Narrative:

Flying along the seacoast approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mi offshore I descended to 500 ft from my usual cruise altitude of 1000 ft because my passenger (surfers) were interested in seeing the surf along the stretch of beach where we were flying. The flight proceeded without incident. However, upon landing, I was informed that someone complained to the FAA that an airplane roughly matching the description of the one that I was flying had flown very low over surfers in the water. My personal standard and our company policy is to fly no lower than 1000 ft AGL with passenger, but the deviation to a lower altitude of about 500 ft over the ocean (by definition, an unpopulated area where even lower altitudes are legal) was both in compliance with FARS and without undue risk. Indeed, such flts are often approved by crq tower as an expeditious means of transiting their class D airspace which overlaps the coastline further north. However, current regulations require that quantitative standards be met, but no provision exists that requires pilots to consider the public's perception of danger even if the operation is legal. While it's clear that what pleases one person can frighten another, continued public concern about flight safety suggests the aviation system should encourage pilots during ab-initio training, biannual reviews, and CFI recertification training to consider not just the legality of their actions but also the perception of their actions by the non-flying public.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PAX SIGHT SEEING BI-PLANE IS INVOLVED IN A LOW ALT CIVIL OP OVER OR NEAR THE BEACH. PROX OF SURFERS.

Narrative: FLYING ALONG THE SEACOAST APPROX 1/4 TO 1/2 MI OFFSHORE I DSNDED TO 500 FT FROM MY USUAL CRUISE ALT OF 1000 FT BECAUSE MY PAX (SURFERS) WERE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE SURF ALONG THE STRETCH OF BEACH WHERE WE WERE FLYING. THE FLT PROCEEDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. HOWEVER, UPON LNDG, I WAS INFORMED THAT SOMEONE COMPLAINED TO THE FAA THAT AN AIRPLANE ROUGHLY MATCHING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ONE THAT I WAS FLYING HAD FLOWN VERY LOW OVER SURFERS IN THE WATER. MY PERSONAL STANDARD AND OUR COMPANY POLICY IS TO FLY NO LOWER THAN 1000 FT AGL WITH PAX, BUT THE DEV TO A LOWER ALT OF ABOUT 500 FT OVER THE OCEAN (BY DEFINITION, AN UNPOPULATED AREA WHERE EVEN LOWER ALTS ARE LEGAL) WAS BOTH IN COMPLIANCE WITH FARS AND WITHOUT UNDUE RISK. INDEED, SUCH FLTS ARE OFTEN APPROVED BY CRQ TWR AS AN EXPEDITIOUS MEANS OF TRANSITING THEIR CLASS D AIRSPACE WHICH OVERLAPS THE COASTLINE FURTHER N. HOWEVER, CURRENT REGS REQUIRE THAT QUANTITATIVE STANDARDS BE MET, BUT NO PROVISION EXISTS THAT REQUIRES PLTS TO CONSIDER THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF DANGER EVEN IF THE OP IS LEGAL. WHILE IT'S CLR THAT WHAT PLEASES ONE PERSON CAN FRIGHTEN ANOTHER, CONTINUED PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT FLT SAFETY SUGGESTS THE AVIATION SYS SHOULD ENCOURAGE PLTS DURING AB-INITIO TRAINING, BIANNUAL REVIEWS, AND CFI RECERTIFICATION TRAINING TO CONSIDER NOT JUST THE LEGALITY OF THEIR ACTIONS BUT ALSO THE PERCEPTION OF THEIR ACTIONS BY THE NON-FLYING PUBLIC.

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.