Flying over the runway is illegal?

Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And
it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation.




"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Emily" wrote in message
| . ..
| For that matter, going around would be considered a low
approach.
|
| Semantically speaking, sure. But that's not relevant
here.
|
| In the case of a true go-around, the low-altitude approach
was made for the
| purpose of landing, even if no landing actually occurred.
No such claim
| could be made for an intentional low approach.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And
it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation.

Yup. As I mentioned earlier, technically speaking such operations are
illegal under 91.119. However, as I also mentioned earlier, clearly the FAA
sets aside that technicality for such operations, since they not only allow
them, they encourage them.

But that doesn't mean that any random low approach is legal, especially if
not done for some FAA-sanctioned purpose.

Pete

The root problem is that many FAA Inspectors are mindless
authoritarians. The bureaucrats band together to defend
their turf. The NTSB has too many political appointees with
no aviation experience. The result is stupid application of
the rules.

Phone, write and email the FAA and your Congressman.
Contact the AOPA and EAA, demand some changes, demand
sanity.

Just a quick sample from Google...land use map sparsely
populated 826,000 pages

[PDF] T. Kit 9-12/TG.1'99 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat -
View as HTML
the size of each state is not related to the size of
the land area. ... the cartogram to the standard US map. 7.
Name a sparsely populated state other ...
www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/912ch1.pdf - Similar pages


SIZE IT UP(Map Literacy) Grades 9-10 Skills and Objectives
.... Use the two maps on page 5 (the US Population Cartogram
and the Standard US Map) to answer the ... Name a sparsely
populated state other than Montana. 8. ...
www.census.gov/dmd/www/text/9-12b.txt - 16k -
Cached - Similar pages


Web Sites Powered by ESRI Internet Solutions ... land use
information, historical maps, and more. The Atlas has a
powerful search function capable of finding locations even
in sparsely populated areas. ...
www.esri.com/software/internetmaps/index.html - 24k -
Cached - Similar pages


Zoning, CDFS-1265-99 He/she must have a thorough knowledge
of the zoning text and map and use these ... Another
reality, especially in sparsely populated areas, is staffing
and ...
ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1265.html - 17k - Cached -
Similar pages


Land Use Debate Land use research materials; Maps (Local,
regional, global) ... Have the students determine the common
factors of the sparsely populated areas. ...
http://www.wested.org/werc/earthsyst...y/landuse.html
- 10k - Cached - Similar pages

So the US government in the form of the Census Bureau
and the USDA and probably the Interior Department and
Defense Department all can provide maps that
define sparsely populated areas.

The FAA can be forced to follow established
definitions.




"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
| Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine.
And
| it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a
violation.
|
| Yup. As I mentioned earlier, technically speaking such
operations are
| illegal under 91.119. However, as I also mentioned
earlier, clearly the FAA
| sets aside that technicality for such operations, since
they not only allow
| them, they encourage them.
|
| But that doesn't mean that any random low approach is
legal, especially if
| not done for some FAA-sanctioned purpose.
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And
it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation.

I'll bet the FAA was hacked off (not that I agree) because the low pass was
down on the deck, at WOT. Ya' think? g
--
Jim in NC

In the case of the first posted report, two inspectors were
at a remote airport. One inspector heard an airplane that
didn't sound like it was being flown properly. The other
inspector said he didn't see anything.

Sounds can be useful, like when you hear a Bonanza or C210
with the prop at low pitch[ hi rpm] on climb out and the
tips are going supersonic because (a.) The pilot doesn't
know enough to pull the prop back 50-100 rpm and (b.)
because the governor is set too fast because the tach isn't
properly calibrated.

But I suspect the inspectors were missing a ball game and
wanted to be at a big, concrete airport. So they decided to
punish somebody.

The FAA gets into a mood [or is it mode] where they start
looking for somebody to violate because that makes a paper
trail that will get them noticed by the higher-ups.
One day I took a charter from Wichita to MKC [Kansas City
Downtown]. It was scheduled IFR in the Duchess because the
customer wanted to spend as little as possible. It was
scheduled for a 7 AM departure. It was also in the spring
so IFR conditions and ice were a certain possibility. I
began calling the FSS [the Internet did not yet exist] about
5 AM. I got a full briefing and filed IFR. I called back
several times for updates and asked for PIREPS each time,
the last time about 5 minutes before engine start. The
weather was 1,000 overcast and tops were reported by many
pilots as being at 3,000, a layer about 800 feet thick. It
was clear above and the PIREPS indicated temps above
freezing, NO ICING on climb out. When I departed I saw no
ice on the Duchess and the sky was clear above the layer.
When I got back that afternoon there was a message to call
the FSDO and speak to my friend Warren.
I called Warren and he asked me why I was flying in icing
conditions. Seems the Feds had been renting the King Air
for some practice and had been making multiple IFR
approaches, for about an hour. They had just landed as I
was taxiing out and a lineboy told them I was on a charter
to Kansas City,
I of course said I was not flying in ice, had seen no ice
all day and recounted the details of my flight. BUT there
were lawyers from the Kansas City FAA office on that King
Air and they had seen a Beech Duchess [BE-76] with nothing
but carb heat and a heated pitot depart IFR.
They had been getting ice while being vectored in the top of
the layer at 3,000 for an hour. Anyway, the local FSDO was
ordered [I was told] to begin action against me. I prepared
my case for an informal meeting and the feds came in with
stacks of paper, every telephone call I'd made, all the
radio calls, the ATIS tapes and transcripts. It was during
this meeting that my boos, who as Director of Operations
also attended, and I learned that the feds had been getting
ice in the pattern doing a dozen or so ILS and VOR
approaches in the layer.
The feds noted that I had made many phone calls and updated
the weather. They noted that I had requested all PIREPS for
the local airport and enroute, nobody had reported any
icing. In the end they decided to drop the case, but the KC
lawyers insisted I write a new page for our OPS manual on
ICING. I did and put in exactly what I did, including that
lack of PIREPS or PIREPS that reported ice, confirming a
forecast required a switch to an ice approved aircraft, a
delay or even a cancellation. The FAA approved that
revision with no changes.

I then asked the feds why they didn't report the ice during
the hour they were flying, wasn't reporting ice a required
report and were they going to violate the PIC of that King
Air?

It actually was fun.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.



"Morgans" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04...
| Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine.
And
| it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a
violation.
|
| I'll bet the FAA was hacked off (not that I agree) because
the low pass was
| down on the deck, at WOT. Ya' think? g
| --
| Jim in NC
|