X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [67.8.179.32] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 5.0.7) with HTTP id 960774 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:48:43 -0500 From: "Marvin Kaye" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Runway checks, passes, flybys To: lml X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.0.7 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:48:43 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <43DE195F.4070506@ustek.com> References: <43DE195F.4070506@ustek.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Posted for N301ES : Barry Hancock wrote: > And how is the FAA going to prosecute one for an overhead approach > that is a) approved by the tower, or b) executed at a non-towered > airport any more than someone entering the pattern at anything other > than the 45? First, you would have to give them a reason to do so... I make no statement on either side of this argument, but Bob Hoover has taught us that the FAA needs no rationale to pull a ticket. Robert M. Simon, ES-P N301ES (flying in a month - maybe?)