This is exactly what I'm talking about and what others like Lynn have
tried to point out.  Namely that it is fine to talk about a specific
point, but when you make ridiculous suggestions and/or use data having
nothing to do with the original point and try to make broad reaching
analogies, it looses it's impact.  To say what the guy in the Glasair
did was stupid is correct, though I don't know anyone on this list that
didn't already know that.  To associate that crash with previous
discussions about pattern entry just serves to water down the impact
you're trying to have.

Barry,

 

George Shattuck started this thread with a discussion of a 190 knot/ 100 foot pass down the runway. If I recall correctly, he justified his low pass with being too fast for the gear speed on his return to the airport and therefore used the maneuver to slow down. There have been many other reasons posted for this maneuver such as "performing the overhead", checking for wildlife on the runway, pushing the limits of experimental aircraft, etc.

 

I have countered by saying this is not good prudent flying. For one thing-- if you are at 190 knots entering the pattern in this aircraft, you have not planned your descent and entry correctly. In other words, you screwed up. The shock cooling argument is BS. Just ask George Braly at www.gami.com.

 

The regulatory and guidance material do not permit, condone or justify this kind of flying. Chuck Brenner's accident last year was right on point. He announced a low altitude pass down the runway, pulled it up sharply, stalled it and spun in.

 

If you can cite a regulation or advisory circular or training material or anything that supports doing low passes I will be glad to discuss it but I think I am the only one who has offered any sort citation for the discussion.

 

I do not agree with you about the Glasair crash not being analogous to the discussion and apparently neither does AOPA. Low altitude maneuvering, be it a low altitude, high speed pass or low altitude aerobatics is hazardous and most of the hazards cannot be mitigated but only accepted if one is to perform this kind of flying. Can't move the tree, can't change the stall speed, etc.

 

Lynn Farnsworth said, "There is NOTHING inherently unsafe about flying a straight in low approach to a closed full stop landing, if you fly within the bounds of physics and
aerodynamics."

 

Depends on your definition of low but 100 feet will do fine. BTW a 100' pattern is not the overhead that most military guys have been talking about but is more like an "underhead". Here's is the physis and aerodynamics: 

 

In order to enter the downwind pattern from the overhead at the proper distance abeam at 200 KIAS you have to apply almost 4 g's and over 70 degrees angle of bank.(ref. page 35 Aero for Naval Aviators). Important safety tip. What is your aircraft g limit and what is its stall speed at 4 g's? Most importantly, do you have Jim Frantz's fine AOA indicator?

 

This then gets into a discussion about aerobatics in the traffic pattern and (see  below 14CFR91.103). If one were to exceed 30 degrees pitch or 60 degrees bank then parachutes would be required see (14CFR 91.307)(at this altitude, I doubt it would matter --even if you had an aft hinged canopy which most Legacy's and 200-300 series Lancairs don't).

 

So Lynn and Barry, the ball is back in your court. I challenge you guys to do the math or look up some regulations and support your case.

 

Regards,

 

Jeff