[NOTE: Contrary to the impression this - and possibly other postings - may make, I (John Wilson) am not a "regulations guy".  I do in fact favor the libertarian approach whenever possible.  However, all pilots should accept that the regs definitely make useful guideposts for keeping you out of trouble AND in the good graces of your fellow humans]

Fancy Flying around Airports

Although Part 91 doesn't cover every possible nuance of GA aircraft operation, it does have quite a lot of detail regarding what is and is not permissible.

As a tie-in with past discussions of airport-area etiquette, here are a few  points:

Aerobatic Flight:  91.303  Permitted everywhere except:

    (a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
    (b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
    (c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
    (d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
    (e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
    (f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

The airspace which overlies the Skypark's uncontrolled surface airspace is Class E, and while we don't have an official airport traffic area, what the FAA considers "our"  operational airspace is designated by its charted separation from the enveloping and overlying MOA.  For reference, it is a cylindrical ring extending to Willow Springs raceway on the west, approximately Backus Road to the north, and well past Sierra Highway to the east.   To our south are Federal airways and Fox's Class D.

While the technical nuances of 91.303(c) can be cited to excuse the practice  (thankfully now apparently past) of airport-area aerobatics (see immediately below), a safe & friendly practice by the prudent pilot certainly would be to avoid aerobatics within the airspace inside and overlying our designated traffic ops area.  The FAA would probably agree.

Buzz Jobs aka "Low Approaches"   (Not to be confused with military-style overhead breaks at pattern altitude for wind check or spacing, or actual practice approaches / balked landings)

While various individuals among us have their own strong (and often polar opposite) opinions on them,  to the best of my knowledge & belief the Rosamond Skypark has no policy on buzz jobs and would prefer to keep it that way.  Nevertheless, the following words of caution are worth considering.

 Sometimes it is alleged that a buzz job violates 91.13 (careless & reckless operation).  However, this is an entirely subjective judgment until there is an actual accident or near-miss.  When the FAA gets involved they do at times cite careless & reckless, but primarily have applied 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes, which is not at all subjective in its language:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
    (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
    (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
    (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

 [Caution: Our surrounding housing areas, legally, are 'congested areas']

The killer phrase is, of course, the "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing.."  The pilot might stoutly maintain that his high-speed 50-ft AGL pass and pitch-up was necessary to properly land his aircraft, or that he was merely practicing his VFR approach technique.  The FAA would not necessarily agree.  For example see: Administrator v. Hart,  NTSB Docket No. SE-7789 and Administrator v. McCollough, NTSB Docket No. SE-11951.  Reading between the lines of these cases, it appears the judges applied the letter of 91.119 in pulling the pilot's licenses because they felt it was obvious what the pilots did was NOT part of a  'practice approach', which, for IFR training in particular, has always been permissible.  The judgments were upheld by the appeals board in both cases.

Bottom line....do be aware of the risk inherent in high-visibility behavior. 

ADDENDUM:  Dolores Mathews passed along THIS EMAIL containing an FAA warning that expands upon the buzz-job / "practice approach" subject in a significant way.
ADDENDUM #2:  Another "gotcha" pilots can face is the growing tendency of non-FAA government agencies to add flight rules of their own.  For those who fly the coast, here is a sample of California's multiple "sea life" flight restrictions.

 

BACK to the Index page

Last modified: 7/27/08