What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

"True" Hazards of Low Passes/Buzzing

Toobuilder

Well Known Member
We?ve seen the recent safety related discussions lately, and while there is much disagreement over some methods of improving safety; there does seem to be some solid evidence that suggests many crashes are the result of a very short and all too common accident chain. Running out of fuel seems to top the list of commonality, and disturbingly, is one of THE most preventable accidents out there. VFR into IMC is another, and the list goes on. While the ?cause? of these accidents is a bit of a misnomer, because running out of fuel does not ?cause? a crash, I understand the logical sequence of events that leads to the actual, literal ?crash?. The same holds true for VFR into IMC ? the airplane normally does not self destruct as soon as the windscreen goes grey, but it is logical (and easy) to simply list these events as a ?cause? in an attempt to drive home the message to avoid the behavior.

With the above said, I don?t understand the ?cause? of another listed common accident event ? ?low passes/buzzing?. To me, this listing as a ?cause? is a bit like the age old admonishment that ?speed kills? on the highway ? sure, it?s easy to say and makes a point, but it is not really accurate. Technically, it?s impact with a solid object causing internal trauma that kills, not speed. So what is it about the aviation buzz job/ low pass that results in bent metal and death? Before you read any further, I will disclose that low passes down the runway are a very common practice at my (private) airport, and I perform them often myself. I?m not defending or advocating the practice ? simply admitting that like other forms of unnecessary activities such as formation flying or aerobatics, pilots derive enjoyment from it, so it will continue.

My reason for this thread is to focus on the real cause of the crash following a low pass so that perhaps training or at least SOME realistic thought will go into the decision making process before performing the maneuver. Because let?s face it, unlike running out of gas or inadvertent flight into IMC, low passes are fun. If it is ?fun?, pilots are going to do it ? regulations be damned. In my humble opinion, there?s only two ways to prevent this too common activity from populating the statistics. The first is to absolutely crack down on this behavior by turning each other over to the Feds for every infraction (and most of you know MY stance on that) or the second is we honestly analyze the lapses in piloting skill/judgment that cause the crashes, and ?fix? that. If we acknowledge that the activity will take place (not the same as endorsing it, mind you) we can at least make the activity safer.

So of all the accidents where the low pass is listed as a cause, does anyone have any real insight into the ?true? cause? For example, is it an accelerated stall, CFIT, midair, impact with a structure, dishing out of a roll? What?s the main cause(s)? Thoughts?
 
So of all the accidents where the low pass is listed as a cause, does anyone have any real insight into the ?true? cause? For example, is it an accelerated stall, CFIT, midair, impact with a structure, dishing out of a roll? What?s the main cause(s)? Thoughts?

I'd say all of the above. When you're close to the ground, there's more stuff to hit, and less time to sort things out. I can't really see buzzing as a cause, but it is an activity with narrowed margins for error.
 
my thought is to just slow down. the traditional Buzz is that with the highest speed you can do. I suggest slowing down, way down, do something different and let people see your plane, do a wave with the wings, change it to a fly-by. I've seen many a pilot come in for a flyin that did just that, they did a slow fly-by and wave the wings than re-enter the pattern and land. I thought that was way cooler than a high speed buzz.

High speed buzz lowers down your response to objects so much, that this is the very reason the activety is so dangerous. I would say the no. 1 reason the buzz is so dangerous is because the response rate is so small that nothing can be done, as well as the fact that your turn radius is practically nil. Your a flying bullet of sorts. distroying anything in your path. Not to mention your now thought of by people as an idiot.
 
I'd say all of the above. When you're close to the ground, there's more stuff to hit, and less time to sort things out. I can't really see buzzing as a cause, but it is an activity with narrowed margins for error.

From all of the accident reports I have studied, I have to agree with Steve - all of the above. every instance is different, but they end, as you say Mike, with a sudden stop against a solid object. It is just a guess on my part that the low pass is a high workload task for someone with limited experience, and they might be getting a bit behind the airplane, concentrating on their audience...whatever.

I also believe that since most pilots train in certified airplanes with lots of stall warnings (both systematic and aerodynamic), they are not necessarily accustomed to the lower level of stall warning you get from many experimental airplanes. Coupled with the decided lack of transition training that many have when transitioning into their experimental, they are really surprised when it stops flying on them. Again, it is my gut feel that this is one of the big reasons that there is a push for proper transition training - learning where the edges of the stall envelope are for a particular aircraft.



Paul

P.S.: Sure, low passes are fun....but are they fun becasue it feels neat to fly close to the ground, or becasue people are watching? If the former, then you can do it out over the wasteland and still have the same fun, right?
 
Last edited:
Some random thoughts:

Buzz jobs certainly are fun. Both to do, and to watch and critique.

Not really sure you will find someone willing to "train" you for a buzz job.

In my group of friends we tend to do them for a while, then stop. Later on someone will start the whole process over again. The reason we stop is typically someone will do one that the spectators will respond with "the only way to top that one will result in a fireball".

Pilots are competitive.

The "accident" from a buzz job is either an incorrect manipulation of the controls during the maneuver, or getting in a situation that you cannot get out of when trying to make it "spectacular".

Buzz jobs tend to be spontaneous and made up on the go, not planned from the ground. I have never heard somone say "watch this" and then walk to their airplane, start up, taxi out, run up, take off, turn around, and do a buzz job. Usually when I hear "watch this" about 12 seconds later I hear somone saying "where the heck did he come from???"

Pilots are sometimes children at heart.

Would you let a child do a buzz job?

Mark
 
Last edited:
Yes, those are certainly hazards... But which of those hazards manifest themselves as the "top" causes of the accidents? If we want to improve safety, then we need to focus first on the most common mistake. Once those are eliminated, then we work on the "new" most common. Ultimately, the overall activity drops off the radar and stops being a safety "problem".
 
Well, here's a famous one...

Leland Snow had just finished an early ag plane and the paint was barely dry when he took it to a fly-in. On arrival, he thought a low altitude, high speed pass would be neat, so he did one.

The ailerons fluttered and he pulled up hard to stop it...(he personally related this story to me years ago) and managed to come around and land. The ailerons drooped several inches from stretched cables, during the flutter event:eek:...a very lucky man indeed.

He hadn't balanced them yet!

A year or two ago, a pilot was demonstrating an 800 gallon Air Tractor's firebombing capabilities and pulled up into a chandelle of sorts, stalled the airplane into an inverted flat spin before a crowd and they watched the airplane flat-spin on the airport property on its roof....instant fatality....commercial pilot too. We watched a video of this gut-wrenching event at one of our ag seminars.

There are many more similar stories,
 
Margins

So of all the accidents where the low pass is listed as a cause, does anyone have any real insight into the ?true? cause? For example, is it an accelerated stall, CFIT, midair, impact with a structure, dishing out of a roll? What?s the main cause(s)? Thoughts?

To expand a little on what szicree said, most of the causes come down to reduced margins. That is, if something happens you may not have time to react before it gets ugly. A distraction that would be a non-issue at 1000 feet can be a deal breaker at 20 feet. As an example, some of the accident reports involve bird strikes, which makes sense, most of my near-misses with birds happened on approach or departure. Add speed to all of this and you have a perfect setup. Leveling out a bit below red line after the dive onto final, hey it is a "high speed" pass after all, the turkey vulture launches out of the weeds and you instinctively yank on the stick... You can fill in the rest.

The old saying about useless things in aviation starts with "The sky above you".

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
...Not really sure you will find someone willing to "train" you for a buzz job...

No, and that is FAR from the intent of this thread.

However, one can (and should) train to avoid an accelerated stall. If it turns out that basic control of the aircraft is lacking, we can (and should) work to imprve that. If people are running into stuff on the ground because they do not know the area intimately, then we should highlight that fact, and perhaps elevate the real risk to a level that makes people think before they act.

I think people benefit from a genuine education more than simply following orders to "Not do that because I said so". For some of us, the latter becomes a challenge which drives us to find the answers on our own (often to our own detriment).
 
I've had two close calls when doing a "low approach". In one, I got into the prop wash of the airplane in front of me (also doing the low approach) and found myself looking at the ground all of a sudden. The second involved my failure to communicate in the pattern with another pilot who had just departed. When I pulled up and turned right (left hand pattern) he was coming around and we nearly collided.

I've done plenty of low approaches, especially with the Rocket. As others have said, it can all go wrong pretty quickly. I think we, as pilots, become focused on the low approach and the adreneline rush that comes with it, and we stop doing the kinds of things we normally do when we are in the pattern.
 
I think pilots, in general, lack training and experience in low level and unusual maneuvering. From the beginning, most of us are told to climb to 5,000 feet and do stalls and to recover as soon as possible.
I have no scientific data, but I would suspect that most buzz job accidents are low level stalls / spins or (pseudo) aerobatic displays at low level that intersect the ground. Pilots need training in stall condition recognition in some condition other than straight ahead student pilot stalls at high altitude. Most of these low level accidents can be prevented by simply unloading and leveling the wings to prevent a stall. But it looks different and it?s hard to push on the stick when you?re 20 feet from the ground.

I had an instructor ? who will remain nameless ? tell me, ?you?re going to make low passes and make low level turns after I give you your license. It?s not safe, but I?m sure you?re going to do it anyway. So here?s how to do it properly. It?s still not safe, but it?s way safer than doing it wrong.?

BTW - it's the same lack of training / experience that leads to accidents on approach to SNF and OSH. Unusual sight picture / positioning leading to low level high descent rates - and pulling on the stick to try to make the ground rush go away.
 
I don't have any data to back it up, but it seems to me that the abrupt pull-up that follows a high speed pass causes a lot of accidents.

If I ever do a high speed pass, I will make it a point to execute a smooth, low-AOA pull up as I climb back to altitude. I'm not good enough to be practicing accelerated stalls at low altitude.

The other thing I worry about is a bird strike at low altitude and high speed. Our airport seems to be a favored soaring site among some very large birds.

I think it's also possible that many folks aren't accustomed to being close to the ground at anything over about 90 knots. Folks who fly bigger airplanes for a living develop a certain comfort level at higher speeds when the airplanes they're flying rotate at +/- 150 knots indicated. Someone with high speed, low altitude experience is less likely to experience tunnel vision and is therefore more likely to react appropriately if confronted with an abnormal situation.

As with so many other things we do in our lives, it's often not as much the maneuver that's dangerous, but the person who's executing it. I've been passed on the interstate dozens of times by cars obviously traveling at triple digit speeds. In the right situation with the right car and with good technique, I'm not the least bit concerned. Other times when passed by a mini-van at 67 mph with one parent stretched over the front seat handing out pacifiers and the other parent driving while texting, I'm concerned.

My humble $0.02.
 
this is thread drift but

BTW - it's the same lack of training / experience that leads to accidents on approach to SNF and OSH. Unusual sight picture / positioning leading to low level high descent rates - and pulling on the stick to try to make the ground rush go away.

and probably without a stall warning device.

But this is Thread drift and is already being discussed here

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=71738

all great, constructive threads.

Fly on!!
 
Most GA pilots never get additional training after earning their Private license, i.e., an instrument rating or aerobatic training, so when they poke their nose into IMC conditions or find themselves in an unusual attitude they are not prepared. Worse yet, some of their "training" comes from hangar talk, where the individual doing the talking hasn't had any formal training either. It is the, blind leading the blind, syndrome.

Years ago I mentioned on this site that the best insurance policy you can ever buy for yourself and your family is advanced training. Period! Instrument training will make a smoother, more precise pilot and a safer pilot too. Aerobatic training will teach you how to fly the aircraft at its outer limits and to recover properly from unusual attitudes.

I am not encouraging anyone to make low passes and tactical breaks. One encounter with a bird could ruin your windscreen or your whole day. Try to remember that many of the younger pilots look up to you and when they see you do something bone headed they might just think it is the right thing to do.

Respectfully submitted,

Jim
 
My reason for this thread is to focus on the real cause of the crash following a low pass so that perhaps training or at least SOME realistic thought will go into the decision making process before performing the maneuver.

I think we agree, however maybe we are saying it differently.

Someone is always going to be the first in a certain situation. You cannot train the aerodynamics of every conceivable scenario. At some point a pilot will have to combine different parts of their knowlege and experience to formulate a plan.

I am sure some of these accidents are from people that didn't know pitching up into 60 degree climbing turn after a high speed pass would end poorly. However I bet a large number understand and know exactly the aerodynamics behind the cause of their accident. A lapse in judgement, or an inflated ego, is what got them to the point where they suddenly realized they were past the point of no return.

Judgement is what is needed to analize a plan and decide in advance that it should not be put into action because the likelihood of it turning out well is minimal.

Judgement is much more difficult to train than aerodynamics.

Mark
 
I think a lack of aerobatic experience could get people into trouble doing the typical buzz job/pull up. There were a couple RV-3 wing folding incidents years back from pulling up too hard and maybe rolling at the same time, which adds stress that you won't see on the g-meter. As far as accelerated stalls go, most buzz jobs in RVs are at top speed. At this speed, you'll pull the wings off before you stall if you pull too hard. In my experience, attempted low level rolls produce a lot more dead pilots than simple low level passes. So again, some real aerobatic experience and knowledge could help prevent accidents in both instances. I'd bet most of those who pulled up into climbing turn and somehow stalled/spun or folded a wing never even did it at altitude...and if so, certainly not enough to gain much competance. Unless distracted by a serious in-flight emergency, I still find it mind boggling that people accidently stall RVs at low altitude...or any airplane for that matter. I mean, of all places to not be halfway paying attention to how you're loading the stick.
 
Last edited:
my thought is to just slow down. the traditional Buzz is that with the highest speed you can do. I suggest slowing down, way down, do something different and let people see your plane, do a wave with the wings, change it to a fly-by. I've seen many a pilot come in for a flyin that did just that, they did a slow fly-by and wave the wings than re-enter the pattern and land. I thought that was way cooler than a high speed buzz.

High speed buzz lowers down your response to objects so much, that this is the very reason the activety is so dangerous. I would say the no. 1 reason the buzz is so dangerous is because the response rate is so small that nothing can be done, as well as the fact that your turn radius is practically nil. Your a flying bullet of sorts. distroying anything in your path. Not to mention your now thought of by people as an idiot.

+1

I mean...that and the abrupt pull up seems to be the difference between a buzz job and a low pass that can have good reasons: such checking for animals at night, checking the runway condition, or doing training as in the "almost landing" training we did. Doing it slow and with a normal "takeoff" at the end would turn it into a maneuver that we did in student training...and that I do at night at many fields to check for deer (after coming to a stop in front of one, once). ie. a go-around without landing.

Which leads to my point: just like steep turns are safe...but steep turns around a buddies house can easily turn deadly -- I think what the pilot is paying attention to (and what that are not) is a major factor here too.

I think pilots, in general, lack training and experience in low level and unusual maneuvering. From the beginning, most of us are told to climb to 5,000 feet and do stalls and to recover as soon as possible.

Most GA pilots never get additional training after earning their Private license, i.e., an instrument rating or aerobatic training, so when they poke their nose into IMC conditions or find themselves in an unusual attitude they are not prepared. Worse yet, some of their "training" comes from hangar talk, where the individual doing the talking hasn't had any formal training either. It is the, blind leading the blind, syndrome.

+10,000

I did all sorts of training I thought was "standard" until I got involved with more forums (not bragging...I was just...surprised)... ie. real IMC, spins, holding stalls for a LONG time. Also lots of work at altitude but with an artificial "deck"...and then doing airport turn backs, departure stalls, base to final stalls, etc. Some in acro aircraft so we could really upset things.

At least for me experiencing it gave me real, live respect for things...and what would actually happen. And when I was "dead" below the "deck". And I learned it was possible myself alive for 30 minutes in IMC without help -- but it was hard -- so, while I won't do anything stupid, I don't plan on freaking out "I'm gonna die!" if I hit a cloud either.

Anyway...my point: fly safe, but train and practice for everything! If you get stuck doing everything right, you'll be better prepared...and if you do something silly or stupid, you'll be better prepared too.

(Err...last part is a bit OT...but...anyway.)
 
Last edited:
I see the biggest risk is probably bird strikes around here. We have plenty of Canada Geese, Hawks, and Ravens at my home base. These are big birds that you would not want to hit at 200 knots or any speed in fact. I've had plenty of close calls in the pattern at 90 to 100 knots even with some altitude to avoid. At 50 feet and 200 knots, your options are limited and your reaction time reduced.

Plenty of very tough military aircraft have been brought down by bird strikes flying low level. RV canopies offer zero protection at these speeds even from small 4 pound birds let alone larger species.

Second thing would be planes you didn't see/ hear on approach. Very bad form to assume everyone is calling on the proper frequency or heard you call. NORDO traffic can't hear you and you can't hear them. UL aircraft often do 500 feet patterns and very close in and tight. Had a close call at another airport with a NORDO aircraft using a runway 90 degrees to the windsock. It would have ended badly had I been doing a high speed pass that day. I was just landing and this guy took me completely by surprise when he appeared in front- yellow Citabria against yellow Canola crop. I went and talked to him BTW.
 
I agree that at high speed, you're going to bend something before you stall it.

The slow and low pass to me isn't a great idea. Low and slow are two things that aren't good. Let's say you have an engine problem. You don't have nearly as many options as if you're going 200 kts. At high speed, you may actually have enough energy to get the plane back around to the runway, or at least buy you some time to find a landing spot.


One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is doing a low pass to clear wildlife.

Where I fly, there are tons of deer. I've found myself on final approach and then I see deer near the runway, if not on the runway. A low pass always seems to scare them away.

So, to put a twist on this thread, can a high speed, low pass be used as a safety measure?

I honestly feel if you are realistic with your true ability as a pilot, and don't ever do anything intentionally that makes you or anyone around you uncomfortable, then don't do it! For me, if I'm uncomfortable, then I'm not having fun. If my passengers are uncomfortable, then they aren't having fun.

Low passes save lives. That should be a bumper sticker... :)

Steve
 
RV3

One of the RV3 accidents was an airplane that had been badly abused. I saw it run off the runway at Fon du Lac into the ditch. Both wingtips were resting on the sides of the ditch, more or less supporting the airplane. Significant damage. I later heard that the wings had been replaced with the wings from another airplane. The airplane had also been damaged in another accident. Keep in mind that this was long before the first prohibition of acro in RV3's. Am I correct that since then there were mods to the wings once again allowing acro, and then the 3B. I believe the accident airplane was flown in Intermediate competetion. Certainly an above average pilot could fly Intermediate within the limits of the 3. Unfortunately I would have to rate the accident pilot WAY below average.
 
there is one more thing not mentioned on that high speed pull up, sure the wings will probably come off, if not, you will probably black out. Now who's flying the airplane???
 
These have all been great responses and are painting a different picture than I originally held ? which is what I hoped to personally gain from this thread. I hope to assess my own risk posture and determine if my own personal rules for performing this act are valid. It is easy to justify a behavior when you don?t fully understand the risks, and simply arrogant to dismiss the demonstrated risks as only applicable to the ?other guy?.

Based on the previous accidents described in this thread, I draw the conclusion that some basic requirements were not met:

1. Know your airplane. (And I mean this in the ?biblical? sense) Since you are in a level of seriously reduced margin, you better know exactly where the limits are by feel, sight and sound. 10 feet off the deck is not the right time to be conducting your first flutter test.

2. Know the area intimately. This includes all obstructions, traffic, winds, lighting, and possible wildlife.

3. Get your head in the game. You are about to fly in an area of reduced margin ? this is no time to be showing off or trying something new.

4. Expect the unexpected. Have plan for the sudden flock of birds, dust devil, or airplane that appears in the windscreen.

5. Be as predictable as possible. On the chance that someone else is planning the same thing, make radio calls, run the lights, etc.

These categories are pretty broad, but they are what I use? Fully aware that following these rules does not in any way ?eliminate? the risk, but may ?mitigate? it to the extent possible - am I missing anything?
 
low pass

My sense is that the majority, maybe nearly all, of the low pass accidents are the result of attempted acro during or at the end of the low pass. Take away the acro and there is nothing inherently unsafe about a low pass. We fly into several unattended remote strips in the four corners area. Some pilots make a low pass to check the runway. NOT illegal, as long as you don't do acro and don't exceed 250 kts. When I read one of these accident reports I immediately think that the pilot was probably attempting a roll for the first time in their life.(and usually the last time) I trained a pilot years ago who bought a Pitts S2S. His aerobatic experience consisted of a few spins and rolls. On one of his first takeoffs in his new Pitts, he held it down for the length of a fairly long runway. He then pulled up vertical and was sitting there enjoying the scenery when he realized that
A: he didn't have a clue what he was doing
B: he had no idea how he was going to return to level flight.
He lucked out. He then took 10 hours dual in the S2B.
 
I agree that it's not the "act"...

...it really boils down to a lack of the appropriate level of airmanship, and the lack of judgment to realize it.

How do we fix that?
 
My Mom told me...

...it really boils down to a lack of the appropriate level of airmanship, and the lack of judgment to realize it.

She knew I would be doing this low-pass stuff, and told me the Single Rule for that sort of acitvity: DON'T LOOK BACK.

It could be that she was telling me to watch my airspeed, lest the earth rise up and smite me. Acro was not in the picture at that time....

I fly a few airshows, and the "Photo Pass" is almost always how the act is ended. I've done this in several RVs, the Rocket, the C-45, and now the B25. It's basically a curving low pass, but in the bigger planes we pull up and THEN roll. This two-step process keep the wings on, more or less. In the smaller ships, I try to enter the pass in such a manner that I don't have to roll as the maneuver progresses - no asymmetric loading there either.

Summary:
Be aware of your speed, both inbound & outbound
Be aware of your intended flight path
Be aware of objects & structures and WIRES along that path
Be aware of other aircraft, both on the ground & in the air
Be aware of your limitations/experience
Yep - situational awareness is what is gonna keep you alive here.

The Low Approach or Photo Pass is a standard maneuver, but done close to the ground. You are near one of the edges of flight (ground), so proceed carefully as you learn this sort of flying. Best to start in a Cub, and move up from there. Let the acro wait until you are very good at it, and can do what you plan to do on an upline.

DON'T DO NUTHIN' DUMB.

Carry on!
Mark
 
Wrong on the wings

there is one more thing not mentioned on that high speed pull up, sure the wings will probably come off, if not, you will probably black out. Now who's flying the airplane???

The wings will not come off, the airplane is stressed to 6g.

The way you pull the wings off is to pull too hard, the RV is quite capable of pulling up at 4g from a high speed low pass.

The problem is the pilot, training and understanding of the flight controls. The pilot should know that to achieve a given load factor (2,3..5Gg) it takes less pull on the stick at higher speed than at lower speed, at a low enough of a speed you can't get max g, this would be close to maneuvering speed. If you use the same force on the stick at 200 kts to pull 4g that you use at 140kts you will pull more g than you intend and possibly over G the plane.

You do a loops in your RV at a fairly good entry speed, and you pull 3-4g but the wings don't fall off, what makes you think this will happen pulling up from a low approach. The circle scribed in the air at a given load factor will be larger with a higher airspeed but the wings will not fall off,

I am not saying to go out and do low passes but to fear the wings falling off is just wrong. If the airplane is operated withing its design load limits then you will be fine.
 
"Competition finishes" in gliders

Glider races typically end with a fixed turnpoint at some distance from the finish point. The line between the turnpoint and the airfield contains lots of gliders at high speed, at the same height, following the same course. They all cross the finish line (usually the runway threshold) at low altitude, and either perform a straight-in or arrive with enough energy to pull up and enter the pattern.

So each competition day basically finishes with a loose formation of low passes. If the competition field is tight, you might see anything up to 60 aircraft arriving in that manner in the space of 45 minutes.

In Australia, glider competitions operate under NOTAMs and with a regulatory waiver from CASA which permits operation below 500 feet. An obvious concern is that outside the context of the competition there's no waiver so pilots can't be trained in how to safely perform competition finishes, and during the competition the finishes are sufficiently congested that training isn't safe.

So in any given competition there would likely be one or two first-timers who'd be blasting towards the finish line at high speed and low altitude then pulling up into the pattern, having never done it before.

In 2006, CASA was persuaded that this clearly unsatisfactory situation was a risk to safety. The Gliding Federation of Australia wrote up some draft rules about how to carry out low-level high speed finish training, and in an uncharacteristic fit of enlightenment CASA approved them.

So now it's possible to train glider pilots in "... an approved circuit entry and landing technique where a glider descends below 500ft agl within 5km of an airfield with sufficient kinetic energy to enable the pilot to convert `energy into height' and recover adequate height to enable a safe circuit and landing to be performed."

A well-judged competition finish will see the glider crossing the threshold at 50 feet AGL at a speed quite close to VNE, often in excess of 130 knots. The pilot will convert that speed into about 700 - 800 feet of height before joining downwind.

Ops Directive authorising the change:
http://2009.gfa.org.au/Docs/ops/OD 1-06.doc
Pilot notes:
http://2009.gfa.org.au/Docs/ops/OD 1-06 pilot notes.doc

The notes and OD cover factors for pilots to consider as they carry out the maneuver. Some of them are unique to gliders (I can't see many RVs dumping water ballast), but many of them are germane to this thread.
 
The wings will not come off, the airplane is stressed to 6g.

The way you pull the wings off is to pull too hard, the RV is quite capable of pulling up at 4g from a high speed low pass.

The problem is the pilot, training and understanding of the flight controls. The pilot should know that to achieve a given load factor (2,3..5Gg) it takes less pull on the stick at higher speed than at lower speed, at a low enough of a speed you can't get max g, this would be close to maneuvering speed. If you use the same force on the stick at 200 kts to pull 4g that you use at 140kts you will pull more g than you intend and possibly over G the plane.

You do a loops in your RV at a fairly good entry speed, and you pull 3-4g but the wings don't fall off, what makes you think this will happen pulling up from a low approach. The circle scribed in the air at a given load factor will be larger with a higher airspeed but the wings will not fall off,

I am not saying to go out and do low passes but to fear the wings falling off is just wrong. If the airplane is operated withing its design load limits then you will be fine.

People were speculating that a lot of people were getting into an accelerated stall during the pull up. This was corrected because the airplane will not stall. The wings would come off before that happens.

I do wonder who is pulling more than 6 g's. I've felt 4 g's once in a glider and it hurt! 6 g's is a lot. And what do you think it takes to pull a wing off, 8-9?

I don't think anyone was implying that wings were coming off at 3 or 4 g's.

Steve
 
What I am worried about

I am not as much worried about pull ups, accelerated stalls, or ripping the wings off. What i am worried about is everyone else in the pattern. I think a high speed, low pass is akind to formation flying without a pre brief. If everyone around the airport does not know it is coming, then the chance of surprising someone in the pattern is very great. In the glider competition, all pilots know this is coming and should have been briefed during the pilots meeting. In the low passes we are talking about, most of the ones that ended badly seem to have been a spur of the moment act. I do not want to be in the pattern when someone does this unplanned and unbriefed maneuver. I do not have a problem with a low pass at pattern speed with fair warning. Please save your low high speed passes for when I am not around; if you wish to do this, do it during an airshow with the proper briefings or in someone else's backyard. JMO
 
Gather round folks..........

Get your wife and kids to sit and watch what happens when you do impromtu, illegal, un-briefed and un-qualified aerobatics.

Ask your wife and kids if your moment of glory, stupidity, and as I call it a "Hold my Beer and Watch This" act of selfishness warrants the result. The Risk Reward Scenario.

This video is Mike Faraldi's fatal beat up. I have copped a bit of flak for voicing my concerns on this elsewhere but I do not hold back in saying that after such a stupid accident, with your family and friends watching in horror, as their husband/father dies in front of them, that this is a senseless waste of an aeroplane and a families life. After that they then have the NTSB and corronial enquiries, they may lose their house and and get sued by all and sundry for maybe killing someone else, damage to property, and all the while the insurance companies are trying to wash their hands of it because you were doing something, illegal or otherwise outside your policy limits.

The only way = Properly trained, properly briefed in a safe environment with folk who know what they are doing. Sounds like a proper airshow display, and they can even go wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux8ilc2pgOw


So what did your wife and kids just say?

I think that will say it all.

No apologies at all if this upsets some readers.

DB:cool:
 
Gather round folks..........

Get your wife and kids to sit and watch what happens when you do impromtu, illegal, un-briefed and un-qualified aerobatics.

Ask your wife and kids if your moment of glory, stupidity, and as I call it a "Hold my Beer and Watch This" act of selfishness warrants the result. The Risk Reward Scenario.

This video is Mike Faraldi's fatal beat up. I have copped a bit of flak for voicing my concerns on this elsewhere but I do not hold back in saying that after such a stupid accident, with your family and friends watching in horror, as their husband/father dies in front of them, that this is a senseless waste of an aeroplane and a families life. After that they then have the NTSB and corronial enquiries, they may lose their house and and get sued by all and sundry for maybe killing someone else, damage to property, and all the while the insurance companies are trying to wash their hands of it because you were doing something, illegal or otherwise outside your policy limits.

The only way = Properly trained, properly briefed in a safe environment with folk who know what they are doing. Sounds like a proper airshow display, and they can even go wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux8ilc2pgOw


So what did your wife and kids just say?

I think that will say it all.

No apologies at all if this upsets some readers.

DB:cool:

Wow. That's pretty tough to watch. Do you know the details of the crash? Looks like he simply ran out of airspeed and couldn't recover.
 
crash

Geez Pierre.........you'd think he would have enough wit about him to push over as he dumped the load. I guess there's more to this than I realize.
 
To me, both of those incidents include elements other than just the "buzz job".

I've been to a number of fly ins and every single time I've seen airplanes do low passes. After the pass they simply climb away and join the pattern. To me, it really doesn't look like they're doing anything drastically different than a low approach with the exception that they're carrying more energy and thus can climb back up higher if something happens. They aren't doing hard pulls off the end or rolls or dumping water or anything else. From the ground, it doesn't look all that dangerous to me and certainly no more dangerous than a missed approach and go around.

So...just for the record, are we arguing that a low pass in and of itself is dangerous? Or rather, that a low pass is dangerous because people do other dangerous stuff (low level acro) while doing them?
 
WARNING: Not for the feint of heart!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE6H2I1A6XA

Stay safe,

I've never seen a crash that fits this profile and I'm still trying to understand the dymanics that resulted in a seemingly uncommanded negative pitchover from an intended positive G turn. This does not appear to be the normal stall/spin scenario, since he ended up negatively loaded. Even if you stall/spin inverted by pulling too hard, you're still in an upright, positively-loaded spin. This appears to be a turbine? The video mentioned something about propellor overspeed, but nothing was very clear. Does the prop turn in a counter-clockwise direction? It almost appeared to be an uncommanded gyroscopic pitchover.

The only thing that half makes sense from the limited info is that if the CCW-turning prop oversped as he was attempting to yaw the airplane around with left rudder at this very slow airspeed, that propellor gyroscopics pitched the nose forward at a rate greater than what may have happened under normal circumstances. But again, I'm not familiar with the plane and I've never seen a departure such as this. Closest thing is an accidental inverted spin out of a hammerhead. But this did not appear to be a hammerhead attempt, since he rolled ninety degrees first in what appears to be an attempted turn. Can anyone who has knowledge of this aircraft explain exactly what happened? Curious from a technical standpoint. But of course, more importantly is how unfortunate this was.
 
Last edited:
To me, it really doesn't look like they're doing anything drastically different than a low approach with the exception that they're carrying more energy and thus can climb back up higher if something happens.
Another way of looking at this is that all of that extra energy/speed means that the pilot has a lot less time to react to some unforeseen event....like a bird. I've nearly taken a vulture through the canopy at pattern altitude and instinctively ducked and pushed the stick forward to avoid being force fed bird (nasty bird, at that.) It scared the heck out of me! Sure glad I wasn't smoking along at 200mph and 10ft off the deck. :eek:

From the ground, it doesn't look all that dangerous to me and certainly no more dangerous than a missed approach and go around.
If we're being honest with ourselves, I don't think any of us would really try to make an argument that a true missed approach and subsequent go-around (say 70mph on short final, followed by an immediate climb out) is anywhere near the same as screaming down the entire length of the runway at 200+mph. Again, as others have stated, there just isn't much of a margin of safety should something go wrong.

Finally, and in the sake of full disclosure, I am guilty of having made low high-speed passes in the past. While it was fun at the time, I've come to realize that it is in NO WAY worth it. It's too easy to forget just how quickly these things can kill you.
 
Last edited:
just to make a short here, no way will I go down to miss a bird, birds tend to go down to miss an object. I find that pulling up, be very limited with that, and turn or bank at the same time. that way the bird will hit under the airplane. Hope this make sense. Also if you think you will miss the bird try very hard not to make any changes to the airplane at all, you will be suprised that the bird will actually move out of the way. I have missed birds at 200mph, pucker factor believe me, on take off, on landing, on level flight at 5000ft. But the one thing that is a given, those birds around the airport are aquinated to you being there and they will not move for nothing, so you need to. Hope this helps
 
Last edited:
If we're being honest with ourselves, I don't think any of us would really try to make an argument that a true missed approach and subsequent go-around (say 70mph on short final, followed by an immediate climb out) is anywhere near the same as screaming down the entire length of the runway at 200+mph. Again, as others have stated, there just isn't much of a margin of safety should something go wrong.

I guess I should add that I'm not talking about 200 mph fly bys. Most of the people there have Champs, Cherokees, 150s, etc. So they're really not going all that fast. They're also not screaming the entire length of the runway, they're doing a low pass of the hangar/parking area where people are gathered (right on the approach end of the runway), and then climbing away. Are they spending more time in the "danger zone" than they would on a missed approach? Sure they are. But not all that much.
 
FAR 91.119c - minimum alt

Since Michael did make an allusion to the questionable legality of making a low pass (first thread, third paragraph), I wanted to point this out: If they want to, the FAA can and will interpret FAR 91.119(c) to equate flying over the centerline of a runway with flying over an "other than congested area".

Here's the current language, from the eCFR:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
FAR 91.119(c)

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Many of my flying friends and co-workers don't see anything wrong with making a pass down a runway. A runway and its environment is DESIGNED to accommodate low flying aircraft, right? Its not "populated" or "congested" in any way what so ever! Fact is, if you touch a wheel to the surface then you've "landed" right? Where's the legal problem with that?

Not withstanding that solid and reasonable argument, I know from first hand experience and have spoken to enough other pilots that the FAA can and will prosecute cases where an "incident" has been reported by a credible source and the FSDO wants to pursue it for any reason. The source can be anybody from a total stranger to a fed watching from the parking lot.

I don't make low passes any more. Touch and goes are more fun anyway!
 
Not withstanding that solid and reasonable argument, I know from first hand experience and have spoken to enough other pilots that the FAA can and will prosecute cases where an "incident" has been reported by a credible source and the FSDO wants to pursue it for any reason. The source can be anybody from a total stranger to a fed watching from the parking lot.

I don't make low passes any more. Touch and goes are more fun anyway!

To the credit of our local RV community, low passes at breakfast events are rarely performed, and then usually by non-RV pilots. A low, high-speed pass these days yields lots of eye-rolling and head-shaking...not the impact the passee had in mind.

Our task is to add our sensibilities to the mindset of the "new RVers" who didn't build their planes and are still intoxicated with the new found performance of their purchased rides. Pilots who have been in the RV community for some time usually recognize the dangers of high speed low flight (have already dodged some birds....and seen some FAA types at fly-ins...).
 
Since Michael did make an allusion to the questionable legality of making a low pass (first thread, third paragraph), I wanted to point this out: If they want to, the FAA can and will interpret FAR 91.119(c) to equate flying over the centerline of a runway with flying over an "other than congested area".

Here's the current language, from the eCFR:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
FAR 91.119(c)

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Many of my flying friends and co-workers don't see anything wrong with making a pass down a runway. A runway and its environment is DESIGNED to accommodate low flying aircraft, right? Its not "populated" or "congested" in any way what so ever! Fact is, if you touch a wheel to the surface then you've "landed" right? Where's the legal problem with that?

Not withstanding that solid and reasonable argument, I know from first hand experience and have spoken to enough other pilots that the FAA can and will prosecute cases where an "incident" has been reported by a credible source and the FSDO wants to pursue it for any reason. The source can be anybody from a total stranger to a fed watching from the parking lot.

I don't make low passes any more. Touch and goes are more fun anyway!

Yep. Similar regs here in Canada. A runway/ airport area is probably one of the more dangerous places to do a low pass for the reasons you mention. I could relate the story of a very close call as an unseen UL hit the wake of a aircraft doing a 300+ mph low pass on a runway at an uncontrolled airport a few years back. Very close indeed.
 
The Edge is Still Part of the Envelope

To me the issue is not just low passes and low pass recovery - it's systematically developing an intimate knowledge of your aircraft's performance while operating at the edge of the envelope. Acquiring such knowledge low to the ground in an "airshow" environment is dancing with the increased probability of something bad happening.

Great insight into proper low-level, high energy training is found from a review of how the Blues and Thunderbirds do it. Start high and slow; progress lower and faster as the comfort level builds.

Back in the late 60's we did low level nuke delivery practice in our A-4's. Two weeks of systematic build up and critique on an instrumented range. Still remember being called at 508 KIAS at 35 ft AGL and thinking nothing of it. The systematic build up and detailed understanding of how the jet handled in that part of the envelope made the comfort level more than acceptable.
 
I guess I should add that I'm not talking about 200 mph fly bys. Most of the people there have Champs, Cherokees, 150s, etc. So they're really not going all that fast......Are they spending more time in the "danger zone" than they would on a missed approach? Sure they are. But not all that much.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about RVs here. A slow pass (like the kind used to check runway conditions) is a completely different animal than a low pass/ buzz job......which I think most of us are talking about.

Since Michael did make an allusion to the questionable legality of making a low pass (first thread, third paragraph), I wanted to point this out: If they want to, the FAA can and will interpret FAR 91.119(c) to equate flying over the centerline of a runway with flying over an "other than congested area".

Here's the current language, from the eCFR:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
FAR 91.119(c)

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Many of my flying friends and co-workers don't see anything wrong with making a pass down a runway. A runway and its environment is DESIGNED to accommodate low flying aircraft, right? Its not "populated" or "congested" in any way what so ever! Fact is, if you touch a wheel to the surface then you've "landed" right? Where's the legal problem with that?

Not withstanding that solid and reasonable argument, I know from first hand experience and have spoken to enough other pilots that the FAA can and will prosecute cases where an "incident" has been reported by a credible source and the FSDO wants to pursue it for any reason. The source can be anybody from a total stranger to a fed watching from the parking lot.

To play devil's advocate, IF the FAA deemed over a runway to be an "other than congested" area, most low passes would still be in violation of the requirement because it states, "the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." I can't think of a single fly-in that I've been to with a runway more than 500 feet from any person (all those other EAAers eating eggs/BBQ that are the intended audience of said low pass), vehicle (other airplanes on the ground) or structure (hangars, ILS antennae tower, etc...)

In addition, I think one would be hard pressed to convince that FAA that they were in compliance with the "Anywhere" requirement stating, "An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface." One would have a heck of time convincing the FAA spooks that 20 feet was enough altitude to plan for and execute a safe emergency landing.

Here is a old thread on this specific subject:http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=40917
 
Unfortunately there are people who just don't use good judgment. Look how close people are to the runway.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvcN-0PikEU

Full version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOEnn3VL8c0&feature=related

The comments about NOTAMs are just incorrect. At our private Airpark the FAA will not accept NOTAMs, even when our runway is completely closed for rebuilding.

In this case, if the airport was actually closed by it's management, then the people are in an OK position and the full size biplane should not be there. That's what we do when we have RC planes at an open house.

Sounds like someone missed the PPR requirement or wasn't using a radio in the clip...
 
Last edited:
I would love to see the look on the judge's face when that video is played at the hearing.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

Depends on whether the management closed the airport or not...:rolleyes:
 
To the credit of our local RV community, low passes at breakfast events are rarely performed, and then usually by non-RV pilots. A low, high-speed pass these days yields lots of eye-rolling and head-shaking...not the impact the passee had in mind.

Our task is to add our sensibilities to the mindset of the "new RVers" who didn't build their planes and are still intoxicated with the new found performance of their purchased rides...


Sam, this is one of the revelations I have had while reading these responses. I consider myself fairly astute, yet I failed to recognize the obvious ?showoff? component to this behavior. Despite my preaching on these forums about accepting the differences in each other?s motivation to fly, I fell into the trap of applying my own motivation and values to someone else. To explain, while I freely admit to performing this kind of activity, I consider such a display in very poor taste in front of people such as at a fly in/breakfast. On the rare occasion that I do succumb to poor judgment and do this in front of a group of pilot peers, it is a VERY conservative display, and I still feel ?dirty? immediately afterwards. If I?m on the ground and see this in front of a large group at a public airport, I?m one of the ?eye rollers?. In a private setting, such as my ?Private? airpark, it?s a different story; I?m always running outside to catch a show.

I have always ?pushed the limits? with motorcycles, cars, etc, but I derive quiet satisfaction in performing a task (even grossly illegal/dangerous ones) to the best of my ability in a private, secluded area. So while I have an aversion to showing off (actually, it?s a fear of screwing up while people are watching), I can understand the power of the need to show off for some.

So what should our specific message or action be? It seems that people are going to continue performing buzz jobs and other higher risk activity despite growing regulation and peer pressure. Clearly, some people are not going to ?outgrow? the behavior any more than we are going to outgrow formation flight, aerobatics, or single engine IFR at night.
 
video???

what was the point of the youtube video?

the low pass didn't kill him - failure to maintain control of the plane and subsequent impact with the ground killed him. In fact it appears the failure occurred at significant alitude based upon his climb rate and angle and therefore has nothing to do with the low pass any more than the turn to final did prior to the low pass.

If the pilot can't maintain control of the plane - he/she shouldn't fly it.

The low pass is not illegal. In fact it is included in the "cleared for the option" call at towered controlled airports (although technically called a low approach). The altitude/speed are at the discretion of the pilot, provided no other rules are broken (speed). I excerise this option often at my home towered field and often at WOT. How I re-enter the pattern has nothing to do with the low pass. Sometimes I reduce the power and enter a slow gradual climb to allow traffic ahead to move on the downwind. Other times I pull up hard and bank into the downwind when the pattern is empty. I have no more or less time to react to birds or other planes than I do at 3000ft.

The aerobatics following the low-pass may be illegal depending on location, poplulation, obsticles, airways, etc...

Every grass strip I land to is precluded by a low pass. Sometimes high speed, sometimes low speed. I could care less who is watching as I don't see them anyway. I'm too busy flying my plane and looking for deer, and runway conditions to worry about them. They will think I'm cool simply because I'm flying an RV - good enough. The low-speed pass is fun, safe, and perfectly legal when flown within the limits of the pilot and plane. Just like any other phase of flight or manuever.

No more dangerous than driving to work in my truck - probably less so.
 
Back
Top