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?)