What's new
Van's Air Force

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

A culture of safety?

N941WR

Legacy Member
This evening I was on a conference call with an aviation organization, the exact organization isn't important.

Part of the discussion centered on how to host a "safe" fly-in. During that discussion it was brought up that recently, at a large regional fly-in, an "RV-4" performed a high speed pass, pulled up, rolled the plane, came around and landed, where they had a visit with an FAA representative on the field.

These impromptu flight displays are dangerous to the pilot (and passengers), other aircraft in the area, and puts the continued hosting of the fly-in in jeopardy.

My question is this, how do we, the aviation community, convince pilots not to "show off" during fly-ins?
 
As long as the show-off pilot continues to get high-fives and atta-boys from spectators (and pilots....) on the ground after landing it will be very difficult to change attitudes.
 
As long as the show-off pilot continues to get high-fives and atta-boys from spectators (and pilots....) on the ground after landing it will be very difficult to change attitudes.

Sam is correct - until all of us show the courage not to support such behavior, we do NOT have a culture of safety - and mishaps (and potential enforcement actions, and crackdowns....) will continue.

Interestingly enough, if a person crashes doing a low level stunt, it gets categorized as a "Loss of Control" accident, right there along with the poor guy who stalls/spins on the base to final turn. One has to do with poor judgement, the other with poor skills - totally different causes, but folks are busy trying to fix LOC accidents with a single fix.

I always say that if you just love doing low level aerobatics for the pure fun of it, go ahead and do them far away from anyone. But for some reason, they are just more fun with an audience, aren't they?

Paul
 
What happened to the rv4 guy? Was the faa guy impressed? Or did he get the book thrown at him?

We have had similat incidence at our flyin breakfast. One year a local ag pilot decided to give a crop dusting demo. The field owners get very upset because their insurance does not cover them for an "airshow", only a fly-in. A dumb stunt can void their coverage. He got a mixture of high fives and death threats when he landed. It is a hard problem to solve. I guess education is the only solution, and harsh enforcement.
 
Tough nut to crack when similar maneuvers are both glorified, through legal and heavily promoted air shows, and vilified/criminalized, through safety forums and FAA enforcement.

People will pay money to see death defying acts. Some people are willing to perform them for free. I don't see that changing.

Erich
 
A Couple of Well-Worn Expressions Come to Mind

"You can't fix stupid" and "He's Over 40, You're not going to change him"

Bill:
I know this subject has been kicked around on a number of occasions, yet it keeps cropping up. If the sponsors of a fly-in don't want this to happen, they probably need their promo to show something like, "Unauthorized high speed flyovers or aerobatics are not permitted and will be reported".
Until we're willing to "shoot a few prisoners", we really can't expect the rest of the miscreants to fall in line, especially, when there's someone on the ground giving them a high five, or worse yet, now anxious to go out and do it themselves for a little recognition.
Talking with most of these folks just doesn't work - history tells us that. If we're really concerned about everyone's safety, and our words have fallen on deaf ears, we need to be willing to call the people that are capable of enforcing that safety. I guess I'd rather do that than find myself sitting around the airport table at some point in the future and telling everyone "I knew he'd kill himself sooner or later".
Terry, CFI
RV9A N323TP
 
Old problem

This is an old problem. No easy solution. I think peer pressure is the right answer, which will take time. If you want an example of this behavior in the military, read the report on the Fairchild AFB B-52 crash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash

I've seen confrontations with the guys doing this kind of thing, and it usually goes in one of several ways: "sorry, you are right, I was stupid, won't happen again". That's one of the best, rare conclusions. Mostly, it's "I know what I'm doing; I have my freedom; let them try to pry my ticket from my smoking, burning, fingers; mind your own business; etc."

I hate to be fatalistic, but perhaps we as a society need to accept that there are people who just want to be different, and sometimes they will kill themselves and others, and we should take reasonable measures to avoid this, but need to accept that the problem and the risk will be there unless we ban all humans.

Driving to the grocery store entails risk, and some crazy person might decide to crash into you. If you go to a flyin, some crazy person might do something stupid and crash into you. There is risk in everything we do and even in what we don't do.

</rant>
 
I am pretty much convinced that trying to change that type of behavior in an individual is fruitless.

Where I direct my energy is making sure that those who are impressionable don't try to follow in their footsteps. We change our culture not all at once, but by influencing the next generation in teh direction we want it to go - and frankly, letting the bad behavior weed itself out from the cultural gene pool.

Influence the ones you can in a positive way - it takes time, but it works.

Paul
 
Influence the ones you can in a positive way - it takes time, but it works.
Paul

Well stated. That is all we can do.

Recently an experienced pilot on our field came in hot, landed long, but made a good landing albeit right on the edge of what would be considered safe. A young man who I know who is working on his ticket was observing. I asked him what he thought of the landing. "That was coo!", he said. I told him that pilot had hundreds of hours and a ton of experience. When you get your ticket, if you are not touching down on the first third of the runway, go around. If you don't, I will kick you. (That's positive isn't it?) He understood.
I was hangar flying with another newly minted RV7 pilot. Another neighbor and I where at his place when a local came in. The new guy said "watch this, he makes the coolest approach and landings". The pilot made his "banana" approach, got a bit slow, and just then a gust picked up a wing and he almost scraped it. "Oh my" said the new guy. He didn't think that was so cool and promised us he would stabilize his approach and not try what he see's many of our more experienced guys do.
So, it isn't just about illegal and dangerous flying. New pilots observe experienced guys doing advanced things perfectly safe and legal and want to emulate that. That can be just as dangerous, and perhaps even more so, than the "hot dog".
We can all do our part in educating the new guys, but they just want to be like those they admire.
 
So, it isn't just about illegal and dangerous flying. New pilots observe experienced guys doing advanced things perfectly safe and legal and want to emulate that. That can be just as dangerous, and perhaps even more so, than the "hot dog".

I agree with the spirit of the main portion of your post; this last bit I find to be a bit of a slippery slope.

The runway at my home airport, for example, is 4000' feet long and RVs only need a portion of it; as a result, I often aim for about 1/3rd of the way down as that makes the taxi convenient (and I still have lots of room for the unexpected gust etc). Should I not do that and always aim for the numbers because that is what student pilots at the field are taught? Student pilots can't launch into an 800' overcast; should I not do that since they can't and I don't want to be a bad example?

I think the answer to those questions are obvious - but what about things which are perhaps a bit murkier - taking off and landing as a two-ship, or pulling an overhead approach, or any number of other things?

I feel like no one wants to allow room for pilot skill, because that might be seen as "anti-safety". I have seen a friend with 10x the hours and experience I have do things I thought were über cool with his RV, but I would never try them. Not because they weren't safe, but because they weren't safe for me. Shouldn't teaching upcoming pilots to recognize their own limitations be somewhere in the discussion?
 
I am pretty much convinced that trying to change that type of behavior in an individual is fruitless.

Where I direct my energy is making sure that those who are impressionable don't try to follow in their footsteps. We change our culture not all at once, but by influencing the next generation in teh direction we want it to go - and frankly, letting the bad behavior weed itself out from the cultural gene pool.

Influence the ones you can in a positive way - it takes time, but it works.

An entire generation of pilots born in the post WWII years grew up wishing to emulate our aviation heros, who were, almost without exception, a group who took significant risks.

Now we have very, very few aviation risk takers to emulate, and a constant chorus of "safety, safety, safety" in both civilian and military aviation. Not surprisingly, the adventurous personalities pursue other passions, and the pilot population shrinks.

Think about it. Why do we wish we were our friend Vlad? Why do we celebrate his crossing the Bering Sea behind a 3000 hour Lycoming, or going VFR between the ridges in conditions that would scare a goose? These things are not safe, not by any reasonable definition, but we consider them acceptable, even desirable. Could it be that we all have a nagging hunger for a bit of risk in our lives?
 
Anyone have actual accident statistics related to low passes performed at fly-ins? I see many threats to the viability of sport aviation in the future. I think I differ from most here regarding how I rank low passes at fly ins in the scheme of things...not that I'm blind to the risk aversion trajectory society is on. Walking helmets are just around the corner.
 
Last edited:
I was in my hangar at AVL one day when I heard the unmistakable roar of a military jet in afterburner. I dropped my tools and ran outside just in time to see an F-22 taking off. As soon as his wheels were up, he pulled into an almost vertical climb to what I estimated was 7,000' AGL, at which time he pushed over, did a couple aileron rolls, and went on his way. It was just awesome and tower didn't say a thing except "contact departure". LOL!
 
An entire generation of pilots born in the post WWII years grew up wishing to emulate our aviation heros, who were, almost without exception, a group who took significant risks.

Now we have very, very few aviation risk takers to emulate, and a constant chorus of "safety, safety, safety" in both civilian and military aviation. Not surprisingly, the adventurous personalities pursue other passions, and the pilot population shrinks.

Think about it. Why do we wish we were our friend Vlad? Why do we celebrate his crossing the Bering Sea behind a 3000 hour Lycoming, or going VFR between the ridges in conditions that would scare a goose? These things are not safe, not by any reasonable definition, but we consider them acceptable, even desirable. Could it be that we all have a nagging hunger for a bit of risk in our lives?


I don't really disagree with you Dan, in the sense that most fly for adventure and the like - you'll notice that in my post, I never specified ecxactly what behavior is "acceptable", and what is not - I am simply talking about how we can change the culture to whatever we might want that to be.

Heck, I spent a career doing (and helping others to do) one of the riskiest things ever thought up by humans - literally blowing other humans off the planet (and brining them back through a fireball). But we did it in a way where we minimilaized any risks that we could control, and understanding the probabilities of the ones we couldn't. And folks still think it is cool - but also know that they can't just go do it with a bunch of dynamite, some old oil drums,and football helmet. (Well, there are probably some that would still try it that way...."hold my beer!").

Is there any actual risk for an experienced aerobatic pilot to do a roll on take-off, or a high speed pass? Well yes, but it is minimal. The danger comes when some young guy feels that in order to be "part of the club", they have to do the same thing. And then they get killed because they haven't had the right instruction in how to do it properly to survive.

It's all about mitigating the risks that you can to accomplish your goals, and then carefully understanding the risk that are left - and consciously taking them, or rejecting the activity. But to do stuff without thinking about the risks? That gives everyone a black eye.

We can do exciting and adventurous things - we just have to put some thought into them, and not charge in unprepared. Vlad has a MUCH bigger background in that kind of flying than most folks realize - and I'd hate to se a low-time pilot charge off into the wilds without knowing the Russian's experience level (which he is too modest to talk about...much).

Good discussion!
 
I am pretty much convinced that trying to change that type of behavior in an individual is fruitless.

Where I direct my energy is making sure that those who are impressionable don't try to follow in their footsteps. We change our culture not all at once, but by influencing the next generation in teh direction we want it to go - and frankly, letting the bad behavior weed itself out from the cultural gene pool.

Influence the ones you can in a positive way - it takes time, but it works.

Paul

I think the only behavior I can influence is my own. I think meeting cars head on in the lane beside me at 120 mph differential velocity with only a painted line between is very dangerous and yet most of us accept and do that every day. I understand the intent of this thread, but doing foolish things is often it's own punishment. Like feeding bears and sea lions for photo ops.
 
Speaking of Russians

As Paul Dye just wrote "Vlad has a MUCH bigger background in that kind of flying than most folks realize"

I was once told that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was quoted as saying:
"The difference between Russians and Americans is that Russians are an inch wide but a mile deep." I can't find any actual printed reference, but it works in this case.
 
Paul and Dan

I am a student of aviation history. Lindbergh expected to only survive 3 months but believed the risk was worth it.
Lindy and others flew in weather that was unbelievably bad with no radios and in the early days nothing but a compass. Lindy bailed out twice I believe in bad weather.
Until the era of well equipped small airplanes scud running was an accepted way of life. Paul Poberezny, Duane Cole and Steve Wittman routinely flew VFR in weather that was below Standard ILS approach minimums.
For a very short time Duane wrote for Flying Magazine. He was allegedly fired for writing about scud running.
My take on this is that the low pass with a sharp pullup is infinitely safer for an experienced and competent pilot than scud running.
I could tell dozens of stories about well known aerobatic pilots. Some of them Airline Captains. Many of them did things routinely that would make the FAA have a fit.
I am a reformed low pass, low level aerobatics scud runner. I kind of miss those days.
I did not know Vlado Lenoch and never saw him fly. By many accounts he was one of the most experienced P51 pilots in the world. On Sunday he crashed fatally with the P51 with another pilot in the back. The passenger was the airport manager and an active ag pilot. The stated intent of the flight was to demonstrate to the passenger the low level airshow that he had just done. Details can be found on kathrynsreport.com.
 
Risk

I think the only behavior I can influence is my own. I think meeting cars head on in the lane beside me at 120 mph differential velocity with only a painted line between is very dangerous and yet most of us accept and do that every day. I understand the intent of this thread, but doing foolish things is often it's own punishment. Like feeding bears and sea lions for photo ops.
Plus one except on the interstate in West Texas the differential is 160 plus and the semis frequently outnumber the cars. That median strip doesn't mean much at those speeds. I would much prefer to be 10 feet off the ground inverted in a Pitts.
 
There seems to be a couple questions being discussed here. OP asked about preventing illegal aerobatics at fly-ins. That is an FAR violation whether you're a 5 hour student pilot or Chuck Yeager. Landing long, (pre-briefed) formation flight, flight over hazardous terrain, or aerobatic flight consistent with FAR 91.303 are perfectly OK though they may be outside a particular pilot's skill or comfort zone.

Flying (like many other fun activities) involves a certain amount of risk and each of us gets to decide how much of that personal risk they want to accept. The attendees at the average fly-in or the grade school a mile from airport XXX do not get that same choice. I know the FAA works in strange and mysterious ways and their regulations do not always make sense, but some of them are written in blood. FAR 91.303 is not written to protect us, its written to protect the community.

As Paul suggests, it's tough to convince someone who's been flying that way for awhile to change and much more effective to train the new generation correctly from the beginning. I do think there is value in politely approaching the pilot first. If someone thought I'd been flying in an unsafe manner, I would much prefer talking with them directly. Mistakes do happen and dialog can resolve a lot of misunderstanding. That said, the guy that responds with an expletive laced "yeah, I did an aileron roll on approach. Don't tell me how to fly" Probably deserves to talk it over with the FAA.
 
I don't really disagree with you Dan, in the sense that most fly for adventure and the like...... I am simply talking about how we can change the culture to whatever we might want that to be.

Wasn't a rebuttal Paul, just commentary. We don't disagree, as both our backgrounds involved risk management. And you've raised the real question; what do we want the safety culture to be?

The current regime isn't teaching risk management. It's teaching aversion...that the pilot who accepts a risk is a fool, and subject to sanction. It's a culture driven by bureaucratic goals, not practical thought.

Stall and spin training is a good example. There was a time when spin recovery was a required skill. Then it became optional. Now the safety folk don't want instructors fully stalling the airplane....and we have airline crews stalling into the ground. But hey, they never break rules.

It's all about mitigating the risks that you can to accomplish your goals, and then carefully understanding the risk that are left - and consciously taking them, or rejecting the activity. But to do stuff without thinking about the risks? That gives everyone a black eye.

Well said. Let's teach it.
 
Unless its an airshow all runway passes violate the FARs unless they are >500'. That is a problem.

It would be much safer if the FAA yielded a bit to human nature, and added provisions to the FARs for safe passes. That would allow those that are going to do them regardless to at least have some guidance on doing them safely.
 
Unless its an airshow all runway passes violate the FARs unless they are >500'.

Not quite. Many airports are definitely in "sparsely populated areas" at which point the requirement becomes not 500' AGL, but simply remaining 500' in any direction from persons, vessels, vehicles, or structures....which is very possible in many places.
 
Unless its an airshow all runway passes violate the FARs unless they are >500'.
Really? Could I ask for a reference for that? Does it apply regardless of speed? If I decide that, for proficiency reasons, I want to fly the length of a runway a foot or so off the deck without touching down, am I violating a FAR regardless of the speed? How about a low & slow pass over a turf runway I've never visited before to check for holes and water? This is a serious question.
 
Really? Could I ask for a reference for that? Does it apply regardless of speed? If I decide that, for proficiency reasons, I want to fly the length of a runway a foot or so off the deck without touching down, am I violating a FAR regardless of the speed? How about a low & slow pass over a turf runway I've never visited before to check for holes and water? This is a serious question.

91.119(c)

Trees falling in forests comes to mind with what you are saying. And it's pretty hard to perform any flight that could not be construed as violating an FAR at some point if some Fed wants to bust your *** bad enough. The key is don't open yourself up to pissing someone off that bad. Simply what you describe isn't gonna do it. So don't worry about it.
 
Was the high speed pass, the pull up, or the roll unsafe or illegal?

"According to the FAA (FAR ?91.303), aerobatic flight is defined as ?an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft?s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.?
 
Really? Could I ask for a reference for that? Does it apply regardless of speed? If I decide that, for proficiency reasons, I want to fly the length of a runway a foot or so off the deck without touching down, am I violating a FAR regardless of the speed? How about a low & slow pass over a turf runway I've never visited before to check for holes and water? This is a serious question.

In the context of this discussion with people watching presumably from nearby.
 
Not quite. Many airports are definitely in "sparsely populated areas" at which point the requirement becomes not 500' AGL, but simply remaining 500' in any direction from persons, vessels, vehicles, or structures....which is very possible in many places.

What is the FAA definition of a "sparsely populated area"? Isn't it "other than congested areas"? What is the FAA definition of a congested area?
 
Well Bill, it looks like our culture is more about bickering about the letter of the law, than is about discussing safety.
 
Well Bill, it looks like our culture is more about bickering about the letter of the law, than is about discussing safety.

Nope, just what tends to happen when a topic has run its course. You're free to continue to expound on low passes and safety if you like.
 
Last edited:
91.119(c)

Trees falling in forests comes to mind with what you are saying. And it's pretty hard to perform any flight that could not be construed as violating an FAR at some point if some Fed wants to bust your *** bad enough. The key is don't open yourself up to pissing someone off that bad. Simply what you describe isn't gonna do it. So don't worry about it.

Ah, OK. I'm familiar with that, of course. In the bit I quoted the statement was "all runway passes" (emphasis mine); I was just trying to clarify whether he actually meant "all high-speed passes", or if there was something I had missed. 91.119(c) does include the words, "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing"; those were the instances about which I was curious.

I'd hate to be arguing with Mr. FAA Guy after a go-around; probably best not to be beating up the runway and showing off the mighty aerobatic prowess of the fearsome RV-12.
 
At least 1 person making a complaint.

Believe it or not, that WAS FAA's answer when this question was asked back in the early '80's when the ultralight era got popular.

"If you fly over 1,000 people and no one complains, it wasn't congested.
If you fly over 2 people and one of them complains, it was congested!"
 
Well, lots of excursions in this thread. Some scary comments and some very rational ones too. I am not a safety expert, but in one of my professional responsibilities had 60 engineers doing test and validation for heavy machinery at a proving grounds. 3 shifts, 7 days a week. Tons of steel in an harsh unforgiving environment, pushing the machinery to its limits and maybe beyond. The CEO made edicts about safety. It was up to us to fix the stats. Someone hired a consulting company to help us address the issues. Normally, we expected just the standard tighter rules, more rules and more draconian discipline. Not so. This was about a true culture of safety. It centered around identifying potential situations that might cause injury then avoiding or mitigating the situation. Once the physical factors were identified judgement was the next factor.

If we want a culture of safety, we (IMO) should follow the same format. Identify potential of a situation (low pass, roll on climb out), then address factors that can contribute to good judgement in the execution of said situation.

I think Paul hit on this - part of this is changing behavior, but mostly changing the thinking of pilots that might want to to do these maneuvers. Giving them the mental tools to preemptively self evaluate their actions. Not to stop them, but to have reason and considered thinking applied in advance so that the proper judgement can be applied.

I believe this safety thinking and risk mitigation also applies to building kit planes, and making modifications to said planes. There are certain validation tests that are done (or should be) before the plane flies. Most builders don't have the engineering, design, testing background to know if mods present additional risks or limitations when they are done. Fuel systems configurations are a good example. We don't need or want the FAA to come make some rules for the EA community on the construction and pre flight validations anymore than we want them to make more rules for gatherings. We also don't want to become the FAA.

While there is a lot more than can be discussed on this topic - - a final comment.

Rules defeat the freedoms we enjoy, when there are better ways to truly create a "culture" of safety, we should apply them instead.

Like Stein says, my 2 cents.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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_or...09/anderson - (2009) legal interpretation.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
 
Here an interesting link:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...09/anderson - (2009) legal interpretation.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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top