Case law on runway buzzing/flyovers

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
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

Also a very informative case. Some useful and enlightening tidbits:

* It is specifically mentioned that the defacto exception granted
practice landings has been defined by NTSB precedent (so apparently, the FAA
at one point did try to take action against a pilot making a practice
approach, and was overruled by the NTSB because the low flight was during a
practice approach).

* In the case, the board assumed that the claim of a practice approach
was true, but found that since the runway was unsuitable for an actual
landing with the aircraft in question, it was not subject to the
exclusion-by-precedent of allowing practice approaches the same low-altitude
exception granted real landings (also by NTSB precedent).

* It is also noted that the exception granted practice landings is valid
only at locations where a normal landing would be permissible. That is, the
exception is not granted for practice approaches to a simulated emergency
landing site (presumably if a normal landing were possible, even
off-airport, that would be allowed since the FARs don't prohibit off-airport
landings? hard to say without seeing a precedent for that).

One thing that I note about cases like this that refer to precedents is
that, absent any actual quotes from the precedent explaining why the
precedent was decided the way it was, there's no way to know why the NTSB
judged the original precedent case in favor of the pilot or the FAA (as the
case may be). That's unfortunate because I think it's a lot more
interesting to know why the original precedent was decided in a particular
way, than to know that there is a precedent upon which subsequent cases
rely.

One other interesting thing about this case is that it very nicely
illustrates the general attitude of the NTSB that the FAA is free to
interpret and execute the FARs as they like. The NTSB only decides factual
elements of the case, and defers interpretation and enforcement decisions to
the FAA. This is stated explicitly in this case.

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.

Such as "91.119"? I used that term and turned up 96 articles. I
haven't had a chance to read any of them (other than the two mentioned here
so far), but I expect they will be similarly interesting.

Pete

In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

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


A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic. I guess there was
an assumption that the law judge would automatically side with the FAA
regardless of merit.



JKG

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



"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| Jim Logajan wrote:
|
| http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PD
|
|
| A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic. I
guess there was
| an assumption that the law judge would automatically side
with the FAA
| regardless of merit.
|
|
|
| JKG

Yes, that was the original linked article. And your point is? It looks
to me that the conclusion was that, "The Administrator's order is
dismissed."


JKG

In article FBdyg.84395$ZW3.71466@dukeread04,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

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



"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| Jim Logajan wrote:
|
| http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PD
|
|
| A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic. I
guess there was
| an assumption that the law judge would automatically side
with the FAA
| regardless of merit.
|
|
|
| JKG

The link was incomplete, I added the f back.



"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
| Yes, that was the original linked article. And your point
is? It looks
| to me that the conclusion was that, "The Administrator's
order is
| dismissed."
|
|
| JKG
|
| In article FBdyg.84395$ZW3.71466@dukeread04,
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
|
| http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDf
|
|
|
| "Jonathan Goodish" wrote in
message
|
...
| | In article
,
| | Jim Logajan wrote:
| |
| | http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PD
| |
| |
| | A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic.
I
| guess there was
| | an assumption that the law judge would automatically
side
| with the FAA
| | regardless of merit.
| |
| |
| |
| | JKG

Got it.


JKG

In article 99xyg.84521$ZW3.82103@dukeread04,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

The link was incomplete, I added the f back.



"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
| Yes, that was the original linked article. And your point
is? It looks
| to me that the conclusion was that, "The Administrator's
order is
| dismissed."
|
|
| JKG
|
| In article FBdyg.84395$ZW3.71466@dukeread04,
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
|
| http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PDf
|
|
|
| "Jonathan Goodish" wrote in
message
|
...
| | In article
,
| | Jim Logajan wrote:
| |
| | http://www.ntsb.gov/O_n_O/docs/AVIATION/4307.PD
| |
| |
| | A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic.
I
| guess there was
| | an assumption that the law judge would automatically
side
| with the FAA
| | regardless of merit.
| |
| |
| |
| | JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote:

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


A witness who didn't see anything? That's fantastic. I guess there was
an assumption that the law judge would automatically side with the FAA
regardless of merit.

And the court _did_ side with the FAA on two of four counts too, until they
were overturned on appeal. Yuck.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:04:19 -0000, 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

They need some new inspectors. No respectable "buzz job" would be done
at 200 feet. Now if it was 20 feet I'd agree with them.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

20 feet is awfully high, you'd hit the telephone wires while
flying under them ;-)



"Roger" wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:04:19 -0000, 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
|
| They need some new inspectors. No respectable "buzz job"
would be done
| at 200 feet. Now if it was 20 feet I'd agree with them.
|
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com

Recently, Jim Logajan posted:

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

Thanks for digging this up, Jim. It is somewhat of a comfort to know that
the legal system can arrive at a logical conclusion, even if it is
discomforting to know that FAA administrators can be so... is "stupid" too
strong a word?

I found it rather ludicrous that opinions such as how one executes an
approach (never mind that the administrator didn't even *see* the
approach) or go-around could be entered as fact, when in fact it is up to
the PIC to determine how to execute those manoeuvers. FAR 91.13 seemed
totally inappropriate, given that the portion of flight in question was
over the runway, which AFAIK, is typically an "unpopulated" area.

I hope that Hal has some way to recoup his legal fees.

Neil