What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Is high speed pass legal?

Randy

Well Known Member
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
 
Legal

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!!!!
 
500 ft from any structure, 1000 ft over congested areas

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.
 
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
 
All due caution

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.
 
high speed pass

Just say you were in the intrest of safety checking out runway conditions, and if they don't buy that then ----------
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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
 
or on short final, you key the mic and say...."is that a raccoon on the runway?, Nxxx going around"


no harm, no foul
 
condo commandos

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!
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Definitively - NO

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Terry, not even close

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
BTDT - low pass over military field

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.
 
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:
 
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
 
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
 
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!
 
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.
 
18 inches, as in power setting

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
 
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.
 
This topic put me in a bad mood.

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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
.......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.
 
Why?

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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
It aint legal!

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. :eek:

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:
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
What about a slow pass?

Say I drop my flaps and fly down the runway at 50 - 60 MPH and then do a "normal" climb out. Is that legal?
 
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...
 
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
 
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.
 
Exactly

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!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top