PDA

View Full Version : Is high speed pass legal?


Randy
03-12-2009, 02:33 PM
I should know the answer to this, or look it up, but thought it might it might generate some interesting discussion.

I would like to make a high speed low pass down the runway and have a friend film it for me. We happen to have a few FAA folks living at the airpark here and they have a tendancy to make calls and turn there neighbors in if they hear of or see a violation. Nice neighbors eh?

Maybe one of you with better knowledge of the FARs than I can enlighten me as to whether such a manuver is legal or not and perhaps what the rules actually state regarding this?

Randy C

RV7Guy
03-12-2009, 02:41 PM
The only FAR you could bust is the FAA speed limit below 10K. Not likely.

You don't say where you live, but I live in a very urban airpark. Although the pass could be legal please consider the "fly neighborly," concept. That is what we have to do. The only ones that can get away with it are the warbirds that reside here. No problems for them, but if several RV's started doing the same thing, the calls would come in.

Love the speed!!!!

scsmith
03-12-2009, 02:55 PM
These are things that, depending on the amount of clear space around the airport, might be a problem. When it suits them, the FAA will call a large rural area with nothing but pasture land a congested area. (example the story in AOPA Pilot last year of the Steaman pilot that hit a wire while flying low up the center of a river - they said the river, in the middle of miles of agriculture, was a congested area)

One approach would be to actually go discuss it with your FAA neighbors first, tell them what you are up to and why, what safety issues you've considered, go-no-go criteria, that you are adequately experienced and trained, etc. This shows that it is a considered event, not a reckless impulse. Then when they see you, they will note that you performed as you said you would.

jsharkey
03-12-2009, 03:02 PM
They could possibly get you under FAR 91.13 - Careless Operation and FAR 91.119 - Safe Altitude

If the pass was considered careless or reckless 91.13 would apply and if there was no intention to land then 91.119 would kick in if the pass was below 500'

Just my consevative opinion.

Jim Sharkey

tcone1
03-12-2009, 03:09 PM
I've got a neighbor here at KE79 that has decided that I must be doing something wrong when I make a recon pass prior to landing. He's called the FSDO, the FSDO called me and we talked things over. The only reason they couldn't violate me was because I only ever do one pass and it really is to check the field over. On two occasions I've had to swerve to avoid dogs roaming on the runway.

If you have someone out there with the purpose of filming, you are probably up for a bust. A recon pass is legal, a film pass is not. Anytime you are within 500 feet, verticle or horizontal, of a person, building, or property, it better be for the purpose of takeoff or landing. A recon pass is considered for the purpose of landing...filming is not.

Now get this, the neighbor is still not happy, so he's started filming my pass to gather evidence so he can coerce the FSDO into starting an enforcement action. Yes he is number one with me.

Roger Moore
03-12-2009, 03:16 PM
Just say you were in the intrest of safety checking out runway conditions, and if they don't buy that then ----------

bkilby
03-12-2009, 03:20 PM
Go somewhere else where the FAA folks don't live. ;)

allbee
03-12-2009, 03:23 PM
I've got a neighbor here at KE79 that has decided that I must be doing something wrong when I make a recon pass prior to landing. He's called the FSDO, the FSDO called me and we talked things over. The only reason they couldn't violate me was because I only ever do one pass and it really is to check the field over. On two occasions I've had to swerve to avoid dogs roaming on the runway.

If you have someone out there with the purpose of filming, you are probably up for a bust. A recon pass is legal, a film pass is not. Anytime you are within 500 feet, verticle or horizontal, of a person, building, or property, it better be for the purpose of takeoff or landing. A recon pass is considered for the purpose of landing...filming is not.

Now get this, the neighbor is still not happy, so he's started filming my pass to gather evidence so he can coerce the FSDO into starting an enforcement action. Yes he is number one with me.

Yup, I have pilots at my airfield that fit into this catagory, they even do the same thing, but with them it's ok. I fly a kitfox, go figure. I've been talked to by the FSDO on doing a low pass at 60 just off the runway with the tower giving clearance for such. So my opinion don't do it and for sure, don't get pictures of doing. I've been told many things from the FSDO one of which, is the aerobatic manuaver, 30degree pitch and 60degree bank thang and believe it, anything NOT normal for the airport which will open anything they want. Just go fly and be invisible as much as possible.

AZtailwind
03-12-2009, 03:23 PM
Just say you were in the intrest of safety checking out runway conditions, and if they don't buy that then ----------

I saw your response before the edit... still laughing! :p:p

Randy
03-12-2009, 04:14 PM
Go somewhere else where the FAA folks don't live. ;)

I live at S36 in Kent, WA. Thanks for the responses. I think this one is probably the best advice for me in my particular situation.

One fellow here got calls from the FAA etc. simply because of a radio call he made when someone asked his altitude. It was considered too low and the radio call was the evidence against him. Now very few people around here use their N number when they make radio calls.

Randy C

hydroguy2
03-12-2009, 04:25 PM
or on short final, you key the mic and say...."is that a raccoon on the runway?, Nxxx going around"


no harm, no foul

wingtime
03-12-2009, 04:42 PM
That's what we call people like that here in Florida. Man I can not STAND behavior like this from people. It's like they have nothing better to do than make life miserable for everyone else. Dude, if you live at an airport and you feel the need to complain about low flying airplanes than I think we should have the right to remove you from the gene pool!

RV3 Pilot
03-12-2009, 04:50 PM
Are you doing a 3 g pull up or a wing over after the pass? Then it might be of concern to people. I've rarely seen a high speed low pass without a show of manuever at the end. Not saying you are.
Just asking.
Tom

tcone1
03-12-2009, 05:15 PM
Are you doing a 3 g pull up or a wing over after the pass? Then it might be of concern to people. I've rarely seen a high speed low pass without a show of manuever at the end. Not saying you are.
Just asking.
Tom

No that's the funny part. I'm doing the recon pass at 18 inches and 2000 rpm, which works out to about 150 kias...hit a bird once, got the dent in the leading edge to show for it and do my recon pass at less than warp factor five since then.

The speed is one of his gripes...150 KNOTS...that is too fast. I tried to explain that to an RV-8, no, really it's not that fast. When I pointed out to him that the speed limit is 200 knots, he started in about "not necessary for normal flight".

To answer the question, no, no 3 g pulls or wing overs. Showing off is relative thing...the fact that my airplane can coast by at much less than full cruise speed and still climb to pattern altitude effortlessly might look like showing off to a spam can driver.

Dan Blumel
03-12-2009, 06:03 PM
Call this a "low approach", not a "high speed pass".

N941WR
03-12-2009, 06:40 PM
Call this a "low approach", not a "high speed pass".
Don't even go there. Any radio calls should make it clear that you are going to land. Then as suggested before, call a go around. You don't have to give a reason. If the FAA asks, you can always say something didn't feel right and you thought it prudent to go around and set up for a better approach.

What can they do, bust you for going around? If so, they will have to bust EVERY pilot who has botched an approach and gone around.

Bill Wightman
03-12-2009, 06:44 PM
I have some first hand experience with this and it WAS NOT fun. Nearly wound up in court with the FAA, and that doesn't bode well when you make your living as a pilot.

The situation was simple: I was showing my RV4 to a prospective buyer. The buyer wanted me to make a pass when I arrived. Fine, no problem.

When I arrived in the traffic pattern (uncontrolled airport, but city owned) I had a C172 in front of me flying a monster pattern. We were the only two aircraft in the pattern, and he wasn't saying a word on the Unicom.

Long story short, I took spacing on the 172, and after he landed and was nearing the midfield turn off, I came over the numbers at about 100 feet doing about 160 knots indicated. Top of green arc for the RV4.

The 172 never did turn off, and continued taxiing straight ahead very slowly all without any radio calls on Unicom. I maintained my altitude, and offset to the right (per FARs dealing with overtaking aircraft), which put me over the grass between the runway and the parallel taxiway. I flew by the 172, pulled a left closed at the end of the runway, and full stopped the next landing. Thankfully, I had a couple of witnesses: the guy who bought my RV and another CFI who just happened to be a legal rep for Bell Helicopter. (These guys saved my bacon, and maybe even my ticket.)

After landing, I was met by the airport manager (a non-pilot public servant, appointed by the local FSDO to serve that airport) who didn't like my pass. I didn't give him an inch and he eventually just walked away. Turns out he gave a report to the local FSDO that was totally erroneous and damaging.

I got a certified letter from the FSDO about a month later which said I was seen "performing acrobatics over the airport and in close proximity to other aircraft". Exact quote - and total BS. (for you third graders out there: "acrobatics" is what a gymnast does. "aerobatics" is what an airplane does. But I digress...) After they got sworn letters from my witnesses, the FAA then changed their charge to that of violating FAR 91.119(c) :mad:, which reads:

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.

Paragraph (c) can be very loosely interpreted. In my case, even when FLYING OVER A RUNWAY / RUNWAY ENVIRONMENT the FAA interpreted that as an "other than congested area". That means (technically) that ANY flying done over an airport, runway, or runway environment can be called into question. Your practice go-around, practice missed approach, low pass - anything is fair game to them.

If some airport manager, Fed, anybody doesn't like what you're doing at his airport, then he can write up anything he wants and submit to the FSDO, who IS his friend. They are then called by law to "investigate" what happened and to find out if any FAR's were violated. Its that simple, and that dangerous.

I know others who've told me of similar fights with the FAA over this FAR. One guy was violated for flying over a picnic at a private airstrip with his gear up (that's how the FAA knew he didn't intend to land). Another friend of mine actually had a city cop report his flying (RV4) to the control tower because he thought it was too "aggressive". This, at a TOWERED airport, and he was just flying nice tight patterns to an empty runway. The tower never said a word about it!

Advise: If you want to do a low pass, its at your own risk. Technically its illegal, unless you can show that you had intent to land, per the FAR above. I've only heard of exactly ONE CASE where a low pass was officially approved at other than an airshow, etc. Do not assume any of the Feds will be there to defend you. They will not put their ticket on the line for yours you can bet on that.

terrykohler
03-12-2009, 07:00 PM
Interesting posts. Lets see if I can summarize:
The rules are for everyone else, not me.
I can do whatever I want, as long as I'm willing to lie about it.
If I do it at some other airport, it's okay.
If someone reports me for doing something wrong, they're the bad guy.
If no one sees me doing it, no problemo.
If I'm not sure it's okay, I'll do it anyway - easier to ask forgiveness rather than permission.
What happened to being a good neighbor? What happened to the rules? The more noise we make close to the ground and the more people we aggravate, the sooner we end up loosing our privlege of flight. Sometimes, even being "right" doesn't matter. Have fun and fly safe.
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP

steveKs.
03-12-2009, 07:03 PM
In the case of the Skyhawk on the runway I would have called a 'go around' and while explaining my actions I would have used the phrase "in the interest of safety" about a hundred times.

Just go to a nice friendly quiet uncontrolled airport and practice your 'go arounds'. You may even want to film them........in the interest of safety.

N941WR
03-12-2009, 07:05 PM
I... Technically its illegal, unless you can show that you had intent to land, per the FAR above. I've only heard of exactly ONE CASE where a low pass was officially approved at other than an airshow, etc. Do not assume any of the Feds will be there to defend you. They will not put their ticket on the line for yours you can bet on that.
Hummmm, someone I know very well was flying by a military airbase and was going to fly over the top. Out of curtisy he called the tower to let them know his intentions. The tower cleared him into their class delta airspace and asked him to make a high speed pass right in front of the tower. Their reason was, "We like RV's".

I'm guessing that might be legal but I don't really know.

Jamie
03-12-2009, 07:07 PM
There was a recent incident very similar to Bill's that got a lot of press. It was a low pass by a business class jet (I believe it was a Citation). The pass was pre-arranged with the tower. The FAA busted the crew because they made the pass without the gear down, meaning they had no intent to land.

A good friend of mine who is a regular contributor to this forum got threatened with a 6 month ticket suspension for much less serious an infraction (attempting a turnback to a runway to simulate an engine failure on take-off).

Let's face it. The FAA has these investigators sitting at their respective FSDOs looking for something to do. If they don't go after anyone, their bosses start feeling like they're not doing anything and the investigators start feeling like they're job may be in jeopardy. They will bust you for whatever reason they want and they will never, ever admit that they were wrong. It cost my friend multiple thousands of dollars.

The biggest problem with the FAA is that they write the regs, AND they interpret them.

Bill Wightman
03-12-2009, 07:15 PM
I'm a professional aviator, a 12000 hour pilot / CFI / former USAF instructor and a law abiding citizen.

I had no intent to violate any reg. Is a 100' pass down a runway a "problem" in your mind? Would you have gone around, or over another aircraft that unexpectedly stayed on the runway?

Read my post again, you'll see it was the airport manager and FAA who did all the lying. My post makes clear the FAR's and the possible outcome of having the FAA interpret them to our disadvantage. I still have the certified letters to prove it.

fehdxl
03-12-2009, 07:36 PM
Hypothetically speaking...what if someone requested a low-approach at the local Air Force base? Can't actually touchdown because it's military property and a civilian aircraft. Can that be done? There's 'no intention of actually landing.' Or should the low-approach be terminated 500' AGL if considered sparsely populated or 1000' AGL if considered densely populated. Things that make you go hmmm? BTW, maybe an aircraft flying by with the gear up is actually a go-around because the gear had been forgotten to be lowered in the first place.

rvbuilder2002
03-12-2009, 08:05 PM
Hypothetically speaking...what if someone requested a low-approach at the local Air Force base? Can't actually touchdown because it's military property and a civilian aircraft. Can that be done? There's 'no intention of actually landing.' Or should the low-approach be terminated 500' AGL if considered sparsely populated or 1000' AGL if considered densely populated. Things that make you go hmmm? BTW, maybe an aircraft flying by with the gear up is actually a go-around because the gear had been forgotten to be lowered in the first place.

I believe this is why simulated/practice instrument approaches with no intent to land are typically terminated at 500 ft AGL

Bill Wightman
03-12-2009, 08:05 PM
Hypothetically speaking...what if someone requested a low-approach at the local Air Force base? Can't actually touchdown because it's military property and a civilian aircraft. Can that be done?

I did this very thing many years back at Tinker AFB, OK. I was actually stationed there at the time, flying E-3's. I had a friend in the back of my 4, and he wanted to see the base up close from the air.

Came up on tower freq and they had no other aircraft around, so they cleared me in. They also cautioned me NOT to touch down. I did the pass... they even gave me compliments on the paint job! (see avatar) I then departed their airspace. No problems that time, but I believed I was acting in full compliance with the "minimum safe altitude" regs. (and I still think so)

Could this be seen as a problem by the Feds? Probably not, but again even if you're trying to play by the rules and be nice to everyone, some Official might be there in his car watching for just what you did.

I also know a guy who worked in the local TRACON here in OKC who got busted at a towered airport (KPWA) for making repeated low passes in a C210. Yes, it was provocative flying. So, having tower's approval doesn't necessarily mean the FAA will also approve if they "investigate" a complaint. Just beware.

breister
03-12-2009, 08:28 PM
The only FAR you could bust is the FAA speed limit below 10K. Not likely.

You don't say where you live, but I live in a very urban airpark. Although the pass could be legal please consider the "fly neighborly," concept. That is what we have to do. The only ones that can get away with it are the warbirds that reside here. No problems for them, but if several RV's started doing the same thing, the calls would come in.

Love the speed!!!!

Careful with that - speed limit is LESS beneath (in?) Class B.... Something like that, check to be sure!

:eek:

terrykohler
03-12-2009, 09:16 PM
Bill:
I was pretty much shotgunning all of the posts. Glad your situation ended up alright from your perspective. In the end though you've got an airport manager who's unhappy with you, and a C172 driver who's probably convinced that he flew a standard pattern and after landing felt he was going too fast to make the turnoff, and then had a hotrod running up his backside. Yes, you did the right thing, and nobody's happy.
Read some of the other posts. We've got a pass a few feet off the pavement moving roughly the length of a football field per second. He's checking the field. Is it really necessary? Think his SA might improve with a few more feet of altitude and a few less knots? Oh yeah, and all the neighbors have been properly alerted by a lot of unnecessary racket. We've got other posts suggesting something other than the home field. Great, now the poor guys based at next-door airport are put on notice by local neighbors who don't know the "bad guys" are from somewhere else. Air force? Are they the ones who flare to land?
Just my $.02.
Terry

B25Flyer
03-12-2009, 09:43 PM
I had a situation with the FAA regarding a low pass and i got in a little hot water.... I derserved it, I knew better, and I crashed because of it....

I was inbound to a runway grand opening ceremony when the mayor called me on the radio and said his gull-wing Stintson would not start. He asked if I would clip a ribbon for the ceremony.

Being one to never miss an airshow, especially if I am in it! I obliged. Long story short, the ribbon went in the carb, the engine quit and I ended up farming.

I was violated for low-flight and careless and wreckless. All the fed kept saying was, "Why didn't you call us, we would have happily issued a waiver...." "I kept saying i didnt plan to do it..."

Long story short, every time you make a low pass you do it at your own peril. If a Fed sees it and thinks you are having too much fun, you could have a problem.

One of the many "gotchas" is the approach lights, ILS anntenas, etc are all considered structures and even if you stay 500 feet away from any other person, they can still get you if they choose too.

Intent to land is not the test because I do a missed approach on an ILS every 6 months with a Fed in the right seat and we go right over the cars at the end of the runway at 200 ft. They will not answer the question what defines "take-off or landing."

Repeat after me: The FARs are written ambigously to allow arbitrary enforcement.

Those of you who think the rules are black and white live in a dream world. There is lots of gray in the interpertation, and when it comes to enforcement actions, it seldom cuts our way.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

groucho
03-12-2009, 09:47 PM
I generally steer clear of doing anything near an airport that could be mistaken as violating a reg. Don't get me wrong, I've done my share of low passes, but to me it's just not worth messing with. I plan all my stupidity well clear of people & airports now (especially if my video is rollin'). :D

This reminds me though...I really need to go flying!

nucleus
03-12-2009, 10:14 PM
Wow, you live in a skypark and you have a neighbor like this? That bites.

Hans

I've got a neighbor here at KE79 that has decided that I must be doing something wrong when I make a recon pass prior to landing. He's called the FSDO, the FSDO called me and we talked things over. The only reason they couldn't violate me was because I only ever do one pass and it really is to check the field over. On two occasions I've had to swerve to avoid dogs roaming on the runway.

If you have someone out there with the purpose of filming, you are probably up for a bust. A recon pass is legal, a film pass is not. Anytime you are within 500 feet, verticle or horizontal, of a person, building, or property, it better be for the purpose of takeoff or landing. A recon pass is considered for the purpose of landing...filming is not.

Now get this, the neighbor is still not happy, so he's started filming my pass to gather evidence so he can coerce the FSDO into starting an enforcement action. Yes he is number one with me.

tcone1
03-12-2009, 10:38 PM
Terry,

The 18 inches was the power setting, not the altitude. My SA is just fine up there at 10 feet or 100 feet, depends on time of day and expected bird activity. As for my speed, it's just a few knots faster than my normal approach speed in the jets I make my living flying.

As far as noise goes, a little homework will show that low power and medium speed is a heck of a lot quieter than a slow pass hanging on the prop.

Is my recon pass necessary? Do a little quick math for me. Will my landing gear survive running into a 25 pound dog at 45 knots? I didn't think it would, which is why I swerved radically enough to risk a ground loop to avoid finding out last time. I now look the field over before landing.

Bill:
I was pretty much shotgunning all of the posts. Glad your situation ended up alright from your perspective. In the end though you've got an airport manager who's unhappy with you, and a C172 driver who's probably convinced that he flew a standard pattern and after landing felt he was going too fast to make the turnoff, and then had a hotrod running up his backside. Yes, you did the right thing, and nobody's happy.
Read some of the other posts. We've got a pass a few feet off the pavement moving roughly the length of a football field per second. He's checking the field. Is it really necessary? Think his SA might improve with a few more feet of altitude and a few less knots? Oh yeah, and all the neighbors have been properly alerted by a lot of unnecessary racket. We've got other posts suggesting something other than the home field. Great, now the poor guys based at next-door airport are put on notice by local neighbors who don't know the "bad guys" are from somewhere else. Air force? Are they the ones who flare to land?
Just my $.02.
Terry

AX-O
03-12-2009, 11:10 PM
Let's face it. The FAA has these investigators sitting at their respective FSDOs looking for something to do. If they don't go after anyone, their bosses start feeling like they're not doing anything and the investigators start feeling like they're job may be in jeopardy. They will bust you for whatever reason they want and they will never, ever admit that they were wrong.

Sir,
No disrespect intended with my post. However, I think that is a little over the top. There is no need to generalize in that manner. I would not (and do not) like when people say RVators are all Top Gun pilots wannabes.

Regarding the RV in a military base, it is legal. Well, as long as you have the correct permissions, insurance coverage and forms. I have done it. In fact there is a Harmon Rocket that regularly comes into the carrier break at home base.

To the originator of the post, thank you for asking this question. I did not realized that I could potentially get in trouble for doing a low pass. Can’t say high speed fly-by because my 140 does not fly that fast.

arffguy
03-13-2009, 02:26 AM
Since when would a "low approach" without intending to touch down be considered a violatable defense?

Look up "low approach" section 4-3-12 and "option approach" section 4-3-22 in the AIM.

I would argue that these people are abusing their positions and that they need to read their own dang AIM more often.

Personally, I would go after anyone trying to "violate me" for making a 'low approach."

The simple fact is as Doug R. points out "The FARs are written ambigously to allow arbitrary enforcement." If they have got it out for you, they are going to look at every rule until they make one stick.


CFI Terry, I respectfully disagree with two of your comments.

"If someone reports me for doing something wrong, they're the bad guy."
"What happened to the rules?"

You seem to make the argument that a low pass is against the rules. I disagree. High speed versus training missions are where the argument comes.

Geico266
03-13-2009, 05:27 AM
Let's face it. The FAA has these investigators sitting at their respective FSDOs looking for something to do. If they don't go after anyone, their bosses start feeling like they're not doing anything and the investigators start feeling like they're job may be in jeopardy. They will bust you for whatever reason they want and they will never, ever admit that they were wrong. It cost my friend multiple thousands of dollars.

The biggest problem with the FAA is that they write the regs, AND they interpret them.

DING DING DING! Bingo! We have a winner! :D

170 driver
03-13-2009, 05:52 AM
Is it also a violation then when you lift off and stay 1 foot above the runway and pull up at the end, not exceeding the pitch angle?

Webb
03-13-2009, 05:54 AM
Here it is directly from the FAR - the gotcha parts
***************************************
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight—

(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;

(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface

[Doc. No. 18834, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91–227, 56 FR 65661, Dec. 17, 1991]

*********************************
I would consider a high speed pass an intentional manuever at a low altitude.

B25Flyer
03-13-2009, 05:57 AM
For another paradox question.....

What if Vx or Vy exceeds 30 degrees pitch?

Vy gets me to the highest altitude soonest and that is the safest, so am i supposed to sacrifice safety to be legal?

Yes, I know the answer but I don't like it, and leave your protractor home when I am taking off.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

170 driver
03-13-2009, 06:49 AM
It's like everything else I guess,,,if it's fun or the least bit exciting it is illegal or either someone is trying to make it illegal.

Rick6a
03-13-2009, 09:14 AM
.......They will bust you for whatever reason they want and they will never, ever admit that they were wrong.......I recently posted a thread in which I asked if I should continue with AOPA's Legal Services option. Predictably, some pilots viewed it as a waste of money and others saw the real benefit. But even more telling than the responses posted on that thread were the private e-mails I received, all of which were written by RV pilots that have been subject to FAA sanctions over the years. One unexpected e-mail came from a very well-known member of the RV community and asked I not use his name. I certainly respect that.
....got together and reported me to the FAA..... Cost me thousands of dollars to fight it. It started out with a revocation, ended up with a 100 day suspension.......
I can only conclude that being violated by the FAA is not all that rare an occurance. More pilots than you might suppose have had action taken against them and very, very few are willing to publically admit it. To that I say...Kudos Steve Allbee, good on you! Your public admission is rare indeed.

Given the complexity, confusion, arbitrary, and mean-spirited manner in which a Rubic's cube of FAA regulations can be enforced, I decided that when all is said and done, I will continue to pay for the AOPA Legal Services plan and hope to God I never have reason to need it.

rv6ejguy
03-13-2009, 09:43 AM
I'll be the unpopular one here. Do you have to do high speed low passes? Why? Well, I know it must be a rush and they are cool to watch, but...

Unless you are former military, you are not a fighter pilot, even in your RV which is really pretty slow compared to military stuff.

Next time you do one, maybe think of the NORDO aircraft you didn't see. It happened up here with a 300+ knot pass (not an RV) and an ultralight turning crosswind. They missed by less than 150 feet (say .33 seconds) , just by luck.

It might be fun, you might usually get away with it but Lord help you if something like this goes wrong or the wrong people see you do it. Many have no idea of all the legal problems which can land in your lap.

I'll admit some regs are stupid and senseless but the same can be said for pilots who think they can bend or break any reg to suit themselves. Sorry, to me, it just shows a lack of professionalism.

Somehow I don't think a 200 knot pass at 50 feet is going to hold much water using the excuse of runway inspection.

If you must do them, why not away from the airport? I know it might not pump your ego up as much. Big egos need an audience- oh yeah.

Just another viewpoint but I have 4 layers of Nomex on anyway as I'm sure most won't agree...

Bill Wightman
03-13-2009, 10:10 AM
Ross - Well for me on that particular day, it was #1 fun, and #2 something my prospective buyer wanted to see, and #3 no violation of FAR's as I believed their intent to be.

And, hey - I have a great deal of respect for your thoughts here. As always, you show respect for those who might not hold your opinion. Doesn't matter if you feel like you're in the minority. No need to hesitate on your part. Remember, steel sharpens steel.

hngrflyr
03-13-2009, 10:50 AM
Legal or not, I did it not too long after purchasing my RV-6. 210 mph at about 5' high, I hit a small bird. I saw it come through the prop arc, but didn't feel it hit my left fuel tank just outboard of the #2 rib. It made a dent the size of my fist in the tank. I can do without a repeat performance.

GAHco
03-13-2009, 11:54 AM
I had just finished major structural repairs on a Cessna 310r that got its tail knocked off by a 727, while the 310 was taxiing where the controller told him to.

My boss after a very successful test flight wanted to celebrate with a low pass at a high speed.

long story short, an FAA flight examiner was there for a helicopter operator, and witnessed this. :o

He was impressed, by that I mean impressed enough to cite the 310 pilot.:eek:

It stuck, it sucked, and he was told be the FAA that the low pass is not legal. I don't have all the FAR's in front of me but it was something like un-approved exhibition, endangerment, and aerobatic flight.

Unless you have a really big fireplace mantle to keep what could be only a full size RV trophy sitting there, that you can no longer fly due to you being grounded, I suggest you be very cautious.

If you think things are watched now, just wait, many authorities will look for any excuse to make it so only the birds can fly in their areas.:confused:

breister
03-13-2009, 11:58 AM
I got a certified letter from the FSDO about a month later which said I was seen "performing acrobatics over the airport and in close proximity to other aircraft". Exact quote - and total BS. (for you third graders out there: "acrobatics" is what a gymnast does. "aerobatics" is what an airplane does. But I digress...) After they got sworn letters from my witnesses, the FAA then changed their charge to that of violating FAR 91.119(c) , which reads:
...

Now that you have won, you might wish to file a lawsuit against the INDIVIDUAL and the city/county for falsifying public records and slander. Let the county and city know you will be happy to dismiss the charges if they dismiss the person. S/he will be swiftly removed, and it will only cost you about $100.

breister
03-13-2009, 12:15 PM
I'll be the unpopular one here. Do you have to do high speed low passes? Why? Well, I know it must be a rush and they are cool to watch, but...

The problem with this straw man is that every time you accede to one diminishment of your freedom you will be asked to "compromise" 10 more times - and each time you refuse those denied will stare at you and say, "Well you did it LAST time, why is THIS any different?"

Flying 300KIAS (above the legal speed limit) with wheels up (not possible in an RV) 10 feet off the runway (or off any other solid surface) is illegal and dangerous. Flying 180KIAS 50 feet off the runway with gear down and bolted (landing configuration), either at an uncontrolled field or with the permission of the tower, is not prohibited and therefore legal. Nor is there any requirement that I am aware of on an approach to a field to have "an intent to land."

Now, getting angry at the idiots of the world is pointless - they outnumber us significantly. However, standing up for your rights is NEVER pointless.

Use good judgment, follow the law, and be fair but firm when dealing with nonsense.

N941WR
03-13-2009, 12:19 PM
Say I drop my flaps and fly down the runway at 50 - 60 MPH and then do a "normal" climb out. Is that legal?

Ironflight
03-13-2009, 12:37 PM
Say I drop my flaps and fly down the runway at 50 - 60 MPH and then do a "normal" climb out. Is that legal?

I'd think it would be a heck of a lot more easy to defend as a "balked landing" if challenged - and it would make runway inspection a lot more thorough and easier as well. My opinion, of course, and not that of any regulatory agency...

Randy
03-13-2009, 12:58 PM
Wow, there have been some great responses to this post. Thanks to all. I have learned more hear than I would have pouring through the regulations for sure. I was hesitant to do a low pass at my own airport since we have a few FAA guys here and they have a history of ruining peoples fun. I don't care to become one of there targets.

I would like to do this partly for the thrill of the speed rush, but more so to get the video and audio for replay. I think my Turbo Subaru sounds really good at about 5000 RPMs with planty of boost to it, but I don't get to hear it go by fast, with that doppler effect and all.

If and when I do it, there won't be any hero aerobatics at the end of the runway etc. I know about the statistics for low altitude aerobatics. It reminds me of those famous last words that have been said many times on the radio, just before another smoking hole got created, "watch this". If I ever hear my mind sending the signal to my lips to say those words, a very load alarm will go off and I promise to come back to my senses and tell Mr. Ego where he can go...

I appreciate the warning about bird strike potential. That really could ruin a persons day.

Randy C

rv6ejguy
03-13-2009, 01:05 PM
The problem with this straw man is that every time you accede to one diminishment of your freedom you will be asked to "compromise" 10 more times - and each time you refuse those denied will stare at you and say, "Well you did it LAST time, why is THIS any different?"

Flying 300KIAS (above the legal speed limit) with wheels up (not possible in an RV) 10 feet off the runway (or off any other solid surface) is illegal and dangerous. Flying 180KIAS 50 feet off the runway with gear down and bolted (landing configuration), either at an uncontrolled field or with the permission of the tower, is not prohibited and therefore legal. Nor is there any requirement that I am aware of on an approach to a field to have "an intent to land."

Now, getting angry at the idiots of the world is pointless - they outnumber us significantly. However, standing up for your rights is NEVER pointless.

Use good judgment, follow the law, and be fair but firm when dealing with nonsense.

Good post and this has been a valuable discussion I think. There are several issues contained within the topic. Airplane haters living close to airports which have already been there for 30-40 years bug me too.

jetjok
03-13-2009, 01:41 PM
I can only conclude that being violated by the FAA is not all that rare an occurance. More pilots than you might suppose have had action taken against them and very, very few are willing to publically admit it. To that I say...Kudos Steve Allbee, good on you! Your public admission is rare indeed.

Given the complexity, confusion, arbitrary, and mean-spirited manner in which a Rubic's cube of FAA regulations can be enforced,.....

24 years ago, I too was the subject of an enforcement action by the FAA. I was young and foolish in that I placed trust in the POI that contacted me about the matter. The result was that this young and eager pilot soon found himself in a fight he was not prepared for. Two years later, I was forced to endure a 45 day suspension of my ATP.
The initial complaint was written by a man whom I was delivering to serve a life term in Leavenworth for rape and mayhem. The FAA put enough credence in this man's statement that I was performing aerobatics in the pattern at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport (yep...the big one) to take me to task. Now one would think that it would be a simple matter to disprove that allegation and be done, correct? Not so fast...It was incumbent on me to prove that I had not done a roll while in the pattern. However, during the investigation it was determined that there had been a maintenence issue with the plane after my alleged aerobatic display. Guess where the focus of the investigation shifted to? I lost my ATP for not completing paperwork that did not even exist at my company! As an aside, the FAA suspended my pilots license in lieu of my A&P even though it was really a MX issue.
The FAA has very broad powers to begin an investigation and to cast a net until they catch something, even though it may not be germane to what initially led to the investigation.
So, we are now north of 50 responses on a simple question about the legality of a seemingly inocuous low pass. It seems to me that the lack of ability of the inteligent members of this forum to be able to definitively answer the question is the answer in and of itself. No one can make a clear statement, because of the capricious application and vagries of the FAR's. What the apparent rule may be in one instance, is not what it is in another.
So, my 2 cents worth is that if you make your living with your ticket, you need to protect it at all times. Even if you do not fly for food, you must be vigilant to assure that you know your audience and what the potential is for someone making your life miserable.
Would I ever make a low pass? None of your business! If I were to do it, would any person whom I did not have their address be there to see it? Likely not!

N941WR
03-13-2009, 02:56 PM
The funny thing about this, I have seen one of the local FAA guys make a low formation pass over an uncontrolled airport in formation with another plane and both had their gear up and no one busted them.
This happened at one of our EAA chapter fly-in’s with lots of people watching.

Go figure.

RV7Factory
03-13-2009, 03:26 PM
Flying 180KIAS 50 feet off the runway with gear down and bolted (landing configuration), either at an uncontrolled field or with the permission of the tower, is not prohibited and therefore legal.
My understanding is that it is illegal, so I went searching from more information and came across this (http://www.skypark.org/Whats%20Legal.htm). It certainly isn't official, but it's worth a read. Be sure to read the "THIS EMAIL" link in the ADDENDUM at the bottom.

McLovin
03-13-2009, 03:32 PM
Allbee,
How is it that 12 pilots would all be against you, what is it that you may have done to upset the masses?

azav8or
03-13-2009, 04:05 PM
From what I observe in these posts, the legality of the low pass is directly proportional to the witnesses involved. If you are willing to risk your ticket to the discretion of an anonymous fed then you are braver than I.

iwannarv
03-13-2009, 04:06 PM
How about being 1000' agl and doing an overhead break in the pattern? Say you go over the 60 degree bank angle, you're under 1500' so somebody can bust you for flying a recognized approach?

Webb
03-13-2009, 04:14 PM
How about being 1000' agl and doing an overhead break in the pattern? Say you go over the 60 degree bank angle, you're under 1500' so somebody can bust you for flying a recognized approach?

An overhead approach is just that, an approach.....with an intent to land.

I guess if you're in that 90 knots of screaming terror, folks on the ground would just assume it was a baulked landing.

az_gila
03-13-2009, 04:31 PM
How about being 1000' agl and doing an overhead break in the pattern? Say you go over the 60 degree bank angle, you're under 1500' so somebody can bust you for flying a recognized approach?

...overhead break with over 60 degrees of bank below 1000 ft altitude could get you written up for low level aerobatics if the FAA was being fussy....:mad:

LarryT
03-13-2009, 05:30 PM
in his novel [U]Animal Farm[U], "some are more equal than others."

The funny thing about this, I have seen one of the local FAA guys make a low formation pass over an uncontrolled airport in formation with another plane and both had their gear up and no one busted them.
This happened at one of our EAA chapter fly-in’s with lots of people watching.

Go figure.

Bill Wightman
03-13-2009, 05:32 PM
To Mark Ohlau: your post brings much clarity to an issue we've had difficulty defining. What a story and what great advise. Thank you, I will remember this one.

osxuser
03-13-2009, 06:04 PM
First off, it's not "the FAA" that is the problem. It's the inspector that works at the FSDO, and sees something he doesn't like when he's at the airport doing something else (Usually an airworthiness guy, not flight ops) or the guy that feels like he has to report it to the FSDO. Once the FSDO gets such a report, they are OBLIGATED to investigate it. We would expect nothing less from them, because there are some real problems out there than need to be investigated.

One problem I've often seen is the assumption that pilots are guilty until proven innocent, which is the tack that is normally taken. Yeah we at the tower will approve you for the option, but you will never hear "Cleared for high speed pass" out of my mouth. I love watching people who know what they are doing perform low passes, but for every one person who does it safely, there are three or four who shouldn't do it at all, because they don't know what they are doing or the million things that can go wrong, birdstrikes being only one.

I will say this, I work for the FAA, I do them on occation. I ask for a "low approach", I do them fast and low, I don't care if FSDO comes after me because I don't fly for a living anymore. If you actually read the regs, you'll realise that nothing you do when you fly is legal, and yet all of it is. If FSDO takes action, I'll figure something out, begging forgiveness actually works a lot better than fighting them... I can live with 30 days on the beach if they want to.

n5lp
03-13-2009, 06:35 PM
...overhead break with over 60 degrees of bank below 1000 ft altitude could get you written up for low level aerobatics if the FAA was being fussy....:mad:Let us please remember that 60 degrees of bank is one of the standards for when a parachute is required. Aerobatics is a whole other deal and doesn't have any such hard and fast number.

iwannarv
03-13-2009, 06:51 PM
...overhead break with over 60 degrees of bank below 1000 ft altitude could get you written up for low level aerobatics if the FAA was being fussy....:mad:

Sorry for not clarifying, the low-level aerobats was what I was getting at, if an eyeball for the FAA was being 'fussy'.


I guess if you're in that 90 knots of screaming terror, folks on the ground would just assume it was a baulked landing.

This is true...

AX-O
03-13-2009, 07:17 PM
Just talked with a safety inspector in the FSDO. I was told to make sure and announce my intentions (he said that is very important), make sure my actions would not endanger anyone in the air or ground (to include passengers), do not disturb air traffic and make sure I am not outside the envelope for 91.13. I quote “low high speed passes in an RV are not illegal, keep it below 250 knots”. 91.119 may apply if it is at an airport/airpark and houses or structures are within the 500 or 1000 ft bubble. He said that if someone complains, they are force to go out and investigate.

It was as simple as that. Now if I get into a situation where a low pass is causing neighbors or people problems, I can say I spoke with Mr. XYZ (of ABC FSDO) and he told me the following on this day. My pass was per our conversation and regs. He also said if you find yourself looking at a flight violation, to read the regs, understand them and explain your interpretation to the FAA and why you did not do anything wrong.

I suggest you do the same as I just did. Ask the question. If they do or do not have an issue, they will let you know.

RV3 Pilot
03-13-2009, 07:44 PM
Just talked with a safety inspector in the FSDO. I was told to make sure and announce my intentions (he said that is very important), make sure my actions would not endanger anyone in the air or ground (to include passengers), do not disturb air traffic and make sure I am not outside the envelope for 91.13. I quote “low high speed passes in an RV are not illegal, keep it below 250 knots”. 91.119 may apply if it is at an airport/airpark and houses or structures are within the 500 or 1000 ft bubble. He said that if someone complains, they are force to go out and investigate.

It was as simple as that. Now if I get into a situation where a low pass is causing neighbors or people problems, I can say I spoke with Mr. XYZ (of ABC FSDO) and he told me the following on this day. My pass was per our conversation and regs. He also said if you find yourself looking at a flight violation, to read the regs, understand them and explain your interpretation to the FAA and why you did not do anything wrong.

I suggest you do the same as I just did. Ask the question. If they do or do not have an issue, they will let you know.


Why would you want to fly in a manner that causes people or neighbors problems? I think one should try to be an ambassador not an antagonist.
just sayin
RV 3 pilot

AX-O
03-13-2009, 07:59 PM
Why would you want to fly in a manner that causes people or neighbors problems?
RV 3 pilot

I don't. I guess "causing people problems" could be explained better. I was not implying safety or anything like that. "Causing people problems" to me means any reason for someone else to complain (the original reason for this thread and how others have got into problems). i.e. noise complains or whatever else people can get mad about. Sorry for my poor expression.

Bruce
03-13-2009, 08:24 PM
How about being 1000' agl and doing an overhead break in the pattern? Say you go over the 60 degree bank angle, you're under 1500' so somebody can bust you for flying a recognized approach?

Now everyone is thinkin about high speed passes you have to read the tag line on IWANNARV'S SIGNATURE.

I sure like the Kansas guys. They are ALL flyboys.

Boomer

former Kansan

breister
03-14-2009, 10:36 AM
I'll stick my neck out one more time on "holding firm but fair." A previous poster had a link to another web site with a quotation of the regs:

91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes:

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.

Now, his conclusion was that the most important part was "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing." But, in reviewing these conditions I would read:
a) At high speed you could still either land straight ahead (approach end); and you should insure you have a plan on where to land should problems befall you at any other point along your flight path. At some airports no "safe out" exists, and for those you should not attempt the maneuver;
b) An airstrip is by definition not a congested area;
c) The airstrip itself may reasonably be construed to be a "sparsely populated area"

Now, I'm not advocating that everyone go out there and give a giant finger to the FAA - particularly if your livelihood depends on flying. Nor am I recommending 9-g pullups to the vertical or any other "overly abrupt maneuvers." However, I happen to believe that a descent to a 200KIAS pass (less "under Class B airspace," and I really need to go look that up that clause again) over the strip proper down to 100' or so is both safe and legal - and if you took all the right precautions (e.g. aware of all traffic, acknowledgment from proper sources, etc.) there is no good reason not to allow people to see you flying your airplane.

The flip side, of course, is that there are some mean spirited FSDOs out there with a burr under their saddle - and if you aren't prepared to dig your heels in and open your wallet for attorney's fees then you probably should take a more conservative approach to flying. Caveat Emptor.

Freedom is never free...

:D

cawmd82
03-14-2009, 11:13 AM
This whole thread--which started out innocently enough--seems like must reading for all of us who engage in "Sport Aviation". In my mind, this-- by definition--includes aerobatics to one extent or the other, the occasional pull up, overhead approach, or any of many maneuvers that could, according to some miscreats definition, be construed as annoying, dangerous, unnecessary, or somesuch.

Due to the potential arbitrary definitions and enforcement of same I just went to AOPA and signed up for the $29 legal service program.

I hope I never need it but mix an RV8, 5 days of rain in DFW, a few gallons of avgas, and nothing else to do tomorrow afternoon with a CAVU forecast and I feel the possibility of some inverted 200 mph internal combustion coming on.

Some @#$%^#$ may not approve.

jrs14855
03-14-2009, 05:32 PM
91.117
a. 250 knots ias below 10,000 msl
b. C and D airspace, 200 kias below 2500 agl. Within class B 250 kts.
c. Below B airspace 200 kias

az_gila
03-14-2009, 06:56 PM
Let us please remember that 60 degrees of bank is one of the standards for when a parachute is required. Aerobatics is a whole other deal and doesn't have any such hard and fast number.


...but then it might just change the discussion to "what is normal flight?" - and the FAA fussy inspector person might even construe a much more gentle overhead break to be aerobatic...:(

For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

I guess you could get hosed whatever you do...:mad:

n5lp
03-14-2009, 07:05 PM
...I guess you could get hosed whatever you do...:mad:Yep! I can picture an abrupt transition to a 20 degree nose up and 30 degree bank being construed as aerobatic; easily. I have felt for many many years, starting with when I was with the FAA, that something can be found that is illegal on each and every flight. Kind of takes the incentive away to try to do things legally.

grover
03-14-2009, 07:11 PM
"Repeat after me: The FARs are written ambigously to allow arbitrary enforcement. "


more prescient words have not been written - - -at least not on the web. . . . .

SkywayCaptain
03-14-2009, 08:18 PM
I see FAA operated King Air's doing 150kt passes, over the runway, below 500ft, without intent to land quite often. Wonder if they have a waiver??? :D

fehdxl
03-14-2009, 08:55 PM
I always thought this regulation made a lot of sense.

Section 91.15: Dropping objects.
No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property.

So this federal regulation tell us we can do something that may be a hazard as long as we take reasonable precautions. Too bad title 14 CFR doesn't say we can operate an aircraft in any manner/airspeed/altitude/airworthiness/<you fill in the blank> as long as we take reasonable precautions. Along these lines, the adage 'there are old pilots and there are bold pilots; but there are no old bold pilots' comes to mind. The price of experience is often very costly.

Just another 2 cents worth.

-Jim

John Clark
03-14-2009, 09:59 PM
I see FAA operated King Air's doing 150kt passes, over the runway, below 500ft, without intent to land quite often. Wonder if they have a waiver??? :D

Since one of the important missions of the FAA’s King Air 300 fleet is checking the airways and calibrating approach avionics, I am sure that they have "permission" to do their job. :rolleyes:

John S. Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Member
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

Norman CYYJ
03-15-2009, 12:13 AM
In Canada we have a regulation that states that no one shall enter an aircraft while in flight. So I guess if we are flying along minding our own business and some one comes along and knocks on our door we can't let them in.

osxuser
03-15-2009, 12:14 AM
What about the Lear 60 shooting the VOR-A approach at 160Kts..... without minimums that allow for that.... it was a FlightCheck bird... :D

dhammer
03-15-2009, 04:32 AM
Since one of the important missions of the FAA’s King Air 300 fleet is checking the airways and calibrating approach avionics, I am sure that they have "permission" to do their job. :rolleyes:

John S. Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Member
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

I believe that most US governmental aircraft are operated as Pubic Aircraft and not per FAR's and their Type Certificate. Some states do the same. As such, most of the FAR's don't apply to them. Overweight takeoff's and minimums etc. - doesn't matter. These aircraft do not carry a Type Certificate even though they may be an exact copy of a civil Gulfstream.

There have been some regulation changes to the Public Service rules and our bureaucrats are complaining e.g. this from a congressional hearing -

"The problem seems to be that for many years government agencies operated their aircraft free of most Federal regulations. Now, as a result of legislation passed last year changing the definition of ''public aircraft,'' many State and local agencies must comply with FAA rules when their planes carry people for non-law enforcement purposes and for other reasons, just passenger-type service, I guess you could say. This certainly could make these flights safer, but the fact is that it increases the cost of operation.

At a time when governments at all levels are tightening their belts, these new FAA rules could be viewed as another unfunded Federal mandate. Agencies that are unable to bear these costs and unable to get an FAA certificate for their aircraft are then limited in how their aircraft can be used.

The issue is complicated by the fact that many private sector aircraft operators can provide the services now performed by public aircraft. They believe that public aircraft in some ways are stealing a portion of their business."

The real issue they are expounding about is these rules cost politicians their free rides. :rolleyes:

Don

plehrke
03-15-2009, 05:37 AM
In Canada we have a regulation that states that no one shall enter an aircraft while in flight. So I guess if we are flying along minding our own business and some one comes along and knocks on our door we can't let them in.

Only let them in if they pass a back ground investigation, have a picture ID, and show a valid boarding pass.

Norman CYYJ
03-15-2009, 09:11 AM
Right, and with my luck it would be a Transport Canada or FAA inspector. Then I am in deep do-do.

N941WR
03-15-2009, 09:14 AM
In Canada we have a regulation that states that no one shall enter an aircraft while in flight. So I guess if we are flying along minding our own business and some one comes along and knocks on our door we can't let them in.

There was a skydiver who jumped from one plane to a Stearman. I guess that didn't happen in Canada though. Or maybe it did and that's why they have the regulation.

dhammer
03-15-2009, 01:20 PM
Here's a couple more -

http://www.extremesportclips.com/video/1260/From-One-Plane-to-Another.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohz8Lled8sU

Enjoy

breister
03-15-2009, 02:36 PM
91.117
a. 250 knots ias below 10,000 msl
b. C and D airspace, 200 kias below 2500 agl. Within class B 250 kts.
c. Below B airspace 200 kias

Thanks - I knew it was something like that. My bird can just top 200KIAS down low, so I could conceivably get busted for breaking the speed limit while descending towards my airfield.

osxuser
03-16-2009, 10:15 AM
Not really, because there is no way they can prove what your INDICATED airspeed was. Ground speed doesn't mean a thing as long as it's kinda close, we had a Columbia come in at 200+ Kts GS into our pattern.... it screws it up for us, but it's legal... of course the fact that he couldn't change frequencies from socal to us fast enough to call in while outside of our airspace WASN'T legal... use common sense, if you THINK you shouldn't be doing it, DON'T.

breister
03-16-2009, 10:44 AM
Not really, because there is no way they can prove what your INDICATED airspeed was. Ground speed doesn't mean a thing as long as it's kinda close, we had a Columbia come in at 200+ Kts GS into our pattern.... it screws it up for us, but it's legal... of course the fact that he couldn't change frequencies from socal to us fast enough to call in while outside of our airspace WASN'T legal... use common sense, if you THINK you shouldn't be doing it, DON'T.

Maybe not for you folks - however, I'm one of those evil non-RV flyers, and I could easily hit 250KIAS indicated in an easy descent. Home field happens to be underneath Class B, too. That wouldn't be a hard call for an observant controller on a windless day...

:)

Edit: A Rocket might also have the same "opportunity" to screw up - be careful out there, lawyers are looking for work!

agough277
03-16-2009, 10:56 AM
Had a high speed pass by a Ford Trimotor over our residential airport yesterday, no complaints.

rvmills
03-16-2009, 01:07 PM
Not really, because there is no way they can prove what your INDICATED airspeed was. Ground speed doesn't mean a thing as long as it's kinda close, we had a Columbia come in at 200+ Kts GS into our pattern.... it screws it up for us, but it's legal... of course the fact that he couldn't change frequencies from socal to us fast enough to call in while outside of our airspace WASN'T legal... use common sense, if you THINK you shouldn't be doing it, DON'T.

Maybe not for you folks - however, I'm one of those evil non-RV flyers, and I could easily hit 250KIAS indicated in an easy descent. Home field happens to be underneath Class B, too. That wouldn't be a hard call for an observant controller on a windless day...

:)

Edit: A Rocket might also have the same "opportunity" to screw up - be careful out there, lawyers are looking for work!

Steve's right, ATC is looking at GS readouts, and it might be tough to prove you are over a limiting indicated airspeed, unless you are quite a bit over. That being said, if your in a busy terminal area, especially if the approach controllers are vectoring IFR aircraft for visual approaches and are assigning them airspeeds to manage separation, then the controllers will have an idea of what the winds are doing, and will notice if an aircraft is particularly fast (even if you aren't assigned a particular airspeed).

My thought in this kind of scenario would be to listen up to what is going on around you, and if airspeeds are being assigned, then match them as you approach the terminal area to better fit into the flow. Keep your SA high and fly friendly to ATC, and you will be treated well (IMHO and experience).

Kinda OT for the Hi Speed Pass question, but the discussion of good airspeed management in the terminal area is a good related topic.

Cheers,
Bob

osxuser
03-16-2009, 06:16 PM
I'd say past 230Kt's someone might question, but remember, at 4000', 200 indicated could easily true out at 230kts.... depends on DA and a whole slew of other things. Just keep it close. The Lancair guys joke at coming in in the overhead at 215kt's like it's gonna be a problem, but really it's not. As long as we know you are gonna be fast, and most should, it's fine.

I had a Mooney ask for a low approach, and planned him coming it about 160kt... my trainer thought he would be slower and asked by I didn't launch one of the guys holding short... I said "just watch", Vooom went the mooney at about 150, and then I launched the next departure....

So yeah, some youngsters (like my trainer) may not know exactly how fast you can go.

vgb
03-16-2009, 10:47 PM
Lets see if the cattle are over this hill, Maybe I'll make a low pass so my passanger foreman can get a head count. Hope there is no feds around to see me. But I have a job to do.:D

Captain Avgas
03-17-2009, 04:15 AM
A good friend of mine who is a regular contributor to this forum got threatened with a 6 month ticket suspension for much less serious an infraction (attempting a turnback to a runway to simulate an engine failure on take-off).



How could this possibly be illegal. You take-off, you fly straight ahead, you bank through 180 degrees, and you perform a straight in landing. What part is not compliant with the regs.

Turnback manoeuvres after simulated engine failure are now standard practice for recurrent flight training on single engine turbine aircraft.

sonny junell
03-17-2009, 10:07 PM
Every one loves airplane noise when it's appropriate! Just remember there is a bad guy in every bunch and then the bunch gets big enough the bad guys get to form a committee. :)

dhall_polo
03-17-2009, 11:32 PM
I believe that most US governmental aircraft are operated as Pubic Aircraft

I hear that there are a lot of pubic aircraft operating around private strips. The bush pilots on the list may be able to comment more on such sightings.

sglynn
03-17-2009, 11:37 PM
It busts the minimum altitude rules which requires 500 feet in rural area except for takeoff/landing It also breaks the "unsafe" rules.

One legal low pass you can do is at a towered airport, you can ask for a low pass rather than a touch n go or landing and they'll approve it.

RV3 Pilot
03-17-2009, 11:52 PM
It busts the minimum altitude rules which requires 500 feet in rural area except for takeoff/landing It also breaks the "unsafe" rules.

One legal low pass you can do is at a towered airport, you can ask for a low pass rather than a touch n go or landing and they'll approve it.

I think a tower approved low pass is legal also but can't prove it. Any help out there?
Tom

gvgoff99
03-18-2009, 12:56 AM
If your approach speed is too fast to land (a fact that you noticed when you saw that you were landing down wind) and you decided to do a "go around" and land in the direction that was favorable it would be hard to get busted. A "Go around" is not illegal. They are at the pilots discretion. Safety of flight is up to the pilot not the onlookers. So that is always a good excuse for not landing on the first pass or second or third if you think the landing may not turn out well. That decision is totally up to you.

On the other hand: I do agree you don't want to wake up the neighborhood and do want to be courteous. So if you are worried about people getting up tight it is probable best to find a place that would not disturb folks.

Kahuna
03-18-2009, 06:47 AM
Allow me to give you some first hand experience.:mad:
1. Vague regs will NOT support your cause. FAA sits judge and jury. Its their sandbox.
2. It only matters who you **** off, and which inspector gets your case. Politics wins these cases. Not the facts. Evidentiary rules do not apply. You will never see your accuser.
3. The same person that sends your your suspension is the one that takes your appeal.
4. No controller can waive a regulation. "Approved as requested" means nothing. Read my lips.... What a controller approves or requests from you is not defense is a case against you with the FAA.
5. Defending your case costs thousands.
6. ANYONE can write the FAA, allege anything, and the inspector can suspend you without speaking to you. You can appeal. And you can attempt to make him/her inspector/FAA attourney, say that they were wrong and made a mistake. Appeal hearings are very expensive. I can assure you that the hearing case law is not on your side. The win/loss percentage in appeals is far against you as a pilot. Every flight is illegal. One mans safe flight is another mans careless operation. Its an unchecked system.
End of rant.