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?

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.
 
breister said:
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.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that it is illegal, so I went searching from more information and came across this. 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.
 
Pilots

Allbee,
How is it that 12 pilots would all be against you, what is it that you may have done to upset the masses?
 
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.
 
overhead break?

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?
 
iwannarv said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps... but the...

iwannarv said:
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?
Click to expand...

...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:
 
According to George Orwell...

in his novel Animal Farm, "some are more equal than others."

N941WR said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
az_gila said:
...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:
Click to expand...
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.
 
az_gila said:
...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:
Click to expand...

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

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

This is true...
 
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.
 
AX-O said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
RV3 Pilot said:
Why would you want to fly in a manner that causes people or neighbors problems?
RV 3 pilot
Click to expand...

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.
 
iwannarv said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
AOPA Legal services

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.
 
SPEED LIMITS

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
 
True...

n5lp said:
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.
Click to expand...


...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:
 
az_gila said:
...I guess you could get hosed whatever you do...:mad:
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
well. . . .

"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. . . . .
 
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
 
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
 
Approach maintenance

SkywayCaptain said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
What about the Lear 60 shooting the VOR-A approach at 160Kts..... without minimums that allow for that.... it was a FlightCheck bird... :D
 
FAA Aircraft

John Clark said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Norman CYYJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Only let them in if they pass a back ground investigation, have a picture ID, and show a valid boarding pass.
 
Norman CYYJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jrs14855 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
osxuser said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
osxuser said:
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.
Click to expand...

breister said:
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!
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
low pass

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
 
Jamie said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bad Apple

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. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
how low can you go?

dhammer said:
I believe that most US governmental aircraft are operated as Pubic Aircraft
Click to expand...

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.
 
Its not legal

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.
 
sglynn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top