Flying over the runway is illegal?

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"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?
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. 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).

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.



JKG

Please explain how an intent to land is a requirement of FAR 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. 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.

That's not what my book says. The "except when necessary..." clause is
in front of everything. The (a) anywhe ... allowing a safe
landing... means ANYWHERE you fly, you must be albe to land without
undue hazard... IN ADDITION, even if you could land without undue
hazard, other restrictions apply (500', 1000', etc)

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

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Please explain how an intent to land is a requirement of FAR 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. 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.

That's not what my book says. The "except when necessary..." clause is
in front of everything. The (a) anywhe ... allowing a safe
landing... means ANYWHERE you fly, you must be albe to land without
undue hazard... IN ADDITION, even if you could land without undue
hazard, other restrictions apply (500', 1000', etc)

Jose

"Except when necessary for takeoff and landing" grants you an exception
to any other requirements in 91.119 for minimum altitudes. However, I
could fly along at 100 feet AGL over sparsely populated areas, as
permitted by 91.119(a) and (c). Last time I checked, an airport runway
was pretty sparsely populated, and I could certainly use it for an
emergency landing if I lost power.



JKG

Last time I checked, an airport runway
was pretty sparsely populated...

Oh, I don't know about that. There are probably airplanes around within
five hundred feet, and people in them or working on them. There may
also be structures.

I was at an FAA safety seminar in which the Hudson River was stated to
be "congested", as is the middle of Pennsylvania wherever there is a
highway. The context was flying the Hudson corridor. The presentor
said that the FAA granated a special document (I don't know what they
call them - memorandum of understanding?) in which they acknowledge that
it is not possible to fly over the George Washington Bridge while
remaining in the corridor (you must remain 1000 feet above it, which
puts you in class B), but they "promise not to prosecute" people who
violate the FARs by flying the corridor.

It looks like they are setting themselves up again to enforce anything
they want, by using this document as a precedent for anything being
considered "congested".

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

In article ,
Jose wrote:

Last time I checked, an airport runway
was pretty sparsely populated...

Oh, I don't know about that. There are probably airplanes around within
five hundred feet, and people in them or working on them. There may
also be structures.

It depends on the airport and what's occurring on the surface. I would
venture to guess that most airports are rather sleepy most of the time,
and people and structures are beyond 500 feet from the runway.

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.



JKG

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
...
[...] 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".

"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