Is a Low Approach Legal? (USA)

[Jeff Goin]

91.119 paraphrase of the most relevant part: don't go within 500' of a structure/human unless you're taking off or landing.

1. I'm cleared for a practice low approach ONLY, landing is not allowed due to whatever. Is it legal to go below 500'? Remember, I'm not landing nor am I inspecting the runway (could be considered landing).

2. I have a student working on crosswinds. The goal is to practice flying in a slip down the length of a long runway -- keeping the nose aligned with, and over the centerline. Is that legal if no landing is planned? I realize I can do an actual landing but that sidesteps the question.

3. I want to do the "Shuttle tour" at Kennedy, a common practice where they clear you for a low approach but do not allow touchdown. Is that legal?

4. The tower asks a P-51 homebuilt to do a fly-by over the runway. He does so at 100' in non-waivered airspace. Nothing dangerous, just a simple gear-up flyby of the runway. Is that legal?

Insights are appreciated!

Jeff G.
I searched "91.119" and didn't find any relevant posts. If I've missed something redirects are welcome.

 

[EdFred]

1) Yes, and don't write the chief counsel about it.
2) Yes, and don't write the chief counsel about it.
3) Yes, and don't write the chief counsel about it.
4) Yes, and don't write the chief counsel about it.

What the reg should say (and should be interpreted as) is something more along of the lines of "while approaching departing the runway environment" rather than "takeoff or landing"

Without taking that into consideration, almost every practice instrument approach would be a violation. Every go around would be a violation. Every instrument and private checkride would be a 91.119 bust. I've been doing practice approaches where the tower instructed me I was not cleared for the option, to go missed at DH, and to keep my speed up. I had a KC-135 behind me.

 

[Ravioli]

Do any of your questions not equate to "Cleared for the option"?

In any case the pavement is yours and they are using your stated intention for spacing since you "could" land.

Am I over simplifying that?

Caveat: If you're doing a PAR or ASR to a military facility you absolutely cannot touch the runway

 

[EdFred]

Technically cleared for the option means you can TnG, SnG, LA, MA, or FS. If he's not allowed to do one of those because of instruction, it's not completely at the pilot's discretion.

CLEARED FOR THE OPTION− ATC authorization
for an aircraft to make a touch-and-go, low
approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop
landing at the discretion of the pilot. It is normally
used in training so that an instructor can evaluate a
student’s performance under changing situations.

 

[Jeff Goin]

This is the tact I've taken all my aviation life: "Yes, and don't write the chief counsel about it". I've made the mistake of asking the FAA for clarification once in another realm and didn't like their answer.

But I read about a pilot who did a low pass at a community fly-in then got violated by the FAA under 91.119. That made me recall the MANY times I've done items 1 & 2 and a recent back-seater 100-foot pass over the shuttle runway.

Since "Cleared for the option" allows landing as one of the options it's more defensible and less of a question.

 

[EdFred]

This is the tact I've taken all my aviation life: "Yes, and don't write the chief counsel about it". I've made the mistake of asking the FAA for clarification once in another realm and didn't like their answer.

But I read about a pilot who did a low pass at a community fly-in then got violated by the FAA under 91.119. That made me recall the MANY times I've done items 1 & 2 and a recent back-seater 100-foot pass over the shuttle runway.

Since "Cleared for the option" allows landing as one of the options it's more defensible and less of a question.

Remember if the FAA wants to violate you they will. If it wasn't 61.119, they would have used the BS catchall 91.13.

 

[MauleSkinner]

This is the tact I've taken all my aviation life: "Yes, and don't write the chief counsel about it". I've made the mistake of asking the FAA for clarification once in another realm and didn't like their answer.

But I read about a pilot who did a low pass at a community fly-in then got violated by the FAA under 91.119. That made me recall the MANY times I've done items 1 & 2 and a recent back-seater 100-foot pass over the shuttle runway.

Since "Cleared for the option" allows landing as one of the options it's more defensible and less of a question.

That was a low pass, which the FAA determined (somehow) was not for the purpose of takeoff, landing, or anything related to those operations (such as practice instrument approaches). The intent, as determined by the FAA, was simply to fly low.

Whether that was the actual intent I can't say, as I wasn't in the airplane.

 

[Jeff Goin]

That was a low pass, which the FAA determined (somehow) was not for the purpose of takeoff, landing, or anything related to those operations (such as practice instrument approaches). The intent, as determined by the FAA, was simply to fly low.

Whether that was the actual intent I can't say, as I wasn't in the airplane.

Yes, the question only applies in cases where there is clearly no intent to land.

 

[luvflyin]

91.119 paraphrase of the most relevant part: don't go within 500' of a structure/human unless you're taking off or landing.

1. I'm cleared for a practice low approach ONLY, landing is not allowed due to whatever. Is it legal to go below 500'? Remember, I'm not landing nor am I inspecting the runway (could be considered landing).

2. I have a student working on crosswinds. The goal is to practice flying in a slip down the length of a long runway -- keeping the nose aligned with, and over the centerline. Is that legal if no landing is planned? I realize I can do an actual landing but that sidesteps the question.

3. I want to do the "Shuttle tour" at Kennedy, a common practice where they clear you for a low approach but do not allow touchdown. Is that legal?

4. The tower asks a P-51 homebuilt to do a fly-by over the runway. He does so at 100' in non-waivered airspace. Nothing dangerous, just a simple gear-up flyby of the runway. Is that legal?

Insights are appreciated!

Jeff G.
I searched "91.119" and didn't find any relevant posts. If I've missed something redirects are welcome.

Here's what the FAA tells it's controllers about the subject. It appears they are keeping within the spirit and intent of not buzzing people and things.

3−10−10. ALTITUDE RESTRICTED LOW
APPROACH
A low approach with an altitude restriction of not less
than 500 feet above the airport may be authorized
except over an aircraft in takeoff position or a
departure aircraft. Do not clear aircraft for restricted
altitude low approaches over personnel unless airport
authorities have advised these personnel that the
approaches will be conducted. Advise the approaching
aircraft of the location of applicable ground
traffic, personnel, or equipment.
NOTE−
1. The 500 feet restriction is a minimum. Higher altitudes
should be used when warranted. For example, 1,000 feet is
more appropriate for super or heavy aircraft operating
over unprotected personnel or small aircraft on or near the
runway.
2. This authorization includes altitude restricted low
approaches over preceding landing or taxiing aircraft.
Restricted low approaches are not authorized over aircraft
in takeoff position or departing aircraft.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED LOW APPROACH AT OR ABOVE (altitude).
TRAFFIC (description and location).
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−1−5, Vehicles/Equipment/Personnel on
Runways.
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−1−6, Traffic Information.
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−2−1, Light Signals.
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−3−3, Timely Information.
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−9−4, Line Up and Wait (LUAW).
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−10−3, Same Runway Separation.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Yes, the question only applies in cases where there is clearly no intent to land.

The "or anything related to those operations" part of my post seems to reflect how the FAA deals with the intent of the reg.

 

[timwinters]

4. The tower asks a P-51 homebuilt to do a fly-by over the runway. He does so at 100' in non-waivered airspace. Nothing dangerous, just a simple gear-up flyby of the runway. Is that legal?

100'

?????

That ain't no steenkin' fly by!!! If you ain't within 10' of the ground at Vne then go home!

"Critter clearin' passes" are legal (afaik) and if you ain't really low and ain't really fast, then how do you figgure your a gonna skeer them off? Deer ain't skeerd of no planes flyin' over at 100' !!!!

<har>

In all seriousness, do banner tow planes have some sort of a waiver? Both while picking up the banner and flying along beaches? Remember the Gulfstream II that flew down the beach, gear up, about ten years ago and got busted because the FAA considered the beach a congested area? I've oft seen banner planes fly down beaches at well below 1000' and they certainly aren't 2000' offshore.

 

[MauleSkinner]

In all seriousness, do banner tow planes have some sort of a waiver? Both while picking up the banner and flying along beaches?

I don't know about beaches, but a waiver checkride is required that demonstrates the pick up and drop.

 

[Jeff Goin]

Here's what the FAA tells it's controllers about the subject. It appears they are keeping within the spirit and intent of not buzzing people and things.

3−10−10. ALTITUDE RESTRICTED LOW
APPROACH
A low approach with an altitude restriction of not less
than 500 feet above the airport may be authorized
except over an aircraft in takeoff position or a
departure aircraft. Do not clear aircraft for restricted
altitude low approaches over personnel unless airport
authorities have advised these personnel that the
approaches will be conducted. Advise the approaching
aircraft of the location of applicable ground
traffic, personnel, or equipment.
NOTE−
1. The 500 feet restriction is a minimum. Higher altitudes
should be used when warranted. For example, 1,000 feet is
more appropriate for super or heavy aircraft operating
over unprotected personnel or small aircraft on or near the
runway.
2. This authorization includes altitude restricted low
approaches over preceding landing or taxiing aircraft.
Restricted low approaches are not authorized over aircraft
in takeoff position or departing aircraft.
PHRASEOLOGY−
CLEARED LOW APPROACH AT OR ABOVE (altitude).
TRAFFIC (description and location).
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−1−5, Vehicles/Equipment/Personnel on
Runways.
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−1−6, Traffic Information.
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−2−1, Light Signals.
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−3−3, Timely Information.
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−9−4, Line Up and Wait (LUAW).
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3−10−3, Same Runway Separation.

Interesting! And it confirms the conundrum.

 

[Velocity173]

Interesting! And it confirms the conundrum.

I’ve cleared many aircraft for a low approach. Seems more common on the military side though.

I think the gray area starts with what the FAA considers an abnormal attitude, abrupt change in attitude or abnormal acceleration. All in the eye of the beholder.

 

[luvflyin]

Interesting! And it confirms the conundrum.

Yup. Let’s have some fun. What if the airport itself is in a congested area? Then shouldn’t we be talkin 1000 and 2000 instead of 500? Lol. Anyway, Controllers rules are about the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. The above paragraph is about that. Many ATC rules also take into account that controllers should not give instructions that require a pilot not comply with FAR or imply that it is ok to. Much of, if not most of, the Controllers Handbook is what’s called ‘written in blood.’ Blood isn’t always spilled, but they are a result of some incident. Just like the FAR’s.
I don’t know the history of this one but I’ll give it a guess. Mighta happened like this. Pilot gets cleared for a low approach. Somebody on the ground don’t like it. It scared them. They are emotionally scared for life. They complain. Trial. But Your Honor, Tower Cleared me, they didn’t say do it higher. Jury says yeah, it’s the Towers fault. FAA writes check. FAA amends the Controller Handbook.

 

[luvflyin]

I’ve cleared many aircraft for a low approach. Seems more common on the military side though.

I think the gray area starts with what the FAA considers an abnormal attitude, abrupt change in attitude or abnormal acceleration. All in the eye of the beholder.

Dude, you better check on the statute of limitations before making all these confessions here. LOL