High Speed Passes & the FAA

91.119 Except for TO & landing, 1000' over congested areas or within 500'
of person, vessel, vehicle or structure if in sparse area or over open
water.


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if over
people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This
question
was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was located
on a
permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The
finish
line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do you?
JJ Sinclair

In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
violation of 91.119? When flying an instrument approach and breaking out, it
is also common for aircraft to "circle to land" at a runway other than that
flown on the approach. This circling is often lower to the ground than 500
feet.

I have asked for and received clearance from the tower at Napa, CA, for low
passes in both power and glider. Approval for overhead break approaches, etc
are also routinely given.
--
bumper
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...
91.119 Except for TO & landing, 1000' over congested areas or within
500'
of person, vessel, vehicle or structure if in sparse area or over open
water.


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...
Isn't there an FAR that says aviators will not fly below 500 feet, if
over
people, places or things, unless they are in the act of landing? This
question
was asked by a pilots wife/crew at a nationals. Her motorhome was
located
on a
permanently closed runway about 500 feet from the active runway. The
finish
line was over the closed runway. I didn't have an answer for her, do
you?
JJ Sinclair




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:18:41 GMT, "John Morgan"
wrote:

In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
violation of 91.119?

Let's face it: Coming in on final at 150 mph+ because you "forgot" to
pull the airbrake lever is very hard to disguise as a go-around...


Bye
Andreas

In article ,
Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 17:18:41 GMT, "John Morgan"
wrote:

In the airport environment, I believe a low pass is akin to a go-around or
an aborted landing attempt. How could it reasonably be considered a
violation of 91.119?

Let's face it: Coming in on final at 150 mph+ because you "forgot" to
pull the airbrake lever is very hard to disguise as a go-around...

You don't have to have an actual intention to land in order to do a
"missed approach". See the helicopter example in my other message.

Also, I recall seeing at the same airport (Wellington Intl, NZ) an RAAF
tanker (707 or 767 or something) execute a missed approach to maybe two
hundred feet ft with three or four A4 SkyHawk and F/A-18 Hornet jets
hanging off hoses from the wings and another couple in formation beside
the wingtips.

No way did *they* ever have an intention to actually land there.

-- Bruce