Flying over the runway is illegal?

Matt Whiting wrote:
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
I could see flyovers being illegal under two FARs - minimum safe
altitude, as well as careless and reckless. Regardless of legality,
they are totally unnecessary and unsafe. The outcome of this flight
demonstrates that point.

They aren't unsafe any more than any other aspect of flying is unsafe.
They may or may not be necessary, all depends on the circumstances.
They are necessary if you are inspecting a field that is short, soft
and/or unknown to you as part of your pre-landing activities. Many
flight instruction guides specifically recommend this in these cases.

Matt

I think we are talking about different things here. Go-arounds,
circling approaches, low pass for inspecting the runway, and slow
flight one foot above the runway are all well-intended useful
maneuvers. I do them, and I teach them. May be I misunderstood the
article, but the phrase "fly over" in the article implied a highspeed
pass over the runway. This is what I was referring to as unnecessary
and unsafe.

Mustang requesting fly-by. Sorry Mustang, the pattern is
closed.




"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Matt Whiting wrote:
| Andrew Sarangan wrote:
| I could see flyovers being illegal under two FARs -
minimum safe
| altitude, as well as careless and reckless. Regardless
of legality,
| they are totally unnecessary and unsafe. The outcome
of this flight
| demonstrates that point.
|
| They aren't unsafe any more than any other aspect of
flying is unsafe.
| They may or may not be necessary, all depends on the
circumstances.
| They are necessary if you are inspecting a field that is
short, soft
| and/or unknown to you as part of your pre-landing
activities. Many
| flight instruction guides specifically recommend this in
these cases.
|
| Matt
|
| I think we are talking about different things here.
Go-arounds,
| circling approaches, low pass for inspecting the runway,
and slow
| flight one foot above the runway are all well-intended
useful
| maneuvers. I do them, and I teach them. May be I
misunderstood the
| article, but the phrase "fly over" in the article implied
a highspeed
| pass over the runway. This is what I was referring to as
unnecessary
| and unsafe.
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

Mustang requesting fly-by. Sorry Mustang, the pattern is
closed.

Wasn't that Maverick?

--
Peter

See my email...

Dodge City asked for a fly-by when we brought one of the
first Beechjets by, something about 200 kts at 50 feet is
neat.

I feel the need, the need for speed.



"Peter R." wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| Mustang requesting fly-by. Sorry Mustang, the pattern
is
| closed.
|
| Wasn't that Maverick?
|
| --
| Peter

Peter R. wrote:
Jim Macklin wrote:

Mustang requesting fly-by. Sorry Mustang, the pattern is
closed.

Wasn't that Maverick?

--
Peter

I think it was "Negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is full."

Interesting article at:

http://www.southern-aviator.com/edit...olumn&-nothing

When are VFR low approaches at uncontrolled airports legal?
Alan Armstrong
8/1/2001

Excerpt from near the end:

Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there is
nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach" will
only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon which
your aircraft can land. Neither is there anything in the Airport
Operations Provisions section of the Aeronautical Information Manual,
which actually sanctions low approaches. Nothing is said, either, in
the Air Traffic Control Handbook.

There is also no consistency between the provisions of the Aeronautical
Information Manual and the FARs, since FAR § 91.119 only permits
descent below a safe altitude if the aircraft is in the process of
takeoff or landing.

Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there is
nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach" will
only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon which
your aircraft can land.

I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for
best glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to
see if one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using the
procedures one is practicing.

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

"Jose" wrote in message
. com...
I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for best
glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to see if
one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using the
procedures one is practicing.

FYI...

As it happens, I just flew with an instructor yesterday, doing my BFR.
During our ground discussion, he told me that he was involved in an incident
in which the FAA cited him for violating the minimum safe altitude
regulations. In his case, he was not doing engine-out practicing, but that
did come up, and here's what the local FAA inspector said...

* There is no "sparsely settled" area anywhere within the Puget Sound
region, even in locations where it is miles to the nearest structure. The
FAA does not provide any guidance as to what *is* a sparsely settled area,
but apparently if there's any settlement anywhere within some apparently
long distance, that's not "sparse".

* There is no exception to the minimum safe altitude rules for the purpose
of practicing engine-out procedures. If you are not over a sparsely settled
area (of which there are none around here, and by this interpretation there
would be none around ANY significantly populated region), then you may not
descend below 500', and that goes up to 1000' above the highest obstacle
within 2000' of the aircraft if the area is considered "congested" (note
that they don't restrict that to man-made obstacles...if there's a 100' tree
around, quite common here in the Northwest and elsewhere, your minimum
altitude is actually 1100' AGL, for example).

* The inspector readily admitted that there is no formal definition of the
terms, and declined to offer any formal definition of the terms. They are
playing by the rules set forth by the NTSB in past judgments, in that the
FAA is permitted to interpret their rules as they see fit, and are not
required to make any explicit statements about the specifics of the rules.
So, if they see a pilot flying lower than the FAA inspector thinks he should
be, and the altitude is below *some* minimum safe altitude specified, the
inspector need only describe the area as an area where a higher altitude is
required, and there's no defense that the pilot can mount against that.

So, as far your actual question goes...it depends on what you mean by "see
if one can actually make the field", but if that would require flight below
500' and you're not at an airport, then no, you can't do that practically
anywhere that people live. If you're flying in a congested area (and
remember, there's no formal definition of "congested area"), that minimum is
the 1000' given.

With a minimum altitude of 1000' above the highest obstacle within 2000',
I'd say it'd be pretty hard to know for sure that you've got the field made.
An experienced instructor could make a reasonably accurate judgment call,
but from that altitude, all sorts of things could screw up the glide.

Frankly, I think it's pretty lame for the FAA to have rules for which they
don't include definitions of the terms used. I'm not one to just broadly
paint the FAA as being bad, but this is certainly one area in which they
need some serious improvement.

Pete

Achtung, I'm from the FAA and I'm hear to define words the
way I want. Papers!


§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
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.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city,
town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of
persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest
obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the
aircraft.

(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.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than
the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section if the operation is conducted without hazard to
persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person
operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or
altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the
Administrator.



Important words above... OVER Every place that isn't OVER a
town, city, settlement or crowd is by the above list
SPARSELY and I'm pretty sure Puget Sound has lots of water.
Except for congested areas, a tree is not an item of
concern, the term structure can mean the outhouse or porta
potty or a tent, but a road sign along a vacant highway
doesn't count as a structure.







"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jose" wrote in message
| . com...
| I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out
procedures (trim for best
| glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the
practice is to see if
| one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by
using the
| procedures one is practicing.
|
| FYI...
|
| As it happens, I just flew with an instructor yesterday,
doing my BFR.
| During our ground discussion, he told me that he was
involved in an incident
| in which the FAA cited him for violating the minimum safe
altitude
| regulations. In his case, he was not doing engine-out
practicing, but that
| did come up, and here's what the local FAA inspector
said...
|
| * There is no "sparsely settled" area anywhere within the
Puget Sound
| region, even in locations where it is miles to the nearest
structure. The
| FAA does not provide any guidance as to what *is* a
sparsely settled area,
| but apparently if there's any settlement anywhere within
some apparently
| long distance, that's not "sparse".
|
| * There is no exception to the minimum safe altitude rules
for the purpose
| of practicing engine-out procedures. If you are not over
a sparsely settled
| area (of which there are none around here, and by this
interpretation there
| would be none around ANY significantly populated region),
then you may not
| descend below 500', and that goes up to 1000' above the
highest obstacle
| within 2000' of the aircraft if the area is considered
"congested" (note
| that they don't restrict that to man-made obstacles...if
there's a 100' tree
| around, quite common here in the Northwest and elsewhere,
your minimum
| altitude is actually 1100' AGL, for example).
|
| * The inspector readily admitted that there is no formal
definition of the
| terms, and declined to offer any formal definition of the
terms. They are
| playing by the rules set forth by the NTSB in past
judgments, in that the
| FAA is permitted to interpret their rules as they see fit,
and are not
| required to make any explicit statements about the
specifics of the rules.
| So, if they see a pilot flying lower than the FAA
inspector thinks he should
| be, and the altitude is below *some* minimum safe altitude
specified, the
| inspector need only describe the area as an area where a
higher altitude is
| required, and there's no defense that the pilot can mount
against that.
|
| So, as far your actual question goes...it depends on what
you mean by "see
| if one can actually make the field", but if that would
require flight below
| 500' and you're not at an airport, then no, you can't do
that practically
| anywhere that people live. If you're flying in a
congested area (and
| remember, there's no formal definition of "congested
area"), that minimum is
| the 1000' given.
|
| With a minimum altitude of 1000' above the highest
obstacle within 2000',
| I'd say it'd be pretty hard to know for sure that you've
got the field made.
| An experienced instructor could make a reasonably accurate
judgment call,
| but from that altitude, all sorts of things could screw up
the glide.
|
| Frankly, I think it's pretty lame for the FAA to have
rules for which they
| don't include definitions of the terms used. I'm not one
to just broadly
| paint the FAA as being bad, but this is certainly one area
in which they
| need some serious improvement.
|
| Pete
|
|

In article ,
Jose wrote:
Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there is
nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach" will
only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon which
your aircraft can land.

I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for
best glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to
see if one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using the
procedures one is practicing.

Well, if you make it, you can land there.


JKG

Recently, Jose posted:

Despite the two rulings, pilots should realize that currently there
is nothing in the FARs to warn you that conducting a "low approach"
will only be deemed appropriate if the airport or runway is one upon
which your aircraft can land.

I wonder how one can legally practice engine-out procedures (trim for
best glide, find a suitable field...) since part of the practice is to
see if one can actually =make= the field one has picked out by using
the procedures one is practicing.

Well, I don't need to be below 500' agl to know whether I've made the
field, and I don't practice engine outs at 600'. ;-)

Neil