Is this 'reckless operation'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Adler said:
Just seems kinda douchey of you to be trying to get others on this site into trouble for no real reason other than you're bored.
Click to expand...

First, it is a foreign registration, and I have no idea what the rules are down there. Regardless, you are posting it in public. The FAA monitors this website so where is the common sense with what you post?

Secondly, if one balls one up and they discover the reason they balled it up was because they were trying to copy a video on a website, well, that would suck.

Thirdly, you post on the internet your video, you open yourself up for exposure. So I am not sure how I am acting 'douchey'.
 
USMCmech said:
It is neither automatically illegal, or inherently unsafe.

It does carry an added risk that the pilot must consider and account for, and if done in a careless and reckless manner it would be a violation.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer anything.
 
Seggy said:
That doesn't answer anything.
Click to expand...
Your question is far too open ended to give a definitive answer. Since 91.13 basically boils down to the FSDO inspector's opinion, the only answer is "It depends"

Can a low pass be done in such a way as to be considered careless and reckless under 91.13? Absolutely,


However, a low pass down a runway would only be considered a violation of 91.13 in some exceptional circumstances. How about west Texas, or a dry lake in California?



I still wouldn't go below 100 AGL in any case, but that's just me.
 
Seggy said:
Secondly, if one balls one up and they discover the reason they balled it up was because they were trying to copy a video on a website, well, that would.
Click to expand...
Imho, the "you shouldn't do this because someone dumber than you might copy you and die" argument doesn't hold water. A person should not be held accountable for the copycat idiots behind him/her.
It's a different form of the "SAVE THE CHILDRENS!!" argument, which is also B.S.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 
USMCmech said:
Your question is far too open ended to give a definitive answer. Since 91.13 basically boils down to the FSDO inspector's opinion, the only answer is "It depends"
Click to expand...

That is why I asked the lawyer.

In the context of the video, from what we see, is it reckless?


However, a low pass down a runway would only be considered a violation of 91.13 in some exceptional circumstances. How about west Texas, or a dry lake in California?



I still wouldn't go below 100 AGL in any case, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

What is the need to do a low pass out there in West Texas or California?

Unless there is a need to do something in an airplane, it usually isn't a good idea to do it. Once again, saying, "WATCH THIS" is the most dangerous thing to say in an airplane.
 
Seggy said:
That is why I asked the lawyer.

In the context of the video, from what we see, is it reckless?
Click to expand...

The lawyer's opinion doesn't matter, the FSDO inspector's does.

From what I saw in the video, I would say no. They were over a runway and the only person anywhere near the flight path was the photographer who was obviously knew what was happening.

Generally speaking, the feds don't really care if pilots endanger themselves but if you put the public at risk then they get involved. For example a parachute is not required for aerobatics when flying solo but if a passenger is on board then chutes must be worn.

What is the need to do a low pass out there in West Texas or California?
Click to expand...

Because it's fun.
 
Alright folks.

It's "Ask an Aviation Attorney" - a forum created in order for people to get the legal opinion of an aviation attorney on a number of topics.

The more we yammer back and forth creates a disincentive for his participation.

Please be patient.
 
Seggy said:
Then why have this forum of 'Ask the Aviation Attorney' if the only opinion is that of the FSDO.
Click to expand...

The FSDO is the one who will be the judge, jury, and executioner if they feel that 91.13 has been violated. Their opinion is the only one that matters.

All @PilotDefenseAttorney can tell us is what has happened to clients of his in similar circumstances, and how successful he has been in defending pilots who were violated for similar actions.
 
Straight from the rule book 91.119
" An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface."

I would say it is completely legal.

AND.....how would an observer on the ground have any idea what the pilot is thinking or what the pilot's reasoning would be for the low pass?
It could be a confined landing area with a tough approach which would make it prudent to overfly/low pass the entire approach and landing area so that a pilot could be certain, "I got this."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top