I came across a blog (in German) arguing that low approaches are illegal.
http://ul-fluglehrer.de/blog/files/20150901-tiefanflug.html
Essentially, the argument is: One may only fly below the minimum altitudes for the purpose of take off and landing (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) and in exceptional circumstances that require a special exemption by the competent authority (e.g. schools have that in certain training areas to train simulated emergency landings etc an airshows would have that, too).
I’ve never considered that. Since an instructor took me on a low approach at EDDL, I’ve been doing this every now and then especially when explicitly invited by a ATC.
What’s your thoughts?
Patrick wrote:
What’s your thoughts?
A difficult one. And full of contradictions. For example, during IFR training we do low approaches all the time, many more than actual landings or touch-and-goes. From an ILS, a low approach is typically flown at 200ft. According to this blog, this would be a violation of the low flying rules. Every single time. I have not yet heard of anybody being prosecuted for doing that.
Generally, I have a rule of ignoring blogs. They are typically written by people who have no one at home who wants to listen to them talking. And no one is willing to buy their prose from them either. Therefore they publish their stuff unreviewed over the internet at their own cost. There might be some blogs out there worth reading. Maybe one in one thousand. But I have no intention to read one thousand blogs in order to not miss the single good one…
Although he writes “low approach”, it seems he is actually talking about a “low pass” which is something quite different.
A low approach is an approach to land which is aborted before touchdown and followed by a go-around.
A low pass is a level overflight over the runway at low altitude.
Airborne_Again wrote:
A low pass is a level overflight over the runway at low altitude
Which happens to be a required procedure when earning and exercising privileges of the MOU rating, and SOP for any aeroplane pilot contemplating a landing at an unprepared or non-radio site (beach, hayfield, farm strip etc.).
Incidentally, the Blackface sheep which kindly maintain our grass runways are singularly unimpressed by pilots who think 30 ft is low. They expect an inbound aircraft to indicate its intent by getting into ground effect.
So yes, it makes perfect EASAsense that what is required by custom and practice (if not by law), and what is necessary for self-preservation is also illegal*. 
*(Except in the UK whose CAA has more or less said “nuts” to SERA – and in France where such nit-picking would, at best, be greeted by a Gallic shrug).
My impression after reading the German text is that the guy thinks about for fun low passes. He likely cannot think about a low pass to inspect a runway. With the always manned airfields in Germany that is probably too far away to imagine.
Jacko wrote:
So yes, it makes perfect EASAsense that what is required by custom and practice (if not by law), and what is necessary for self-preservation is also illegal.
The minimum height rules have been in place before EASA.
Jacko wrote:
and SOP for any aeroplane pilot contemplating a landing at an unprepared or non-radio site (beach, hayfield, farm strip etc.).
But that should be covered! I’m no lawyer, but I would argue a low pass to inspect a landing site can be considered “necessary for take-off or landing” as per:
“Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, aircraft shall not be flown…”
Stephan_Schwab wrote:
My impression after reading the German text is that the guy thinks about for fun low passes.
… because when doing a for fun low pass (that you may even indicate to ATC) that is quite clearly not “necessary for take-off or landing”.
It may be nitpicking but I think the guy has a fair point and I’d be curious to see a supported argument as to why it should be legal indeed.
I’d agreed that an low pass, below 500ft, isn’t allowed.
However an intentional go-around is just a landing, which has been aborted.
Likewise a low flight over a runway for the purpose of inspecting it before landing would be part of landing in accordance with normal aviation practice and allowd too.
It’s more the “look at me! I’m cool!” type of thing that is illegal.
dublinpilot wrote:
I’d agreed that an low pass, below 500ft, isn’t allowed.
Except in much of the UK?
dublinpilot wrote:
It’s more the “look at me! I’m cool!” type of thing that is illegal.
Fair enough, but the trouble with trying to ban the “show-off” low pass is
(a) unless photographed under a bridge or landing with a length of telephone wire caught on the rudder it’s a difficult one to prove and
(b) it may deter practice/proficiency in the proper use of ground effect.
it may deter practice/proficiency in the proper use of ground effect.
I think that, ahem, to experience ground effect, you need to be, ahem, somewhat lower than 500ft 
More like 5ft.
You would have to be doing that over a runway and with the gear down.
Unless I mis-understand
Jacko wrote:
Except in much of the UK?
Why, there have to be something left of the UK aerolegal exceptionalism.
