Low Approach

[flywithastick]

I'm looking for experiences with the FAA regarding low approches at non-towered fields. Specifically, those at fairly high speed, low and with the flow of traffic. based on everything I read in the AIM, self announce as a normal pattern, but stating low apch only is what's acceptible.

I hear it occasionally, but some have said this is looking for trouble with the feds. If I were to enter the pattern politely, keep safe spacing, make a fast, low pass I'd announce touch & go. just deciding I'm "a little too fast" for the touch down, then proceed with the go around.

Might be overthinking this, but I try and not pi$$ anyone off when dusting off the runway.

I know 91.13 could apply anywhere, but what experiences have any of you folks had with low passes from a regulation/legal standpoint. No safety lectures please.

Thanks

 

[Timebuilder]

On a typical practice VOR-B approach at my old field, near my home, we would self announce inside the FAF that we were inbound for a practice VOR-B approach to XXX, low approach only.

At the missed point, we would anounce missed, and climb on runway heading as published. The safety pilot/instructor would make additional calls, as necessary on the CTAF.

If you need to make a low pass over a runway, I don't see the problem as long as you stay sharp and make the correct calls. What is your exact concern?

 

[flywithastick]

What is your exact concern? [/B]

Let me restate myself...

First of all, I'm talking VFR "Sunday" flying. Not terminating an inst apch.

I've talked with some who say that announcing a "low approach" when "buzzing" the runway can get you some negative attention from the FAA. Is it the buzzing or what you call it on the radio that can cause problems?

Following the flow of the pattern, light traffic, talking on the radio and not overtaking others doesn't, IMO, make buzzing the runway a safety problem. Anyone have experience with the feds otherwise?

 

[Timebuilder]

As far as I am concerned, a low appraoch is just what you are doing.

If you aren't over a runway, having begun with a normal pattern to a position from which a landing may safely take place, such as over your house at 300 AGL, then I'd call it buzzing.

Many students are taught to land by first making low passes over a runway to familiarize them with the control feel and the visuals before attempting to make a touchdown.

How would this be different?

 

[flywithastick]

In my earlier posts, my def of buzzing really meant lower and maybe faster than typical. As with buzzing the runway. But your def is fine.

I guess it comes back to the interpretation of a specific safety inspector's interpretation of 91.13 WRT a low pass down the runway. As you, I see where the AIM clearly describes the low apch. No speeds or height above the runway are specified.

Legally, I'm pretty clear. How about actual instances where someone has had problems, justified or not, as a result of a low pass down the runway. Maybe low passes down the runway don't cause problems with many people.

 

[Timebuilder]

I haven't seen a problem with a low pass, but I can imagine that you could have a big problem if you decide to make a low pass into a landing without sufficient runway available.

 

[flywithastick]

...you could have a big problem if you decide to make a low pass into a landing without sufficient runway available. [/B]

I'm thinking more about the regulatory side of it... being over a shorter runway and getting from 150-kts to 60 and landing would mean you probably wouldn't be landing straight ahead.

 

[Timebuilder]

scaredschittless

I think that's Jack's cousin, isn't it?

 

[flywithastick]

Oh, one more thing... there is a field I have flown into in Wisconsin where the locals recommend you overfly the runway at like 50 feet, and fly as loud and fast as possible down the runway centerline to scare deer off the runway before landing. One guy told me it's great when mutli-engine pilots do it, and unsync the props... the deer get scaredschittless.

Excellent point... thanks. I've seen coyotees and deer around the airports I visit. Scaring the animals away. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

 

[banned username 2]

We used to do it all the time, at a towered airport to boot... never had a problem... We'd come down the runway at about 10' with the gear in the wells doing 140-150 kts and pull up and enter the pattern at the other end...

Not that I am recommending doing this... but we never had any regulatory issues... we flew the correct pattern and were cleared for a low approach...

 

[XLR8]

I did a "low approach" into a tower controlled airport once in a C210. It was great, a friend of mine was the tower controller, I called her before I went flying, she said she would be working and would clear me for the "option". I told her that I would do it with the gear up and she didn't seem to care one bit.

It was a BLAST!! Came in, did a "low approach" at 160 KIAS with the gear sucked up, 10 feet off the runway.....pulled up to pattern altitude about 10 seconds later. What a blast, reminds me of the good ol' days.

I wonder if they'll let me do that with the CRJ????

 

[Timebuilder]

I wonder if they'll let me do that with the CRJ????

To quote Johnny Dangerously:

Once.

 

[chawbein]

I was riding along on a low approach in a 210 just last week at a non-towered field. Nobody seemed to have a problem with it, we followed the pattern, and announced on final "low-approach only", and that was it. Not too much more exhilerating than tooling 30 feet over the runway with the airspeed bouncing on the bottom end of the yellow arc, then pulling up into a crosswind-to-downwind-180, arriving at pattern altitude in the downwind with 140 indicated.

Fun Stuff! A little more performance than the 172!!

 

[PA28/C172 Flyer]

Our "Friendly" Airport Neighbors

This is what the local neighbors might look like when they hear the exagerated noises and see the increased airspeeds of the "**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** little planes" buzzing around their house.

I for one have little sympathy for those who buy property near an airport, without knowing what to expect, and then complain about the noises from the planes the first nice day after they move in. Those "freindly neighbors" who have banned together to try to shut down airports, preclude runway expansions, and cause "noise abaitments" are my enemy. However, I try diligently to be a "curtious" pilot, by not doing T&G's, and in your case Chawbein low approaches, at airports near congested areas early in the morning or late in the evening. I fly to a nearby isolated airport to practice T&G's. My airport is constantly fighting battles with our neighbors about the noise.

High speed Low approaches, can't say I've done them, seen them , but never partaken.

 

[TedCFII]

Isn't that considered an overhead approach in military parlance?

 

[cwuflyboy]

This is another one of those grey areas, and that if the FAA wanted to they have a couple of ways they can try and nail you on.
one is

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Another is
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

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.

The key being here for takeoff and landing, if they can prove that you never intened to land, they may have a case.

 

[flywithastick]

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

Granted - this one's always a wild card...

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

Personally, I never put myself somewhere I can't get out of when making a low pass. If I do it, it's with enough energy to either climb & circle or make the 90-270 for landing.

They might win the argument by fiat, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't violate 91.119 (a)

TedCFII -

Isn't that considered an overhead approach in military parlance?

Hey - now you're catching on! "cleared for the overhead... maintain 5 ft until break...!!!"

Regular overhead is an approved approach for anyone. AIM 5-4-24. done it at Ellington (cl D, maintaining 900' until break) with a flights of 2,3 & 4 planes. Lots of fun!

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[AirSeattle]

Scaring the critters off the runway is a fine idea that DOES work, HOWEVER, don't forget the racket also wakes up the birds and now you have a flock of a flight hazard to negotiate!! (I took one thru the windshield of a Jet Ranger at 50'/100k and into my face on one of those "low approaches"!...new underwear please!


joel