Flying over the runway is illegal?

Jonathan Goodish wrote:


Regardless, though, you'd have a tough time arguing that someone who
does low approaches, go arounds, or low passes down the runway didn't
initially intend to land.

I think speed is a factor here. I can buzz a runway in a a plane at
speeds a lot higher than would be safe for landing.

Regardless, though, you'd have a tough time arguing that someone who
does low approaches, go arounds, or low passes down the runway didn't
initially intend to land.

No I wouldn't. The issue (of course) isn't whether the pilot
=eventually= intended to land (somewhere), but whether the pilot =at
that time= intended to land =there=. Somebody practicing low approaches
would be hard put to say he botched the approach so badly every time
that a go-around was warranted.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"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

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
[...] Last time I checked, an airport runway
was pretty sparsely populated

There is no way that a runway is in and of itself considered a "sparsely
populated area".

".Blueskies." wrote in message
. com...
Do you have any references for that?

Any references for what?

The only thing I have been able to find is the NACO defined
'populated area' for the yellow areas....

That is correct.

I just took my commercial checkride a few feeks ago. I was taught by my
instructor to overly a non-towered airport by tpa+500ft (or more),
proceed away from the airport WITHOUT descending and then enter the
pattern( i.e. enter 45 and descent to TPA). On my checkride the
Examiner also expected this. I was taught that the key is to not
descent to or below TPA unless you are commiting to landing, which
means adhering to FARS and AIM procedures. Flying over the Field at or
below TPA just to take a look may be considered famously "careless and
reckless". I can't find it at the moment, but my instructor showed me
the TPA+500 rule in the AIM or FARs. In all of my instrument and
private training somehow the overly the airport rule was missed. The
Examiner explained that just because YOU might know what you are doing,
every other pilot will be expecting everone to be following standard
procedures. When pilots deviate, not matter how well they think they
are communicating their intentions, accidents frequently happen. Who
expects someone to be cutting across the field a few hundred feet below
them while on downwind?

Above all it's probably best ot use common sense. At Bremerton Airport
near me, there are so many training aircraft and pilots who forget to
announce position, chaos, etc, I am hesitant to overfly the field at
all. Since I know the area well, I feel it's safer to not overfly. At a
new airport or one that has wildlife that frequents the field makes
more sense.

Just my two cents. Good post!

I had no idea that a flyover of the runway was illegal. But here you go:



"After making two flyovers - a common, but illegal maneuver in which the
pilot flies low over the runway - he made the five-minute flight to
Rountree where he normally purchased fuel, said airport employees.

According to an investigator with the Federal Aviation Administration,
before landing, he conducted another flyover, but stalled, crashing
nose-down just beyond the tree line in an open field east of the runway.

The crash was reported at approximately 8 a.m. by a resident who saw the
wreckage as he left for work, according Hartselle Police."


"Veteran-flyer Tom Coggin, 67, of Cullman, died instantly when his RV-6,
two-seater aircraft crashed on private property near Rountree Field,
Hartselle's municipal airstrip."

"Deadly Flight" - Cullman Times July 25 2006

http://www.cullmantimes.com/homepage...picturestor y

"Cirrus" wrote in message
oups.com...
I just took my commercial checkride a few feeks ago. I was taught by my
instructor to overly a non-towered airport by tpa+500ft (or more),
proceed away from the airport WITHOUT descending and then enter the
pattern( i.e. enter 45 and descent to TPA).

Not a bad procedure, as a general concept. I agree that for you to not have
heard about this until your Commercial certificate training is very odd.
This is basic Private stuff.

On my checkride the
Examiner also expected this. I was taught that the key is to not
descent to or below TPA unless you are commiting to landing,

How do you fly an instrument procedure then? Most instrument procedures,
even non-precision, may often involve flight below TPA prior to being
committed to landing. For that matter, ANY approach to landing involves
flight below TPA prior to being committed to landing (you should not be
committed to the landing until you have touched down and have slowed
sufficiently to ensure no need for a go-around).

which
means adhering to FARS and AIM procedures.

AIM, perhaps. The FARs say nothing about descent below TPA. They don't
even discuss TPA.

Flying over the Field at or
below TPA just to take a look may be considered famously "careless and
reckless".

True enough. The FAA invokes 91.13 in most actions, including those for
which they can find no other rule to use.

I can't find it at the moment, but my instructor showed me
the TPA+500 rule in the AIM or FARs.

I believe that the AIM mentions that. There's no place in the FARs that
does.

In all of my instrument and
private training somehow the overly the airport rule was missed. The
Examiner explained that just because YOU might know what you are doing,
every other pilot will be expecting everone to be following standard
procedures.

This is where you start to head off into the weeds. Standard procedure or
not, no other pilot should be significantly inconvenienced, or otherwise
surprised by an airplane flying down the runway. While there may be good
reasons to avoid a low-approach over the runway in certain situations, I
don't see how "every other pilot will be expecting everone [sic] to be
following standard procedures" applies here.

When pilots deviate, not matter how well they think they
are communicating their intentions, accidents frequently happen. Who
expects someone to be cutting across the field a few hundred feet below
them while on downwind?

"Cutting across the field"? The thread is about flight over and parallel to
the runway. No one is suggesting low-level flight perpendicular to the
runway. If your whole response was directed at that operation, it's
irrelevant to this thread.

Pete

Cirrus wrote:
I just took my commercial checkride a few feeks ago. I was taught by my
instructor to overly a non-towered airport by tpa+500ft (or more),
proceed away from the airport WITHOUT descending and then enter the
pattern( i.e. enter 45 and descent to TPA). On my checkride the
Examiner also expected this. I was taught that the key is to not
descent to or below TPA unless you are commiting to landing, which
means adhering to FARS and AIM procedures. Flying over the Field at or
below TPA just to take a look may be considered famously "careless and
reckless". I can't find it at the moment, but my instructor showed me
the TPA+500 rule in the AIM or FARs. In all of my instrument and
private training somehow the overly the airport rule was missed. The
Examiner explained that just because YOU might know what you are doing,
every other pilot will be expecting everone to be following standard
procedures. When pilots deviate, not matter how well they think they
are communicating their intentions, accidents frequently happen. Who
expects someone to be cutting across the field a few hundred feet below
them while on downwind?

This is the result of instructors and DEs who have little experience
flying outside a metropolitan area. Not inspecting a potentially soft
field or obstructed field from MUCH less than TPA+500 is a good way to
get killed or at a minimum trash a good airplane. You don't need to do
this at a controlled field, but that doesn't meant that this procedure
is right ALL of the time. Any instructor who doesn't teach how to
inspect an unknown field should have their certificate revoked.


Matt

Peter Duniho wrote

If there is no intent to land, I'd say 91.119 certainly can be read as
just such a prohibition.

From the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary:

CLEARED FOR THE OPTION- ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a touch-
and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop landing at
the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training so that an
instructor can evaluate a student's performance under changing situations.

LOW APPROACH- An approach over an airport or runway following an instrument
approach or a VFR approach including the go-around maneuver where the pilot
intentionally does not make contact with the runway.

Bob Moore

"Bob Moore" wrote

From the FAA's Pilot/Controller Glossary:

CLEARED FOR THE OPTION- ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a touch-
and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop landing
at
the discretion of the pilot. It is normally used in training so that an
instructor can evaluate a student's performance under changing situations.

LOW APPROACH- An approach over an airport or runway following an
instrument
approach or a VFR approach including the go-around maneuver where the
pilot
intentionally does not make contact with the runway.

I would take that the beef the FAA has is that a low approach is normally
done at approach speeds, not WOT, wouldn't you think? g
--
Jim in NC