Is this 91.13 Careless or reckless operation

I think our very own T-cart knows a thing or two about flying low. He probably gets hypoxia and nosebleeds if he gets over 100 feet :)
 
WacoFan said:
I think our very own T-cart knows a thing or two about flying low. He probably gets hypoxia and nosebleeds if he gets over 100 feet :)
Click to expand...

Well, I think it's legal. :) Got up to 27,000 in the King Air Thursday. Couldn't see anything up there.
 
Firebird2XC said:
An old examiner once told me a story.

Bob Hoover (the famous pilot) was inbound on a visual approach in VMC in his Twin Shrike. The DPE that told me the story was in the tower cab at that point.

Bob keyed the mike and requested clearance for a "Hoover Approach".

The Tower cleared him for a 'Hoover Approach'.

Mr. Hoover apparently then proceeded to do some sort of low level aerobatic routine down the touchdown zone of the runway, including a low level loop.

Incensed, the Tower personnel were ready to skin him alive and file all sorts of dire violations.

The DPE intervened. He reminded them that they cleared him for a 'Hoover Approach'. If they had failed to fully know what that was beforehand was not important. Once the Tower cleared it, they were liable for the end result.

Needless to say, Mr. Hoover wasn't bothered by the situation at all.
Click to expand...

Awesome story. Hoover is like a personal hero of mine...
 
unclenobby said:
You never mentoned the road, school building or nuclear power plant off the end of the rwy in your original post!!! If that's the case then 50 ft above rwy until the normal rotation point and climb out. That qualifies under 91.119
Click to expand...

Far 91.119 said:
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
Click to expand...

As long as you're taking off or landing those alts don't apply, so you're golden.
 
PeterPilot said:
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3544.PDF

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/3693.PDF

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4020.PDF

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4296.PDF

... and on, and on, and on.
Click to expand...

1. Helicopter hovering near private residences.

2. Flight instructor flew at 250 AGL over a congested area.

3. Low approach at an airport the aircraft was not suited to land at.

4. Pilot flew well within 500 feet of a large group of people.

All these are clear FAR violations, and not the type of activity I believe the guys in this thread are referring to.
 
Ian J said:
1. Helicopter hovering near private residences.

2. Flight instructor flew at 250 AGL over a congested area.

3. Low approach at an airport the aircraft was not suited to land at.

4. Pilot flew well within 500 feet of a large group of people.

All these are clear FAR violations, and not the type of activity I believe the guys in this thread are referring to.
Click to expand...
Further more if I was motivated enough I could probaly post about half a dozen NTSB reports as well...all of which involve a horible airplane crash where the pilot was opperating at a super safe altitude.
 
PGT said:
Thanks for contributing so much to this thread
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing out some of jetcareers dorkiest that think this is actually some kind of serious safety/law violation. I think on your average day actually trying to land the plane is probably more dangerous than the scenario you mentioned.
 
PGT said:
A Mooney, around 50ft AGL, low pass over the length of the runway with the gear and flaps up?

What about a C172?
Click to expand...


It is if the FSDO inspector says it is.


Personally I've done similar things, and don't have any problem with such flying. However many people disagree.
 
No reason to guess when a document went through a vetting process that covers this:

FAA 8900.1 Volume 14 Chapter 1 Section 5 said:
14-85. GENERAL. The following paragraphs contain information on some compliance areas where conflicting policies have frequently occurred. This information should be referenced by inspectors when investigating cases related to the special considerations.
14-86. RECKLESS OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) section (§) 91.13 provides that, “No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.” Neither 49 United States Code (49 U.S.C.) nor the 14 CFR define “reckless” or “reckless manner.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), however, has in several cases dealt with the allegation that a particular operations was “reckless” within the meaning of 14 CFR § 91.13 and has thus contributed towards a definition of the phrase, “reckless manner.”

A. NTSB Case History. The cases studied by the NTSB indicate that recklessness involves deliberate and willful conduct, i.e., conduct that reflects a wanton disregard for others’ safety.

1) The inspector can infer a deliberate and willful disregard of the regulations or safety standards from the circumstances surrounding a violation.

a) It need not be established that a pilot intended to be reckless but only that he or she intended to engage in deliberate or willful action which resulted in a deviation from 14 CFR or from safety standards and which created actual or potential danger to the life or property of another.

b) For example, the NTSB said of a pilot whom it found to have been reckless when the pilot deliberately operated an aircraft within 50 to 200 feet of another aircraft for a period of 5 to 10 minutes—

“… so long as the respondent intends to do the particular acts complained of, and the resulting action widely departs from the norm of reasonably prudent conduct, a finding of reckless operation does not require proof of the state of the pilot’s mind but can be inferred from the nature of [the pilot’s] acts or omissions and the surrounding circumstances.”
2) In one violation the airmen flew visual flight rules (VFR) in formation and proceeded into a mountainous area in instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions at dusk without ascertaining the weather conditions. Neither pilot held an instrument rating and one aircraft had an inoperative radio. The NTSB declared that the conduct of such a flight was reckless. The NTSB found that the conduct was “… so devoid of basic safe operating practices and adherence to critical safety regulations that it constituted a reckless operation.”

B. Conduct Deemed Reckless. The fact patterns of some individual cases tried before the NTSB provide guidance about the kind of conduct that the NTSB will deem reckless. For example:

1) The pilot of an aircraft, in an attempt to land on a highway in a non-emergency situation, approached from the rear and struck a moving truck. The truck was substantially damaged, and the person who was sitting in the middle of the front seat of the truck was seriously injured. The NTSB, after considering the circumstances surrounding the incident, found that the respondent operated the aircraft in a reckless manner.

2) In another case an airman willfully and deliberately made several extremely close passes near a van for the purpose of causing apprehension or bodily harm to the occupants of the van. The NTSB wrote, “Such piloting can only be characterized as reckless operation which created a serious hazard to the van.”

3) The allegation of recklessness was affirmed by the NTSB in a case where an air carrier pilot operating an aircraft in scheduled air transportation took off from an airport after being advised that the reported visibility was 1/16 of a mile. The takeoff minimums were 1/4 of a mile. The NTSB held that the “… knowing violation of one of the standards applicable to air carrier pilots forms the basis of the finding of reckless operation.”

4) In another case where the NTSB found recklessness, the pilot violated several 14 CFR. The airman carried passengers on several flights when not rated in the aircraft, had no instruction or experience in the aircraft, the aircraft had not been issued an airworthiness certificate nor had been inspected for the issuance of the certificate, the aircraft had not undergone an annual inspection, and the aircraft carried no identification markings. The NTSB considered the entire range of circumstances and the broad areas of noncompliance with the regulations under which numerous flights were conducted, many on which passengers were carried, a reckless operation.

5) In another case, the airman was acting as pilot-in-command of an aircraft on a VFR, passenger carrying flight carrying parachutists for compensation. The pilot deliberately performed an aileron roll. The seriousness of this violation was accentuated by the fact that the aircraft was not certificated for aerobatics, two parachutists were in the air when the roll was performed, the roll took place at an altitude of 500 to 800 feet over a group of persons on the ground, and the flight was made for compensation. The NTSB found the respondent’s violations to be deliberate and knowing and, therefore, reckless.

6) In another case the pilot-in-command flew the pilot’s personal aircraft on a VFR, passenger carrying flight. During the course of the flight, the aircraft entered clouds and subsequently crashed into a mountainside. The NTSB held that the “… respondent’s continued VFR flight into clouds in the vicinity of mountainous terrain demonstrated inherently reckless conduct.”

7) A pilot was found to be reckless when that pilot ignored specific air traffic control instructions. Contrary to air traffic control (ATC) instructions, the pilot failed to report downwind, landed the aircraft instead of going around, made a 180° turn on the runway, and departed via a taxiway. The NTSB noted that the go-around instruction was given four separate times by the controller, yet the pilot persisted with the approach and landing. The NTSB also stated that, “… it appears that [the pilot] made up his mind to land the aircraft and no amount of instruction from the tower could keep him from that goal.” The pilot’s operation of the aircraft was characterized as reckless.

C. Conclusion. While there is no regulatory definition of the term, “reckless,” it has been defined in cases decided by the NTSB. A reckless operation results from the operation of an aircraft conducted with a deliberate or willful disregard of the regulations or accepted standards of safety so as to endanger the life or property of another either potentially or actually. Accordingly, any such reckless behavior violates 14 CFR § 91.13 .
Click to expand...
 
Velocipede said:
Pardon my ignorance since I'm not much on GA, but how do you do a gear up pass in a C172?
Click to expand...
c172rg.jpg


Like that! :)
 
mhcasey said:
Thanks for bringing out some of jetcareers dorkiest that think this is actually some kind of serious safety/law violation. I think on your average day actually trying to land the plane is probably more dangerous than the scenario you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Sorry for asking a question like that I didn't know the answer to.


With how the FAA has been, it wouldn't of surprised me one bit.
 
Use some common sense. I've done high speed (well, as high speed as you can get in the aircraft I fly) low passes at towered and non-towered airports, in RG and fixed gear aircraft. As long as you manage your risks regarding traffic, weather (I'd be careful during strong gusty crosswinds), aircraft (don't do something that results in a gearup landing), going down the runway is the safest place you could possibly be for scratching that low-flying itch. After all, that's exactly what you do in a soft field takeoff.
 
Things that are worthless to a pilot while flying

Air above you:crazy:

Runway behind you:drool:

Fuel in the truck:banghead:


:D:D:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top