|
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.
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:
Control: "N1234, what are you
intentions
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.
(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?)
|