Jump to content

A Quick Cautionary Tale


FastEddieB

Recommended Posts

A few years ago, someone posted a link to a YouTube video over on the Cirrus Owner's website.

 

That video showed someone horsing around in a Cirrus, doing some rather radical low level maneuvering.

 

I think the video has been long since pulled, but here's a screen shot from it:

 

 

8592812315_363c7d6c8f_o.jpg

Screen shot 2010-01-25 at 8.34.06 AM by fasteddieb, on Flickr

 

In any case, a bit of detective work from site members pretty conclusively identified the plane, the pilot and the locale of the flight.

 

It was debated whether it was appropriate to bring activity like this to the attention of the FAA. The argument "for" was that behavior like that cost us all, in public perception, safety statistics, insurance rates and possible exposure down the road to a plane with hidden damage from overstress. The argument against was, well, nobody likes a rat fink.

 

In any case, it was later reported that the FAA did become involved in an enforcement action against the pilot. I do not know the outcome, but the above photo could certainly have become "Exhibit A".

 

My point is that we should all be somewhat circumspect about posting about illegal flying - whether its operating above gross or aerobatics or whatever. I don't think the FAA is perusing this forum fishing for violations. But if there ever were an accident, there's zero presumption of privacy to anything posted online and you can bet if a handful of pilots can nail down an offender, a motivated attorney or prosecutor could certainly do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Eddie,

 

This is obviously pointed at me. You have convinced Roger that we are limited in pitch by posting parts of: Sec. 91.307 — Parachutes and parachuting. You admitted that the chute requirement was conditional but managed to sell Roger on it none the less.

 

91.307 speaks for itself and is not applicable to me practicing safety maneuvers (canyon exits) while solo.

 

I began flying in the 1980s and there were flight schools around here back then. For me that is when this discussion began. PPL training necessarily included a bit of mountain flying training as well. For a student pilot the focus was on leaning 1st. Canyon exits were even more important back then. In those days climb rates in trainers and privately owned planes were generally lower than what we see today. A number of popular designs couldn't get off of the runway on a summer day let alone climb to altitudes where you didn't have to fly in canyons.

 

A variety of canyon exits were taught including chandelles, stall turns, wing-overs, even Split Ss if you had the performance. The discussion as to whether a wing-over constitutes prohibited aerobatics goes back at least that far and the flight school taught that practicing these maneuvers was both prudent and legal. Perhaps they were violating 91.307 by demonstrating maneuvers that exceed 30 degrees of pitch without chutes?

 

So you are implying that I am violating something that could bring enforcement but admitted that the violation that you found doesn't apply to me solo. Roger is outright saying I'm violating 91.307. Between you 2 you should point at a reg or a limitation that I am violating or take it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first wing-overs where part 103 ops. When done in a hang-glider a wing-over becomes a cleary inverted maneuver.

 

 

After building a plane with a rudder I learned to do a big yaw just before stall and the result is far less inverted but there is that moment when the nose falls through that looks like this:

 

post-6-0-46846600-1364316292_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CT,

The AOI says aerobatic maneuvers are prohibitted, and then you have this from 91.303

For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. I know the definition is a little vague, but people have been violated for much less than you are describing. Like a low pass with a pull up. Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

91.307 arguably does not apply even with a passenger so long as they can be considered 'crewmember', defined as someone able to assist in flight operations

http://aviation.uslegal.com/pilots-and-other-airmen-or-operatives/

 

So another pilot can easily be considered a co-pilot. Low speed passes adds a layer of violation, that the FAA is quite tetchy about: 91.119 safe altitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

91.303 does define a wing-over, stall turn or even a fast lazy 8 as aerobatic [f]or the purposes of this section. They did narrow this interpretation for the purpose of defining appropriate airspace and conditions.

 

The language being narrowed does allow me to say that this definition of aerobatic maneuvers is not for the purpose of defining maneuvers to determine if you are violating a POH limitation.

 

A definitive list, or description from FD would eliminate the ambiguity.

 

Interestingly the wing-over has fallen out of favor as an exit maneuver with the thinking being the pilot is already and trouble and probably close to stall speed. This is why I keep my speed up if things get tight. The most popular exit now seems to be a climb followed by a tight turn at a slow speed, perhaps with flaps.

 

If it comes down to the absolutely tightest 180 turn or you will contact terrain I don't see a better option than a wing-over taking up almost no room but I need to be current, I need to practice once in a while or my reciprocal heading or my pull up might be off.

 

Steve Fosset's remains were found 5 miles from here in bear scat. I was flying locally that day and it was generally turbulent but not unusual or alarming. Not only was his Decathlon somewhat capable he was also in a big open area but unfortunately he was in the lee of the Minarets that produce intense rotor downdrafts. I bring this up because conditions in big mountains can change fast and can be suddenly life threatening.

 

Within 2 miles of here is a 182 that contacted the terrain and killed both passengers, pretty clearly the pilot didn't know how to lean for best power or how to exit when failing to out climb the terrain.

 

In the Europa with the 914 we can just climb to 16,000' and no-worries with canyons but in my CT there is more risk. I think I'm going to call the Reno FSDO and talk this over, get their take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddie,

 

This is obviously pointed at me.

 

Not so much pointed at you but inspired by you! You're that inspirational!

 

Its just that I recall in the other thread you said you had been inverted in your plane many times. For most pilots, "inverted" has a specific meaning - upside down to a layman.

 

When I hear such a thing, I wonder if what follows is an escapade in an aerobatic plane, an inadvertent encounter with wake turbulence or a rotor cloud or a fun time in a simulator.

 

I have been inverted many, many times in small planes - my first exposure was in a C150 Aerobat, then in my two Citabrias, both playing and teaching. I have NEVER been inverted, either intentionally or otherwise, in a non-aerobatic plane. Not even once.

 

It can be a risky business. I can testify that most pilots, even those who have just been briefed, will react to being inverted by pulling back on the stick. It's called "falling out" of the maneuver, and you end up with a Split-S started at too high a speed. If you started the roll at maneuvering speed, that can mean a VERY quick trip to Vne in a clean airplane, and/or a LOT of g's pulled in the pullout.

 

If there's room to pull out.

 

We had one Cirrus crash in FL where it looks for all the world like that's exactly what happened - Cirrus pilot enroute from an airshow deciding to do a roll at low altitude. Result - one smoking hole.

 

Link: http://www.ntsb.gov/...113X85646&key=1

 

Excerpt:

 

Shortly after the flight crossed the northern border of the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, the pilot of the Su-29 reported that the accident airplane's pitch smoothly increased upward to an angle of about 30 degrees. The airplane then began a roll to the left, and as the airplane rolled to an inverted attitude, it pitched nose down. As the airplane descended, it began to roll right, before it impacted the marsh below in an approximate 80-degree nose down pitch attitude.

 

Like I said, I'm not so naive as to think some pilots (hopefully not many) don't routinely exceed their plane's published Limitations. My point was mainly that I don't think its wise to EVER post such escapades online, where such posts could come back to haunt you.

 

I just think in this day of social media and search engines, we all need to be careful what we post.

 

And its even better if we don't actually even have anything questionable to post about!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a recent CFI Forum where the question came up about doing "spin recovery training" and was it different then intentional spin training (ie did it require a parachute). The question was not intended to "split hairs" but was driven by the fact that some students, when a wing drops in a stall were assuming they were entering a spin and would push full opposite rudder and REALLY enter a spin. So our FAASTeam Program Manager (FAA employee) provided the attached letter of interpretation.

 

I'll second those in favor of not exceeding aircraft limitations and, at all times, modeling safe flying behavior. A previous CFI Forum featured a number of clips captured from YouTube showing irresponsible pilot behavior. It's not Big Brother watching us, it's EVERYONE!

Spin Training and FAR 91.303.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I just think in this day of social media and search engines, we all need to be careful what we post.

 

And its even better if we don't actually even have anything questionable to post about!

 

You have implied that there is a violation and continue to do so. Be specific, what is violated?

 

My best guess is that you would look to FD limitations and then use a definition to wing-overs that does define it as an aerobatic maneuver. I would reply that the FARs already demonstrate that such definitions are contingent on their purpose.

 

As long as ( demonstrated by FARs ) the definition of an aerobatic maneuver is contingent on its purpose I'm convinced. The definition is ambiguous at the minimum.

 

Bottom line is I will lean or error on the side of caution which means I maintain my skills at canyon exits such as they are. Getting locked into a tight canyon might seem unlikely but a crosswind in the wrong direction can make a big canyon too small for the 180 that would otherwise work.

 

Again I say you guys need to point at the violation or take it back. Its clearly not in the FAR that you cited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to clarify...

 

1) Wingovers may be fine - a Lazy 8 is sort of a series of wingovers and is routinely done in Standard and Utility category aircraft. As long as the pitch does not exceed 30° or the bank 60°.

 

2) Those pitch and bank angles do not define aerobatic flight, but do, in general and with specific exceptions specify when parachutes must be carried.

 

3) Intentional inverted flight is almost certainly not approved in any non-aerobatic aircraft. I'll stipulate you misspoke when you said you often had your plane inverted.

 

4) Chandelles are a Commercial maneuver. While not strictly a maximum performance maneuver, a chandelle would be very close to what you'd want to practice for canyon exits. And for best climb performance in a chandelle, not much more than 30° of bank is specified - maybe not maximal, but too much bank can kill climb performance.

 

5) Maybe the best way to deal with maximum performance canyon exits is to learn how to avoid ever getting in a position where you need one.

 

What got this started was this, from the other thread...

 

"I get my CT inverted often..."

 

I would not want to be associated with a statement like that, having to say its not really what I meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sparky Imeson's Mountain Flying Bible 3-42 - Course Reversal Procedures.

He points out that the hammerhead, wing over and chandelle all suffer from one flaw - they require airspeed that you will probably not have by the time you recognize a turn is needed.

Assuming that the box canyon turn will be initiated by someone who has already let things go too far, he assumes it will be from a slow airspeed. He uses 5-20° of pitch if possible considering airspeed, but not more pitch. At the same time, add full power and if there is enough airspeed and within the flap arc, full flaps while beginning a bank. The bank will be at least 60° and as much as 90°.

As the bank angle approaches 45° (or 30° if starting from very slow speed), relax back pressure. Keep on rolling in the bank.

 

His objective is to make the turn in the least possible radius. The way to do that is to slow the plane down and steepen the bank.

 

As the bank is rolled out, when back to 45° start adding backpressure and when the plane allows start reducing flaps to 1/2 and eventually take all the flaps out when you get a positive rate of climb.

He goes into an extensive discussion. You can get his book for more info.

AS we all know, Sparky Imeson was considered the guru of mountain flying. He died in a crash in the mountains. That doesn't mean what he says is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

BINGO!

 

What does that mean? Never fly in the mountains? Does it have anything to do with the capability of the airplane? Does the ability of the pilot matter? Would sudden, unforecast winds, such as a rotor, in a valley never put one in a situation where the terrain raised faster than the airplane could? Would carb ice, bad gas, a partially blocked vent tube or blocked air filter ever cause one to get into more terrain than the airplane could handle?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try to clarify...

 

1) Wingovers may be fine - a Lazy 8 is sort of a series of wingovers and is routinely done in Standard and Utility category aircraft. As long as the pitch does not exceed 30° or the bank 60°.

 

2) Those pitch and bank angles do not define aerobatic flight, but do, in general and with specific exceptions specify when parachutes must be carried.

 

3) Intentional inverted flight is almost certainly not approved in any non-aerobatic aircraft. I'll stipulate you misspoke when you said you often had your plane inverted.

 

4) Chandelles are a Commercial maneuver. While not strictly a maximum performance maneuver, a chandelle would be very close to what you'd want to practice for canyon exits. And for best climb performance in a chandelle, not much more than 30° of bank is specified - maybe not maximal, but too much bank can kill climb performance.

 

5) Maybe the best way to deal with maximum performance canyon exits is to learn how to avoid ever getting in a position where you need one.

 

What got this started was this, from the other thread...

 

"I get my CT inverted often..."

 

I would not want to be associated with a statement like that, having to say its not really what I meant.

 

 

Eddie, I guess you didn't bother to read the legal opinion from the FAA posted above on spin training?

 

It explains that spin training ( similar / parallel subject ) sometimes is considered aerobatic and sometimes not.

 

Accordingly, provided no additional aerobatic flight maneuvers are performed, spin training

to meet the requirements of a CFI certificate or associated with upset recovery training are

not considered aerobatic maneuvers, and the requirements of § 91.303 do not apply.

 

 

Rebecca B. MacPherson

Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law,

Legislation and Regulations, AGC-200

 

As I said above this was the thinking used to justify spin training, upset training and canyon exits training. I'll take Rebecca's opinion over yours.

 

Its quite clear that without a rudder the wing-overs are inverted, your contention that I can't be inverted makes no sense to me. Are you saying that my 3 axis control CT is limited compared to my 2 axis hang glider? I don't believe I mispoke, my wingovers look quite like the video and the screen capture shows an inverted position just like what I realize.

 

Upset recovery is another reason we would perform aerobatic maneuvers, by your description.

 

Your advice to avoid the training and not just get into a place where I need to maneuver is dumb advice. I have never had to use a canyon exit myself but like Fosset I am even more at risk from the downdrafts that our local terrain can induce. I only have about 70 horse power at altitude!

 

Your advice that a chandelle is more appropriate is shared by many but if there isn't room there isn't room. A wind change in a canyon can change things to where it is to skinny for a 180 that takes up room. A big problem with maximum performance turns is turbulence, I don't need to be flirting with stall in a tight space unless it is smooth.

 

Rotors can upset you while they are generally invisible. Sinking air and sinking rotors can overcome our CTs maximum performance by thousands of feet per minute and again is generally invisible. Blue sky micro bursts can break you up or force you into the terrain and again they can be invisible.

 

The photo below is where Fosset went down, pretty wide open place with a glide all the way to Fresno but with a 25kt wind coming at you thru those openings caused by the minarets you have streams of air sinking, rotoring and generally whipping all about and they are invisible.

 

As a result of this conversation I will continue to practice canyon exits, spin avoidance and upset recovery as I have for decades. I gave up intentional spins when I got the CT.

post-6-0-65594300-1364474643_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry.

 

I've made my case as clearly as I know how.

 

If my message is still unclear, so be it.

 

Maybe others have gotten something from my "Cautionary Tales".

 

Maybe not. It is what it is.

 

Anyway, to paraphrase Sgt. Phil Esterhaus, "Let's be careful up there!"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was mainly that I don't think its wise to EVER post such escapades online, where such posts could come back to haunt you.

 

 

I said from the start that I practice canyon exit maneuvers, the same maneuvers that I was taught as part of my PPL training in the 1980s. I was taught by CFIs with decades of mountain flying experience and they taught me that such maneuvers are life savers especially with low power to weight aircraft. They also taught me that in the context of safety training that these maneuvers are non-aerobatic. The legal opinion from the FAA posted above certainly confirms this. These maneuvers are low G, and positive G, not stressful. The aircraft that I was taught these maneuvers in had similar limitations to my CT.

 

You characterize my flying as 'escapades' and imply that I am violating regs and limitations but won't even discuss that we are talking about safety maneuvers that are non-aerobatic, do not exceed limitations and do not require parachutes by FAR. You won't discuss it you just stick with your implications.

 

Per my training I am doing what it takes to remain safe as a mountain pilot long term.

 

I regret that this conversation has convinced you that I am reckless and others that I am violating an FAR I don't think anyone that knows me in the flesh would see me that way. The FDSO in Reno told me that I have a reputation as being a good stick and a safe pilot. They have sent builders to meet with me to discuss their projects regarding how well suited to high mountain environments they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I invite anyone to go back and reread my original post, or my subsequent posts to this thread, and see if any of that follows.

 

But, to repeat, and clarify...

 

Sorry.

 

I've made my case as clearly as I know how.

 

If my message is still unclear, so be it.

 

Maybe others have gotten something from my "Cautionary Tales", neither of which were directed at Charlie Tango.

 

Maybe not. It is what it is.

 

Anyway, to paraphrase Sgt. Phil Esterhaus, "Let's be careful up there!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CT, I will admit that I don't know the area you are doing this in, but I'm sure it can be quite rough. Maybe you are not in violation of anything. Sometings that have not been asked is do you ever demonstrate this to a passenger? Was it in a real life situation or just out in open airspace?

What kind of space are you turning around in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CT, I will admit that I don't know the area you are doing this in, but I'm sure it can be quite rough. Maybe you are not in violation of anything. Sometings that have not been asked is do you ever demonstrate this to a passenger? Was it in a real life situation or just out in open airspace?

What kind of space are you turning around in?

 

 

We did some canyon exits on my recent BFR but with most passengers I even avoid slipping my landing approaches to keep them comfortable. A wing-over for a passenger is likely to end up with vomit in the cockpit.

 

I practice these maneuvers at altitude using a road to judge my reciprocal heading and in remote areas. Because they are simulated at altitude its hard to judge how much space but with a nicely done wing-over it seems like no space at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...