RyanShort1
Final Approach
Don't feel that way - most of us probably just want you to to have a long and enjoyable flying experience with minimal contact with the FAA, which tends to drain some of the joy out of the experience.
buzzing the tower/runway?
- Thread starter Peter Ha
- Start date
denverpilot
Tied Down
There was nothing wrong with the question.
Some of us have seen people get in trouble for it if it serves no legitimate flight purpose and were simply warning you to watch the regs on it.
There’s a pretty “famous” video of someone doing it at a local airport here on YT for a fly in event. He not only did it with no intent to land but hit a drone in the process.
He got a visit to the FSDO and an investigation for his fly by.
Other folks, usually those with spiffy looking warbirds, get approval to do it with clearly no possible way to land out of theirs, due to raw speed, all the time.
So... it’s a choose your own adventure complete with possible certificate action.
Anybody’s post warning against it is just looking after your six. If you’re mad about that, don’t be.
Will Kumley
Line Up and Wait
Sounds like you forgot to descend on downwind or base and decided to execute a go-around on final.
Zeldman
Touchdown! Greaser!
Brad W
Pattern Altitude
I don't know, I find this conversation a little bit interesting. I've done it maybe a handful of times over the years with an instructor aboard, for various reasons. Don't remember for sure ever doing it just myself, but I'm not certain...
I've always been under the impression that it was basically more or less perfectly acceptable to do a low pass, request the option, etc... as long as it was done "reasonable". Normal pattern/approach, follow noise abatement procedures in the pull out, not unreasonably low or unusual with the attitudes, gear down during the approach, etc... Not really so different than practicing a go around, or or a T&G with a soft field takeoff where you'd hold in ground affect for most of the runway, or any of the previously mentioned training maneuvers such as the wheelie thing for getting a feel for the flare, etc...
I guess I'd not heard of these enforcement cases
I've always been under the impression that it was basically more or less perfectly acceptable to do a low pass, request the option, etc... as long as it was done "reasonable". Normal pattern/approach, follow noise abatement procedures in the pull out, not unreasonably low or unusual with the attitudes, gear down during the approach, etc... Not really so different than practicing a go around, or or a T&G with a soft field takeoff where you'd hold in ground affect for most of the runway, or any of the previously mentioned training maneuvers such as the wheelie thing for getting a feel for the flare, etc...
I guess I'd not heard of these enforcement cases
denverpilot
Tied Down
FAA has a lot of leeway but two things hold true...
1. If they get a complaint they usually have to attempt to investigate.
2. The YouTube videos supposedly can’t be used for legal evidence very easily, but taking your evidence gathering devices along on any flight, certainly helps the inspector know your probable intent. And who it was at the controls.
After that, all they need to do is find witnesses or someone’s cell phone footage that hasn’t been altered. Etc.
Additionally maybe ironically, a Tower approving a low approach isn’t going to be questioned much, since they’re sitting right there doing it. Many violations come from uncontrolled airports and a complaint.
“The CFI was on board and it was a training technique to help my landings get better” is a better answer than, “I wanted to fly low” if that makes sense.
Or worse, “I wanted to fly low for the airport open house crowd...”
That’s a way to really get in trouble. They have low level exhibition waivers and all of the requirements that go with those in the authorization letter, for a reason.
If one aches to be an airshow pilot, there’s a formal path for that.
Smoke, on.
1. If they get a complaint they usually have to attempt to investigate.
2. The YouTube videos supposedly can’t be used for legal evidence very easily, but taking your evidence gathering devices along on any flight, certainly helps the inspector know your probable intent. And who it was at the controls.
After that, all they need to do is find witnesses or someone’s cell phone footage that hasn’t been altered. Etc.
Additionally maybe ironically, a Tower approving a low approach isn’t going to be questioned much, since they’re sitting right there doing it. Many violations come from uncontrolled airports and a complaint.
“The CFI was on board and it was a training technique to help my landings get better” is a better answer than, “I wanted to fly low” if that makes sense.
Or worse, “I wanted to fly low for the airport open house crowd...”
That’s a way to really get in trouble. They have low level exhibition waivers and all of the requirements that go with those in the authorization letter, for a reason.
If one aches to be an airshow pilot, there’s a formal path for that.
Smoke, on.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,233
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I think a lot of it is subject to interpretation and eye of the beholder. Everyone wants the regs to be packaged up in a neat cut and dry package but it it isn’t always so. Plenty of times I’ve cleared aircraft for low approaches that would be in violation of the regs. Wasn’t my job to try and interpret the differences between a normal low approach and a “buzz job.” Wasn’t my job to determine what was aerobatic either.But, the reality is, there are feds who get paid to make that judgment. I think the odds of them observing said action and then actually caring enough to enforce it, are pretty slim.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
But as @denverpilot indicated, it’s not going to be due to a fed observing it, but rather it will be initiated by a complaint.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,233
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah I suppose all it takes is a complaint to get the ball rolling.
Will Kumley
Line Up and Wait
Guess it depends on the venue. This was at an Airshow a few years ago. I was the guy in charge of the maintenance on the aircraft and was sweating bullets every time they did this as it always seemed like they pushed the limits each time on what they were allowed to do. If anyone asks, they were 40 feet above the runway.Hey folks,
Is it permissible to fast fly-over the runway? If yes, how low?
Looking to capture some video. And 'fast' for my C150 is about 85kts.
DFH65
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 2,609
- Display Name
Display name:
DFH65
Find a grass strip. How else are you going to check the runway conditions? At local grass strip I fly at and into all the time is 5000 feet long and the runway is situated out in a field away from the buildings. It is usually easy to maintain 500' from any person or thing.
Timbeck2
Final Approach
If you want to make a low pass, just ASK for a low pass. Nobody cares if they expect it. If you ask for a low approach and then make a low pass, there may be some raised eyebrows but nobody is going to call the air police on you. My point is NOT to surprise a controller. We don't like to be surprised.
WannFly
Final Approach
i dont understand what the fuss is all about. out here in my controlled airport, i have done "flying over runway at 10 feet" a large number of times, even high speed taxi, local cubs come here often and will fly few feet over the runway in steep cross wind all the time - ALL with permission from the tower. never buzzed the tower, i am not 20 anymore and find no interest in that. I may or may not have done a few zoom climbs with my CFI onboard.. you have to ask him
if tower agrees, always ask for option so that if your wheels touch the runway, you are not in any kind of violation. i dont understand how FAA will come looking for you if you have permission from the tower. now, if you entered the airspace and did these without permission from tower, well thats a different story.
if tower agrees, always ask for option so that if your wheels touch the runway, you are not in any kind of violation. i dont understand how FAA will come looking for you if you have permission from the tower. now, if you entered the airspace and did these without permission from tower, well thats a different story.
I was flying back in the right seat of a Beech 18 when my neighbor made a low pass over our runway. One of the non-resident passengers asked if the neighbors would get upset over that. I pointed out we'd get upset if he didn't.
Had the resident Sea Rey quickly followed by the resident Sea Bee make their low passes this evening.
Had the resident Sea Rey quickly followed by the resident Sea Bee make their low passes this evening.
Military. Really that's all that needs to be said.
Many are not civilian pilots so the FAA cant do much about them violating the rules other than to complain to the military who may or may not agree with them and may take their own actions against the pilot.
Even the military pilots who have a civilian license aren't flying under that license which enters into a grey area of whether the FAA can violate them and even if the FAA wanted to, they'd have to get the names of the pilots from the military who again may or may agree with them and decide not to turn them over.
The military follows the Civilian regs mostly as a courtesy. There's little to no reason to **** off the FAA by breaking every rule in the book while flying domestically. Similarly there's little to no reason to **** of the governing aviation body of foreign nations both allied and not for international flights without militaristic purpose within their airspace. Save that for when we're violating a country's airspace to bomb them, spy on them, etc. Again the best they can do is complain to the US government/military (or go to war) who will decide the appropriate action to take against the pilot if it determines some part of the flight was unauthorized.
Technically the runway and runway lights are considered a “structure” by many FAA inspectors, and therefore require 500 ft separation “except for takeoff or landing “.
on the other hand, a time-tested technique that used to be spelled out in the AFH is dragging the runway to determine that it’s safe for landing.
In other words, use a little discretion.
I realize its not you saying this but my issue with this argument which is in addition to the one you spelled out of "dragging the runway" or doing a "visual inspection of the landing area" (Land and sea planes) or clearing the runway of fauna, as each of these is done with an "intent to land, eventually" is the argument of practice approaches to missed. If the FAA inspector really wants to take this approach, then how do they reconcile that with the fact that just about every single request for a missed approach, especially on precision approaches, violates the 500ft separation rules and is on a recorded channel with the stated intent NOT to land? Especially since ATC ASKS how will the approach terminate if you dont tell them (and sometimes they ask even when you do tell them).
I realize this is stretching it a bit. There is a valid "flight purpose" to a practice approach but it does fall outside the intent to land definition.
So I think there is question about what is an "unusual maneuver." I personally dont see anything particularly unusual about flying down a runway but as you said its the feds that get to make that judgement. I think someone ought to inform ATC of that rule though because if a "low approach" down the runway is an "unusual maneuver" than it shouldn't be approved according to the regulation and yet they do it on the regular... Heck I just watched a youtube video of someone doing a low-approach to the NYC 3 (EWR, LGA, JFK) in one flight, in succession; I'm pretty sure he even "landed" on one of them without actual authorization to land (ATC cleared him for a very low approach but never issued a cleared to land) because he made a comment about not being able to get any lower than that... Of course that was almost certainly a violation, unintentional though it may have been, I could certainly see myself siding with the inspector that you shouldn't be so low that you inadvertently land but then that's the crux of the question I feel like... What's the appropriate altitude for a low approach?
WannFly
Final Approach
I think low approach to specified minima is covered as an exception quoted above, and I would think anything under that is not covered. But again, in training environments flying few feet over runway is pretty common with ATC approval and a fed has a problem with it, the controller who approved is going down as well
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,233
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
The military abides by the FARs because they’re required to by regulation. Anytime they’re not following the FAR is because it’s either conflicting with branch regs or a waiver is in place. There’s a lot in Part 91 that isn’t covered in service regs so 91 becomes the default. Even in war, restrictions are in place and not just host country. Min altitude, wx, comm requirements, etc. are dictated by theater aviation command.
The same goes for ATC procedures. Unless annotated (USAF, USN, USA) in the the order, the directive applies to all aircraft. The military doesn’t get a blanket waiver to do what they want.
As far as FAA licensing, almost every pilot I flew with in the Army had an FAA rating. Almost everyone who completes instruments goes out in town and takes the military equivalency com rotorcraft test.
Last edited:
Grum.Man
En-Route
I don’t think anyone would have much to say about a 150 doing a low pass. I mean my final approach speed is faster than a 150’s cruise speed. That said don’t do it when there are people in the pattern or a bunch of spectators around to film it. Don’t showboat after the low pass. Just climb out at a normal angle and leave or join the downwind. The faster and louder the airplane the bigger the risk of getting in trouble.
It may be a bit more codified than a "courtesy" but I'd argue that the FAA can put whatever they like in their regulations, short of an actual legal statue passed by congress directing the military to comply, its still the military/military command's prerogative on how they respond to a complaint lodged by the FAA about one of their pilots and whether to abide by the FARs or not. This is not all that different from the FAA (or any aviation regulating body) choosing to follow ICAO standards or not. They're a party to an agreement but enforcing compliance with the agreement is another matter entirely. In the end, the decision to comply and work with the FAA for their waivers is likely due to the fact that it's better to make friends and not enemies, especially within your own government (plus, politics/bureaucracy). Its also safer for everyone to comply and easier for the military if they dont have to roll their own regulations on everything.
As to licencing, I do admit that most military pilots do get their FAA/Civilian license at some point but its certainly not required of them nor does this fact fundamentally detract from overall points made. The FAA needs to know who you are to violate you on your civilian license and on your military licences the only thing they can do it is forward the complaint to the military for further review/action.
wilkersk
Pattern Altitude
The thrust of the article (pun intended) is that high speed passes, diving at the end of the runway, and steep pull ups can be a problem if someone wants to make it so; particularly at non-towered airports in populated, noise sensitive areas. Substitute 500' for 1,000' and you still have the same intent. But, if you want to split hairs, be my guest!
Last edited:
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
I understand the thrust of the article. But incorrect or incomplete information like this confuses the issue rather than clarifying it, and destroys the credibility of the author and article.
By their one regulation.
jordane93
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,233
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yeah and as the Navy’s states, the CFRs, in particular Part 91 apply to ALL pilots. The only parts that don’t are the ones that specifically have “civil” listed in applicability.
My point is, I don’t know how many times I’ve read on POA that the FARs don’t apply to the military. That couldn’t be more further from the truth.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,233
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I’m not even sure the FAA could go after the license of a military aviator. It might have been done in the past but I don’t remember reading about it. We were required not to give our names and the reg states names are not to be released outside of the DoD. All the investigations I witnessed were all handled in house.
When in comes down to it, as I said, it’s all subjective on who wants to interpret “unusual maneuvers.” I’ve seen aircraft doing things in a class D that anyone with common sense would conclude its unusual or showing off. Generally controllers just look the other way and not bother with a PD. They hate paperwork.
Years ago when my brother was still doing ATC, he asked a couple of F-18s flying overhead if they could do a low approach at his airport. Oh they did, it was at night and all he saw were two sets of flames screaming down the runway and showing 540 kts GS on the BRITE. Now, there’s nothing wrong with what he did. Approaches are solicited all the time for training and to pad the traffic count. But, I would venture to say that if the FSDO or their command had witnessed the act, someone would have gotten the proverbial hand slap.
- A low pass down the runway may or may not be legal, depending on who or what is within 500'.
- If it's not legal, any FAA personnel who witness it may or may not choose to take action.
- If it generates a complaint, they have to at least investigate.
- ATC cannot authorise any violation of regulations. If the tower clears you for a low approach and a roving FSDO inspector sees you get within 500' of any "person, vessel, or structure" on the ground, he can issue you, the PIC, a violation regardless of the ATC clearance... though the ATC clearance may make it easier to get it dropped.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
^^^^right before he hopped in his 152 and did a low pass & tower buzz^^^^
To your point, that wasn't what I was trying to state. The FAR's "apply" to the military in the same way as the aviation rules of any country apply to both civilian and military pilots flying in that country. The decision to issue a violation on those rules however is left to the governing body that issued the certificate. While the Civilian authorities generally pass through any properly filed complaint of violation, the military can make their own determination of whether the complaint is valid and how to respond to said violation... but again its in the military's best interest to play nice with the governing authorities as best they can so they're not just going to ignore the complaint entirely.
Civil is only used as a distinction when it has some applicability to civil aviation. Again, as a rule of law, the FARs do *NOT* apply to the military or public aircraft. It is only that the military chose to adopt their own regulation for complying with the civil regulations.
RingLaserGyroSandwich
Pre-takeoff checklist
If the FAA has regulatory authority over DOD activities, that will be codified in law. If the President has directed the DOD to follow FAA regulations, that will be codified by executive order. The applicability paragraphs in the FARs by themselves do not obligate the DOD to do anything.
If anyone can point to the law or executive order in question, that should swiftly settle the matter.
If anyone can point to the law or executive order in question, that should swiftly settle the matter.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,233
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
And again, you need to read their regs. They’re federal regulations that apply to all aircraft in the NAS.
Doug Reid
Cleared for Takeoff
The video posted a few weeks ago of the RV pilot making low approaches into Newark, LaGuardia and Kennedy all in one flight did not seem to cause any issues...he was only a few feet off the runway, and might have accidentally touched on one pass. He did request low approaches and had permission.
You keep saying that but it's patently untrue. The FAA is not empowered to make rules that apply to other than civil aviation. Their authority to do so comes form the Civil Aviation Act and it states right from the top that it applies to civil aviation. If the military or government chooses to abide by the FAA rules, that is because they have put a policy or regulation of their own in place that makes that so.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,233
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Lol! I keep saying it? I just attached a quote from a Navy reg stating the FARs, in particular, Part 91, are BINDING to both military and civilian. You believe that in 91.129 when it states “person” or “aircraft” that it’s implying civil?
This has nothing to do with the Civil Aviation Act and everything to do with the FAA being the governing authority of the NAS. The FARs fall under CFR 14 and that is prescribed by the FAA to apply to ALL aircraft. The only things military, just like public aircraft get passes for things like certification, training criteria, safety programs, etc.
If the military didn’t have to follow operating procedures in the NAS, then why are they required to apply to the FAA for new SUAs? Or how about getting “authorization” for speed waivers? You think they’re doing it just to be nice?
Interagency coordination. All you're quoting is some non-normative text from some document. It doesn't indicate WHY they say you have to comply with it. The reason is NOT that the FAA has the power to enforce things on the military.
RingLaserGyroSandwich
Pre-takeoff checklist
Can you please cite this text you posted?
Can you please cite this text you posted? Also, regarding the bolded text, this does not make sense to me. See my previous post. The FAA has authority over the NAS because of law. Which law grants the FAA the authority to tell military pilots what to do while in the NAS system? I'm not taking a stance on whether or not it exists, I'm just trying to find the evidence that will settle this.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,233
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
That’s out of the Navy’s CNTRA Flight Rules and Regulations.
Which law is administrative law based on the fact the Title 14 CFRs are a federal regulation that apply to ALL aircraft in the NAS.
Why would Part 91 distinguish between civil and military if the entire thing only applied to civil aircraft? Take 91.129. That doesn’t distinguish between civil and military. So it applies to all pilots. 91.117 is another. In order to not have to comply with 91.117, they get “authorization” from the FAA for an exemption. There isn’t much in 91 that applicable to the military but if it’s in conflict with service regs, they either go with service regs or the most restrictive. Same as DoD applications to the FAA for new or modifying existing SUAs. If they weren’t bound by the FAA, then why even bother applying?
RingLaserGyroSandwich
Pre-takeoff checklist
Taken from this training document, "The Chief of Naval Air Force (CNAF) has set forth rules governing the operations of Naval aircraft throughout the world. These rules are published in an instruction, CNAF M-3710.7, entitled "NATOPS General Flight and Operating Instructions." NATOPS stands for Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization. CNAF M-3710.7 states that "Naval aircraft shall be operated in accordance with applicable provisions of FAR Part 91 except where this manual prescribes more stringent requirements."" I assume this is what you are referring to. However, the Chief of Naval Air Force telling naval aviators to follow Part 91 does not give the FAA any authority over military pilots flying through the NAS system. The document goes on to say, "There are a few areas in which the FAA has permitted the Department of the Navy to deviate from FAR Part 91. Departures from the FAR in areas dealing with aircraft speed, minimum fuel, alternate airport weather, special mission, and low-level mission requirements allow the Department of the Navy greater operational flexibility than permitted by FAR Part 91." This text implies you are correct and the FAA does have authority over military pilots, but I couldn't find where that authority comes from. I'm still hoping you can provide that.
I don't understand you. CFRs, including the FARs, are not administrative law. They are regulations. The reason why civil pilots need to follow the FARs is because there are laws require it. Presumably, there is a law somewhere (not part of the CFRs or FARs) which gives the FAA to enforce the FARs over military aviation, but you have provided no evidence of this, yet.
Edit: I just double checked and you are right that some folks refer to the CFRs as administrative law. That doesn't change the fact that the authority I am looking for needs to be granted somewhere other than the CFRs.
WannFly
Final Approach
Well by that definition all controllers in training fields who authorized few feet over runway flying to teach crosswind correction to a student and the CFI onboard is in violation. Runway itself can be the said structure. The only blessing is, in case the pilot decides to take off at the end of that low pass, which most do, they can claim that they were taking off and thereby covered under regs, but it would still be difficult since there was no intent to land in case they approached the runway from the air and did not perform the said maneuver while taking off
Didn't mean to spark such a fight but there are 2 ways I view this:
1) Driver's License Compact - I can drive my car or motorcycle on my PA Driver's license in any of the 50 states of the US (and some international locations too). While driving in a state other than my own, that state's laws do apply to me and I am expected to follow them. For example, I can be pulled over and ticketed for speeding or not wearing a helmet, even if my state doesn't have a helmet law. In either case, I have a legal obligation within that state to pay the ticket. I can choose not to but the consequences of ignoring it can be dire, especially if I plan to ever return to that state.
What my home state does with the ticket insofar as it effects my DL however is up to my home state. Some states will assign points and take action on out of state violations, others will only do so if the ticket in question aligns with their laws (i.e. I'd get points for speeding but not for not wearing a helmet) and still others will do nothing with them.
In this sense all aviation falls under this category. If I fly to another country (or am in the Military flying within the US), I am bound by the rules of the country I am flying in insofar as they can issue violations and take action against me personally but they cant take my license away. They can forward the violation to the issuing authority sure, and at least in the civil world, most civil authorities will assign a foreign violation to your license just as they would a domestic one but its left to the issuing authority to decide.
Where this example falls short is in identifying the pilot and/or vehicle since there aren't sky-police that can pull you over and ask to see your license and registration. Speeding and other offenses are also often a violation of statutory law, not regulations.
2) Diplomatic immunity - The laws of a country (or state) apply to all individuals within that country regardless of their country of their status/residence/citizenship. The laws still apply to military and diplomatic personnel. A SOFA/VFA often determines how that looks for the military but for diplomatic personnel with diplomatic immunity, the only thing the host country can really do is eject that diplomat, forward the evidence to the sponsoring government and hope that they prosecute the individual under their law.
In either case, the rules of the host nation/state are not entirely binding on the individual. This is how I view it with military aviation. They chose to abide by the FARs but they aren't bound by them insofar as they can change their mind at any time; there is no statutory requirement that they follow them. The FAA is powerless to truly enforce their rules on military pilots, they can only forward the evidence to the military and hope they take action.
Beyond that while, I'm not trying to say the FAR's dont apply to the military (they do because the military chooses to apply them), I have to agree with @flyingron that citing some nonformative text by written by the FAA saying it applies to the military does not make it so.
As to the training document from the CNAF, the document makes it so insofar as the Military, not the FAA, will enforce those rules and if the next CNAF decides that compliance is not in the best interest of the Navy, then they could just as easily change it.