Low Passes

[Ultraman]

Lately I have noticed several corporate jets (Gulfstream III, Citation III and Citation V) making low passes at my home airport (controlled).

What is your opinion of this practice? Very cool or very unprofessional?

Ultraman

 

[MYFpilot]

Depends on the type of plane. If you're in a G3 or Citation then it's very cool, especially if you're leaving chemtrails and have Britney Spears in the back. If you're in a single engine trainer (C-152) then it's just lame.

 

[ShawnC]

If it's controlled, one could assume that the controllers have no problem with it.

Personally I have seen alot of people do low passes, once in a while down a runway is cool, but if you do it on a regular basis your asking for trouble.

 

[flywithastick]

Personally I have seen alot of people do low passes, once in a while down a runway is cool, but if you do it on a regular basis your asking for trouble.

Everyone has a different level of personal safety limitation. Within the confines of the regs and with some common sense, I see no problem with them. All things equal, they are probably more dangerous than a VMC flight with one takeoff, one landing and no swamps or mountains in between. But since the various pleasures of flying are balanced with some risk, I accept some risks for the fun they come with. Now - every pilot needs to have their own set of limitations pretty well established before straping in. Not having them is asking for trouble.

 

[ClassG]

I'm guessing since it costs thousands per hour to operate these jets, there must be some training involved here. There's absolutely nothing wrong with practicing go-arounds, missed approaches, circle-to-land proceedures and even occasionally running a low approach for fun. I'm sure these are not just some bored, rich guys out showing off.

Just a thought.

 

[Vladimir Lenin]

How's this for a low pass?


bart's number one boy's at it again

 

[El Duderino]

Dances with stick won debate in 86. Talk about unfair.

 

[avbug]

The FAA has held, in enforcement action, that a low pass for purposes other than takeoff or landing, can violate the altitude provisions of 91.119.

I'm on the road presently, but will try to post some documentation on that when I get back, if I can remember to do so.

 

[Buckeye]

RVSM

It is part of the requirement for RVSM, they are skin mapping the pitot static system. They have to make so many passes at 400' and a cetain airspeed then slowly increase the height and speed.

 

[Bill Mostellar]

My favorite low pass in a corporate aircraft was at Edwards AFB.

We took a C-21 (Lear 35) there for the Test Pilot Students to evaluate as part of their program. Each student (pilot or flight engineer) had a flight profile they wanted [us] to fly. That sometimes included a low pass by a tower to calibrate/evaluate the instruments, etc. A set of instruments recorded various parameters while the FE recorded them in the aircraft.

I remember one flight engineer saying "The lower and faster the better." We gladly accomodated him.

 

[mar]

Nice one Buckeye!

Buckeye, you should consider a career in aviation law if this flying thing all goes south.

But I just wanted to expound (a little) on Avbug's point. I think a 172 doing a low pass down some portion of a 5000' runway may be a little bit of a grey area...I mean, no harm, no foul, right?

But when a transport category airplane buzzes a little grass strip that is obviously too short to accomodate the airplane, well, now we're talking careless and reckless.

As always use your best judgement.

 

[flywithastick]

Re: Nice one Buckeye!

As always use your best judgement.

Sounds like an abandoned touch and go attempt - at near Vno! Yea - that's the ticket!

 

[A Squared]

mar is right on point there. The FAA is reasonably tolerant of low passes to a runway suitable for the aircraft. They have repeatedly held in enforcement actions that if the runway is not suitable for hte aircraft it is considered careless and reckless, and possibly a violation of 91.119 (minimum altitudes)

I know of at least 3 instances where enforcements were brought against pilots for this; An Electra at a small private strip in Alaska, a Lear on a 3000' gravel runway somewhere, and a 777 at Spruce Creek in Florida.
In the Electra and Lear cases the violation was upheld, I don't know what became of the 777 incident.

I've heard it said many times that 91.119 is by far the most common enforcement action. be careful out there.

 

[88_MALIBU]

I love hearing jets and fighters do low passes, if the house isnt shaking it isnt low enough- I dont have the ball$ to do them as I dont wish to lose my license, and most think its unprofessional.

 

[ShawnC]

I know of at least 3 instances where enforcements were brought against pilots for this; An Electra at a small private strip in Alaska, a Lear on a 3000' gravel runway somewhere, and a 777 at Spruce Creek in Florida.
In the Electra and Lear cases the violation was upheld, I don't know what became of the 777 incident.

I heard for the 777 it was the pilot's retirement flight, just the rumor that I heard at the Creek.