patrol guy wrote:I fly 12-15 hrs/week every week and never get above 500 feet.

Acrophobia patrol guy?

RobBurson wrote: You can't legislate common since.

Apparently

EZFlap wrote:Crop dusters manage to fly low quite a bit, with some degree of control. If you believe everything you're told, there should be no living crop dusters with more than ten hours time in their log.

Problem is, they don't teach stick and rudder flying skills anymore. All that time spent on things like stalls, spins, "contact flying", off-field emergency landings, etc. - why it gets in the way of teaching the students how to properly adjust the Garmin/HAL 9000.

So, EZ, you and the others on this thread who make light of the discussion of whether buzzing folks on the ground is OK or not as a general proposition, and make reference to those who make a living flying low (such as crop dusters, pipeline flyers, etc.) to support your argument, I take it you'd highly recommend doing stall/spin training from, what, 100 feet AGL, because, what? ... real men do that? Or because a very small proportion of pilots make their living at that altitude?

Neither justification would be convincing.

It's not a matter of whether I or anyone else "likes" low fly-bys or not ... it's a matter of physics, and the law (if you buzz folks on the ground who aren't amused, and they report your tail number to the FAA, it's your ticket on the line), and common sense. If your day job doesn't require you to take that extra risk (i.e., dusters, pipeline flyers, etc.) of maneuvering close to the ground on a routine basis, and you do it for kicks, then you're accepting additional flight risk (whether you realize it or not) that may turn out to be more than your loved ones may be willing to accept. Or your passengers.

Just ask the surviving family members of Sparky Immesson. Or the families of the many aerobatic flyers who've cracked themselves up over the years. Not because they were bad pilots, or because they were doing something illegal, or because they were doing stuff that that only idiots would do. They were just doing stuff that puts the pilot and airplane on the edge of the performance envelope, where there's little or no room for recovery, and one little piloting mistake, or failure of the aircraft, or momentary downdraft, could send you and your passengers to your Maker.

That's where the old pilot's saying ("There's nothing more useless to a pilot than runway behind you, or altitude above you.") comes from.

nmflyguy wrote:So, EZ, you and the others on this thread who make light of the discussion of whether buzzing folks on the ground is OK.

Last I heard, and the FAA and AOPA can go screw themselves, it's still America, and I'm free, white and over 21. And if I want to go splatter myself on a buzz job gone wrong, so be it.

Yeah, it may screw things up for everybody else in general aviation with a microsecond of bad press. Yeah, my ex wives may miss their alimony checks. And yeah, another fine Cessna product will be a smoldering mass of twisted/melted aluminum. But that's what I do for fun. And that's what personal airplanes are for.

Some guys are BASE jumpers. Guess what, they die. So what. Who the hell are we to tell them not to do that because it's "dangerous" and "foolhardy." Some of us like to ride motorcycles and ATV's WITHOUT WEARING HELMETS. Why? Because we like to. Just call me an organ donor. Again, so be it.

It all boils down to personal freedom. As long as I'm not hurting anyone else, I personally resent authority figures, and pretty much anybody else, telling me what I can or cannot do regarding my own personal safety.

Flying NOE is a learned skill, and an art form, and some of the most wonderful flying that there is. I can't think of a better way to spend time in an airplane, and I've been so fortunate over the past 40 flying years to have lived and worked in places where I've had almost unlimited ability to hone my skills and do my thing. To me it's something sacred...

And I'm betting I'm not the only one here to feel that way. We don't need the lecture, thank you.

Gump

58Skylane wrote:

gbflyer wrote:Nothing like a good buzz job.

gb

Amen!!

Nothing like a good BJ
Amen

Gump;
Another Fine Cessna product is pushing a bit dont you think.....

OK, a 54 year old piece of shit Cessna product. It's poetic license a$$hole....

Gump

RobBurson wrote:

58Skylane wrote:

gbflyer wrote:Nothing like a good buzz job.

gb

Amen!!

Nothing like a good BJ
Amen

We get it Rob, you said that twice now......you chewing on your pencils again

I love to watch a low fly by! And I believe that flying a high speed low approach at an airport is safer than a standard take off, in case of power loss you have more momentum.

A high speed low approach at an airport is fairly risk free. Yet, according to an inspector that I have spoken with, it is looked at as showmanship;look at me! He said that if you are going to fly closer to buildings, vessels or persons than 500' you better be intending to land. And that high speed indicates other wise. 

An infraction is in the eye of the beholder.

I recently went out with my aircraft partner and we did some photos with high speed low approaches at a non controlled field. (prior to inquiring with the inspector referenced above) It was a lot of fun, and in my judgement entirely safe.

How ever, if an inspector from the FAA was around, what would have happened? Could an inspector write a guy up for doing a high speed low pass in a p-51, who doesn't like those?

Remember,whether or not you are guilty of an infraction, you still have to defend your self. You don't have to do something wrong in order to be charged with it. That's the world we live in. The inspector can always say "careless/reckless operation"

The inspector gets to go on with his life. But, what does the aviator get to do?

Maybe I'm jaded, after all I did get arrested for reckless driving for mudding my 4x4 mud rig on my own property. Oh yes, the charges were dropped, but it was only after I paid an attorney $1500.00 to defend me. Really gave a new meaning to the term "innocent until proven guilty" . Didn't realize that a .sheriff could drive by your property and see you playing in a mud pit and arrest you for it. now I know he can and just gets to go on with his life. Yet I had to fork over my money to explain to the judge that the charges are basically fraudulent.          

At fly inns we see aircraft doing high speed flybys. Could/would an inspector write somebody up for that?

I'm with gump. Let us be responsible for ourselves.

looking at the video again I can't see where any of those fly by's were a surprise to anyone on the ground..flying low around the back country here is my regular thing when I go out in the back country. I've flown over folks at below 100 feet many times but I doubt they were legally in this country so I doubt they'll ever complain. It wasn't dangerous as I see it and it didn't surprise anyone although many of those same folks started running into the brush....and yeah everyone here knows engine failure at a low altitude could be hazardous to health but then so can flying...period...I fly canyons here and when I go up north to Idaho or the Nevada desert. It's what we do... It's called Back country flying...

Damn Gump........ you da man!!! I totally agree with you 100%

Look man, it all comes down to good common sense and good judgment when doing "Low Fly By's" which I believe most of us on this forum practice. I for one love seeing other pilots do low fly by's (it's a pilot thing I guess). I for one love doing fly by's!! But only when I know it's safe and I'm not going to piss off some yahoo non aviator type.

I also love flying low in area's or routes that I know the terrain and when I believe it to be safe.

When flying up in northern Nevada, there's no way in hell your going to see wild horses roaming in the desert flying above 500ft agl.

When flying in Idaho, there's no way your going to see all kinds of wild life flying above 500ft ag (in some area's when safe)l!

And when flying through the Owyhee Canyons, there ain't know way your going to see all kinds of wild life flying above the canyon rims

Here's some pics I'll share flying through the Owyhee's. http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=7842&id=1324371585&l=ccff5491fd

Some nice looking Elk while flying below 500ft agl. I wanted to get lower, but didn't think it was safe and didn't want to disturb them too much.
Picture was taken up by Sweet/Ola, Idaho


Ah heck, here's the album I'll share. I got nuttin to loose!
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=62925&id=1324371585&l=7ac0b6a0aa

I'll mention one more thing. Sense I do use good judgment and respect all others out there using the backcountry, I don't fly low over the rivers during rafting season and I don't fly low over the terrain during hunting seasons. And when I do fly low, I'm always on the look out not only for other hazards, but any 4x4's, ATV', bikers, hikers and anybody else I should stay away from.

Anyway, I carried this on more than I intended to. So that my 2 cents worth.

Fly safe and of course, have fun!!

The only sure thing here is the outcome of volunteering a few words of prudence to the self righteous. Seldom comes an acknowledgement without the chest puffing.

Flying the backcountry is less relevant to this topic in my opinion, that's why we go there, to escape the people. Dragging desert in NV, no one cares. Dropping toilet paper over a high school football game in NJ, now that's kicking a hornets' nest. That guy is facing charges because people are scared of airplanes. The people, that's what you have to avoid. Even our resident Nevada imports know that.

Most important lesson on buzzing..........don't make 2 passes

What Gump said...

And some folks fly like this WITHOUT ENGINES or MEDICALS! Holy Cow, Batman!

Dozens of pilots have flown more than 600 miles (several more than 1000 miles) on the Appalachian Mts (PA to TN and return), rarely more than 1 wingspan up and 1 wingspan out from the ridge for 12+ hours, going >100 kts though snowstorms and some of the roughest turbulence in the world, all without an engine. For decades. With very few accidents. By pretty normal, average folks.

Similar story on the Sierra Nevada, White Mts, Wasatch Front, Great Basin, and Rockies during the summer; formation fly-bys on Whitney and White Mt peak optional The near-redline 50 ft agl low pass over the home airfield after 600 + miles and 10+ hrs of in-the-rocks flying is de rigeur.

Oh, Zane, thanks for the Nanny-state warning. Many here must be exercising good skills and judgment, they are not dead.

"Chest puffing" is warranted. As someone already pointed out, low passes are an art form and a learned skill. People should be proud of what they have accomplished ad their skills. I have seen passes that brought tears to the eyes of the observers and the sound of a max-effort Mustang pass is the stuff of gods.

MarkGrubb wrote:Oh, Zane, thanks for the Nanny-state warning. Many here must be exercising good skills and judgment, they are not dead.
...People should be proud of what they have accomplished ad their skills. I have seen passes that brought tears to the eyes of the observers and the sound of a max-effort Mustang pass is the stuff of gods.

You can do whatever you want with those skills you're proud of. Skimming a forum thread apparently is not one of them. The issue of which I speak is unsolicited low fly bys over people, not mountain ridges. I'm not even talking a matter of safety, but perception. Over an airport of pilots, again, no issue. The gent that buzzed a packed beach, for instance last year. Multiple complaints, videos on YouTube of this terrorist, and a violation if I remember correctly. How proud he must have been.

Stay tuned, I'm full of safety briefings. It's part of my overcompensation in the event that your widow sues me for promoting reckless flying.

RobBurson wrote:

58Skylane wrote:

gbflyer wrote:Nothing like a good buzz job.

gb

Amen!!

Nothing like a good BJ
Amen

I strongly recommend anyone reading this (including gump), refrain from the temptation to try the two aforementioned types of B____ Job at the same time. When I was a cop I investigated the aftermath of what a good BJ can do to a driver's ability to maintain control over a speeding automobile. Both couples, front and back seat, managed to walk or crawl away. Took a statement from the driver, said he saw this ball of fire and then remembered the car flipping. Could be more dicey in a plane near the ground.

That said, purely in the interest of science mind you, I'd be willing to have a go at this with the right lass. Here, hold my beer. Lessee now, we'll do it first at altitude and work our way down . . . could take several weeks for the complete test profile. Great balls of fire!

nmflyguy wrote:
and they report your tail number to the FAA, it's your ticket on the line), and common sense.

, or momentary downdraft, could send you and your passengers to your Maker.

Considering the fact that apparently I already have this big black hat epoxied and bolted to my head... and considering that you mentioned someone's license being put at risk... would anyone who has not had their license suspended or revoked for a low altitude buzz job please take a step back from the microphone

I did something irresponsible, but not horribly unsafe under that circumstance, and I got the correct punishment for doing it too close to someone who was not a participant (90 days in the cooler!).

Flying low is legal, safe, and prudent. It is also illegal, unsafe, and stupid. Depends on the time, place, circumstance. They used to teach that sort of skill and the judgment to back it up.

Flying low underneath bad weather (scud running) can be a lifesaver. As a VFR-only pilot, I'd sure as hell rather be underneath a low ceiling than above it. OF COURSE you should not intentionally get yourself into that situation on purpose, but regardless of the reason you're better off under it seeing where you will be landing, rather than over it and not seeing your "landing" location until the last nanosecond.

One of the things that low altitude pilots understand better than most, is that air can usually not move the earth too far out of its way. Usually it's the other way around. So let's look at a "sudden downdraft". On a strong convective day, let's assume you have a 1000 feet per minute downdraft that you fly through at 2500 AGL. In most light airplanes, you will feel the air "hit" the top of the airplane, and smash it downward out from under you, throwing you upward off the seat. Resulting in a change of underwear or damage to the airplane.

Now what happens to that downdraft (that big bucket full of sinking air) as it descends toward the ground? It's just like a bucket of water spilled from above, it splashes outward because last I heard the water cannot move the planet.

So if you are flying at 25 feet above the ground instead of 2500, and you get hit with a "sudden downdraft", you will see a headwind from the air splashing outward, but you will not feel the "fist of God" smashing you downward. (Unless God is purposely trying to move the planet, or it's payback for that farmer's daughter incident).

Said it more than once: as warm and fuzzy as some FAA safety programs are, they are really only concerned about you being enough of an idiot to kill passengers or people on the ground. Which is why the minimum altitude regs are written the way they are I'd wager. No one gives a crap about yahoos like us augering ourselves in, outside of our friends and loved ones I suppose.



Bumper, that twin pilot who buzzed the branding party and ended up killing his passengers augered in only a few houses down from you didn't he? I'm sure it was all in good fun

Zane:

My post is spot-on. Mt Whitney, is populated by dozens of hikers and climbers each day during the summer and their response is very positive (applause, cheering, thumbs-up) when a pilot shares time and space with them. Similar situation on White Mt and the literally dozens of overlooks in the Appalachians and Rockies. Heck, strangers bought me drinks in Aspen, CO for making passes on the top of the Highlands lift while they were on top.

A large part of the skill and judgment I mentioned is having the ability to pick the correct time and place. Like jokes, language, and garlic breath. Naturally, caution should be exercised so that if the pilot screws up, the crash should never endanger civilians on the ground. Like I said, it is an art form and part of that art is knowing the audience. The aforementioned humans share our passion and definitely "get it".

Public perception is a very slippery slope. Our culture is being conditioned to be afraid and to take offense at the slightest event. Perceived risk (as opposed to actual risk) is driving society, to our collective detriment. People think nothing of driving 80 mph surrounded by strangers who may be intoxicated, incompetent, angry, asleep, mentally ill, texting, and putting on their makeup. Perhaps this would be a better venue about which to "caution" people.

These same people would likely be "terrorized" (how many times have you heard that world lately?) by a safe and sane low pass that in no way puts them at risk. Pre- 9/11, the toilet paper dude would never have been hammered as hard as he is today, yet the act would have been equally as "dangerous".

Why let the unfounded fears of others drive our lives?

Finally, Zane, my wife, Kristie, is a hell of a stick and has made inverted passes on Whitney to the applause of the onlookers (friends were on top when we went by). And she despises the legal industry almost as much as I do. You can rest unafraid. At least for tonight. Who knows what may terrorize us tomorrow....