FAA Takes Issue with Stadium Flyovers

[Samuel]

Anybody know the specific FAR that they are in violation of?

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/faa-takes-issue-stadium-flyovers?cmpid=enews112414&spPodID=030&spMailingID=21749085&spUserID=NjkyMDcyNDQ1OTcS1&spJobID=442719090&spReportId=NDQyNzE5MDkwS0

[Dudewanarace]

Re: FAA Takes Issue with Stadium Flyovers

Well, I was the camera ship / formation coach for the record flyover. Luckily for me, that meant I was 'out of the picture' for the actual stadium pass. Hence, no letter for me.

So, this was an approved flyover that we had a signed waiver for. The waiver had all of our names, tail numbers, etc etc etc..

Somebody at another FSDO started the witch hunt saying that the formation overflew congested area. That being the parking lot, or the rest of the city by definition, not covered under the signed waiver. So, it would have been impossible to do the flyover to the waived airspace without supposedly violating the congested area clause of all experimentals.

I'll leave it at that.

Here is the 49 ship flyover I was a part of, from my point of view:

Edit:
Sorry, FAR 91.319c Is the answer to your question.

[Bill@Interstell]

Re: FAA Takes Issue with Stadium Flyovers

So, this was an approved flyover that we had a signed waiver for. The waiver had all of our names, tail numbers, etc etc etc..

Somebody at another FSDO started the witch hunt saying that the formation overflew congested area. That being the parking lot, or the rest of the city by definition, not covered under the signed waiver. So, it would have been impossible to do the flyover to the waived airspace without supposedly violating the congested area clause of all experimentals.
Edit:
Sorry, FAR 91.319c Is the answer to your question.

Actually I think that would be
Title 14 Chapter 1 Subchapter F Part 91 Subpart A 91.119 (b) which states the minimum safe altitude...
(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.

It just goes to show you how little some FAA employees actually know about flying that they would think a waver issued for lower flight of a large open air assemble would not, or more correctly could not, also include the approach and departure area.

I suppose they also sighted the Blue Angels for flying within 500 feet of dozens of sailboats crowding San Francisco bay during fleet week. 91.119 (c)

Nice video

[FlyKidChris]

Re: FAA Takes Issue with Stadium Flyovers

In other words, someone within the F.A.A. is trying to make a name for themselves.

[Dudewanarace]

Re: FAA Takes Issue with Stadium Flyovers

Actually I think that would be
Title 14 Chapter 1 Subchapter F Part 91 Subpart A 91.119 (b) which states the minimum safe altitude...
(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.

It just goes to show you how little some FAA employees actually know about flying that they would think a waver issued for lower flight of a large open air assemble would not, or more correctly could not, also include the approach and departure area.

I suppose they also sighted the Blue Angels for flying within 500 feet of dozens of sailboats crowding San Francisco bay during fleet week. 91.119 (c)

Nice video

Actually, the waiver that we had to enter the TFR specified the 1,000 ft AGL limit. We actually did the math based on position step-down for each row that way the last guy was still above 1,000 ft. I think the lead was more like 1,250 or something. In summary, it wasn't the altitude restriction.

This is a good video of the Chiefs flyover from the ground. Imagine how cool it would have been had we been allowed 500 ft AGL like the military! It would have spanned wider than the stadium itself I think.

I forget all the details, but I think DHS issued the waiver to enter the TFR, or was it the TSA? I get them all mixed up. Either way, the FAA is the one with the problem, but because we had the waiver for the TFR, they couldn't bust anyone for any wrongdoing in the flyover itself. Now, per the fine print, going to and from the stadium is in question.

All of the pilots in that formation were either FAST or FFI certified formation pilots. Not sure that matters to the FAA. I think what they are after is to treat any flyover just like an airshow waiver, and that pilot will have to have the same type of airshow credentials as issued by the FAA. (not sure what those are really..)

Keep in mind, all the wardbird flyovers are also in the same boat, those licensed in Experimental category anyway. They are going to restructure all flyovers I suspect. I'm not totally against that, I just hope it doesn't prevent them from happening. The group I was part of was pretty amazing in their professionalism, airmanship, organization, etc etc etc. And raised $25K for breast cancer awareness! (Hence the pink smoke)