VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > Safety
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-21-2017, 09:32 AM
luddite42 luddite42 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

So I pulled all the fatal E/AB accidents from the last 5 years - E/AB only because you don't typically see Cessna/Cherokee pilots do low passes ending w/ sharp maneuvering. There was exactly one fatal accident involving an aircraft performing the classic low pass/pull up/roll attempt (RV-8A). Barrel rolled into the ground. Safe to say he exceeded his abilities. No passenger, fortunately. The next closest incident was a Bushby Mustang staying low on take off, then attempting a sharp pull up and stall/spinning. And that's it for accidents related to low runway passes. Glean from that what you will. Here's the breakdown of the rest:

Loss of control (LOC) in the pattern (4)
Takeoff accidents (8)
Landing accidents (6)
Engine failure LOC/crash (non pattern) (12)
Aerobatic LOC (non low level) (3)
Aerobatic LOC (low level) (1)
Aerobatic break up (4) incl. an RV-7A
Maneuvering LOC (non-acro or unknown) (9)
Impact unknown reason (4)
Cruise collision w/ terrain (1)
Power line collision (non airport) (2)
Inflight breakup (4)
"Moose stall" (circling turn stall) (1)
VFR-IMC (4)
Inflight fire (3)
Prop separation (1)
Mechanical issue LOC (3)
Medical event (2)
Pattern midair (1)
Fuel exhaustion (1)
Ditching (1)

Last edited by luddite42 : 07-21-2017 at 09:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-21-2017, 09:37 AM
keen9a's Avatar
keen9a keen9a is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 231
Default

Yes, I should have said flyby's vs "runway passes" (flyby being a flight past people, etc).

The point is that people are going to do them. Unless the FAA relaxes the rules, no one is going to write safety guidelines that are much needed. The strict 500' rule with no exceptions for over a runway prevents the culture of safety discussion. No one is going to publish guidelines for breaking the rules.
__________________
Ben Keen
RV-9 Flying 8/21/2016
http://www.pbase.com/benkeen/rv9
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-21-2017, 09:47 AM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,205
Default

Getting back to the original situation that was talked about, the low pass, pullup, and roll at a fly-in. I think it's clear to everyone that it was a violation of the FARs. At least, in Canada it would be a violation of the CARs, I assume we're closely enough aligned.

If a pilot like that lands and when confronted tells you to "F off" or words to that effect (and i've seen that happen), the response should be a call to the FAA (or in Canada, TC). I know people don't want to "'rat out" their fellow pilots, but casual peer pressure clearly isn't enough.

Consider another activity that peer pressure hasn't eradicated yet: You see a driver weaving down the road at night. You pull up next to him at a light and roll the window down and say "Hey, are you okay? You might want to pull over and park for the night..." Care to predict the response from the inebriated driver? After they give you the finger and drive off, do you drive home and think "well, I tried...," or do you call 911?

Low level aerobatics, like enjoying fine brews, have a time and place where they can be done safely. Venture outside those times and places, and the risk to yourself and others increases significantly. Society has decided that they don't want to partake in your risk.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-22-2017, 11:30 PM
F1R F1R is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ____
Posts: 618
Default Church of the High Speed Pass

Well I certainly won't be throwing the first stone.

https://youtu.be/5WLROUBMhUk?t=5m35s

Anybody know what ever happened to the RV guys that did a music video with RV's to this ballad?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-23-2017, 12:15 PM
luddite42 luddite42 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Ah...must be all those Stearman guys causing the low pass accidents.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-24-2017, 01:18 PM
bdserv bdserv is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Winsted, CT
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keen9a View Post
Unless its an airshow all runway passes violate the FARs unless they are >500'. That is a problem.
Does that make practice ILS approaches to minimums illegal?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-24-2017, 02:51 PM
ChiefPilot's Avatar
ChiefPilot ChiefPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,487
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdserv View Post
Does that make practice ILS approaches to minimums illegal?
I think his phrase "the FARs", without citing a specific one, means he's guessing. He's probably referring to 91.119(a) and 91.119(c), and interpreting the runway as an "other than congested area" but one which is not "sparsely populated".

There's a host of things that would be illegal if his interpretation was in fact correct: practice approaches to mins as you note, low fly-bys to check for runway fouling, student practice for go-arounds, and probably others.
__________________
Brad Benson, Maplewood MN.
RV-6A N164BL, Flying since Nov 2012!
If you're not making mistakes, you're probably not making anything
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-24-2017, 04:13 PM
spatsch spatsch is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Randolph, NJ
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefPilot View Post
I think his phrase "the FARs", without citing a specific one, means he's guessing. He's probably referring to 91.119(a) and 91.119(c), and interpreting the runway as an "other than congested area" but one which is not "sparsely populated".

There's a host of things that would be illegal if his interpretation was in fact correct: practice approaches to mins as you note, low fly-bys to check for runway fouling, student practice for go-arounds, and probably others.
Here an interesting link:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...rpretation.pdf

In particular it states that the takeoff/landing exception applies to low approaches.

It also says that congested area is defined on a case by case basis but 20 houses was sufficient to become a congested area in at least one case.

There are 20 houses at our airport so that makes our airport a congested area which would make 91.119(b) apply and you can't be below 1000 feet unless you are covered under the takeoff/landing exception.

I would think a low pass to check the runway would be covered under that exception too but you will have a difficult time to argue a low pass at VNE was required to check the runway .... .

Oliver
__________________
Oliver Spatscheck
RV-8 & J-3
N-2EQ & NC-49762
http://www.spatscheck.com/oliver
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-24-2017, 04:44 PM
ChiefPilot's Avatar
ChiefPilot ChiefPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,487
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spatsch View Post
Here an interesting link:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...rpretation.pdf

In particular it states that the takeoff/landing exception applies to low approaches.

It also says that congested area is defined on a case by case basis but 20 houses was sufficient to become a congested area in at least one case.

There are 20 houses at our airport so that makes our airport a congested area which would make 91.119(b) apply and you can't be below 1000 feet unless you are covered under the takeoff/landing exception.

I would think a low pass to check the runway would be covered under that exception too but you will have a difficult time to argue a low pass at VNE was required to check the runway .... .

Oliver
I think most of us are aware of that interpretation - and I'd agree that a 200kt pass might not pass the smell test at some airports. By the same token, it very well could at others - so it is back to a case-by-case basis and not a flat out exemption according to "the FARs", which was exactly my point.
__________________
Brad Benson, Maplewood MN.
RV-6A N164BL, Flying since Nov 2012!
If you're not making mistakes, you're probably not making anything

Last edited by ChiefPilot : 07-24-2017 at 05:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:19 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.