lml@lancaironline.net Mailing List Archive

Doug

Good question and it deserves a good answer. What is the difference between the "Low pass" or "flathatting" as we called it it in Navy and a "low approach"? The "Low pass or flatthatting" maneuver is one usually flown to go as low and as fast as the aircraft will permit. You may have seen a video of Spitfire buzzing a field with a television personality in the foreground-- the tv guy had to literally duck to avioid gettting decapitated by the prop. Low pass. You have probably seen aircraft on a VFR takeoff push the nose down and stay in gorund effect go down the runway barely 5 feet off the ground, accelerate to the end followed by a huge pitch up. Low pass. I've seen guys do this in a Cessna 150-- no kidding. Not impressive ;)

Low approach. Upon completion of an instument approach, pilot breaks it off at the DA and proceeds to fly down the runway accelerating reasonably while maintaining DA or better. A reasonble climb profile ensues. Low Approach. Pilot is not trying to impress girlfriend, sand the belly of the aircraft on the concrete, break the sound barrier, or do the first half of an aerobatic maneuver at the end of the runway. Just because an instructor does a low apss does not make it legal. Is it a low pass or is it a low approach?

Flathatting or low passes are ususally (almost always) done to satifsy ego requirements.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Brunner <douglasbrunner@earthlink.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:22 am
Subject: [LML] high speed passes and go arounds

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?)

Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More!