X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:22:38 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.68] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.7) with ESMTP id 3111927 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:42:43 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.68; envelope-from=douglasbrunner@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=Fh508pV/vm07QE4sbz+0tI8SmoQn/PCFKexJKlydUkHCOc2qD2avTTa0Jz65FAB2; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [66.220.104.170] (helo=DougsLaptop) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KakBz-0004ej-CX for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:42:07 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <552A66EF55A44F14B0D75A3ADA11740A@DougsLaptop> From: "Douglas Brunner" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: high speed passes and go arounds X-Original-Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 00:42:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0156_01C90D5D.E3B02020" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049 X-ELNK-Trace: ad85a799c4f5de37c2eb1477c196d22294f5150ab1c16ac0eafd45f126befae249cbca72a4b6ce0151dd4c175760ed74350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 66.220.104.170 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0156_01C90D5D.E3B02020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I do not perform "high speed low altitude passes" for thrill or video = purposes. My philosophy is: I don't do any aerobatic or aggressive = maneuvers and I don't screw around at low altitude". But I am not sure = I understand the basis of the problem with the "high speed low altitude = pass". Quoting Jeff Edwards: "Apparently you do not know what is "legal" so here is 14 CFR 91.119. = IMHO, a high speed low altitude pass for thrill purposes or for video = purposes is not exactly "legal". The regulations says "except for = takeoff or landing". Clearly there was no intent to land & obviously you = had already taken off. Therefore any flight below the altitudes descibed = below run the risk of being illegal." So apparently it is the motivation of the pilot performing the high = speed low altitude pass that is determinative of whether the maneuver is = legal or illegal. =20 If your motivation is thrills or videos it is illegal. On the other = hand if you are doing a low altitude pass as part of training it is = legal:=20 Control: "N1234, what are you intentions =20 Instructor: "We'ed like to go around, then come back in for the = Localizer 15 approach" I presume this is legal, I have done it many times with an instructor as = part of my instrument training. Or if your high speed low altitude pass = is part of a go around it is also legal: Pilot: "N1234 - is going around" I believe it is the prerogative of a pilot to execute a go around at any = time if he feels it is warranted. Therefore, it would seem that a crucial part of the case against a pilot = doing an illegal "high speed, low altitude pass" would be proof of = intent. In watching a video, how does the FAA determine the pilots = intent? And why is the same maneuver done for one set of purposes more dangerous = (and therefore illegal) than for another? (I am excluding the = aerobatics that accompanied one of the examples) In fact if the "high = speed low altitude pass" is done at a higher airspeed than a go around, = it would probably be safer since the risk of a stall/spin accident would = be less. Please don't quote me FARs, I am looking for a logical explanation of = why this maneuver (minus the aerobatics) is more dangerous than the same = one done for different reasons. =20 (Also, what if before any high speed pass captured on video the camera = person said: "I think I see a deer on the runway" - wouldn't this make = the maneuver legal?) ------=_NextPart_000_0156_01C90D5D.E3B02020 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I do not perform "high speed low = altitude passes"=20 for thrill or video purposes. My philosophy is: I don't do any = aerobatic or=20 aggressive maneuvers and I don't screw around at low altitude".  = But I am=20 not sure I understand the basis of the problem with the "high = speed low=20 altitude pass".
 
Quoting Jeff Edwards:
 
"Apparently you do not know what is "legal" so here is = 14 CFR=20 91.119. IMHO, a high speed low altitude pass for thrill purposes or for = video=20 purposes is not exactly "legal". The regulations says "except for = takeoff or=20 landing". Clearly there was no intent to land & obviously you had = already=20 taken off. Therefore any flight below the altitudes descibed below run = the risk=20 of being illegal."
 
So apparently it is the=20 motivation of the pilot performing the high = speed low=20 altitude pass that is determinative of whether the maneuver is legal or=20 illegal. 
 
If your motivation is thrills or videos = it is=20 illegal.  On the other hand if you are doing a = low altitude pass=20 as part of training it is legal:
 
Control: "N1234, what are you=20 intentions 
Instructor: "We'ed like to go = around, then=20 come back in for the Localizer 15 approach"
 
I presume this is legal, I have done it = many times=20 with an instructor as part of my instrument=20 training. Or if your high = speed low=20 altitude pass is part of a go around it is also legal:
 
Pilot:  "N1234 - is = going=20 around"
 
I believe it is the prerogative of a = pilot to=20 execute a go around at any time if he feels it is = warranted.
 
Therefore, it would seem that a crucial = part of the=20 case against a pilot doing an illegal "high speed, low altitude pass" = would be=20 proof of intent.  In watching a video, how does = the FAA=20 determine the pilots intent?
 
And why is the same maneuver done for = one set of=20 purposes more dangerous (and therefore illegal) than for = another?  (I=20 am excluding the aerobatics that accompanied one of the examples)  = In fact=20 if the "high speed low altitude pass" is done at a higher airspeed than = a go=20 around, it would probably be safer since the risk of a stall/spin = accident would=20 be less.
 
Please don't quote me FARs, I am = looking for a=20 logical explanation of why this maneuver (minus the aerobatics) is=20 more dangerous than the same one done for = different reasons. =20
 
(Also, what if=20 before any high speed pass captured on video the camera person said: "I = think I=20 see a deer on the runway" - wouldn't this make the maneuver = legal?)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0156_01C90D5D.E3B02020--