Google search using various keyword combinations. I now
forget what worked in this case; I know "buzzing" was one of the keywords
that worked better than "flyover" in conjunction with "runway". But I see
now that the URL http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs is a directory full of FAA
administrative legal results and the following Google search yields a whole
bunch of hits on any complaints containing the word "buzzing":

site:http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION buzzing

Obviously other terms may work better.

Note too that these documents refer to other relevant cases, e.g.
"Administrator v. Hart, NTSB Order EA-2884 (1989)" (too old to be in that
online list, which seems to go only back to 1999).