And if it is where can I find out more about it?
I met her about 5-7 years ago, and my co-workers and I were talking about it. I thought of this and wondered if there is any truth to what she said.
I don't think it would have been standard procedure, but the theory is real. It's called 'ground effect'.
Basically what it means is that at very low altitudes, we're talking a wingspan or less, here, the air displaced by the airplane [edted to error] is affected by the grind or water surface, giving more lift. As a result, private pilots like myself will find a bit more 'float' on landing a low-wing aircraft such as a Cherokee than a high-wing one like a Skyhawk.
I've heard it used in WWII to bring damaged aircraft back to the UK in cases where the aircraft was sufficiently damaged that it could not maintain a high altitude, but still could use the ground effect to get to friendly shores. I've never heard it used as a deliberate fuel-saving measure, but at least if there was an error and the aircraft was running dry, I can see how it would be a reasonable course of action.
Thing is, not disputing the OP's claim, wouldn't flying at higher altitude save fuel due to the air being thinner?