FastEddieB Posted April 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 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. Only if your touch and goes involve "an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration". Do they??? If so, maybe you need to work on them! (wink) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knolde Posted April 7, 2013 Report Share Posted April 7, 2013 Fast Eddie, I do not wish to get into a spat over adherence to regulations or not, but as the first time I had my hand on a yoke and maneuvered an airplane around was in 1950 in a WWII surplus Stinson Voyager as a CAP Cadet. Since that time in a few additional aircraft which include: B-47, B-52, T-33, T-6 (original) T-37, F-100, F/RF-4, F105,RVs, etc. so, even at my advanced age I like to think that I understand the difference between rationality and stupidity! In looking at the clip provided, I seems to me that advanced aviation stupidity measurable. For example, I am sure that I could roll a CTLS safely, but I do not, have not, and will not do so; additionally, I pay attention to POH limitations because I believe that engineers know better than I do. My bottom line is that I enjoy flying too much to screw it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted April 7, 2013 Report Share Posted April 7, 2013 I am sure that I could roll a CTLS safely, but I do not, have not, and will not do so; additionally, I pay attention to POH limitations because I believe that engineers know better than I do. What reason do we have to expect that engineers placed the POH AOI restrictions on rolls? Is anything stated anywhere? Oh, we can interpolate some guess based on lack of inverted oil systems, etc. etc., but I'd be willing to bet money that the lawyers were at least significantly if not soley responsible for that restriction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Sorry if this has already been asked and/or answered, but can the BRS in an airplane substitute legally for the requirement for individual parachutes? Notwithstanding the argument over whether it would be legal to perform any maneuver in a CT that actually requires the use of said parachutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Sorry if this has already been asked and/or answered, but can the BRS in an airplane substitute legally for the requirement for individual parachutes? Notwithstanding the argument over whether it would be legal to perform any maneuver in a CT that actually requires the use of said parachutes. There used to be a guy who flew airshows in a Rans S9. He had a BRS, and got a waiver from the FAA to not need a personal chute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 There used to be a guy who flew airshows in a Rans S9. He had a BRS, and got a waiver from the FAA to not need a personal chute. Why did he need a chute and why did he need a waiver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Why did he need a chute and why did he need a waiver? Because it was required by the waiver to allow him to fly below the 1500 foot minimum altitude required in CFR 91.303. Watching an airshow performer do their routine above 1500 feet AGL wouldn't be much fun, especially for a small airplane like the Rans S9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Parachutes are also required for aerobatics with passengers, IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Because it was required by the waiver to allow him to fly below the 1500 foot minimum altitude required in CFR 91.303. Watching an airshow performer do their routine above 1500 feet AGL wouldn't be much fun, especially for a small airplane like the Rans S9. OK, that explains it. Interesting that they thought a parachute would be of much use below 1500AGL but not required above. I wonder about their logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Parachutes are also required for aerobatics with passengers, IIRC. Nothing says he flew his aerobatic routine with a passenger, so I assumed he didn't and wouldn't be required to have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted April 14, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 The final NTSB report is out on the Cirrus accident that I referenced earlier. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20111113X85646&ntsbno=ERA12FA068&akey=1 Here's a reconstruction of that accident, with two prior rolls: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted April 14, 2013 Report Share Posted April 14, 2013 Looks like Ann " accidental" Lomcevak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.