Narrative:

3/90 I rented small aircraft X at moraine airpark in dayton, oh. At XA35 pm I started and taxied to runway 26. I set the altimeter to 0' AGL prior to takeoff. The purpose of my flight was to practice aerobatics, and I wanted to receive above ground level altimeter readings. I have used this technique over the past 6 yrs of flying aerobatics to ensure I comply with minimum safe altitude requirements. I departed to the airport practice area. I flew to the area immediately ssw of the downwind leg entry point. I was approximately 1000' AGL over the west end of miamisburg, close to the miami river. I remained ssw of the downwind leg to runway 26. I then initiated a 360 degree turn to the left, descending to 800' AGL, traffic pattern entry altitude. As I began to enter the traffic pattern I noticed 2 other aircraft in the pattern--an orange and white small aircraft Y to my 10 O'clock position and an small aircraft Z at my 11 O'clock position departing the airport. In order to ensure adequate sep, I initiated a steep 180 degree turn to the left, remaining outside of the traffic pattern over the west carollton, miamisburg area. I continued my turn on around to the downwind leg, noting that small aircraft Z was no longer a traffic factor. Maintaining 800' AGL, I entered the downwind leg for runway 26, continued along the traffic pattern and landed, taxiing back to the fixed base operation. The aircraft hobbs meter indicated 4/10's of an hour. This placed me back on the airport grounds at approximately XA54 pm. Another individual was standing by to rent the aircraft. This individual departed shortly after my deplanement. 15-20 mins later a complaint was filed by a resident living in the vicinity of the airport, stating that an aircraft was flying too low and executed a slow roll. The following day the cincinnati GADO office contacted me informing me of the complaint filed, and that they would be conducting an investigation into the incident. The inspector also informed me that I was the pilot they believed was responsible for the incident. I am filing this report to declare that I maintained a minimum safe altitude at all times during my flight and did not perform a slow roll over the area reported. The only maneuvers I initiated was a circling maneuvered descending to pattern altitude (800' AGL), and a circling maneuver to ensure adequate traffic sep from another small aircraft Y and small aircraft Z. The FAA claims that the witness filing the complaint reported that the low flying and slow roll were performed by the small aircraft X having the same tail # as I was flying; however, another same type was flying in the west carollton, miamisburg area at the same approximately altitude as I, and at the same time I was flying in the area. Possible explanation for the FAA allegation against me could be 3-FOLD: 1) a maneuver performed by the other small aircraft could have been mistakenly associated with the small aircraft I was piloting; 2) the 2 circling maneuvers I performed could have been misinterpreted as aerobatic maneuvers; or 3) the individual renting the aircraft I had been flying, who departed the airport very close to the time I deplaned, could have performed a suspect maneuver in the vicinity of the west carollton/miamisburg area. Additionally, the rise in terrain, 256' AGL, in the area under and adjacent (south) to the runway 26 downwind leg at moraine airpark has lent itself to prior complaints filed by residents of low flying aircraft. With pattern altitude being 800' AGL and the terrain at 256' AGL, this truly places an aircraft entering the traffic pattern from the south at 544' AGL over residential areas.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMPLAINT ABOUT LOW LEVEL AEROBATIC FLT OVER CONGESTED AREA.

Narrative: 3/90 I RENTED SMA X AT MORAINE AIRPARK IN DAYTON, OH. AT XA35 PM I STARTED AND TAXIED TO RWY 26. I SET THE ALTIMETER TO 0' AGL PRIOR TO TKOF. THE PURPOSE OF MY FLT WAS TO PRACTICE AEROBATICS, AND I WANTED TO RECEIVE ABOVE GND LEVEL ALTIMETER READINGS. I HAVE USED THIS TECHNIQUE OVER THE PAST 6 YRS OF FLYING AEROBATICS TO ENSURE I COMPLY WITH MINIMUM SAFE ALT REQUIREMENTS. I DEPARTED TO THE ARPT PRACTICE AREA. I FLEW TO THE AREA IMMEDIATELY SSW OF THE DOWNWIND LEG ENTRY POINT. I WAS APPROX 1000' AGL OVER THE W END OF MIAMISBURG, CLOSE TO THE MIAMI RIVER. I REMAINED SSW OF THE DOWNWIND LEG TO RWY 26. I THEN INITIATED A 360 DEG TURN TO THE LEFT, DSNDING TO 800' AGL, TFC PATTERN ENTRY ALT. AS I BEGAN TO ENTER THE TFC PATTERN I NOTICED 2 OTHER ACFT IN THE PATTERN--AN ORANGE AND WHITE SMA Y TO MY 10 O'CLOCK POS AND AN SMA Z AT MY 11 O'CLOCK POS DEPARTING THE ARPT. IN ORDER TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SEP, I INITIATED A STEEP 180 DEG TURN TO THE LEFT, REMAINING OUTSIDE OF THE TFC PATTERN OVER THE W CAROLLTON, MIAMISBURG AREA. I CONTINUED MY TURN ON AROUND TO THE DOWNWIND LEG, NOTING THAT SMA Z WAS NO LONGER A TFC FACTOR. MAINTAINING 800' AGL, I ENTERED THE DOWNWIND LEG FOR RWY 26, CONTINUED ALONG THE TFC PATTERN AND LANDED, TAXIING BACK TO THE FIXED BASE OPERATION. THE ACFT HOBBS METER INDICATED 4/10'S OF AN HR. THIS PLACED ME BACK ON THE ARPT GROUNDS AT APPROX XA54 PM. ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WAS STANDING BY TO RENT THE ACFT. THIS INDIVIDUAL DEPARTED SHORTLY AFTER MY DEPLANEMENT. 15-20 MINS LATER A COMPLAINT WAS FILED BY A RESIDENT LIVING IN THE VICINITY OF THE ARPT, STATING THAT AN ACFT WAS FLYING TOO LOW AND EXECUTED A SLOW ROLL. THE FOLLOWING DAY THE CINCINNATI GADO OFFICE CONTACTED ME INFORMING ME OF THE COMPLAINT FILED, AND THAT THEY WOULD BE CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE INCIDENT. THE INSPECTOR ALSO INFORMED ME THAT I WAS THE PLT THEY BELIEVED WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INCIDENT. I AM FILING THIS RPT TO DECLARE THAT I MAINTAINED A MINIMUM SAFE ALT AT ALL TIMES DURING MY FLT AND DID NOT PERFORM A SLOW ROLL OVER THE AREA RPTED. THE ONLY MANEUVERS I INITIATED WAS A CIRCLING MANEUVERED DSNDING TO PATTERN ALT (800' AGL), AND A CIRCLING MANEUVER TO ENSURE ADEQUATE TFC SEP FROM ANOTHER SMA Y AND SMA Z. THE FAA CLAIMS THAT THE WITNESS FILING THE COMPLAINT RPTED THAT THE LOW FLYING AND SLOW ROLL WERE PERFORMED BY THE SMA X HAVING THE SAME TAIL # AS I WAS FLYING; HOWEVER, ANOTHER SAME TYPE WAS FLYING IN THE W CAROLLTON, MIAMISBURG AREA AT THE SAME APPROX ALT AS I, AND AT THE SAME TIME I WAS FLYING IN THE AREA. POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE FAA ALLEGATION AGAINST ME COULD BE 3-FOLD: 1) A MANEUVER PERFORMED BY THE OTHER SMA COULD HAVE BEEN MISTAKENLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE SMA I WAS PILOTING; 2) THE 2 CIRCLING MANEUVERS I PERFORMED COULD HAVE BEEN MISINTERPRETED AS AEROBATIC MANEUVERS; OR 3) THE INDIVIDUAL RENTING THE ACFT I HAD BEEN FLYING, WHO DEPARTED THE ARPT VERY CLOSE TO THE TIME I DEPLANED, COULD HAVE PERFORMED A SUSPECT MANEUVER IN THE VICINITY OF THE W CAROLLTON/MIAMISBURG AREA. ADDITIONALLY, THE RISE IN TERRAIN, 256' AGL, IN THE AREA UNDER AND ADJACENT (S) TO THE RWY 26 DOWNWIND LEG AT MORAINE AIRPARK HAS LENT ITSELF TO PRIOR COMPLAINTS FILED BY RESIDENTS OF LOW FLYING ACFT. WITH PATTERN ALT BEING 800' AGL AND THE TERRAIN AT 256' AGL, THIS TRULY PLACES AN ACFT ENTERING THE TFC PATTERN FROM THE S AT 544' AGL OVER RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.