Fly by’s

[Shadrach]

51 minutes ago, kortopates said:

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.

I appreciate your perspective.  Around here it’s about the Whitetail deer population. I’ve had to “herd” deer off a runway at dusk when there we’re no ground vehicle present to help. I much prefer excess energy over just enough. To each their own.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Shadrach

[Hank]

13 hours ago, EricJ said:

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.

You do realize that flightradar24, flightaware, ADSB, etc., all report GPS groundspeed? The regs are all based on Indicated airspeed. Even my relatively slow C model almost always has groundspeed higher than IAS, and the gap is often greater at hugher altitudes. For what it's worth, I rarely fly above 10,000 indicated.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, fantom said:

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

Time to move to TX 

 

To be sure there are a number of “Fighter Pilot wanna-bes” in the aviation community. However, I think the number pales in comparison to the number of fighter pilots in the community that believe everybody wants to be like them.

[Tom]

17 minutes ago, kortopates said:

...The only times I've [cleared the runway] 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...

Indeed if I want to make sure that a runway is clear I'm certainly not going to do it at 160 knots near the deck where visibility is limited.  Suggesting that this is useful/appropriate to look for critters is specious at best.  One way of "adding to safety" is by not adding to the tall pile of buzz job accident reports.  If you're more likely to be killed by the runway clearing maneuver than by the critters on the runway, it's illogical to buzz the runway in the name of safety.

It would appear that in some regions and/or in some peoples' mind "low approach" can include high speed passes while the regs say the approach has to be conducive to landing or (non-aerobatic) training only.  Perhaps some of us think that others of us are Dudley Do-Rights or something, ruining their fun by pointing out that a buzz job serves no purpose other than for entertainment (inside the cockpit or for spectators), but there's really no utility in a buzz job otherwise.  If people want to feel the speed, do it over a field where they can just shovel some dirt over the hole.  No need to do it at the airport.

[ZuluZulu]

45 minutes ago, kortopates said:

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.

“Canine sex in vicinity of airport at all times, ctc UNICOM for removal.” This is why you check the A/FD! 

[EricJ]

20 minutes ago, Hank said:

You do realize that flightradar24, flightaware, ADSB, etc., all report GPS groundspeed? The regs are all based on Indicated airspeed. Even my relatively slow C model almost always has groundspeed higher than IAS, and the gap is often greater at hugher altitudes. For what it's worth, I rarely fly above 10,000 indicated.

Yes, I realize that.   It's not hard to figure out how the two correlate and that observations of groundspeeds can lead to supportable conclusions about airspeeds.

[pinerunner]

I think the regulations clearly make "buzzing" people illegal and that's what they were intended to do. Landing is clearly made legal and  anything closely associated with landing and taking off is easy to make the case. If you have a good reason I figure you're probably OK. The instructor at our airport likes to have students do an approach to landing and then hold it over the centerline for a bit followed by a go-around at one of the longer nearby airports (with tower approval). Makes sense to me.

Fly-by's requested by representatives of ATC?  Gee they shouldn't be leading you astray should they? Luckily I haven't had that problem.

I've always figured that if I went cactus buzzing out in the unoccupied desert I'd be legal (though dumb) UNTIL I surprised some hiker and got within 500' of them. Flying just off the wavetops would be exciting and legal until I got to close to some canoe.

If you need adrenaline therapy the skydiving group at our airport 2B7 offers it.

[Hank]

17 minutes ago, pinerunner said:

Fly-by's requested by representatives of ATC?  Gee they shouldn't be leading you astray should they? Luckily I haven't had that problem. 

I've only ever been invited to a nearby Class D for a touch and go while waiting for jumpers to land at my nearby home drome.

19 minutes ago, pinerunner said:

Flying just off the wavetops would be exciting and legal until I got to close to some canoe.

That's what someone flying a J model in NJ last  month thought, too. Til a moment's inattention caused him to briefly touch the water, bounce up, stall and nosedive into the surf . . . .

[Hector]

And i'm hearing excuses why YOU THINK you can't do a fly by. No where does it say that doing a fly by is reckless. I also don't understand what the problem with fly bys are? what harm do they do. if your talking on CTAF, and they're being careful, whats the deal?

While flying through the Orlando Bravo last weekend I heard ATC repeatedly saying “disregard speed limitations” and actually telling some folks to speed up if able.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joepilot]

2 minutes ago, Hector said:

 

While flying through the Orlando Bravo last weekend I heard ATC repeatedly saying “disregard speed limitations” and actually telling some folks to speed up if able.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How does this relate to the post you quoted?

Also, they are referring to published speeds on a SID or STAR, or deleting a prior issued speed restriction. NOT authorizing relief on FAR regulations. 

[Shadrach]

24 minutes ago, joepilot said:

How does this relate to the post you quoted?

Also, they are referring to published speeds on a SID or STAR, or deleting a prior issued speed restriction. NOT authorizing relief on FAR regulations. 

he has his topics crossed.  I bet he meant that post for the Speed Restriction thread.

[Niko182]

25 minutes ago, joepilot said:

How does this relate to the post you quoted?

Also, they are referring to published speeds on a SID or STAR, or deleting a prior issued speed restriction. NOT authorizing relief on FAR regulations. 

Theres are post on this thread talking about the speed restrictions.

[Hector]

How does this relate to the post you quoted?
Also, they are referring to published speeds on a SID or STAR, or deleting a prior issued speed restriction. NOT authorizing relief on FAR regulations. 

I was quoting post #20 from Niko, or so I thought. Instead of quoting the entire post it only showed part of the post that had nothing to do with speed restrictions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joepilot]

Ok cool, gotcha! 

[201er]

https://www.lancairowners.com/low-and-fast-is-it-safe-and-is-it-legal

 

https://www.flyingmag.com/aftermath-buzz-job/

 

https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2011/07/13/permission-to-buzz-the-airport/

[joepilot]

Good info in the links, thanks! All of which illustrate (with facts & data) that an intentional low pass (buzz) is illegal, and also may push safety limits. The Lancair article dissects why each section of the minimum altitudes in the regs is violated, especially at a crowded airport, surrounded by homes & buildings such as mine. 

A conscientious pilot should ask themself, would I be doing this with the FAA onboard?