Fly by’s

[Ragsf15e]

9 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

Yeah they do. I heard them tell a tripple 7 a couple weeks ago when i was flying over lax.

I think you misheard him then or didn’t know what altitude the 777 was.

The speeds are regulatory and they can’t clear you to break a reg. Hemispheric altitudes are only recommended, so fair game.

Above 10,000’, they definitely assign airspeed above 250kts.

Chapter 4-4-1(a) of the Aeronautical Information Manual "an ATC clearance 'is not authorization for a pilot to deviate from any rule, regulation, or minimum altitude.'"

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ragsf15e

[PT20J]

28 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

No, they can’t clear you to violate a regulation:

2. "Maintain maximum (or best) forward speed" means the maximum or best forward legal speed. ATC does not have the authority to lift the 250 kias below 10,000 feet speed restriction [91.117(a)]. You cannot be cleared to violate a regulation, and you cannot accept such a clearance.

91.117   Aircraft speed.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).

The Administrator has delegated authority to ATC to assogn speed as required to sequence and separate aircraft within controlled airspace. 

[EricJ]

Such regs are also exempted for aircraft which require higher control speeds in various configurations, particularly during climbout.   IIRC this is typical for the heavies like 747, etc.

It's not unusual to see the heavies climbing faster than 250kts below 10k ft on flightradar24.

[MB65E]

Other than exempt aircraft, The reg on the speed is the reg! ATC does NOT have the authority to relieve reg speeds. Guys have been violated at SJC for flying a published speed on a chart (max 230kts) That portion of the departure just happens to be under SFO Bravo airspace. 200 kts! Whoops!! Tecky3 rnav.

Also , “resume normal speed” dose not relieve one from a published speed restriction. “Delete speed restriction” will relieve the published speed, but not the reg speeds. 

As for the flybys don’t shine your ass.  I personally I wouldn’t call the FSDO, however these things always seem find the goof balls in the crowd. 

Wish I had these speed issues in my airplane! 

-Matt

[joepilot]

No, we’re not calling the Feds over this.  Geesh!  But if I can get our airport manager to publish something, it may cut down on them. But my original question was if someone had any contrary facts from the regs that made these (intentional fly by’s, not go around’s) legal. 

[joepilot]

6 hours ago, kortopates said:

Many people have been violated for this under 91.119 c).  if its a high speed pass, it clearly not for landing or a go around. Do some fancy maneuver at the end, and they could tag on carless and reckless 91.13

FAR 91.119(c)

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.
 

Exactly, kortopates. 

For you guys who are answering my question of “where’s the language that says you can?” with a question “where’s the language that says you can’t?”, it’s there in the first sentence: “Except for take off or landing”. 

I’m only asking if anyone knows of an FAA interpretation or language (not hangar talk) that exempts (a), (b), or (c) above. 

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

No, they can’t clear you to violate a regulation:

2. "Maintain maximum (or best) forward speed" means the maximum or best forward legal speed. ATC does not have the authority to lift the 250 kias below 10,000 feet speed restriction [91.117(a)]. You cannot be cleared to violate a regulation, and you cannot accept such a clearance.

Authority or not, it is done. 

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, joepilot said:

Exactly, kortopates. 

For you guys who are answering my question of “where’s the language that says you can?” with a question “where’s the language that says you can’t?”, it’s there in the first sentence: “Except for take off or landing”. 

I’m only asking if anyone knows of an FAA interpretation or language (not hangar talk) that exempts (a), (b), or (c) above. 

If many people have been violated as Paul (@kortopates) says, they either had lousy or no legal representation or there is more to the story.  The AIM section I posted earlier provides clear guidance on the issue. It’s interesting you keep mentioning 91.119 yet you’ve chosen not to address the AIM guidance that actually has the phrases low approach and low pass stated in the first sentence of the section titled Low Approach. It’s as if you as if you are intentionally ignoring published FAA guidance on the issue because it is contrary to your viewpoint. Color me happy you don’t work for the FAA.

 

[bradp]

10 hours ago, M016576 said:

the only time I wouldn’t declare an emergency in a situation like this would be if I was at an uncontrolled airport far from a controlling agency.  

I’ve also been an advocate of having a low threshold for declaring an emergency but not every abnormal needs priority handling and/or trucks rolled  

I was thinking about difficulty retracting gear rather than extending... it’s a little less black and white. As long as no distractions or obstacles exist all the pilot might need from  

Or say that a gear coming down issue has been troubleshot already and only verification is needed to confirm gear down. 

My personal story - knocked my gear crank with the edge of my worn seat cushion when adjusting my seat.   Gear crank position is not part of my checklist or scan.  Had a odd rattle and no change in gear position when I selected gear up.  This was at Lynchburg VA - towered airport.  I asked tonremain in pattern as my gear was stuck.  Fly the plane wait till established at pattern altitude and the option.  Flipped crank retracted gear successfully and off I should go.  However tower asked my if I could do a low approach to verify gear up.  I obliged - knowing full well my gear was up an and locked.  This in no way reached my threshold for declaring but I did a low approach at towers request.  

While we’re at it how about IFR approaches to minimums with a MAP at the runway threshold?  Close to a low approach although you are re entering a climb profile at that point.  

[Ragsf15e]

7 hours ago, PT20J said:

91.117   Aircraft speed.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).

The Administrator has delegated authority to ATC to assogn speed as required to sequence and separate aircraft within controlled airspace. 

Usually I agree with you, but in this case I think you’re mistaken.  It’s true aircraft that require higher speeds for operating safety are exempted (the F-15E I flew climbed out at 330-350 knots), but can you show me where the “administrator” grants ATC the ability to clear airplanes to violate 250kts below 10,000’? The “administrator” exemption is generally in writing for airshows. There is an AIM section and a legal interpretation that say ATC can’t exempt you from regulations.

Now, are there some exemptions in the regulations? Yep.  200kts below class B can be waived by atc, that’s in the reg.  Aircraft requiring 250+ below 10,000.  That’s in the reg. 

When ATC says “speed restrictions deleted” they are referring to a published arrival or departure. The pilot is expected to still follow regulatory guidance.

[Ragsf15e]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Authority or not, it is done. 

Yep there are definitely airplanes above 250 below 10,000’, but I doubt you’ll find a controller telling someone to do it because they know they are recorded.

“Best Forward Speed” and “Speed Restrictions Deleted” both mean the pilot still has to follow the speed regs.

Dont think you’ll hear “descend and maintain 8,000 feet and 300 knots.” Except in Europe where that’s legal.

[Andy95W]

10 hours ago, Niko182 said:

Yeah they do. I heard them tell a tripple 7 a couple weeks ago when i was flying over lax.

 

 

This is common as you're departing LAX, they'll say maintain 280 knots as you're climbing through 3,000 or so.  What they mean is that once you're above 10,000 they expect 280, even though that's not what it sounds like. It's one of those "local knowledge " things.

[EricJ]

10 hours ago, joepilot said:

No, we’re not calling the Feds over this.  Geesh!  But if I can get our airport manager to publish something, it may cut down on them. But my original question was if someone had any contrary facts from the regs that made these (intentional fly by’s, not go around’s) legal. 

I hope you get it resolved that it's not overdone at your field, as I think it would be a shame to see the practice banned entirely.

Low approaches for practice or training are not unusual at all.   I'm not aware of anything that limits configuration during a practice approach or low approach or reconnaissance pass.   Dragging a field to clear wildlife or check conditions is often necessary.   I don't think there's anything that states what part of the runway you have to start climbing, either.   Several of the Extras and other aerobatic aircraft at DVT will sometimes keep it in ground effect until the end of the runway and then they're at pattern altitude about a quarter mile past that.

I think it would be tough to legislate even if somebody wanted to, and I wouldn't want to.

Often it comes down to noise abatement being a useful tool to curb excessive behavior, but that's a two-edged sword, too.

 

[PT20J]

I've given this more thought. I have never personally heard ATC assign speeds greater than 250 below 10K or greater than 200 below class B. I have heard ATC assign speeds greater than 200 in class C and D. I experienced many times in the San Francisco Bay area being instructed, both IFR and VFR, to maintain an altitude contrary to 91.159 and 179. Many years ago, a former FAA lawyer who used to speak at AOPA FIRCs mentioned that the "Administrator" clause in many FARs is intended to allow the FAA to grant broad powers to FAA staff through internal letters. I do not know for certain whether this applies to ATC. Looking at the language in the FARs (see below) it seems pretty clear that ATC can assign non-91.159-compliant altitudes, and speeds above 200 in class C and D airspace. It also seems unlikely that airspeeds greater than 200 below class B or 250 below 10K are permitted by the regulations. 

If a controller clears or instructs you to do something you don't think is right, the best course is to question it. If the controller insists, you should comply (unless, of course, they are vectoring you into terrain or something similarly hazardous) assuming that the controller has a good reason, and to avoid violating  91.123. You can always file an ASRS report and/or contact the facility after the fact.

§91.117   Aircraft speed.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).

(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).

(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.

§91.123   Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.

(d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC facility, if requested by ATC.

(e) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person operating an aircraft may operate that aircraft according to any clearance or instruction that has been issued to the pilot of another aircraft for radar air traffic control purposes.

§91.159   VFR cruising altitude or flight level.

Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless otherwise authorized by ATC:

(a) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and—

(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 3,500, 5,500, or 7,500); or

(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 4,500, 6,500, or 8,500).

(b) When operating above 18,000 feet MSL, maintain the altitude or flight level assigned by ATC.

§91.179   IFR cruising altitude or flight level.

Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the following rules apply—

(a) In controlled airspace. Each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in controlled airspace shall maintain the altitude or flight level assigned that aircraft by ATC. However, if the ATC clearance assigns “VFR conditions on-top,” that person shall maintain an altitude or flight level as prescribed by §91.159.

(b) In uncontrolled airspace. Except while in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in uncontrolled airspace shall maintain an appropriate altitude as follows:

(1) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and—

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 3,000, 5,000, or 7,000); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 2,000, 4,000, or 6,000).

(2) When operating at or above 18,000 feet MSL but below flight level 290, and—

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd flight level (such as 190, 210, or 230); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even flight level (such as 180, 200, or 220).

(3) When operating at flight level 290 and above in non-RVSM airspace, and—

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight level 290, 330, or 370); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 310 (such as flight level 310, 350, or 390).

(4) When operating at flight level 290 and above in airspace designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace and—

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd flight level, at 2,000-foot intervals beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight level 290, 310, 330, 350, 370, 390, 410); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even flight level, at 2000-foot intervals beginning at and including flight level 300 (such as 300, 320, 340, 360, 380, 400).

[Ragsf15e]

18 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I've given this more thought. I have never personally heard ATC assign speeds greater than 250 below 10K or greater than 200 below class B. I have heard ATC assign speeds greater than 200 in class C and D. I experienced many times in the San Francisco Bay area being instructed, both IFR and VFR, to maintain an altitude contrary to 91.159 and 179. Many years ago, a former FAA lawyer who used to speak at AOPA FIRCs mentioned that the "Administrator" clause in many FARs is intended to allow the FAA to grant broad powers to FAA staff through internal letters. I do not know for certain whether this applies to ATC. Looking at the language in the FARs (see below) it seems pretty clear that ATC can assign non-91.159-compliant altitudes, and speeds above 200 in class C and D airspace. It also seems unlikely that airspeeds greater than 200 below class B or 250 below 10K are permitted by the regulations. 

If a controller clears or instructs you to do something you don't think is right, the best course is to question it. If the controller insists, you should comply (unless, of course, they are vectoring you into terrain or something similarly hazardous) assuming that the controller has a good reason, and to avoid violating  91.123. You can always file an ASRS report and/or contact the facility after the fact.

§91.117   Aircraft speed.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).

(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.). This paragraph (b) does not apply to any operations within a Class B airspace area. Such operations shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).

(d) If the minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation is greater than the maximum speed prescribed in this section, the aircraft may be operated at that minimum speed.

§91.123   Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

(c) Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible.

(d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC facility, if requested by ATC.

(e) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person operating an aircraft may operate that aircraft according to any clearance or instruction that has been issued to the pilot of another aircraft for radar air traffic control purposes.

§91.159   VFR cruising altitude or flight level.

Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level prescribed below, unless otherwise authorized by ATC:

(a) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and—

(1) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 3,500, 5,500, or 7,500); or

(2) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude + 500 feet (such as 4,500, 6,500, or 8,500).

(b) When operating above 18,000 feet MSL, maintain the altitude or flight level assigned by ATC.

§91.179   IFR cruising altitude or flight level.

Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the following rules apply—

(a) In controlled airspace. Each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in controlled airspace shall maintain the altitude or flight level assigned that aircraft by ATC. However, if the ATC clearance assigns “VFR conditions on-top,” that person shall maintain an altitude or flight level as prescribed by §91.159.

(b) In uncontrolled airspace. Except while in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under IFR in level cruising flight in uncontrolled airspace shall maintain an appropriate altitude as follows:

(1) When operating below 18,000 feet MSL and—

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 3,000, 5,000, or 7,000); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even thousand foot MSL altitude (such as 2,000, 4,000, or 6,000).

(2) When operating at or above 18,000 feet MSL but below flight level 290, and—

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd flight level (such as 190, 210, or 230); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even flight level (such as 180, 200, or 220).

(3) When operating at flight level 290 and above in non-RVSM airspace, and—

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight level 290, 330, or 370); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any flight level, at 4,000-foot intervals, beginning at and including flight level 310 (such as flight level 310, 350, or 390).

(4) When operating at flight level 290 and above in airspace designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace and—

(i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any odd flight level, at 2,000-foot intervals beginning at and including flight level 290 (such as flight level 290, 310, 330, 350, 370, 390, 410); or

(ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any even flight level, at 2000-foot intervals beginning at and including flight level 300 (such as 300, 320, 340, 360, 380, 400).

Agreed!

[Tom]

13 hours ago, PT20J said:

Oh, they know the regs. But, controllers have authority to deviate from them when separating traffic in airspace they own. They issue altitude clearances contrary to the hemispheric altitude rule all the time in busy terminal areas, for instance. The authority is in 91.123 

(b) Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

Skip

There is a misunderstanding here that's critically important to clarify.  Controllers do not have the authority to deviate from the regs for routine traffic separation in their sector while pilots are obligated to request an amended clearance when an instruction isn't legal.  For sure ATC can deviate under emergency circumstances, but this would either be obvious on frequency or specifically stated with the instruction.  As Andy said if SoCal says "Cactus 123 blah blah make 300 knots" it's implied to make 300 at 10k...basically an early instruction to avoid a radio exchange at 10k where Cactus would call for faster.

4-4-1(b) states:
b. 14 CFR Section 91.3(a) states: "The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." If ATC issues a clearance that would cause a pilot to deviate from a rule or regulation, or in the pilot's opinion, would place the aircraft in jeopardy, it is the pilot's responsibility to request an amended clearance. 

Regarding high speed passes...from my perspective if more than 1 pilot on the field is worried about them then alarm bells should be ringing that it's not a good idea/is probably bad form in the least (in addition to being against the regs).  Juvenile high speed passes have there time and place.  Some of us operate out of rural areas where anything goes while others of us are in urban/suburban areas where we're fighting to keep the damn airport open.  Discretion is everything.

Edit: looks like this was clarified as I was typing...

Edited July 6, 2019 by Tom

[joepilot]

Tom, 

I agree. Well stated. 

[joepilot]

14 hours ago, Shadrach said:

From the FAR/AIM 4-3-12. Low Approach a. A low approach (sometimes referred to as a low pass) is the go-around maneuver following an approach. Instead of landing or making a touch-and-go, a pilot may wish to go around (low approach) in order to expedite a particular operation (a series of practice instrument approaches is an example of such an operation). Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the low approach should be made straight ahead, with no turns or climb made until the pilot has made a thorough visual check for other aircraft in the area.

I don’t believe the intent of this language is to allow high speed, level flight, low over the entire runway. It clearly references expediting multiple practice instrument approaches, as an example. Not trying to show off to your buddies at the far end of the field (and creating a bunch of extra noise).

I wouldn’t want to be fighting with the FAA over my certificates based on a very loose interpretation on this paragraph. 

[fantom]

Hi Joe...typical irresponsible "I can do whatever I want", SoCA types. Fighter pilots wanna-be's. 

Time to move to TX 

 

[PT20J]

And, for the final word on what controllers can and cannot do w/r/t speed assignments, here's the appropriate sections of 7110.65. Thanks everyone for helping clarify the matter (And watch those high speed low passes!)

Skip

[Shadrach]

27 minutes ago, joepilot said:

I don’t believe the intent of this language is to allow high speed, level flight, low over the entire runway. It clearly references expediting multiple practice instrument approaches, as an example. Not trying to show off to your buddies at the far end of the field (and creating a bunch of extra noise).

I wouldn’t want to be fighting with the FAA over my certificates based on a very loose interpretation on this paragraph. 

And thankfully you don’t have to defend yourself.  Interprit as you wish. The FAA has chosen not to include language that restricts altitude, speed or even specific ops. To read it you’d think they were being very careful to limit their wording. Plenty of room to hang yourself if you do something stupid, plenty of room to operate freely as long as you don’t. 

If noise is an issue at your drome, I am sure abatement procedures will be forthcoming.

[kortopates]

7 hours ago, Shadrach said:

If many people have been violated as Paul (@kortopates) says, they either had lousy or no legal representation or there is more to the story.  The AIM section I posted earlier provides clear guidance on the issue. It’s interesting you keep mentioning 91.119 yet you’ve chosen not to address the AIM guidance that actually has the phrases low approach and low pass stated in the first sentence of the section titled Low Approach. It’s as if you as if you are intentionally ignoring published FAA guidance on the issue because it is contrary to your viewpoint. Color me happy you don’t work for the FAA.

 

Ross, no body is being violated for flying a low approach. A low approach or low pass is a clearance at a towered field. This is one I get a couple dozen times a week while doing approaches with students. Nor is doing a slow speed, or approach speed, pass over the field to check out the field before landing. But a high speed pass done low over the field is entirely something different! its intent is a thrill seeking or show off maneuver. Those cited for it typically begin with a dive for the runway to get max speed and then buzz the runway before pulling up. Typically, its not your fellow pilot buddies that report you to the FSDO either that you get you busted. But these are exactly the kind of maneuvers that airport NIMBY's want to report to the FSDO in an effort to get more people in the community to join them in closing the airport. We have lots of them surrounding all our urban airports in the SOCAL area. Its bad enough that a handful of same people continuously report low flying aircraft legally flying the pattern to complain, but when we give them an excuse like this to complain about they will start picking up more people to join their efforts to shutdown our airports.

Anyway, its a fact people are being violated under 91.119 c) for high speed buzzing of the airport. As a Lead FAASTeam Rep I hear about these things and do remedial training for violated pilots (but not this violation since I expect this this would be considered a willful violation) I don't know about your FSDO specifically, nor do I expect this is even a common violation, but I am sure a call to your FSDO will confirm it happens.  We have very few uncontrolled  airports anymore in my area.

Edited July 6, 2019 by kortopates

[joepilot]

3 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Typically, its not your fellow pilot buddies that report you to the FSDO either that you get you busted. But these are exactly the kind of maneuvers that airport NIMBY's want to report to the FSDO in an effort to get more people in the community to join them in closing the airport. We have lots of them surrounding all our urban airports in the SOCAL area. Its bad enough that a handful of same people continuously report low flying aircraft legally flying the pattern to complain, but when we give them an excuse like this to complain about they will start picking up more people to join their efforts to shutdown our airports.

EXACTLY my biggest concern! Thanks. 

[Shadrach]

7 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Ross, no body is being violated for flying a low approach. A low approach or low pass is a clearance at a towered field. This is one I get a couple dozen times a week while doing approaches with students. Nor is doing a slow seed, or approach speed, pass over the field to check out the field before landing. But a high speed pass done low over the field is entirely something different! its intent is a thrill seeking or show off maneuver. Those cited for it typically begin with a dive for the runway to get max speed and then buzz the runway before pulling up. Typically, its not your fellow pilot buddies that report you to the FSDO either that you get you busted. But these are exactly the kind of maneuvers that airport NIMBY's want to report to the FSDO in an effort to get more people in the community to join them in closing the airport. We have lots of them surrounding all our urban airports in the SOCAL area. Its bad enough that a handful of same people continuously report low flying aircraft legally flying the pattern to complain, but when we give them an excuse like this to complain about they will start picking up more people to join their efforts to shutdown our airports.

Anyway, its a fact people are being violated under 91.119 c) for high speed buzzing of the airport. As a Lead FAASTeam Rep I hear about these things and do remedial training for violated pilots (but not this violation since I expect this this would be considered a willful violation) I don't know about your FSDO specifically, nor do I expect this is even a common violation, but I am sure a call to your FSDO will confirm it happens.  We have very few uncontrolled  airports anymore in my area.

I fly out of Delta Airspace outside of town. Not a lot of non pilots around to complain. The Tower is happy to oblige anyone’s request. It’s mostly warbird guys and RVs. I’ve never heard a word mentioned about style nor speed nor altitude.  

BTW If I you’re going to clear a field before landing, why would you do it slow and dirty? How does that add to safety?

Edited July 6, 2019 by Shadrach

[kortopates]

15 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

BTW If I you’re going to clear a field before landing, why would you do it slow and dirty? How does that add to safety?

Can't say I have much experience doing it. The only times I've done it were for landing on dirt fields. Occasionally to get as good of a look as I could about how wet the field was, such as just damp or standing water and where, or other similar concerns for the surface such a bigger rocks etc. Won't be able to see anything if I am going by fast and have to concentrate more on the flying. But once I had to do 3 low passes of a dirt runway because a pair of dogs were literally screwing right in the middle of the runway and my slow passes wouldn't budge them, till finally a guy hearing my radio calls drove down the runway in his truck and scared them off.  Frankly, I didn't realize the first low pass wasn't going to be a full stop till we saw the dogs pretty close to the landing. I've also done the same on some pretty poorly "paved" runways too to pick my exact touchdown spot, but these aren't in the US.

Edited July 6, 2019 by kortopates