I don’t want to debate whether the video depicts safe or unsafe operation, the two sides will probably never agree. The bigger issue is the legal one and I’m glad it came up for debate.

 

Jeff is correct in stating FAR Part 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes apply to all operations (even sanctioned aerobatic events per the FAA inspector’s manual) with the single exception of Part 137 Agricultural operations which obviously don’t apply. Part 91 not withstanding, my contention is the AIM 4-8-12 authorizes ATC to grant on request, a low approach clearance which was obtained in this case. Jeff feels that the AIM is advisory only and trumped by the FAR therefore “Low Approach and/or Cleared for the Option” are illegal and should never be issued or accepted.

 

Never the less, once the clearance is issued Part 91.123 Compliance with ATC Clearances states that (a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory.

 

So here’s the problem with the video. Since I requested and accepted the ATC clearance I could (a) violate minimum safe altitudes and comply with the clearance or (b) violate the clearance and comply with the minimum safe altitudes. In a more practical example, how do you reconcile any clearance to flyby the tower to confirm the status of landing gear, or a low approach clearance when instrument training to minimums, etc? I think the FAR is vague by design and intent is the overriding issue but I guess this will need to be decided in another forum.  In any case no more videos for me, I’d like to keep my ticket and insurance.

 

Jon