A Quick Cautionary Tale

[Ed Cesnalis]

Quick point before a more lengthy follow up...

 

Nice turn, but never close to inverted nor more than 60° of bank that I can see.

 

I think maybe 60 and a bit of a blend between a steep turn and a wing over, not even in the ballpark of being inverted. This technique takes up more room but doesn't have the lower level of control of direction that you get on a steep wing over exit.

 

This would be a more conservative, more reasonable exit than a wang. I would only use the wang in an emergency if it was too tight for a maneuver more like this.

[Ed Cesnalis]

CT,

 

What is that beeping noise which starts 13 seconds into the video track?

 

Stall warning I think.

[Safety Officer]

Here read this.

 

 

http://www.sportpilo...q.asp?faqid=296

 

But FD doesn't allow aerobatics. They only have a -2 neg to +4 pos g rating.

 

Aerobatics/Acrobatics.

FAR 91.303 defines aerobatic flight thusly: an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. Note that aerobatic flight is not demarcated by a specific pitch attitude or bank angle. (Aerobatic flight is often mistakenly thought to occur only when an aircraft exceeds 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank relative to the horizon. This 30/60 rule, which appears under FAR 91.307 ©, merely specifies the conditions under which parachutes must be worn by the occupants of an aircraft.) In the classical sense, the term aerobatics includes spinning, looping, and rolling an aircraft through 360 degrees of yaw, pitch, and roll.

 

 

Wikipedia definition and examples.

 

http://en.wikipedia....obatic_maneuver

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Aerobatic Flight Precautions

1) FAR Part 91 states than no person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight:

a) Over congested area such as a city, town, or settlement

Over an open air assembly of persons

c) Within Class B, C, D, or E airspace designated for an airport, or within the limits of Federal airways

d) Below an altitude of 1,500 ft AGL

e) Visibility <3sm

2) OPNAVINST 3710.7:

a) If prohibited by a particular aircraft’s NATOPS Manual

Unless: aircraft remains in VFR conditions & 1,500’ above the highest obstruction / cloud tops within 5sm

3) Unusual Maneuvers (B, C, & D Airspace)

a) OPNAVINST 3710.7: Pilots shall not perform or request clearance if such maneuvers are not essential.

ATC personnel are not permitted to approve a pilot’s request or ask a pilot to perform these maneuvers.

c) Examples: Low passes, unscheduled fly-by’s, climbs at very steep angles, or “flat hatting” / “buzzing”.

 

 

The FAA chimes in:

 

http://www.airweb.fa...I98/ac91-48.pdf

[Greg]

For some of us less experienced, what is the handle the pilot pulls with his left hand during this maneuver?

[sandpiper]

Probably flaps. I'm not familiar with that aircraft but there are several with the flap handle in that location.

[Ed Cesnalis]

A calculator that shows the effects of speed and bank on your turn.

 

http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html

[FastEddieB]

Charlie Tango,

 

I have not forgotten you.

 

I'm working on a response and I want to get it just right!

 

 

Cute little calculator, BTW.

[FastEddieB]

As promised...

 

 

You guys may have gotten a sense I was attempting to disengage from this thread, and you'd be right. I felt I had laid out my concerns as clearly as possible, and ran the risk of just repeating myself. I further felt that Charlie Tango was taking some of my general comments very personally and taking affront. Just backing off and moving on seemed a good option.

 

But then I got a PM from Charlie Tango courteously asking me to reengage, clarify and continue to address concerns in this forum.

 

And so I will...

 

 

 

We have been discussing two separate, though related, things: SAFETY and LEGALITY.

 

I will stipulate two things up front:

 

In aviation, something can be...

 

1) LEGAL - but not safe, or,

 

2) SAFE - but not legal

 

I thought about giving examples, and will if requested, but I'm sure we can each come up with numerous examples of both.

 

Part of the problem in this thread (and others) is conflating SAFETY and LEGALITY, when they're fundamentally different (though I again emphasize related) topics.

 

How SAFE an action is usually runs on a spectrum, ranging from wildly reckless at one extreme to extremely cautious on the other. Most pilots seek to find a safe middle ground they can live with. As an example, watch a group of VFR pilots at an FBO waiting for the fog to lift. Disregarding LEGALITY for now, you will typically see some pilots launch before you, and some watch you depart still waiting for what they consider safer conditions. If George Carlin was speaking of flying and not driving, he might have pointed out that those pilots who took off before you were MANIACS, and those waiting longer that you were IDIOTS. Whether its ceiling or maintenance or our own mental state or whatever, we can place our decisions regarding SAFETY on somewhere on the spectrum to which I referred above. To summarize, SAFETY is SUBJECTIVE.

 

Now to LEGALITY. Usually no spectrum there at all - if the law is written clearly enough, any proposed action is either legal or illegal. In a given airspace, flying 500' below a cloud is 100%, absolutely LEGAL. Climb just one foot, however, and at 499' below the same cloud you are 100% absolutely ILLEGAL. Same with expiration dates, currency requirement, bank limits, whatever - virtually every reg has a specific, binary divide between LEGAL and ILLEGAL. So, with some exceptions, LEGALITY is OBJECTIVE.

 

What happened in both this thread and the one precipitating it, a stated action - getting a CT inverted, or at least to what seem excessive pitch and/or bank limits - set off both alarms for me: it sounded both illegal and unsafe.

 

Now, I hope I've set the stage for discussing those two things separately:

 

1) Is it SAFE to roll a CT inverted (once we establish what "inverted" means), and,

 

2) Is it LEGAL to roll a CT inverted (once we establish what "inverted" means).

 

 

It's getting late, so please allow me to turn in and I'll continue tomorrow with those discussions and a proposed action going forward on at least one of them.

 

To be continued...

 

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

Thanks Eddie,

 

BTW my name is Eddie too.

 

I agree that safe and legal are two different things. I also agree that my initial statement about getting inverted in a CT was worded in a non-typical manner that alarmed you. The reason for the wording was to get the attention of a poster that was making a number of alarming statements IMHO.

 

I have always thought that I was both on the safe and legal side regarding these maneuvers, I was taught them at a high mountain flight school both during my initial training and during recurrent training. Both there name and purpose is safety.

 

The reason I asked you to continue this discussion was not so that we could go on down 2 different paths but I want you to confront my rebuttal instead of avoiding it.

 

You now want to ask:

1) Is it SAFE to roll a CT inverted

I want to discuss the subject at hand in context, no-one said anything about rolling inverted. Rolling inverted clearly violates the 60 degree bank limitation. Yesterday I was accused of doing spins, now I'll be accused of doing rolls, see how that works?

 

You want to tackle safety 1st, ok. I contend that If you fly a very light aircraft in a big mountain environment that you acquire some additional training, skills and knowledge. Canyon flying, rotors and down drafts are some obvious concerns.

 

Poor judgement or even bad luck can contribute to the need to exit a canyon and various canyon turn maneuvers can be learned to minimize the lateral room required do a 180 exit or whatever is required. Is it safe to learn these turns? One might fall out of a maximum performance turn its true but these things can be practiced with the safety net of altitude so If you are going to fly in such environments it is probably safer to learn a maneuver with a tight radius than to simply avoid.

 

Things get interesting when the room available, adjusted for wind, is too small horizontally. If the turn can't be done in the horizontal than you can fly into the canyon wall trying or you can do the turn vertically. Many including experts think this is ludicrous but you can't deny that a vertical turn can work where a horizontal turn can't.

 

Many pilots recreate in gliders and spend countless hours in big mountain canyons, barely above stall speed, looking for lift and doing maneuvers close to the terrain. For many a vertical turn for a canyon exit if there is no other option is a no brainer and many argue the other side.

 

The purpose of a vertical turn to exit a canyon is safety. Does it enhance safety? That argument is not settled but if the vertical turn exit is practiced along with at least 1 minimum speed horizontal exit than the pilot would have more options, enhanced awareness and a little 'been there done that.' I know people freeze and just fly into the terrain, I've seen it.

 

The cleanest vertical option in my mind is clearly the Immelman

but the 4G pullup and 180 degree roll would exceed my limitations.

 

Available to us would be a hammerhead turn

 

 

or a steep wing over and the wing over is what I was taught and what I use.

 

 

 

The wing over pictured is not steep and doesn't allow the nose to fall through for the sake of symmetry.

 

The pullout, per my G meter is 2 Gs, its co-ordinated and the direction is more predictable. One thing I like about the option is it doesn't include flying right at the canyon walls in a steep bank at a slow speed.

 

Inverted and Legality to come.

[Tom Baker]

Your picture shows "at least 60° bank". If you don't hold it to that minimum 60° that you are calling for wouldn't it excede the limit set by Flight Design?

[Ed Cesnalis]

Your picture shows "at least 60° bank". If you don't hold it to that minimum 60° that you are calling for wouldn't it excede the limit set by Flight Design?

 

True

[Ed Cesnalis]

Legality:

 

I hear it said when interpreting FARs that nothing is settled till FAA legal authors an opinion.

 

Back to the local mountain flight schools that existed here decades ago. They grouped 3 areas of training because they were all safety maneuvers that, in order to be taught in normal category aircraft (+3.8/-1.52 g’s) or better had to get around certain restrictions that come with performing aerobatic maneuvers, such as providing parachutes.

 

The technique the FAA used to deal with this training need was to make the definition of an aerobatic maneuver sometimes contingent on the maneuver's purpose. Spin Training and FAR 91.303.pdf Here in the Finagan letter FAA provides a legal opinion establishing that 'spin training' is or is not an aerobatic maneuver depending on the purpose. For safety training purposes it is generally not an aerobatic maneuver, it is however specifically prohibited by Flight Design.

 

The Finagan letter mentions that spin training in conjunction with upset recover training is permissible. The local flight schools did go beyond spin recovery and into upset recovery and canyon exit in terms of training without chutes or aerobatic aircraft. The Finagan letter addresses spin training only so it is insufficient to look for confirmation on canyon exits.

 

A similar letter to FAA legal specifically asking about the canyon exits would likely be required for a definitive answer or at least the discovery of an existing document. It would be hard to deny that low stress safety maneuvers are sometimes defined as non-aerobatic as a technique to get around training restrictions.

 

I still don't see a 30 degree limitation on my CTSW and without any additional language I would rely on the FAAs flexible definition of aerobatic, it is done to enhance safety and make safety training easier to get.

 

I will admit that I have always relied on what I was taught on this subject which likely resulted from conversations between the local flight schools and the local FSDO. I don't know if a legal opinion was ever rendered and I don't know what the current FSDO thinks.

[FastEddieB]

Eddie,

 

I'd be more inclined to get into legalities first, since it should be more "black and white".

 

Before proceeding, I'm still vague on what you meant when you used the term "inverted".

 

I think most pilots would say one was inverted when one got past 90° of bank. You can get there by rolling (aileron roll, barrel roll, snap roll), or by increasing pitch until inverted (loop, Immelmann, etc). A pilot can get there intentionally (aerobatics) or unintentionally (wake turbulence, rotor clouds, extreme turbulence, etc.) but somewhere, somehow, there had to be roll or pitch involved to get you there.

 

Do you have access to a video camera and a model plane? Maybe you could show us what you meant. Until then, we may just be talking past each other.

[FastEddieB]

 

 

I will admit that I have always relied on what I was taught on this subject which likely resulted from conversations between the local flight schools and the local FSDO. I don't know if a legal opinion was ever rendered and I don't know what the current FSDO thinks.

 

That was where I was going next.

 

How about going to your FSDO, armed with a model airplane, a protractor, your POH and the FAR's. Give them a hypothetical, using the model to show your proposed maneuver. See what they say. See if you can get it in writing.

 

I just looked at two online CT manuals. Both said no aerobatics. Both said no spins. One said 60° of bank "should not be exceeded". I did not see anything about pitch in either one.

 

On spins, I think you're on the right track - though not in a CT, of course. If spins are being taught for the sake of teachings spins, they are an aerobatic maneuver and chutes are required - if someone other than a crew member is being carried. My hunch is that it would have to be a rewuired crewmember, not just another pilot in the plane, bit tat's just a hunch. If spins are being taught as a requirement for a rating (CFI is the one that comes to mind), then chutes are not required. I would still call them aerobatic - I mean, the maneuver is the same, just the intent is different.

 

Just for comparison, this is what my Sky Arrow POH says:

 

Untitled by fasteddieb, on Flickr

[Ed Cesnalis]

Eddie,

 

Before proceeding, I'm still vague on what you meant when you used the term "inverted".

 

I'm glad that you are challenging me on this because it is an illusive concept and I have been re-analyzing trying to understand the inverted sensation.

 

The video that I used earlier remains the best demonstration of the maneuver that I can make.

 

 

There is the visual, it looks inverted, it feels inverted but I don't believe he rolled beyond 90 and I don't believe he pitched up beyond 90.

 

 

This video is about crossing your own wake turbulence and much like a canyon exit it is desirable to exit on the same track that you entered. A competition wing over is going to take more than 2 wing spans because it is symmetrical.

 

For a canyon exit I want to unload my wing as I am yawing and switching ends. An unloaded wing can't stall no matter how slow it is going. I also want to take up 1 wing span not 2 or 3.

 

It all gets very complicated in theory but very simple in practice. At the top of my climb I have all these things going on:

• Steep bank angle
  
• Steep pitch up angle
  
• Running out of kinetic energy
  
• Chopping my throttle
  
• Full rudder
  

If I maintained pitch and bank the yaw alone can't invert me if you allow the nose to seek the ground at the same time it tightens up the turn ( additional roll without aileron?) spoils the symmetry but improves the canyon exit maneuver result.

 

That's what I think is happening, I'm persuaded by the sight picture, it looks inverted and results from a break that happens very slow but is not a stall combined with the yaw.

 

I learned such maneuvers flying part 103 and later got instruction doing them in a skyhawk and arrobat.

 

I'm going to have to get a video camera.

[Tom Baker]

OK this is a for what it's worth. What you are talking about is a hammerhead or stall turn depending on what part of the world your from. From a precision stand point this can be a very dangerous maneuver. To do it right at the top you are adding opposite aileron amd pushing forward on the stick as the airplane pivots. If you fall out you have the inputs required for an inverted spin. That being said unless you have sighting devices on the airplane like the competition pilots do or someone is coaching you from the ground you are likely not getting close to vertical or upside down. Two more things If you are chopping power it should be after the rudder input, not before, and if you don't chop power you will lose less altitude.

[FastEddieB]

Eddie,

 

In that video and screenshot he most definitely rolled more than 90°, enough that I'd call it temporarily inverted.

 

I'd also say that has "aerobatic" written all over it.

 

I'd also say it would require parachutes (with a non-crew passenger).

 

But I'd be very curious what the FSDO would rule. I'd be somewhat astonished if they said that would be fine in a non-aerobatic plane. But it would not be the first time I've been wrong about something and would welcome it as a learning experience.

 

BTW, I'm with Tom in that it can be a very dangerous maneuver if done sloppily. It's not a great feeling to run out of airspeed because you waited a bit too long and to start sliding backwards. The relative wind coming from the wrong direction can snatch the controls out of your hands unless you're really clamped down. Or to have one wing (normally the inside one) stall first and roll you inverted whether you meant to or not, leading to a spin. Which I've seen, though never an inverted one.

 

That looks like a fun wingover, and I've done hundreds of those. But ALWAYS in an aerobatic plane and ALWAYS with parachutes.

 

Just sayin'!

[FastEddieB]

And I forgot who said it before, but the exercise does not seem realistic.

 

If a canyon is boxing you in, you most likely will have first tried Vy, and very possibly will have pulled up further to Vx or even slower - its a powerful impulse. Wingovers are generally entered at maneuvering speed or a published entry speed, and it doesn't seem likely you'd be going that fast if you had been trying to outclimb terrain.

 

It's hard for me to make out the airspeed indicator in the video, but the VSI shows a pretty steep dive to build up airspeed. Would real life offer up that opportunity? I doubt it, but who knows?

[Roger Lee]

To me the whole arguement about flying into a box canyon is something we were taught at the begining not to do because you may not get out. That means you failed to know everything you could and do the research on your impending flight. We were taught to know the area of flight, know that we would be entering a canyon and enter from the high boxed end and fly down and out the open end. Flying into box canyons have killed quite a few people. It killed three people here in AZ. last year going up to Page Fly-In. It was a twin with 1-2 CFI's and a PPL.

The wing over in a box canyon killed a stunt pilot in the movie Iron Eagle. It's just as dangerous to purposefully fly into a box canyon as it is to attempt a wing over. You should have known your terrain before the flight or stay up above the canyon. I don't see a purpose to fly up a boxed canyon so low you can't get out. So flying low up a boix canyon means you have already made two mistakes. Isn't that how accidents happen usually, one mistake piled on to another. Add the forth mistake on the wing over and you may not have to worry about any more mistakes for life.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Tom,

I think your right, or a blend of the 2 maneuvers.

 

Eddie,

I think spin has aerobatic written all over it as well. To me the maneuver isn't defined by pre-determined bank angles but by need. IOW if there is a wall in front of me it could dictate my pitch attitude. If the canyon has become a slot it could dictate the maneuver type, keeping within a single wingspan must require more of a stall turn, ... etc. I would use a Chandelle type turn if I had room I would only add complexity if my judgement said there was no other way.

 

I hear you on the speed, the majority of my flying is in mountains and I have always learned to keep my speed up so I have exit opportunities. Getting slow as the situation deteriorates only makes it worse.

 

Roger,

 

Canyon exits are needed for different reasons in different environments. In Idaho it would be typical to increase risk because the flight can be made but there is an overcast restricting the flight to canyons. In the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada its more a matter of conditions changing or unforeseen conditions eliminating your ability to out climb terrain. You may have been above the terrain and encountered a rotor or sink that you were not capable of overcoming and the need to reverse course due to terrain and climb performance can present itself as a result of some bad judgement or even just some bad luck. I have never had to use an emergency maneuver to exit terrain, yet I'm just not willing to fly into a wall because of a placard on my panel. I was taught it is prudent to practice exits, perhaps that like spin recovery is now out of favor? Even if I am prohibited from continued practice I have enough background to at least fly the maneuver as opposed to giving up.

[FastEddieB]

To me the maneuver isn't defined by pre-determined bank angles but by need.

 

Let's see if the FSDO agrees.

 

IOW if there is a wall in front of me it could dictate my pitch attitude. If the canyon has become a slot it could dictate the maneuver type, keeping within a single wingspan must require more of a stall turn, ... etc. I would use a Chandelle type turn if I had room I would only add complexity if my judgement said there was no other way.

 

Well, sure.

 

In an emergency, the pilot-in-command may deviate from any rule to the extent necessary to meet that emergency.

 

I've declared a few, and none had repurcussions. Never even had to write a report.

 

If one wants to practice, find an aerobatic plane and instructor and have at it. Or maybe a simulator.

 

The question is, can you legally exceed 90° of bank in a CT (if the video you posted is an accurate representation of what you practice).

 

I'd still say no.

 

Ready for that trip to the FSDO?

[2FlyAgain]

You guys may have gotten a sense I was attempting to disengage from this thread, and you'd be right. I felt I had laid out my concerns as clearly as possible, and ran the risk of just repeating myself. I further felt that Charlie Tango was taking some of my general comments very personally and taking affront. Just backing off and moving on seemed a good option.

 

But then I got a PM from Charlie Tango courteously asking me to reengage, clarify and continue to address concerns in this forum.

 

And so I will...

 

 

Thanks gentlemen for a civilized debate. It seems to be a rare commodity in our society these days...

[FastEddieB]

 

 

There is the visual, it looks inverted, it feels inverted but I don't believe he rolled beyond 90 and I don't believe he pitched up beyond 90.

 

 

Here is a point that I think is undebatable...

 

...he DID roll beyond 90°.

 

This is 90°:

 

Untitled by fasteddieb, on Flickr

 

But he kept rolling to at least here:

 

Untitled by fasteddieb, on Flickr

 

Once past 90°, that IS "inverted territory" in my book.

 

And we can quibble about how much he pitched UP (and I think you meant 30° rather than 90°), but do you think this might be more than 30° nose DOWN?

 

Untitled by fasteddieb, on Flickr

[FastEddieB]

I went to this fellow's YouTube channel.

 

That's apparently a CAP10 aerobatic plane and it appears both pilots are wearing parachutes. Looks like he teaches aerobatics.

 

So let me be clear - there is likely nothing either UNSAFE or ILLEGAL about what they're doing - it looks both fun and educational and I've done that same maneuver many times.

 

Transfer that maneuver to a CT with no chutes, and I think things are completely different.

[Ed Cesnalis]

OK Eddie, you have me sold.

 

I think you are right about the maneuver being legally aerobatic not because it exceeds 30 degrees in pitch alone but because it exceeds 30 degrees and does not qualify as an exception as listed below.

 

 

(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by—

(i) A certificated flight instructor; or

(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with §61.67 of this chapter.

 

Also if it did qualify for the above you might need a CFI, It is hard to interpret: " [Paragraph © of this section does not apply to—] Spins and other flight maneuvers ... when given by—"

 

I can't make sense out of 'maneuvers ... when given by'

 

The other place the FARs language is problematic is "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." They are defining touch and goes as aerobatic here.