Malibuflyer wrote:
The discussion here, however, is on flights where you have no intention to land
You always plan to land and/or go-around, what if the engine fails in that low pass? 
Reminds me when filing an IFR FPL to cloudbreak on ILS and (maybe) fly VFR to my homebase if weather turn up good, I called ATC to inquire on what to put in FPL as destination & alternate and I got UK Border Force number to call, now I just tell ATC what I want and my wish is their command
That’s interesting about the French (rather high) minimum altitudes: the UK used to have a 1500’ minimum altitude over congested areas, but I think about 15 years ago removed that to be harmonised with the general ICAO minum altitude of 1000’ above a congested area.
Ibra wrote:
You always plan to land and/or go-around, what if the engine fails in that low pass?
A very relevant and good point actually. When training/instructing emergency landings out in the country side, we often go down to 5-10 feet before applying throttle. It is all too easy to forget that if the engine should quit, then this will be a real emergency landing, so you better do it right There was a fatal accident a few years back. They were training emergency landing, this time at a real airfield (Hamar). Then the engine quit for real, they messed up some how, even though they were training explicitly for power off landings, spun in and killed both.
It’s similar with a low pass. If the engine should quit, what are you going to do?
Malibuflyer wrote:
The discussion here, however, is on flights where you have no intention to land.
Surely the easy get-out there is that the question of whether I intend to land is a concept that exists only in my head, a question on which only I can decide, and on which no-one can ever prove otherwise.
At least in the UK we have the ‘in accordance with normal aviation practice’ wording which would seem to cover a situation where ATC says “cleared low approach and go around”.
LeSving wrote:
It’s similar with a low pass. If the engine should quit, what are you going to do?
Presumably that’s a good reason to conduct your low pass at relatively high speed – so that in the event of an engine failure have at least some options (like perhaps the next field rather than the hedge).
1) That EASA rule is bad because it does not allow what is necessary for training.
2) Hence this rule is broken all the time for training, nobody cares
3) Now some people dared enjoying themselves why doing what they would normally do in training, albeit in different places
4) Some busybody – allegedly – decided that having fun while flying is clearly not on, and starts enforcing the rule.
I would simply say that I was doing that flight to remain current and did fly the approach for practice – when else do we have the opportunity to practice at large airports? and see what happens.
Or even better, talk to somebody who has connections in the CAA and see if they can have a quiet word and get the working-from-home civil servant back to doing more sensible things, like watching daytime TV.
In gliding competitions it’s SOP to do a fast low pass before landing, usually it’s the late losers of the day who are very cautious about field landings !
Doing the “beat up pass” allow one to finish it safely in style (arrive late with too much energy but limited spots to land )
Cobalt wrote:
1) That EASA rule is bad because it does not allow what is necessary for training.
2) Hence this rule is broken all the time for training, nobody cares
So it seems indeed. A have always thought that SERA was the one and only set of EASA rules that made sense. In light of this thread I’m not so sure On the other hand, what EASA has done is to leave it up to each “competent authority” to decide the finer details. But, as AirborneA said, the finer details can only be less restrictive, not more, and this makes each “competent authority” rather incompetent by the looks of it. Most of them have done nothing. SERA itself leaves no room for training, touch and goes etc.
LeSving wrote:
So it seems indeed. A have always thought that SERA was the one and only set of EASA rules that made sense. In light of this thread I’m not so sure On the other hand, what EASA has done is to leave it up to each “competent authority” to decide the finer details.
Is there any way to give this as feedback in order to get SERA modified related to this specific point? It should be possible to explain in clear term why this point needs improvement and that could probably be taken into account.
Cobalt wrote:
2) Hence this rule is broken all the time for training, nobody cares
3) Now some people dared enjoying themselves why doing what they would normally do in training, albeit in different places
4) Some busybody – allegedly – decided that having fun while flying is clearly not on, and starts enforcing the rule.
A little bit less cynic one could also say that there seems to be agreement that breaking the law for necessary training purposes is acceptable, while breaking the law just for fun is not.
Malibuflyer wrote:
breaking the law for necessary training purposes is acceptable, while breaking the law just for fun is not.
Oh…The Fun Police…Something that has reared its head in all sorts of ways this last year.
