In Norway we had several accidents where people did a low pass with a more or less abrupt pull up in the end resulting in fatalities in the 1990’s. The authorities forbid that maneuver for a time. Through the aerobatic theory we are told not to do it, even though there are no explicit written regulation against it. The reason is that people do it nonetheless, and at least the authorities shall not point to pilots with aerobatic ratings doing it (with bad/fatal outcome).
Low approaches (below 500’) for training emergency landings for instance are allowed anywhere through an exemption in SERA, but a low pass is not a low approach. The difference is IMO academic. One could argue that a low pass is an aerobatic maneuver:
‘aerobatic flight’ means manoeuvres intentionally
performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in
its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal
variation in speed, not necessary for normal flight or
for instruction for licenses or ratings other than
aerobatic rating;
But that is only true if there is an abrupt/abnormal attitude or speed involved. So a low pass with an abrupt pull up would be an aerobatic maneuver. Through another exemption in SERA, aerobatics is only allowed above 2000’ unless one has display rating and training for it or it’s a competition. So any aerobatic maneuver (as defined in SERA) is not allowed below 2000’, and that also includes a low pass with a sharp pull up in the end. A low pass with no abrupt pull-up is of course (IMO) simply a low approach, a landing approach gone very bad caused by too much speed. It’s not far fetched at all, because it is the abrupt pull up, usually combined with a turn with loss of speed that is the dangerous part, causing stalling at low alt. Going 5’ above the runway close to Vne is not dangerous.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Why, there have to be something left of the UK aerolegal exceptionalism
It’s actually quite sensible: once again, SERA is far too restrictive. Hill soaring isn’t very good if you have to stay 500 feet away from the hill, for example – especially if the wind isn’t strong. (At Bowland Forest, I was getting a checkout on their local ridge in the K-13 and we couldn’t just see the fell walkers wave as we went by, we could see the whites of their eyes). Similarly you can land anywhere in the UK with land owner’s permission and if you’re landing in some random farm field which the owner has graciously let you use, you might want to do a couple of inspection low passes well below 500 ft.
alioth wrote:
It’s actually quite sensible: once again, SERA is far too restrictive.
It’s not a SERA thing. The ICAO rules say the same thing as SERA in this respect. Before SERA, the rules in other European countries also said the same thing. It’s the UK that is different.
The legality of hill soaring can very well be addressed with exceptions to the rules for that kind of flying (just like the UK does). There is really no reason to allow powered aircraft to buzz the hillside at 200 ft just because a glider does.
I fought with the local German Bezirksregierung over a “low pass” ( to me it was a go-around) at an uncontrolled airfield for more than one year… in fact we ended up in court and I only got off because eventually they could not proof my height above the runway…
maehhh wrote:
I fought with the local German Bezirksregierung over a “low pass” ( to me it was a go-around) at an uncontrolled airfield for more than one year… in fact we ended up in court and I only got off because eventually they could not proof my height above the runway…
Really!?? Uncontrolled, so, it makes me wonder who reported you and why?
Patrick wrote:
Essentially, the argument is: One may only fly below the minimum altitudes for the purpose of take off and landing
Makes sense. That’s why there is a minimum altitude….
(and if you are executing a low approach, you are not intending to land, unlike e.g. a normal landing approach and a subsequent go-around)
What makes you think a “low approach” (I think you mean a low pass like many others here), is not with the intention to land at that aerdrome? Perhaps you need to check it out, chase the cattle away, check for cattle etc. etc.
Unless you’re talking about a controlled aerodrome. Then the traffic controller has the right to refuse a low pass. (Which is not the same as it being illegal by definition. Not obeying a controllers instructions without reason is, by the way)
Archie wrote:
Unless you’re talking about a controlled aerodrome. Then the traffic controller has the right to refuse a low pass. (Which is not the same as it being illegal by definition. Not obeying a controllers instructions without reason is, by the way)
Well, exactly. If I’m entering a control zone, say, for a mid-field crossing and while I’m at it, because the controller is bored, he asks me if I want to perform a low approach (that is what they call it, here) and I accept, I’m clearly not intending to land.
What do you mean by mid-field crossing? As in passing overhead on a NavEx?
Patrick wrote:
because the controller is bored, he asks me if I want to perform a low approach (that is what they call it, here) and I accept, I’m clearly not intending to land.
So you’re saying he wants an impromptu airshow because he is bored? Very unprofessional.
But you could do a practice runway inspection run…
Not to show off… to easy to fall for the “Macho” hazardous attitude.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It’s the UK that is different
And the United States. The rules for low flying in the US are the same as the UK: 500 ft from any vehicle, vessel or person in uncongested areas. Since the US has probably more powered GA than the rest of the world put together, I think we can safely say it’s the non-UK SERA countries that are the exception :-)
alioth wrote:
And the United States. The rules for low flying in the US are the same as the UK: 500 ft from any vehicle, vessel or person in uncongested areas. Since the US has probably more powered GA than the rest of the world put together, I think we can safely say it’s the non-UK SERA countries that are the exception :-)
We live in Europe, not the US. Also you are wrong, technically speaking. What SERA say is:
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, a VFR flight
shall not be flown:
SERA itself has this exception in the regulation, it’s not a UK thing. I think most SERA countries have some local twist on this particular regulation. In Norway it has been 500 ft for ages. The original reason was to prevent low flying helicopters (below 500 ft) to collide with airplanes, but mostly because people kept flying into power lines. Yet, exceptions were helicopters, gliders and for training purposes. With SERA it is exactly the same. Now also the NVFR minima is fixed, so we have VFR minima also at night (default SERA is IFR minima for NVFR), but this is also a SERA-thing, built into SERA itself.
I case there is any doubt, the competent authority is the national Aviation authority, not ATC.
