joining the traffic pattern quandary

Y'All,
Gene is right about the possibility of the FAA types being hiding in the
weeds at your local airport.

I landed at Albany, OR about 20 years ago becasue of weather.
Fellow pilot gave me a ride into town and told me his story.

Seem he owned an American Yankee Trainer. He took a lady friend for a ride
and decided to give her a thrill. Thrill consisted of making a low pass
down the runway prior to landing. And he did it and the FAA was watching
and listening.

The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
runway being buzzed.

Pilot compounded his problem by announcing on the CTAF that
he was going to make a low pass down the runway.

My opinion that the situation could've and should've been handled
differently.

Gene Whitt

"Gene Whitt" wrote in message
nk.net...

Pilot compounded his problem by announcing on the CTAF that
he was going to make a low pass down the runway.

My opinion that the situation could've and should've been handled
differently.


The pilot probably compounded his problem by not "exhibiting a sufficiently
compliant attitude", in the words of an FAA inspector to me.

"Gene Whitt" wrote in message
nk.net...

Y'All,
Gene is right about the possibility of the FAA types being hiding in the
weeds at your local airport.

I landed at Albany, OR about 20 years ago becasue of weather.
Fellow pilot gave me a ride into town and told me his story.

Seem he owned an American Yankee Trainer. He took a lady friend for a
ride and decided to give her a thrill. Thrill consisted of making a low
pass down the runway prior to landing. And he did it and the FAA was
watching and listening.

The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
runway being buzzed.


So he wasn't charged with violating any FAR?



Pilot compounded his problem by announcing on the CTAF that
he was going to make a low pass down the runway.


How could announcing one's intentions compound the problem? Is that not the
purpose of the CTAF?



My opinion that the situation could've and should've been handled
differently.


Only by the FAA, the pilot handled it perfectly.

Gene Whitt wrote:


The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
runway being buzzed.

There's no rule that you can't get within 500' of another aircraft.
However, you can't get within 500' of a person on the ground unless
you're landing.

This isn't an isolated bust. They got a lear pilot making a low pass
on the same charge. Low passes aren't "a lower altitude necessary for
landing" so you better make sure you maintain the minimum altitudes.

500' is plenty low for a low pass.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gene Whitt wrote:

The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
runway being buzzed.

There's no rule that you can't get within 500' of another aircraft.
However, you can't get within 500' of a person on the ground unless
you're landing.

This isn't an isolated bust. They got a lear pilot making a low pass
on the same charge. Low passes aren't "a lower altitude necessary for
landing" so you better make sure you maintain the minimum altitudes.

500' is plenty low for a low pass.

Ron and Gene, can you point to any documentation of these enforcement
actions? I'd like to look at the details.

The AIM gives instructions for performing low approaches at both towered and
untowered airports (4-3-12). Although the AIM doesn't say explicitly what
altitude they're talking about, the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary defines
"low approach" as a maneuver "over an airport or runway...where the pilot
intentionally does not make contact with the runway"; that phrasing
certainly suggests a much lower height than 500'. (The AIM also cites
practice precision approaches as an example of low approaches; there, too,
you would typically fly much lower than 500'.)

It's hard to see how the FAA could get away with busting a pilot for
following the procedures recommended in the AIM. So I'd be interested to see
if something else might have been going on in the cases you mention.

Thanks,
Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:


The AIM gives instructions for performing low approaches at both towered and
untowered airports (4-3-12).

http://www.alanarmstronglaw.com/1111.htm

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gary Drescher wrote:


The AIM gives instructions for performing low approaches at both towered
and untowered airports (4-3-12).

http://www.alanarmstronglaw.com/1111.htm

Cool. Thanks for the reference!

--Gary

Gary,

To the best of my knowledge, the FAA does not release details of
enforcement actions. Their position is that information about a
particular action is between the FAA and the pilot, and due to privacy
and such is not releaseable to the public.

My personal knowledge comes from 10k+ flight hours, most of it as a
flight instructor, and 15yrs or so as a remedial instruction program
instructor. I know several people personally who have been involved in
enforcement actions in addition to the scores I have worked with under
the remedial instruction program.

The unfortunate reality is that wherever the law is ambiguous (and
those places are legion), said ambiguity is resolved at the judgment of
the NTSB judge at the hearing. Being a civil court, you have few
rights, and no presumption of innocence. Your testimony is held as
suspect as you are the respondent and therefore 'have a reason to lie,'
and the FAA inspector is considered to be an officer of the court.

If somebody wants to test their personal interpretation of an unclear
reg, be my guest, but leave me out of it. The system may not be what
is should be, nor what we would like it to be, but that doesn't change
it. The FAA inspector has a great deal of lattitude to decide what the
'law' is on the spot, and there mostly is precious little any of us can
do to the contrary.

Best way to deal with this kind of a system is to stay out of the
spotlight.

Gene

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Gene Whitt wrote:


The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
runway being buzzed.

There's no rule that you can't get within 500' of another aircraft.
However, you can't get within 500' of a person on the ground unless
you're landing.

91.119(c) states that aircraft "may not be operated closer than 500 feet to
any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." I would argue that an airplane
(on the ground, no less) is a vehicle.


This isn't an isolated bust. They got a lear pilot making a low pass
on the same charge. Low passes aren't "a lower altitude necessary for
landing" so you better make sure you maintain the minimum altitudes.

500' is plenty low for a low pass.

But what about the "really low" passes that you can use to teach students to
flare? I admit that I can't remember a student not touching the runway
slightly, but I guess I'll stop announcing "low approach". :-)

-Rob

"Rob Montgomery" wrote in message
...

91.119(c) states that aircraft "may not be operated closer than 500 feet
to
any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." I would argue that an airplane
(on the ground, no less) is a vehicle.

That would make taxiing a bitch!!



This isn't an isolated bust. They got a lear pilot making a low pass
on the same charge. Low passes aren't "a lower altitude necessary for
landing" so you better make sure you maintain the minimum altitudes.

500' is plenty low for a low pass.

But what about the "really low" passes that you can use to teach students
to
flare? I admit that I can't remember a student not touching the runway
slightly, but I guess I'll stop announcing "low approach". :-)

Try clearing deer or elk from a runway by flying 500 feet AGL :~)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO