Narrative:

Was in the seaside area, taking some photographs of the city and the airport and airport environment. Conducted 3 low approachs to the airport, each followed by a go around. Announced intentions at appropriate times on the CTAF of 122.9. The approachs were made from a long (3-4 mi) final, starting at 1500 ft MSL due to a hill at the south, and a steady descent to the go around point over the runway at 40-100 ft AGL. One approach was directly straight in to runway 34, and the other 2 were angled slightly, with an approach heading approximately 10-15 degrees east of the runway heading, or 325-330 degrees magnetic. All approachs were in standard landing confign for the aircraft, with the indicated airspeed ranging from 100 KTS on long final to 70 KTS on short final. Flaps were extended during the approach, and retracted on go around. At all times during the approachs, I was in a position to land without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface in the event of engine failure. After landing and upon reflection, I became concerned that conducting approachs like this, without the intention of landing and not for the purposes of training or currency, coupled with the fact that some approachs were angled slightly, bringing them closer to a populated area (the outskirts of the city of seaside), might constitute a violation of the FARS with respect to MSA's. The only far I am aware of that addresses this is far 91.119 which specifies MSA's over congested and uncongested areas, and only makes an exception to the '500/1000 rule' '...when necessary for takeoff and landing.' in practice, pilots make intentional low approachs to airports all the time -- when conducting practice instrument approachs, during training, and during currency and proficiency flts for example. The aim discusses this in section 4-61, but the wording is vague and does not define what sort of operations might actually constitute a legal low approach. And in any case the aim is not a regulatory document. In order to correct this situation, I believe a clarification of the FARS should be made defining what operations/altitudes constitute a legal low approach to an airport, as well as clarification of the term 'congested' and 'densely populated.' callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he could understand how it would be difficult to specify definitive guidelines in the far to cover all possible legitimate operations over uncontrolled runways and what constitutes congested airspace. However, he was concerned that someone with a camera took photographs of his low passes for evidence against him for some reason unknown to him.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT IS CONCERNED THAT HE VIOLATED AN FAR WHEN MAKING 3 LOW PASSES OVER AN UNCTLED ARPT RWY IN LNDG CONFIGN SINCE IT WAS NOT HIS INTENTION TO LAND.

Narrative: WAS IN THE SEASIDE AREA, TAKING SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CITY AND THE ARPT AND ARPT ENVIRONMENT. CONDUCTED 3 LOW APCHS TO THE ARPT, EACH FOLLOWED BY A GAR. ANNOUNCED INTENTIONS AT APPROPRIATE TIMES ON THE CTAF OF 122.9. THE APCHS WERE MADE FROM A LONG (3-4 MI) FINAL, STARTING AT 1500 FT MSL DUE TO A HILL AT THE S, AND A STEADY DSCNT TO THE GAR POINT OVER THE RWY AT 40-100 FT AGL. ONE APCH WAS DIRECTLY STRAIGHT IN TO RWY 34, AND THE OTHER 2 WERE ANGLED SLIGHTLY, WITH AN APCH HDG APPROX 10-15 DEGS E OF THE RWY HDG, OR 325-330 DEGS MAGNETIC. ALL APCHS WERE IN STANDARD LNDG CONFIGN FOR THE ACFT, WITH THE INDICATED AIRSPD RANGING FROM 100 KTS ON LONG FINAL TO 70 KTS ON SHORT FINAL. FLAPS WERE EXTENDED DURING THE APCH, AND RETRACTED ON GAR. AT ALL TIMES DURING THE APCHS, I WAS IN A POS TO LAND WITHOUT UNDUE HAZARD TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY ON THE SURFACE IN THE EVENT OF ENG FAILURE. AFTER LNDG AND UPON REFLECTION, I BECAME CONCERNED THAT CONDUCTING APCHS LIKE THIS, WITHOUT THE INTENTION OF LNDG AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRAINING OR CURRENCY, COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT SOME APCHS WERE ANGLED SLIGHTLY, BRINGING THEM CLOSER TO A POPULATED AREA (THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE), MIGHT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE FARS WITH RESPECT TO MSA'S. THE ONLY FAR I AM AWARE OF THAT ADDRESSES THIS IS FAR 91.119 WHICH SPECIFIES MSA'S OVER CONGESTED AND UNCONGESTED AREAS, AND ONLY MAKES AN EXCEPTION TO THE '500/1000 RULE' '...WHEN NECESSARY FOR TKOF AND LNDG.' IN PRACTICE, PLTS MAKE INTENTIONAL LOW APCHS TO ARPTS ALL THE TIME -- WHEN CONDUCTING PRACTICE INST APCHS, DURING TRAINING, AND DURING CURRENCY AND PROFICIENCY FLTS FOR EXAMPLE. THE AIM DISCUSSES THIS IN SECTION 4-61, BUT THE WORDING IS VAGUE AND DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT SORT OF OPS MIGHT ACTUALLY CONSTITUTE A LEGAL LOW APCH. AND IN ANY CASE THE AIM IS NOT A REGULATORY DOCUMENT. IN ORDER TO CORRECT THIS SIT, I BELIEVE A CLARIFICATION OF THE FARS SHOULD BE MADE DEFINING WHAT OPS/ALTS CONSTITUTE A LEGAL LOW APCH TO AN ARPT, AS WELL AS CLARIFICATION OF THE TERM 'CONGESTED' AND 'DENSELY POPULATED.' CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE COULD UNDERSTAND HOW IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SPECIFY DEFINITIVE GUIDELINES IN THE FAR TO COVER ALL POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE OPS OVER UNCTLED RWYS AND WHAT CONSTITUTES CONGESTED AIRSPACE. HOWEVER, HE WAS CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE WITH A CAMERA TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIS LOW PASSES FOR EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM FOR SOME REASON UNKNOWN TO HIM.

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.